The World Bank PAD Board... · India Country Management Unit ... PFT Project facilitation team PIP Project Implementation Plan ... STAP Roster Review

Document of

The World Bank

Report No: 43422-IN

PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

ON A

PROPOSED CREDIT

IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 9.8 MILLION (USD 15.36 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

AND

A PROPOSED GRANT FROM THE

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND

IN THE AMOUNT OF USD 8.14 MILLION

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF INDIA

FOR A

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND RURAL LIVELIHOODS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

April 21, 2011

Sustainable Development Department India Country Management Unit South Asia Region

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective March 22, 2011)

India Rupee (INR) 45.00 = United States Dollar (US$) 1 US$1.573 = SDR 1

FISCAL YEAR

April 1 – March 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BCRLIP Biodiversity Conservation and Rural

Livelihood Project CAAA Controller Aid Accounts and Audit CAG Comptroller and Auditor General CEO Chief executive officer CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund CIG Common interest group COM Community Operational Manual DCF Deputy Conservation of

Forests/Wildlife DEA Department of Economic Affairs EIA Environmental impact assessment ESMF Environment and Social

Management Framework FM Financial management GAAP Governance & Accountability Action

Plan GEF Global Environment Facility GOI Government of India ICB International competitive bidding IDA International Development

Association IEDP India Eco-Development Project IPPF Indigenous Peoples Participatory

Framework IUFR Interim Unaudited Financial Report KMTR Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger

Reserve LRK Little Rann of Kutch

M&E Monitoring and evaluation MIS Management Information System MOEF Ministry of Environment and Forests

NCB National competitive bidding NGO Non-government organization NTCA National Tiger Conservation

Authority NTFP Non-timber forest product PA Protected area PAD Project Appraisal Document PAO Pay and accounts officer PFT Project facilitation team PIP Project Implementation Plan PIU Project implementation unit PMT Project management team PMU Project management unit PTR Periyar Tiger Reserve REIA Rapid environmental impact

assessment RTI Right to Information SFM Sustainable forest management 1&7

(GEF) SP 1&2 Strategic Program 1&2 (GEF) TOR Terms of reference UNDP United Nations Development

Program VP Van panchayat WII Wildlife Institute of India

Vice President: Isabel M. Guerrero Country Director: N. Roberto Zagha

Sector Director: John Henry Stein Sector Manager: Herbert Acquay

Task Team Leader

Malcolm A. B. Jansen

INDIA

Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project

CONTENTS

A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE ................................................................. 1

1. Country and sector issues.................................................................................................... 1

2. Rationale for Bank involvement ......................................................................................... 2

3. Higher-level objectives to which the project contributes ................................................... 3

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 4

1. Lending instrument ............................................................................................................. 4

2. Project development objective ............................................................................................ 5

3. Project global objective....................................................................................................... 5

4. Project components ............................................................................................................. 5

5. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design ............................................................ 8

6. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection .............................................................. 8

C. IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 9

1. Partnership arrangements .................................................................................................... 9

2. Institutional and implementation arrangements .................................................................. 9

3. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results ................................................................ 10

4. Sustainability and Replicability ........................................................................................ 12

5. Critical Risks and Possible Controversial Aspects ........................................................... 13

6. Loan/Credit Conditions and Covenants ............................................................................ 15

D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 16

1. Economic and Financial Analyses .................................................................................... 16

2. Technical ........................................................................................................................... 16

3. Fiduciary ........................................................................................................................... 17

4. Social................................................................................................................................. 19

5. Environment ...................................................................................................................... 20

6. Safeguard policies ............................................................................................................. 20

7. Policy Exceptions and Readiness...................................................................................... 21

Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background ......................................................... 22

Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies ................. 26

Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring ........................................................................ 27

Annex 4: Detailed Project Description ...................................................................................... 37

Annex 5: Project Costs ............................................................................................................... 41

Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements ................................................................................. 42

Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements ..................................... 45

Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements ...................................................................................... 58

Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis ............................................................................. 66

Annex 10: Governance and Accountability Action Plan ......................................................... 71

Annex 11: Safeguard Policy Issues ............................................................................................ 76

Annex 12: Project Preparation and Supervision ..................................................................... 88

Annex 13: Documents in the Project File ................................................................................. 90

Annex 14: Incremental Cost Analysis ....................................................................................... 91

Annex 15: STAP Roster Review ................................................................................................ 99

Annex 16: Statement of Loans and Credits ............................................................................ 112

Annex 17: Country at a Glance ............................................................................................... 117

Annex 18: Description of Landscape Sites ............................................................................. 119

Maps: IBRD 36368R & 36370R ............................................................................................. 121

i

INDIA

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION & RURAL LIVELIHOODS PROJECT (BCRLIP) PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

SOUTH ASIA

SASSD

Date: 21 April 2011 Team Leader: Malcolm A. B. Jansen Country Director: N. Roberto Zagha Sector Manager: Herbert Acquay

Sectors: Forestry (70%); Agricultural marketing and trade (30%) Themes: Biodiversity (P) Other environment and natural resources management (S); Other rural development (S); Participation and civic engagement (S); Gender (S)

Project ID: P088520 Global Supplemental ID: P088598

Environmental screening category: (B) Partial Assessment

Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan and Grant Supplement Fully Blended? Yes

Safeguard Screening Category: Limited Impact

Project Financing Data [ ] Loan [X] Credit [ X ] Grant [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other: For Loans/Credits/Others: Total Bank financing: US$15.36 Million Credit and US$8.14 Million Grant Proposed terms: Standard Credit, with thirty five (35) years maturity and ten (10) years grace

Financing Plan (US$ million) Source Local Foreign Total

BORROWER/RECIPIENT 6.59 0.00 6.59

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

15.36 0.00 15.36

LOCAL COMMUNITIES 0.93 0.00 0.93

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY 8.04 0.10 8.14

Total: 30.92 0.10 31.02

Borrower: Government of India Responsible Agency: Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF), Paryaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi 110003. Phone: +91-11-24362551 Email: [email protected], Web: http://moef.nic.in/

ii

Es timated disbursements IDA (Bank FY/US$ million) FY 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual 1.10 2.80 2.91 2.92 2.76 2.40 0.46

Cumulative 1.10 3.90 6.81 9.73 12.50 14.90 15.36

Estimated disbursements GEF (Bank FY/US$ million) FY 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual 0.59 1.48 1.54 1.55 1.46 1.27 0.25

Cumulative 0.59 2.07 3.61 5.16 6.62 7.87 8.14

Project implementation period: Start September 01, 2011 Project End: September 30, 2017 Expected effectiveness date: September 01, 2011 Expected closing date: March 31, 2018

Does the project depart from the Country Assistance Strategy in content or other significant respects? Ref. PAD A.3

[ ] Yes [x] No

Does the project require any exceptions from Bank policies? Ref. PAD D.7 Have these been approved by Bank Management? Is approval for any policy exception sought from the Board?

[ ] Yes [x] No

[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Yes [x] No

Does the project include any critical risks rated “substantial” or “high”? Ref. PAD C.5

[x] Yes [ ] No

Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? [x] Yes [ ] No

Project development objective (Ref. PAD B.2, Technical Annex 3) is to develop and promote new models of conservation at the landscape scale1 through enhanced capacity and institution building for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation outcomes.

Project description (Ref. PAD B.4., Technical Annex 4) The Project has four components:

Component 1, Demonstration of Landscape Conservation Approaches in Two Pilot Sites: This component will develop tools, techniques, knowledge and skills towards improved conservation and rural livelihoods outcomes in the Little Rann of Kutch in Gujarat and Askot in Uttarakhand. These landscapes include protected areas, biological corridors, and high-value conservation sites in production landscapes. As part of the demonstration and learning effort, this component will support (a) Participatory ecological and social mapping to identify areas of high biodiversity value and resource dependencies and threats in order to define targeted interventions for improving conservation outcomes and community livelihoods in the landscapes; (b) Improved management of biodiversity rich areas within and outside the protected areas in the landscape; (c) Mainstreaming of biodiversity considerations in production areas

1 A landscape unit could contain a mosaic of land uses, but typically would include one or more protected areas that are interspersed with reserved and production forests, agricultural and other productively used lands, and village settlements.

iii

within the landscapes; and (d) Development and implementation of livelihood strategies to enhance local community benefits from sustainable management of natural resources linked to conservation.

Component 2, Strengthening Knowledge Management and National Capacity for Landscape Conservation: This component will support improved knowledge and capacity building on learning and experience from the two demonstration landscapes (Component 1) and other local conservation models. This component will support: (a) Field Learning Centres at Periyar (Kerala), Kalakad (Tamil Nadu) and Gir (Gujarat) to provide hands-on training through cross visits, exchange assignments, work experience and training sessions, and distillation of conservation best practice; and (b) National capacity-building program through the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) to facilitate the promotion of landscape conservation approaches nationwide.

Component 3, Scaling Up and Replication of Successful Models of Conservation in Additional Landscape Sites: This component would support the further testing and replication of landscape conservation approaches to two additional high biodiversity landscapes from the third year onwards with project financing. The extension of the landscape approach to these two additional landscapes will build on and expand experiences derived from the two demonstration landscapes (Component 1). The two additional sites will be selected to demonstrate specific aspects of landscape conservation. It is also envisaged that the training and skills development in Component 2 could likely encourage the uptake of landscape-level planning and management at additional capacitated sites with Government of India (GOI) or other non-project sources of funding.

Component 4, National Coordination for Landscape Conservation: This component will support coordination for landscape conservation at the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF). Activities to be financed include: establishment of Management Information System (MIS) for project and landscape monitoring, impact evaluation, and limited operational and technical support to enable MOEF to coordinate and administer the implementation of project activities and facilitate replication elsewhere in India.

Which safeguard policies are triggered, if any? Ref. PAD D.6, Technical Annex 11 Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01); Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10); Pest Management (OP/BP 4. 09); Forests (OP/BP 4.36)

Significant, non-standard conditions, if any, for: Ref. PAD C.6 Board presentation: None Loan/credit effectiveness: PAD C.6

Covenants applicable to project implementation: Ref. PAD C.6

1

A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE 1. Country and sector issues 1. India is one of 12 megadiversity countries in the world that collectively account for 60-70 percent of the world's biodiversity. There are an estimated 45,000-47,000 species of plants and some 90,000 species of animals in India that constitute respectively 11 percent and 7 percent of those recorded in the world. As well as being a center of high species richness and endemism, India is a center of agro-biodiversity with at least 166 species of crop plants and 320 species of wild relatives of cultivated crops. The country’s biodiversity is fundamental to human well-being and sustainable livelihoods. It is estimated that around 27 percent of the country’s population is dependent locally on forests for their subsistence and livelihoods, which they earn from fuelwood, fodder, poles, and a range of non-timber forest products. Seventy percent of India’s rural population depends on fuelwood to meet domestic energy needs. Half of India’s 89 million tribal people who live in forest fringe areas have close cultural and economic links with forests. The country’s natural resources have a major influence on development and well-being of its people, with agriculture, livestock, forestry, and fishery sectors having contributed a quarter of gross domestic product in 2004.

2. However, India’s rich biodiversity is threatened by increased population pressures and overutilization of resources, and by sectoral planning and development that is largely inconsistent with conservation objectives. These threats coupled with the country’s high incidence of poverty have accelerated the speed of degradation. Degraded landscapes are also especially prone to invasive plants, which compete with native species and lead to further degradation and reduced productivity. An estimated 41 percent of India’s forest cover has been degraded to some degree in the past several decades. 3. Although, the Government of India (GOI) has established a network of more than 500 protected areas across different ecosystems and bioregions to conserve the country’s unique biodiversity and natural habitats, there are clear constraints to the viability and effectiveness of the conservation of the existing protected areas (PAs). In particular, protected areas are largely managed as “islands” surrounded by other forms of land uses that are often not compatible with conservation goals and outcomes. In addition, there are extensive areas of remaining natural habitat, especially forests that harbor rich biodiversity surrounding the existing PA network, that are not managed for conservation outcomes. The lack of an integrated land and natural resource

use focus has constrained conservation strategies to systematically reduce threats to biodiversity conservation. There is also significant difference of opinion in the country with regard to the government strategy for establishment of protected areas, particularly in relation to curtailment of access to resources within these areas. 4. In recent years, there has been successful attempts and good experience in testing new models of biodiversity conservation in and immediately around protected areas and forest areas. These include efforts to ensure greater participation of communities in decision-making on the management of these areas and improving community access to resources within them. While these efforts have been encouraging, there has been a lack of a more holistic approach to

2

conservation that integrates the range of development and land-related concerns in the protected areas and the lands surrounding them. This has been particularly detrimental to the conservation of large ‘flagship’ species like the tiger and elephant that require extensive areas for their survival that extend beyond the boundaries of the traditional protected areas. There is fortunately now an increased recognition and understanding of the need to manage large areas of habitat that include protected areas and other forms of land use that surround them in order to conserve biodiversity and enhance local livelihoods. Toward this end, recent government policy and thinking is to expand conservation action beyond the PA boundaries and to work with development sectors to make sure that development around protected areas is carried out in a manner that is more consistent with biodiversity conservation and sustainable livelihood development objectives. The National Wildlife Action Plan of 2002 embodies the principles of conservation of biodiversity within a broader framework that also includes participation of forest communities, and restoration of habitats and cross-sectoral cooperation beyond the boundaries of the protected areas. 5. In 2005 the Prime Minister’s Office established a Tiger Task Force of eminent scientists and environmental advocates due to the perceived crisis in India’s conservation policies.2 The Task Force recommended expanding inviolate spaces for tigers by minimizing human pressure; building strategies for co-existence between humans and tigers; and regenerating forest habitations in the fringes of tiger protection enclaves by investing in forest, water, and grassland economies —through the payment for ecological services and tourism. The guidelines for preparation of the Tiger Conservation Plans, which followed the Task Force study, recognize the need to mainstream conservation and livelihood concerns within larger production systems that are located around protected areas. The proposed Biodiversity Conservation & Rural Livelihoods Project (BCRLIP) will help to further test the GOI approach of mainstreaming conservation objectives within larger landscapes and provide a better understanding of how to improve the management of protected areas in consonance with improved local community access to resource and other livelihood options. In the absence of common consensus on strategies for dealing with the conflicting, but legitimate concerns of tiger conservation on one hand and the needs of local forest dwellers on the other, the initial two pilot landscape sites under the Project will be located in non-tiger habitats; but lessons and experiences of the Project will be shared nationwide.

2. Rationale for Bank involvement 6. The World Bank has been a major financier of biodiversity projects globally.3 The Bank was in the forefront of supporting landscape-level, integrated conservation and development approaches in Southern Africa and in Central America.4 The Bank has been supporting innovative participatory models of biodiversity conservation in and around protected areas and has gathered unique and wide experience in piloting and replicating management approaches that integrate conservation and production landscapes within the framework of sustainable land and natural resource management. This global knowledge and expertise, particularly from other biodiverse

2 The Tiger Task Force was established due to the crisis at the protected reserve Sariska that had lost its tiger population. The Task Force was asked to look at policy changes and new paradigms required for tiger conservation. 3 The Bank, since 1998, has financed 598 biodiversity projects or projects with biodiversity components worth US$6.1 billion. 4 Examples of projects include the Biological Meso American Corridor in Mexico and Central America, West Tien Shan and Amazon Region Protected Area Projects.

3

middle-income countries such as Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa, would be of great relevance and use to India as it moves ahead with integrating conservation priorities within its growth and development agenda. The experience of working closely with forest and PA-dependent communities and the PA agencies has enabled Bank-supported projects to have a holistic and integrated approach toward managing biodiversity conservation and local livelihoods. 7. The World Bank has been actively involved in participatory conservation and forestry projects in India that provide a wealth of experience. The proposed BCRLIP builds on experiences gained under the Bank-supported eco-development and forestry projects in India (Annex1). 8. In addition the World Bank has financed a large on-going suite of watershed projects,5 which bring together substantial knowledge and experience in forest conservation linked to sustainable livelihood working through local institutions. Coupled with the Bank’s successful on-going portfolio of rural livelihood projects,6 which link communities to markets through institutional aggregation and improved value chain analysis, the Bank is uniquely positioned to incorporate both global and local good practice in the design and implementation of the proposed Project. 9. The Government of India has requested Global Environment Facility (GEF) funds under its Operational Program #3 (Forest Ecosystems) to address its critical biodiversity conservation needs. The Bank shares GOI concerns for reconciling development and conservation needs by creating appropriate incentive mechanisms for local stakeholders to benefit from conservation and sustainable use of biological resources. The Project seeks to provide demonstrable lessons in support of “new” conservation policy for India. In particular, the Project will support expanding conservation efforts to the landscape level, improving rural livelihoods, and promoting more biodiversity-friendly development in the surrounding production landscapes around protected areas. It will also provide an opportunity to consolidate and build on past experiences and support flagship pilot projects that expand to a broader landscape level and demonstrate the effectiveness of new multi-stakeholder partnerships in managing high biodiversity landscapes. The Project will test new institutional approaches to participatory conservation and provide important lessons for the GOI strategies and plans in this direction. The institutional and methodological framework emanating from the demonstration landscapes will guide Government programs in ensuring that local and regional development, around protected and biodiversity-rich areas in the country, remains consistent with sustainable land and natural resource use objectives. 3. Higher-level objectives to which the project contributes 10. The Project will support GOI efforts to prevent degradation of biodiversity within the country. It will help the Government to mainstream biodiversity and improve rural livelihoods in development planning in areas that surround biodiversity-sensitive areas, including protected areas. In the long term, it will assist the country to protect its valuable forests and biodiversity, improve viability of its protected area network, and ensure the survival of critical species. It will

5 These include watershed projects in Karnataka, Uttaranchal, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh amounting to US$518 million 6 Current projects include Bihar, Orissa, and Rajasthan, amounting to US$300 million.

4

aid improving the contribution of biodiversity to local livelihoods as means to enhance the incentives for conservation and alleviate poverty in remote rural forested areas. 11. The World Bank’s proposed FY09-12 Country Assistance Strategy for India has three pillars: (a) achieving rapid inclusive growth; (b) ensuring sustainable development; and (c) making services work for the poor — with improved governance and strengthened monitoring and evaluation of outcomes. The proposed Project directly operationalizes the second pillar for ensuring sustainable development in several high biodiversity landscapes of India. The project component on rural livelihood improvement integrated with landscape-level management planning also supports inclusive service delivery to the poor, and enhanced governance and monitoring of outcomes within the proposed project design. 12. The Project is consistent with GEF Operational Strategy, specifically Operational Program #3 (Forest Ecosystems), with linkages to Operational Program #1 (Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems), Operational Program #2 (Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater Ecosystems), and Operational Program #4 (Mountain Ecosystems). In the context of an integrated landscape approach to biodiversity conservation, the proposed Project would comply with Operational Program #12 (Integrated Ecosystems). It would promote in situ conservation and sustainable use of globally important biodiversity, and support participatory management approaches at the community level for integrated management of biological and land resources. 13. The proposed Project supports the GEF Biodiversity Focal Area by protecting natural habitats and biological diversity through strengthened protection and conservation of biodiversity-rich forests and other natural habitats and improved management in production landscapes to enhance biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The proposed Project will contribute to the Sustainability of the Protected Area Network (SP3) by promoting participatory conservation models to secure key protected areas and link them to larger habitat blocks within the surrounding production landscapes. The scaling up of conservation models to the landscape level will ensure PA ecological integrity and viability. Specific attention will be paid to linking conservation efforts to long-term financing (SP1), including new financing models and central government funds. The Project will also contribute to sustainable forest management (SFM-2 and SFM-7) and sustainable land management through mainstreaming biodiversity considerations into management of key forest, agricultural, and grasslands areas within the landscape; targeting conservation and livelihood interventions at eco-sensitive sites within the production landscape; and improving management practices in production systems. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. Lending instrument 14. The BCRLIP is a fully blended GEF and IDA activity using a Specific Investment Loan instrument aimed at strengthening biodiversity conservation and improving rural livelihoods at the landscape level. The Project will be financed by a GEF grant of US$8.14 million and IDA credit of US$15.36 million. The Government of India will contribute US$6.59 million, and US$0.93 million will come from beneficiaries (local communities’ contribution in-kind). The Project durations is six years.

5

2. Project development objective 15. The Project objective is to develop and promote new models of conservation at the landscape scale7 through enhanced capacity and institution building for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation outcomes. 16. Achieving this objective would involve the demonstration and scaling up of landscape conservation approaches. This would specifically involve tools and techniques improvements ,knowledge and capacity building to support multi-stakeholder partnerships to mainstream biodiversity conservation objectives, improving rural livelihoods, enhancing learning, and replicating successful participatory conservation models at the landscape scale. 3. Project global objective 17. The Project Global Environmental Objective is to enhance the conservation of globally significant biodiversity and ensure its long-term sustainability by promoting appropriate conservation practices in biodiversity-rich landscapes. 18. This will be accomplished by targeted interventions in and around protected areas as well as changing management practices in intervening production landscapes and eco-sensitive sites. 19. Key indicators of success. Key outcome indicators listed in the Results Framework (Annex 3) are the following:

a) Landscape conservation approaches successfully adopted in at least two high biodiversity sites;

b) Institutional and methodological framework and guidelines for landscape conservation approaches developed and tested in high biodiversity areas; and

c) At least 600,000 hectares8 of high biodiversity lands more effectively managed within the two landscapes.

4. Project components 20. Overview. The Project supports four complementary components that are aimed at strengthening and mainstreaming conservation outcomes in demonstration landscape sites and their replication elsewhere in the country.

7 A landscape unit could contain a mosaic of land uses, but typically would include one or more protected areas that are interspersed with reserved and production forests, agricultural, and other productively used lands and village settlements. 8 The extent of high biodiversity lands to be managed for conservation outcomes would likely reach around 1 million hectares when project activities are scaled up to additional landscapes (Component 3).

6

Component 1, Demonstration of Landscape Conservation Approaches in Two Pilot Sites (Total project costs: US$13.11 million of which US$3.12 million from GEF and US $6.73 million from IDA) 21. This component will develop tools, techniques, knowledge and skills towards improved conservation and rural livelihoods outcomes in the Little Rann of Kutch in Gujarat and Askot in Uttarakhand. 22. These landscapes include protected areas, biological corridors, and high-value conservation sites in production landscapes. As part of the demonstration and learning effort, this component will support:

(a) Participatory ecological and social mapping to identify areas of high biodiversity value and resource dependencies and threats in order to define targeted interventions for improving conservation outcomes and community livelihoods in the landscapes;

(b) Improved management of biodiversity rich areas within and outside the protected areas in the landscape through planning and skills development, zonation and boundary demarcation, habitat management, research and awareness, and communication and monitoring;

(c) Mainstreaming of biodiversity considerations in production areas within the landscapes through dialogue and collaboration with sectoral agencies (forestry, livestock, agriculture, irrigation, infrastructure, etc), development of common agreement and frameworks for coordination among stakeholders, and technical assistance and training to facilitate the integration of biodiversity considerations in development plans of sectoral line agencies; and

(d) Development and implementation of livelihood strategies to enhance local community benefits from sustainable management of natural resources linked to conservation. This sub-component will support the preparation of village micro-plans, investments to improve local livelihoods and reduce dependencies on forest resources, participatory monitoring, and community institutional development.

23. In this component, GEF will finance biodiversity mapping, planning and implementation of conservation management plans, habitat management activities, research and monitoring, and technical support and training for mainstreaming of biodiversity considerations in sector development plans and programs. Component 2, Strengthening Knowledge Management and National Capacity for Landscape Conservation (Total project costs: US$6.22 million, of which US$2.49 million from GEF and US$2.28 million from IDA) 24. Component 2 will support improved knowledge and capacity building based on learning and experience from the two demonstration landscapes (in Component 1) and other local conservation models Two sub-components will support field learning centers and a national capacity-building program.

(a) The Field Learning Centers at Periyar (Kerala), Kalakad (Tamil Nadu), and Gir (Gujarat) will provide hands-on training through cross visits, exchange assignments, work experience and training sessions, and distillation of conservation best practice. Each of the three

7

learning centers will specialize in specific topics based on their comparative advantages and experiences. The training centers will also provide hands-on-training to staff from the Component 1 landscapes.

(b) The national capacity-building program will operate through the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) to facilitate the promotion of landscape conservation approaches nationwide. This sub-component will support national curriculum development with specific modules for training that will draw on and distil good practices from the two pilot sites (in Component 1) and the three field learning centers [in Component 2 (a)] as well as other successful conservation initiatives in the country. The training will be delivered to different target audiences, namely policymakers, senior and mid-level forestry and wildlife staff, range forest officers, and other development sector agencies to build capacity and support for landscape conservation; and development of operational manual and guidelines for promotion of landscape approaches. The national capacity building program will focus on participants from priority high biodiversity landscapes within at least five of the ten recognized bio-geographic zones9 in the country to create critical skills, interest, and enthusiasm to enable the replication of landscape conservation action beyond the project sites and more broadly nationwide (with GOI or other sources of funding). Thus, the WII component is designed to specifically build national capacity to replicate good practice lessons drawn from the field experience in piloting conservation management at the landscape level. In this component, GEF will finance distillation and documentation of best practice, training and exchange visits, field guides, and specialized staff to provide training (ecologist, sociologist, etc) at the field learning sites. The GEF will also finance curriculum development, training, documentation of best practices, impact monitoring and development of guidelines for landscape planning and implementation.

Component 3, Scaling Up and Replication of Successful Models of Conservation in Additional Landscape Sites (Total project costs, US$7.57million of which US$2.06million from GEF and US$3.28million from IDA) 25. Component 3 will support further testing and replication of landscape conservation approaches to two additional high biodiversity landscapes from the third year onwards with project financing. The extension of the landscape approach to these two additional landscapes will build on, and expand experiences derived from the two demonstration landscapes (in Component 1) and be encouraged through the capacity-building effort (in Component 2). The two additional sites will be selected to demonstrate specific aspects of landscape conservation. They will be selected based on their (a) global biodiversity importance; (b) level of pressures or threats on these biological resources: (c) local interest and support for conservation; (d) state of readiness or preparedness for landscape management; and (e) value addition in terms of providing new learning and experience in landscape conservation. It is also envisaged that the training and skills development in Component 2 could likely encourage the uptake of landscape-level planning and management at additional capacitated sites with GOI or other non-project sources of funding. In this component, GEF will finance biological mapping, protected area planning and management

9 The zones are Trans-Himalayan, Himalayan, Desert, Semi-Arid, Western Ghats, Deccan Peninsula, Gangetic Plains, Coasts, North-East, and Islands.

8

and habitat management, research and monitoring, and technical assistance and training for mainstreaming biodiversity considerations in development plans and programs.

Component 4, National Coordination for Landscape Conservation (Total project costs US$4.12 million, of which GEF US$0.48 million from GEF and IDA $3.06 million from IDA) 26. Component 4 will support coordination for landscape conservation at the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF). Activities to be financed include establishment of a Management Information System (MIS) for project and landscape monitoring, impact evaluation, and limited operational and technical support to enable MOEF to coordinate and administer the implementation of project activities and facilitate replication elsewhere in India. This component will also support preparation activities for the two additional landscape sites to be supported under the Project (in Component 3). It will also support the establishment of a national communication system for the Project, policy and legal studies relating to conservation, impact assessment and review, and third party monitoring of the Project. In this component, GEF will finance policy and legal studies for protected area and landscape management, third party impact monitoring, and regional workshops to disseminate good practice and learning from the pilot sites. 5. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design

27. , India has been experimenting with new models of participatory conservation and eco-development, including the GEF/IDA eco-development project with some successes. The proposed Project seeks to further these efforts by extending lessons and achievements and scaling up to the landscape level. The proposed Project has taken into consideration the lessons learned from past government-, non-government-, and community-initiated conservation initiatives and natural resources management in the country (see Annex 1 for details). 6. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection 28. Several alternatives were considered during Project preparation. The first alternative was to strengthen the existing protected area program that focuses on conservation within the PA network. This approach was supported under the India Eco-Development Project (IEDP), which demonstrated that the viability of the PA network is determined by the nature and threats that emanate from the surrounding landscape. This was rejected because experience shows that it is not conducive for achieving long-term viability of the PA network. The second alternative was to continue with the sectoral approach among individual sector agencies. This was rejected because experience shows that achieving conservation in the landscape requires coordination and collaboration between the different sectors to ensure conservation outcomes. The third alternative was to introduce a community-based approach that effectively integrates ecological, economic, and social dimensions into sustainable land use decisions and investments at the village level within the broader landscape. This integrated approach was found the most appropriate. Project preparation supports team building and integration across sectors and among stakeholders to achieve conservation and livelihood objectives within the landscape. Intensive stakeholder participation at community and local government level would make different actors aware of each other’s concerns and priorities, and ensure that planning is locally driven and outcomes locally

9

owned. The Project will try to influence and leverage annual central government conservation funds of approximately US$150 million available for PA conservation and forest development. C. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Partnership arrangements 29. The BCRLIP provides opportunities to replicate good practice in community mobilization and participation developed under a suite of Bank, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and GOI community-driven development projects. There are also opportunities to develop synergies with the GEF-funded Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), which focuses on engaging civil society in conservation initiatives. The CEPF has approved an ecosystem profile for the Western Ghats, a recognized biodiversity hotspot and one of the project’s field learning sites. This program will provide excellent opportunities for synergies with project interventions through additional engagement of civil society, including local communities, NGOs, and the private sector in conservation in the landscape. In addition, the UNDP-proposed GEF biodiversity projects under preparation provide a good opportunity for collaboration, particular in relation to sharing lessons and training. Explicit modalities for fostering such cooperation and synergies will be developed at the site level. 2. Institutional and implementation arrangements 30. The overall implementation arrangements for the Project is based on implementation and monitoring at the national, state, landscape, and community levels. The arrangement at all levels will focus on implementation of project activities; financial management and procurement functions; and project monitoring, learning, and reporting through enhanced transparency and accountability measures. 31. The MOEF, with project coordination through its Conservation and Survey Division, will be responsible for overseeing and coordinating the implementation of the Project, ensuring timely release of funds and reporting, assisting with project supervision, learning and ensuring the replication of participatory landscape concepts to other sites in the country during and after the project period. The Project Director, MOEF, will be supported by a small project management team of existing and contract staff (the latter will be secured through individual consultant contract arrangements) to support intensive learning, supervision and monitoring, communication, financial management, and procurement. The consultant contracts would be finalized by the time of project effectiveness. At the state level, each of the two states will have a State Landscape Society (registered under the Societies Act) for implementation and monitoring of project activities. The establishment of landscape societies or foundations is in line with the new GOI policies10 to facilitate liaison with various stakeholders in the landscape. The State Landscape Society will have a high-level governing body, to provide strategic guidance and facilitate the implementation of the Project at the landscape level, help resolve financial and procurement bottlenecks, and ensure timely release of funds and reporting. An important role of the governing body will be to

10 The Wildlife Protection Amendment Act, 2006 (Section 38X) and Guidelines for preparation of Tiger Conservation Plan (page 23).

10

facilitate coordination of planning activities across the different sector agencies that operate in the landscape. 32. At the landscape level, activities will be implemented through the executive body of the State Landscape Society. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Society will be a senior Forest Department official (e.g., Park Director or Conservator of Forests, as relevant), who will take overall responsibility for the coordination and implementation of project activities at the landscape level. The CEO will be assisted by a planning and management team within the Society consisting of contract ecologist, sociologist, community mobilizers, and other specialists to help facilitate PA management, participatory micro-planning and livelihood activities in the broader landscape, mainstreaming of conservation outcomes in production activities, and participatory monitoring and documentation of learning and experiences. 33. As part of project preparation, a training needs assessment based on experiences from the previous IEDP project was undertaken and training and capacity-building activities defined in Component 2 of the Project through the three field learning centers. The planning and management team would be provided hands-on-training in participatory methodologies in the field training centers. 34. At the community level, planning and implementation of livelihood and small-scale conservation investments at the village level will be implemented through existing or new village-level institutions (e.g., user groups in the Little Rann of Kutch and van panchayats in Askot). Households at each village will be organized into user or community groups depending on their location. Such groups will be collectively responsible for formulation of community-level micro-plans, prioritization of investments, and participatory monitoring of biodiversity and socio-economic impacts. Specific eligibility criteria would help prioritize community-level investments and ensure direct linkage with conservation objectives. Local and national NGOs with appropriate expertise would be contracted to assist with livelihood activities, as appropriate. 35. The Wildlife Institute of India, an autonomous institution under MOEF, will be responsible for the national capacity-building component. The Wildlife Institute will interact with the pilot landscapes and knowledge management field learning centers to distil lessons and good practice that will inform the development of national curriculum for landscape conservation, which will be implemented through new annual, WII-conducted training courses in classroom or in the field. The field learning centers have established societies through which their specific activities will be coordinated and implemented.

36. Developed to guide overall project implementation, a Community Operational Manual (COM) and Project Implementation Plan (PIP) will be customized for local, site-level conditions. The manual includes a participatory process framework to guide community decision-making on planning and investments. The process framework describes how beneficiaries will participate in grievance redress arrangements and participatory monitoring measures. Annual reviews between the GOI and the World Bank will be held to agree on annual implementation plans and allocation of project funds. 3. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results

11

37. A detailed monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework was developed during project preparation to monitor the impact of project interventions. Project outcomes (biological, socio-economic, and institutional) will measure the impact of project interventions against the baseline. Outcome indicators include (a) more effective management of protected areas within landscapes; (b) effective conservation of biodiversity within production landscape units (i.e., outside protected areas); (c) local communities deriving social and economic benefits from the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and rural livelihood activities; (d) biodiversity conservation activities mainstreamed and implemented in forestry and rural development at target sites; (e) functioning national networks of learning centers for biodiversity training; and (f) improved local and national capacity, knowledge, and awareness of biodiversity conservation issues and actions. There will be a strong emphasis on community involvement in monitoring, including tools based on local ecological knowledge. Additional studies and evaluations would be supported at each landscape site to supplement the participatory impact-monitoring program. These studies would be undertaken by local universities, NGOs, research institutions, and specialized monitoring agencies. In addition, the Wildlife Institute of India will undertake monitoring in the two pilot landscape sites to assess conservation outcomes based on defined single or multiple biological indicators. 38. GEF biodiversity tracking tool. The Project will develop the GEF SP1/SP2 tracking tool to complement the monitoring and evaluation of the project progress. A baseline SP1 for the two protected areas (LRK and Askot) is on file and will be updated during mid-term review and final evaluation. A baseline SP2 tracking tool has been developed for targeted landscapes. This baseline will be updated at mid-term review and final evaluation. 39. Monitoring arrangements. The local community and landscape society levels will do the monitoring. The MOEF will undertake the aggregation of monitoring information at the national level. The village panchayats and user groups, with the help of landscape-level ecologists and sociologists, will establish and/or validate existing baselines during the first year of the Project and thereafter regularly monitor changes in resource dependencies, community incomes from selected project-supported interventions, effectiveness of micro-plan implementation, and conflict resolution over resource use. In terms of monitoring biological indicators, the WII in collaboration with the respective landscape-level societies and the state wildlife departments will identify selected species and their baselines in the first year, and annually monitor species changes through the life of the Project. Landscape societies will also annually monitor changes in PA management effectiveness (SP1 tool) and effectiveness of mainstreaming biodiversity (SP2 tool) at the protected area and landscape-level, respectively. 40. Supervision and evaluation. The Bank will conduct semi-annual supervision missions to assess progress made in the implementation of the project activities. Supervision missions will be conducted jointly by MOEF and site teams. In addition MOEF will hire third-party monitors biennially to independently assess on-going, site-level project implementation.11 The Bank, through external independent reviewers and key stakeholders, will conduct a mid-term evaluation of project execution. The mid-term review will focus on (a) progress in achieving project

11 Independent third-party monitoring will be conducted biennially to evaluate progress in achieving planned outcomes and impacts, and to identify issues and problems associated with project implementation. MOEF will compile these reports.

12

outcomes, (b) effectiveness of institutional arrangements for project implementation, (c) effectiveness of learning networks and engagement of non-focal sites; (d) effectiveness and suitability of the monitoring system, and (e) review of success of the national capacity-building and training program. 4. Sustainability and Replicability 41. Sustainability. All targeted sites would be high biodiversity landscapes where improved conservation and management are expected to generate global biodiversity benefits as well as local livelihood benefits linked to more sustainable use of biological resources. The Project will directly contribute to ecological sustainability by adopting an ecosystem approach and targeting conservation and development interventions at the landscape level to maintain PA viability and connectivity within the broader production landscape. The proposed Project would build on considerable state-level and national experience and learning, particularly from previous eco-development and joint forest management projects, to ensure community participation, buy-in, ownership, and benefits from conservation initiatives focused around protected areas and in the broader production landscape. Social sustainability would be promoted through stakeholder participation, micro-planning, livelihood support, and empowerment for local institutions. The Project will strengthen financial sustainability for PA conservation and village eco-development partnerships, building on previous successes with establishment of village-level revolving funds (Kalakad), support for self-help groups, community-based eco-tourism and revenue-generation programs, and establishment of long-term conservation funds (Periyar). Learning centers at Kalakad, Periyar, and Gir will provide real-time experiences and demonstration of all of these approaches. At the national level, the Project will seek to distil and disseminate good practice through structured learning delivered by Wildlife Institute of India to a wide range of stakeholders to build the institutional capacity for adoption of landscape-level conservation approaches nationwide. Coordination through MOEF will contribute to this goal since MOEF already has a mandate to promote strengthened management in conservation landscapes. As a learning project, the Project is designed to ensure uptake and replication of good practice and successful landscape conservation models and to influence and leverage central government funding schemes for biodiversity conservation and forest management (e.g., through the Forest Development Agency Program). Since the Government of India provides significant government budgets to national protected areas and forest departments annually. The Project will try to influence policy for adjusting these schemes to support more socially inclusive and participatory conservation models. 42. Replicability. The Project has an explicit learning and replication strategy, embodied in Components 2 and 3 to build national capacity to adopt landscape-level approaches nationwide, linked to national and state funding, national planning, and centrally sponsored programs under the Eleventh Five-Year Plan. Replication of successful landscape conservation models to additional high biodiversity landscapes in different bio-geographic zones will begin in year 3, utilizing both project resources and GOI and state funds. The Project’s ability to leverage targeting of national-level funds for conservation and production forests will leverage institutionalization of appropriate conservation and mainstreaming models into PA and forest management. The Project will build on previous experience and good practice by including three previous project sites as learning centers for PA and community managers to witness effective conservation models and sustainability mechanisms at first hand. The Project will provide incremental resources for training

13

and operational costs to support these functions at Periyar (IEDP site), KMTR (IEDP site, Forestry Research Education and Extension Project), and Gir National Park (IEDP site). As part of these learning networks, the Project will also develop a twinning arrangement between project and appropriate non-project sites with similar management models and challenges to benefit from shared experiences and good practice. At the national level, MOEF will promote policy dialogue on adoption of successful landscape conservation models nationwide. 43. Cost-effectiveness. The Project would support the development of good practice in new models of participatory conservation management and scale up existing practices to the landscape level. It will explicitly promote replication of good practice, including mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation in the production landscape to enhance the ecological integrity and viability of core-protected areas and to influence the management strategies and development planning of other sector agencies within the landscape. The Project will be highly cost-effective since the GEF/IDA investment is expected to (a) build national capacity for landscape-level conservation beyond target sites and to influence conservation practices nationally and (b) influence government conservation spending and disbursement of approximately US$30 million annually of central-level funding that is available for PA conservation and forest development, during and beyond the Project. 5. Critical Risks and Possible Controversial Aspects 44. The overall risk rating for the Project is “moderate” after risk mitigation12 . 45. The key risks and controversial issues relating to the Project are summarized in the table below and includes technical and design, implementation, financial management, procurement, and governance and accountability risks. Governance and accountability risks are discussed in Annex 10 with details about specific actions to address these risks, in particular, ensuring transparency and public disclosure, redressing grievances, handling complaints, and dealing with accountability with regards to using project funds.

Risks to the project objective Risk mitigation measures Risk after mitigation

Lack of community involvement in the implementation of existing and proposed policies and laws relating to conservation might hinder the promotion of local

The Project will not impose any new restrictions on local communities. However, the Project will operate under some existing limitations imposed by prevailing national laws, (e.g., resource use restrictions). To overcome this, a participatory process framework developed for the Project will attempt to promote a more flexible and practical

Moderate

12 While financial and procurement risks are considered “substantial’ or “high”, the risk rating for the project is

considered commensurate with overall level of risk to attainment of project objectives and intermediate outcomes of the project components. This is also in keeping with the experience from the previous Bank-funded IEDP project that dealt with over 500 community institutions in 7 dispersed and remote sites without any serious implementation-, financial- or procurement-related problems. The Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group rated the IEDP project "satisfactory"; and on the basis of the past experience, it is felt that any financial and procurement risks of the proposed Project could be managed. Further, the proposed Project involves a significantly lower number of community institutions or accounting units than the IEDP project.

14

Risks to the project objective Risk mitigation measures Risk after mitigation

decision-making and participation in conservation action, (e.g., lack of access to local communities to natural resources within the protected areas under existing laws of the country).

approach to addressing the rights and benefits of local communities living in and around forest areas, as well as ensure adequate local decision-making relative to resource use and park management. It is anticipated that through improved livelihood opportunities, it is possible to also reduce the impact of existing resource restrictions and provide adequate incentives for local people to participate in the Project.

Conflict between conservation and local community needs might create difficulty in achievement of intended outcomes.

The Project goal is to improve incentives for local communities through alternatives and more sustainable resource uses within the landscape, so that conservation and livelihood benefits can flow to the communities. The Project hence provides an opportunity to demonstrate on the ground that conservation and local needs are not mutually exclusive. This can contribute positively to the on-going debate on protected areas and people, and demonstrate that conservation and livelihood objectives are compatible and complementary.

Low

Project benefits are not captured by intended beneficiaries due to lack of adequate measures of transparency and disclosure and absence of a grievance-handling system.

The Governance & Accountability Action Plan (GAAP) includes specific measures for public disclosure of information relating to investments and contracts (Annex 10), implementation of Right to Information (RTI), handling of grievances and complaints, mandatory record-keeping, post review, and physical verification of assets through Bank supervision missions and regular social audits.

Moderate

Inadequate and inaccurate flow of information may result in misconceptions about the Project and hence lead to opposition by some civil society groups.

Project will consciously try to (a) create capacity to communicate timely and correct information; (b) ensure consultation and a consultation communication plan; (c) collaborate with all stakeholders to ensure inclusive decision-making; (d) promote transparent practices; and (e) implement suo moto disclosure under RTI.

Moderate

Risks to project components Risk mitigation measures Risk after mitigation

Component 1, Demonstration of Landscape Conservation Approaches in Two Pilot Sites Line agencies may be reluctant to adopt landscape conservation approaches hindering convergence of planning of livelihood and conservation programs.

The establishment of Landscape Societies in the demonstrate landscapes that include representatives of key sector agencies is part of a deliberate GOI strategy to promote convergence of planning and decision-making. The Project will further support this approach through enabling direct fund access to the societies, provide training in new skills, and improve communication and reporting between the agencies

Low

Inadequate capacity of state and community institutions within landscape sites to promote participatory biodiversity

Project design includes specific training activities utilizing learning centers and national capacity-building Component 2 to strengthen capacity and skills of staff working in the pilot landscape sites and elsewhere in India. In addition, all

Low

15

Risks to project components Risk mitigation measures Risk after mitigation

conservation practices. project entities will hire additional technical contract staff to support project implementation.

The implementing agencies are new and widespread with limited financial management and procurement capacity.

The following measures are envisaged: a) Dedicated accounts and procurement staff in all

implementing entities and training to be provided in Bank procedures;

b) Financial management and procurement manuals to guide implementation at sites;

c) Implementing computerized accounting system at national and state levels;

d) Accounting based on actual expenditures and continuous monitoring of fund advances and procurements.

Fund releases linked to physical verification and submission of accounting statements by the agencies.

Substantial

Component 2, Strengthening Knowledge Management and National Capacity for Landscape Conservation Lack of interest and support for conservation might result in limited use of training facilities and opportunities.

Project training is focused initially on training of staff from demonstration landscape sites and subsequently from replication sites to ensure adequate demand. Training programs will be mainstreamed in national curriculum and WII programs to ensure sustainability. The training is geared toward meeting needs of GOI conservation strategy.

Low

Component 3, Scaling Up and Replication of Successful Models of Conservation in Additional Sites Lack of support for scaling up of landscape approaches.

The national capacity-building component through WII (Component 2) will train core staff from at least 5 national priority landscapes as part of a deliberate strategy to promote replication and scaling up. GOI policy favors promotion of landscape approaches to conservation, which will benefit the scaling up, including potential GOI funding for additional sites.

Low

Component 4, National Coordination for Landscape Conservation MOEF lacks capacity to coordinate and monitor Project effectively and ensure timely fund flows to landscape and training sites.

MOEF roles and responsibilities are defined in operational manual. Additional financial and monitoring staff recruited to MOEF to oversee fund flows, financial management, monitoring, and oversight. Third-party monitoring on biennial basis to review progress to planned outcomes. MOEF has previous experience in Bank-funded project implementation and provided satisfactory oversight and coordination

Moderate

6. Loan/Credit Conditions and Covenants

16

46. In addition to the standard conditions, the following are legal covenants discussed and agreed at negotiations:

(a) Implement the Project in accordance with the PIP and specific provisions on detailed arrangements for carrying out of the Project, including (i) procurement, financial management, and disbursement requirements; (ii) Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF), Community Operational Manual, Governance and Accountability Plan (GAAP), Procurement Manual and Procurement Plan, and Financial Management Manual; (iii) agreed subsidiary agreement framework; and (iv) key performance indicators;

(b) Maintain at all times during project implementation, a Project management team within MOEF regular structure, with functions and responsibilities acceptable to the World Bank, including the responsibility of this team to coordinate and monitor the carrying out of the Project;

(c) Ensure that the Project management team is at all times during project implementation led by a project director and is assisted by adequate professional and administrative staff, including procurement, financial management, communication, and monitoring and evaluation, in numbers and with experience and qualifications acceptable to the World Bank;

(d) Ensure that the Project shall not (i) involve compulsory land acquisition, forcible eviction, and involuntary relocation of local population; and (ii) introduce any restrictions on community access to natural resources unless voluntarily agreed and documented by said communities through a consultative process satisfactory to the World Bank;

(e) Ensure that the environmental and social screening criteria set forth in the ESMF is up to date and is consistently applied at all times in a manner satisfactory to the Bank;

D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY

1. Economic and Financial Analyses 47. The economic and financial analysis provided in Annex 9 is not based on quantified and economic rates of return. However, Annex 14 provides a complete incremental cost analysis that is required for GEF-funded biodiversity projects. 2. Technical 48. The Project is unique in India in attempting to integrate biodiversity and rural development within a wider landscape approach. The potential for replicating this approach within the GOI central-sponsored schemes is also high. The Project will develop the technical capacity and skills of PA managers in participatory conservation, integrating landscape-level approaches to biodiversity management, including identifying and establishing corridors to connect biodiversity hot spots and develop monitoring and impact measurement skills. In terms of community stakeholders, the Project will pilot and scale-up value addition of sustainable livelihoods and link

17

remote communities to markets. The Project provides access to new knowledge and global good practice for dealing with conservation and development and trade-offs, and developing new conservation management paradigms. 3. Fiduciary 49. The Project coordinating agency at the central level will be MOEF, and at the state level, the identified state landscape societies would be the implementing agencies. With regard to learning centers, the identified state landscape societies would be the implementing agencies. 50. The MOEF, state landscape societies, and Learning Centers will appoint qualified accountants to oversee the financial management of the Project and will maintain and manage a computerized financial management system. A detailed financial management manual has been developed for the Project allowing for uniformity of coverage in accounting and reporting. 51. Even though MOEF was responsible for IEDP implementation, the landscapes involved have less experience in implementing Bank projects and new societies are being formed under the Project. The fact that various agencies with differing levels of capacity would be implementing this Project increases the risk profile. The overall risk for financial management is considered “substantial”. Overall, the financial management arrangements are considered to be adequate to support the use of funds under the proposed project. The detailed financial management arrangements are presented in Annex 7. 52. The accounts of the Project will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) for certain components executed by MOEF and WII through their field audit offices; while for other components a chartered accounting firm will be hired to carry out the audit as per the agreed TOR. There will be separate audit reports monitored as listed in the Annex 7. The CAG has agreed to issue a consolidated audit report for the Project provided the ministry provides them with the consolidated project financial statement and also the audit reports of the other agencies, which they may accept based on sample test audits. The project audit report13 is to be submitted to the World Bank within 6 months following the end of the financial year. The format of the project financial statements is outlined in the Financial Management Manual. Internal audits will be integral to the project design and be carried out by a chartered accounting firm. The auditors’ selection will be based on criteria agreed with the Bank. The audit will be carried out as per the agreed TOR. 53. Two designated accounts, one for the GEF funds and the other for the IDA funds will be maintained in the Reserve Bank of India for the project and would be operated by the Controller Aid Accounts and Audit (CAAA) in accordance with World Bank operational policies. There will be a one-time fixed advance of US$1.5 million for IDA and US$0.8 million for GEF funds, which will be maintained throughout the life of the project and adjusted toward the end of the Project. The Project will submit withdrawal applications supported by Interim Unaudited Financial Reports (IUFRs) to CAAA in the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) for onward submission to the Bank for replenishment of the designated account or reimbursement. The Bank will replenish the

13 Audited accounts include project financial statements, management letter, and claims reconciliation.

18

designated account equivalent to the amount claimed on eligible expenditure and as reported in the IUFRs. 54. Funds from the World Bank will be made available to MOEF (through GOI). Disbursements made from the Bank will be based on reports (quarterly IUFRs)14 submitted by the Project. These IUFRs would reflect the actual expenditure for the project components. Any advances given by the Project to state landscape society/field agencies or others would be separately shown in the IUFRs and would not be eligible for claims. All expenditures reported in the IUFRs will be subject to confirmation/certification by the annual audit reports. Any difference between the expenditure reported in the IUFRs and those reported in the annual audit reports will be analyzed, and those expenditures, which are confirmed by the Bank as being not eligible for funding (refundable to IDA), would be adjusted in the subsequent disbursements. The IUFR formats would be agreed by negotiations. 55. All goods, works, and services under the Project will be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works and Non-Consulting Services under

IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers (January 2011); and Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loan and IDA Credits and

Grants by World Bank Borrowers (January 2011) and as per the agreed procedures described in the Legal Agreements and as specified above. The MOEF will put in place a procurement consultant, and all implementing entities will identify a procurement officer for carrying out procurement activities. Guided by Bank guidelines, MOEF as project authority has prepared a Procurement Manual, which will be used for all Project-related procurement. Subsequently, the Procurement Manual will be disseminated to all agencies. 56. The Procurement Manual will also stipulate that, as a base for all procurement following national competitive bidding (NCB), the Project will use the Bank’s Standard Bidding Document as agreed with the GOI task force and as amended from time to time. For procurement following international competitive bidding (ICB) and for consultancy services, the Bank’s Standard Bidding Document and Standard Request for Proposals will be used as a base and as agreed with the New Delhi Office of the World Bank. 57. For each contract financed by the loan or credit, the different procurement methods or consultant-selection methods, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and other requirements will be agreed upon in the Procurement Plan between the Borrower and the Bank. The Procurement Plan for all implementing agencies for the first 18 months has been finalized. The Plan shall be updated at least annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity. All of the implementing agencies will identify a procurement officer who will be required to have procurement training within three months of effectiveness. 58. Given the capacity of the implementing agencies, involvement of communities with limited capacity and nature of procurement, the overall risk of procurement is considered high (see Procurement Arrangements in Annex 8).

14 This would be submitted within 45 days from the end of each quarter.

19

4. Social 59. The Project is expected to result in significant positive benefits in terms of institutionalizing participatory approaches and ensuring direct benefits to the landscape communities from project investments. The approach will follow an inclusive strategy to ensure that the tribal, womens’, and other vulnerable groups effectively participate in the decision-making process for planning, implementation, and monitoring of Project-supported activities. Also, the project institutional design includes a robust “grievance redressal and complaint-handling mechanism”. The grievance mechanism, which is integrated with the process framework for consultation (Annex 11), allows for proactively identifying and addressing issues and conflicts at national, state, landscape, and village levels. 60. Major project stakeholders have been readily identified at national, state, landscape, and village levels among local communities and primary beneficiaries; other stakeholders include formal and informal traditional institutions, community-based organizations, NGOs, tribal groups and other such civil society organizations, government line departments, academic and research institutions, and MOEF. During project preparation, these stakeholders were consulted through: (a) formal workshops and consultations;15 (b) individual and group meetings with national-level actors; (c) participatory rural appraisal and other participatory exercises with communities at the village, sub-village, and trans-humant level; and (d) meetings with government line departments. Stakeholder consultations have been budgeted for all sites for implementation-phase input. Detailed guidelines are available in the PIP and COM for ongoing consultations with stakeholders throughout project implementation. Specific arrangements will be made for addressing the needs of vulnerable groups, ethnic minorities, and women. In order to promote sustainable land use practices, detailed land use plans and micro-plans will be prepared during project implementation. 61. The Project will create mechanisms to enable collaboration and provide timely and correct information to stakeholders. Follow-up consultation with stakeholders will provide feedback on the extent to which the project design has addressed their concerns and on others issues that may beyond the scope of the Project. 62. The Project is unlikely to result in significant adverse impacts. The Project will not support land acquisition and involuntary resettlement. Although the Project will not impose restrictions on resource use and access, it is likely that in some protected areas the Project will operate in the context of existing restrictions on access to natural resources. For such situations, a participatory process framework will provide detailed procedures and principles that govern free, prior, and informed consultations with local communities (including indigenous and vulnerable groups) and promote extension of choices to address impacts related to access. The participatory process framework provides for broad-based community decision-making with all stakeholders. The process of developing participatory livelihood micro-plans will be inclusive and promote equity. The livelihood micro-plans will be based on participatory resource mapping and community decision-making and prioritization of sustainable resource use and livelihood investments at the

15 During project preparation, stakeholder consultations were conducted through a representative sample. Project consultants and MOEF organized stakeholder consultation meetings at national and landscape levels and with selected communities across sites. Site-specific issues were documented and posted on the MOEF website for external feedback.

20

local level. Identifying stakeholders and their resource dependency will enable the communities to arrive at collective decisions on alternative livelihood options and any required mitigation measures. 63. The existing and proposed legal and policy framework has been reviewed to address any change in tenurial rights that may emerge through the consultative process satisfactory to the Bank. 5. Environment 64. As the Project’s principal objective relates directly to environmentally sustainable land use and reversal of current trends of ecosystems and species loss, few adverse environmental impacts are foreseen. The Project design is based on a highly consultative and participatory process. The landscape sites experience various degrees of habitat degradation caused by unmanaged grazing, forest clearance for industry and agriculture, and other forms of use. The Project will assist local communities in the improved management of forests, grasslands, and agricultural lands to reduce biodiversity loss and improve incentives and benefits to local communities. It will facilitate dialogue with sector agencies (industry, agriculture, livestock, roads) to produce sustainable land management outcomes 6. Safeguard policies 65. As a category B project, the safeguard policies on Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01), Forests (OP/BP 4.36), Pest Management (OP 4.09) and Indigenous People (OP 4.10) are triggered. An ESMF and consultative framework will ensure that environmental and social assessment and management and mitigation processes are incorporated into the entire landscape planning and management process from the village, landscape, state, and national levels.

• Environmental assessment safeguard policies are applicable given the Project’s emphasis on environmental management spanning large spatial territories. However, potential adverse environmental impacts on human populations are expected to be limited. An environmental management framework has been developed to ensure that all environmental issues are considered in project planning, implementation, and monitoring.

• Forests safeguard policies are triggered as the Project aims to bring about changes in the management, protection, and/or sustainable utilization of natural forests or its produce, including any non-timber forest product (NTFP). The forestry component proposed in the Project promotes improvement of biological diversity within degraded forestlands to enhance environmental contribution of forest areas and encourage benefit sharing through collection, utilization, and value addition of minor forest products. Activities proposed are not likely to impact significantly upon forest areas and logging operations are not part of the activities.

• Indigenous peoples safeguard policies are triggered by the scheduled tribal and other vulnerable groups in the Project area. In accordance with local laws and the World Bank OP 4.10, free, prior, and informed consultations have been organized and documented. In addition, the social assessments included an analysis of socio-economic conditions,

21

livelihood strategies, symbiotic relationships with natural resources and existing community institutional structures, and mechanisms for participatory planning, implementation, and monitoring to enhance and improve community livelihood and opportunities to address poverty. A participatory process framework incorporates the main provisions of OP 4.10 and provides for full, prior, and informed consultation with all communities, including indigenous people and other vulnerable groups leading to broad-based community support for the Project. The main provisions of an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) have been integrated into the project design, specifically through the ESMF, and the IPPF, both of which apply to, and inform, all project components and activities included under the Project.

• Pest management safeguard policy is triggered because the Project might involve procurement and use of pesticides on a limited and localized scale to enhance crop production in farmer fields. However, the procurement and distribution of pesticides will not involve any Class Ia, Ib, or II classified by the World Health Organization. Training on methods of integrated pest management, including organic manure would be promoted to the extent necessary.

Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes • No

Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) X

Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) X

Pest Management (OP 4.09) X

Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.11) X

Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) X

Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10) X

Forests (OP/BP 4.36) X

Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) X

Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)* X

Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50)

* By supporting the proposed Project, the World Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties' claims on the disputed areas.

7. Policy Exceptions and Readiness 66. No policy exceptions are sought under the Project.

22

Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background

1. India is uniquely rich in biodiversity due to its physical features and climatic conditions in the tropics and its location at the confluence of three major, distinct bio-geographic realms: the Indo-Malayan, the Eurasian, and the Afro-Tropical. It is a country of mega-diversity and supports many ecological systems, like forests, grasslands, wetlands, coastal and marine ecosystems, and desert ecosystems, which harbor and sustain immense biodiversity. The country is also one of the 12 primary centers of origin of cultivated plants and domesticated animals. It is considered to be the homeland of 167 important plant species of cereals, millets, fruits, condiments, vegetables, pulses, fiber crops and oilseeds, and 114 breeds of domesticated animals. 2. The strategies for conservation and sustainable utilization of biodiversity provide special status and protection to biodiversity by declaring the rich areas as national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, biosphere reserves, and ecologically fragile and sensitive areas. Other strategies include offloading pressure from reserve forests by alternative measures for meeting fuelwood and fodder need by afforestation of degraded areas and wastelands and creation of ex situ conservation facilities such as gene banks. Approximately 4.2 percent of the total geographical area of India has been earmarked for extensive in situ conservation of habitats and ecosystems. A protected area network of 85 national parks and 448 wildlife sanctuaries has been created. The results of this network have been significant in restoring viable populations of tigers, lions, rhinoceros, crocodiles, elephants, and other large mammals. 3. A program eco-development for in situ conservation of biological diversity involving local communities has been initiated. The concept of eco-development integrates the ecological and economic parameters for sustained conservation of ecosystems by involving the local communities with the maintenance of earmarked regions surrounding protected areas. The economic needs of the local communities are supported under this program through provision of alternative sources of income and a steady availability of forest and related produce. 4. Formal policies and programs for conservation and sustainable utilization of biodiversity resources date back several decades. The concept of environmental protection is enshrined in the Indian Constitution, Articles 48a and 51a (g). Also relevant to biodiversity are the Forest Act, 1927; Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The various central acts are supported by state laws and statutes concerning forests and other natural resources. The policies and strategies directly relevant to biodiversity include National Forest Policy amended in 1988, National Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement for Environment and Sustainable Development, National Agricultural Policy, National Land Use Policy, National Fisheries Policy, National Policy and Action Strategy on Biodiversity, National Wildlife Action Plan, and Environmental Action Plan. 5. Since 1996, India has experimented with new models of joint forest management and participatory conservation, involving local communities to help conserve biological diversity and forest ecosystems. Lessons learned and good practice from past participatory forestry and conservation initiatives include joint forest management, eco-development, and other local initiatives. The proposed Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project

23

seeks to build on these efforts, and in particular to scale up such participatory conservation approaches at a broader landscape level. 6. Some of the key lessons have been integrated into this Project are discussed in more detail below:

Lessons learned Relevance to project design

The mixed outcomes of eco-development

reflect the fundamental challenges of

balancing conservation and livelihood needs.

The alternative livelihoods approach has

demonstrated greater success in landscapes

with low population densities and in more

cohesive communities.

The project design calls for careful selection of clusters of

communities in the landscape in order to ensure greater

homogeneity and cohesiveness in defining the basic unit of

village-level planning and ensuring viability and scale of

livelihood value addition activities and linkages to markets.

Indigenous, poor, and marginalized people

are often inadequately represented in user

groups if represented are unable to influence

decision-making.

A full social assessment of each landscape site has been

completed, which has informed the design of site-specific

participatory consultation and planning processes as well as

specific on-the-ground interventions. Specific steps will be taken

during village-level planning to ensure that the marginalized and

most dependent groups are adequately consulted and included as

part of the decision-making process. A process framework has

been developed to provide for full and informed consultation with

all stakeholders (including indigenous and vulnerable groups) and

guide community decision-making and social inclusion.

Participatory conservation activities have

expanded the duties of forestry staff, but staff

capacities remain weak to implement such

programs.

Capacity building will be a key element of the Project to overcome

this constraint, particularly in the initial years of project

implementation. In addition, the burden of project implementation

will be shared with other players, NGOs, community institutions,

and locally recruited project facilitation teams.

Staff and resource are sometimes depleted in

other protected areas to meet project

demands and needs.

Not necessarily so, as it is expected that other players will support

forestry staff in project implementation (see response on

participation above). Also training networks will help build

capacity of staff in other protected areas.

Forestry departments are not best disposed to

implement community development

activities.

The main executing agency will be the landscape society to avoid

complexity. Agencies will be directly participating in specific

activities of the Project. As the forestry department has

responsibility for implementation of wildlife and forestry acts, it is

logical that they be the principal executing agency for forestry-

related activities. This will also help ensure that linkages between

biodiversity conservation and resource use are recognized.

Eco-development promotes a market

economy around protected areas,

encouraging consumerism, which was among

the greatest threats to protected areas.

Based on past experiences with IEDP and other projects, there is

no evidence to support this conclusion. What eco-development is

attempting to do is provide people living around protected areas

with a legal way of earning their living, so that they can satisfy

their market needs without adversely impacting on the protected

areas. This may also include providing skills and training for

youth to gain employment in new sectors

24


Recognizing specific risks associated with

each site is necessary to respond early to

conflict situations.

The Project is disaggregating the risk analysis to the site level

enabling the implementing agencies to make qualified decisions

on the level of risks associated with each site and tailor specific

responses to mitigate such risks. In addition, project activities will

specifically target the poor and marginalized groups.

Need clarity on legal status of each of the

project sites and implications of any

proposed new legislation to ensure project

design is responsive.

Project preparation provided explicit information on the legal

status of land parcels/unit (including protected areas) and their

implications for project implementation. Similarly the implications

of any proposed legal changes/policies (e.g., tribal bill, forest act,

tiger task force recommendations, etc.) that are currently under

consideration or recently enforced by Government was assessed to

ensure project design responds accordingly.

Need for informed and full participation of

beneficiaries in decision-making with regard

to resource restrictions, management options,

compensation, and livelihood restoration

measures.

At the core of the project design is the development of a

participatory process framework that would provide an explicit

understanding on the procedures and principles that would guide

project decision-making and resource use. This process

framework describes how project beneficiaries (including

indigenous and vulnerable people) will participate in project

decisions that include the process for identifying any restrictions

on resource use, providing adequate compensation and livelihood

restoration measures to mitigate these, planning of alternative

options for those affected by resource restrictions, and defining

grievance redress arrangements and monitoring arrangements

Need for opportunity to expand learning and

replication of participatory approaches to

other sites in India

Component 3 of the Project provides an explicit strategy for

expanding and facilitating learning and replication to other sites in

India. In addition, Component 4 is focused on improving the

capacity of the Federal Ministry of Environment and Forests to

better coordinate and expand participatory conservation

approaches as well as enhance funding for such activities.

Need to ensure that sectoral agencies

programs converge with conservation goals

and objectives, particularly around protected

areas.

The Project has established landscape societies to enable explicit

coordination at the state and district levels to gain policy and

implementation support of sector agencies for improving rural

livelihoods of communities around protected areas. The Project

will also channel funding and capacity-building efforts to other

agencies for improving conservation outcomes in their respective

management plans and development programs. In addition,

specific arrangements for linkages with Panchayat Raj Institutions,

where possible, will further contribute toward enhanced

sustainability.

Strengthen linkages between conservation

and local livelihoods.

IEDP already established a good framework for establishing

linkages through community-reciprocal agreements. The Project

will build on these experiences and define an organizing

framework that will guide community decisions regarding

livelihood options and conservation options.

25


Need to improve communication and

awareness of participatory strategy to avoid

public apprehension and criticism.

The Project includes an explicit two-way communications strategy

from preparation onwards to ensure that good public information

is disseminated about the goals and objectives of the Project and

constructive feedback influences project interventions.

7. The proposed Project would build on these successes and lessons to expand landscape-level conservation efforts and integrate rural livelihoods with strengthened protected areas and more biodiversity-friendly development in the surrounding production landscapes. The Project would include an explicit component for promoting learning networks, distilling and disseminating lessons learned, and encouraging replication of successful participatory conservation management to other protected areas and biodiversity-rich landscapes in India. It would support a national capacity-building and training component to strengthen skills for expanding participatory conservation approaches in India. The Project would explicitly focus on:

• Enhancing capacity, tools, techniques, and skills for implementation of participatory landscape conservation programs;

• Scaling up of successful conservation models to the landscape level;

• Raising awareness of the values of biodiversity goods and services and their relevance to the development agenda;

• Promoting explicit linkages between conservation and poverty alleviation, in both conservation and production landscapes;

• Mainstreaming biodiversity into policy and development programs at regional and national levels;

• Monitoring, linked to adaptive management, and learning;

• Replication of participatory conservation mechanisms to other protected areas and biodiversity–rich landscapes nationally.

26

Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies

Sector Issue Project Latest supervision ISR ratings

(Bank-financed projects only) Implementation

progress Development objective

Bank financed Poverty Reduction and Livelihoods Watersheds

Andhra Pradesh Rural Poverty Reduction Project (Cr.3732-IN) Bihar Rural Livelihoods (Cr. 43230-IN) Madhya Pradesh District Poverty Initiatives Project II (Cr.4632-IN) Orissa Rural Livelihoods Project (Cr. 44720-IN) Second Community Development and livelihood Improvement Project (Cr.46130-IN) Sri Lanka Community Development and Livelihood Project (HO780-LK) Tamil Nadu Empowerment and Poverty Reduction Project (Cr. 31806-IN) Uttarakhand Watershed (Cr. 3907-IN)

S

S

S

MS

MS

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

MU

HS

S

MS

Bank financed Closed OED Assessment of Outcome Forestry Poverty Reduction and Livelihood Watersheds

India Eco Development Project (P9100) Closed 6/30/2004 Rural Women’s Development and Empowerment Project (Cr. 2942-IN) Madhya Pradesh District Poverty Initiatives Project (Cr.3430-IN) Karnataka Watershed Development Project (Cr. 3528 –IN)

S

S

S

S

Other donor agencies

DFID IFAD

Rural Livelihoods and Watershed Programs in Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka and Rajasthan Northeast Rural Livelihoods Project

27

Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring

1. Context for Results Framework and Monitoring. In view of the pioneering nature of the proposed activities, the Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project aims to create, where none currently exist, new frameworks, new institutional arrangements, and new capacity for landscape conservation. The results framework and monitoring indicators should be considered within the context of this baseline.

Objectives Project outcome indicators Use of project outcome information

Project Development Objective to develop and promote new models of conservation at the landscape scale a through enhanced capacity and institution building for mainstreaming biodiversity

conservation outcomes.

Landscape conservation approaches successfully adopted in two landscape sites.b Institutional and methodological framework and guidelines for landscape conservation approaches developed and tested in high biodiversity landscapes.c

At supervision and mid-term review, review success of landscape planning and capacity building and adjust strategy as needed

Project Global Environment Objective is to enhance the conservation of globally significant biodiversity and ensure its long-term sustainability by promoting participatory conservation mechanisms in biodiversity-rich landscapes.

At least 600,000 hectares within landscapes more effectively managed for conservation outcomes.d

At mid-term review management effectiveness and realign management to address issues

a A landscape contains a mosaic of land uses, typically would include one or more protected areas that are interspersed with

reserved/production forests, agricultural and other productively used lands and village settlements. b

Defined by (i) landscape vision defined and agreed, (ii) sector plans incorporating biodiversity considerations, and (iii)

community micro-plans being effectively implemented. c

Guidelines developed and incorporated into training curriculum and training modules.

d Expected to increase to around 1 million hectares when Component 3 is implemented. Measured by the World Bank/WWF

Tracking Tools (SP1 and SP2). Baseline developed for the two landscape sites (on file).

28

Intermediate outcomes Intermediate outcome indicators Use of intermediate outcome monitoring

Component 1, Demonstration of Landscape Conservation Approaches in Two Pilot Sites a) Biodiversity rich areas (within

and outside protected areas)

managed effectively

At least two protected areas covering over 550,000 hectares with strengthened management and protectiona

At mid-term review management effectiveness improvements and enhance capacity and training if progress not satisfactory

At least 50,000 hectares of production landscapes outside protected areasb managed for conservation outcomes Population of key indicator species/umbrella species stable or improving.c At least 20% of target user groups adopt alternate and/or sustainable

resource use practices.d

At least 75% of targeted villages or user groups prepare and successfully implement micro-plans with conservation benefits.

At mid-term review, revise management, as necessary Biennially review of target population status and incorporate new management measures at mid-term review to improve protection. At mid-term review strengthen planning process if number of micro-plans not adopting investments in livelihoods or regulation of resource use. If less than 25% of targeted households participating in micro-planning at mid-term review, provide additional NGO support to improve participation

b) Livelihoods resulting from

sustainable management of natural

resources improved

At least 20% of targeted populations in landscapes have improved cash and non-cash incomes from project interventions.e

From Year 2 onwards assess new opportunities for communities and provide appropriate technical support for livelihood improvement activities

Component 2, Strengthening Knowledge Management and Capacity for Landscape Conservation a) Capacity for adoption of

landscape management approaches

developed

National curriculum for landscape conservation developed and delivered through annual training courses.f Key stakeholders from at least five national priority landscapes trained in landscape conservation approaches.g

At mid-term review evaluate content of national curriculum and revise as necessary At mid-term review evaluate extent to which there is follow up to promote uptake and develop new strategy for promotion of landscape models

29

Intermediate outcomes Intermediate outcome indicators Use of intermediate outcome monitoring

b) Knowledge and information of

participatory conservation practice

more readily available

At least 10 documents on good practices prepared and knowledge dissemination events sponsored.

From mid-term review, review annually extent to which dissemination notes are being prepared and intensify efforts to promote documentation

Component 3, Scaling Up and Replication of Successful Models of Landscape Conservation in Additional Sites Landscape conservation approaches

replicated

Adoption of landscape management approaches in two additional landscape sites with project funds Adoption of landscape management approaches in at least three additional landscape sites with non-project funds.h

At mid-term review assess readiness of candidate landscape sites and make decision for continuation of component At mid-term review assess availability of GOI funding and revisit status of this component

Component 4, Coordination for Landscape Conservation Landscape conservation approaches

better coordinated at national and

state level

Effective and well-staffed national coordination unit within MOEF actively supporting institutional arrangements at national and landscape levels On time completion of key project outputs against implementation plan.i Design and readiness of candidate landscape sites of Component 3

Annual review of MOEF coordination arrangements and recommend measures to strengthen Annually review of progress and ensure that Task team intensify interaction with MOEF to ensure timely outputs At mid-term review readiness of candidate sites and make decision of funding Component 3

a As measured by World Bank/WWF Tracking Tool (SP1) where baselines are available for LRK and Askote.

b As measured by World Bank/WWF Tracking Tool (SP1) where baselines are available for LRK and Askote.

c As part of project, WII will develop suitable indicators (including proxies) and baselines to assess impact on biodiversity in

Year 1. d

Baselines will be refined at the village micro-planning process and monitored throughout the project. e

Reliable baselines will be developed as part of the micro-planning process for each village or user group and tracked

throughout the project. f Current national curriculum focused on PA management. The project will seek to broaden training to integrate impacts of

development activities beyond PA boundaries. g

Training will be targeted to 5 national priority landscapes as part of a deliberate strategy for scaling up. h

This would largely entail implementation of elements of the landscape approach pioneered and developed through the project

in additional sites with GOI resources.

i Review and update of annual work plans, progress report, financial monitoring reports, procurement plans, etc.

30

Arrangements for Results Monitoring

2. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) has been mainstreamed into all project components and will be conducted at three levels: (a) national level, in relation to learning and replication impact; (b) site-level monitoring, both biological and socio-economic, and (c) project implementation. A detailed M&E program has been developed to monitor the impact of project interventions. Project outcome indicators cover a range of ecological, social and institutional parameters, with adequate funding to strengthen existing and relevant base lines (biological, socio-economic) and measure the impact of project interventions. Baseline data is to be collected in Year 1 as part of the micro-planning process.

3. Outcome indicators include (a) more effective management of protected areas within landscapes (b) effective conservation of biodiversity within production landscape units (i.e., outside protected areas) measured through vegetation quality/cover and stability or increase of populations of key indicator species; (c) local communities deriving social and economic benefits from the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and rural livelihood activities connected to biodiversity conservation; (d) biodiversity conservation activities mainstreamed and implemented in forestry and rural development plans at target sites; (e) functioning national networks of learning centers for biodiversity training; and (f) improved local and national capacity, knowledge, and awareness of biodiversity conservation issues and actions. There will be a strong emphasis on community involvement in monitoring, including tools based on local ecological knowledge. Additional studies and evaluations would be supported at each landscape site to calibrate local monitoring programs. Local universities, NGOs, and research institutions, including WII, could undertake these studies. 4. GEF biodiversity tracking tools. The Project will develop the GEF SP1/SP2 tracking tools to complement the monitoring and evaluation of the project progress. Baselines for SP1 (for the management effectiveness of protected areas) and SP2 (for effectiveness of mainstreaming biodiversity at the landscape level) tools have been developed for the two targeted landscape sites (on file) and will be updated at mid-term review and final evaluation. The tracking tools will provide a measure of the change in effectiveness of the management of protected areas and lands outside them during the life of the Project. 5. Monitoring arrangements. The local community and landscape society levels will do the monitoring, and MOEF will undertake the aggregation of monitoring information at the national level. The village panchayats and user groups at the community level, with the help of landscape-level ecologists and sociologists, will establish and/or validate existing baselines during the first year of the Project and thereafter regular monitor changes in resource dependencies, community incomes from selected project-supported interventions, effectiveness of micro-plan implementation, and conflict resolution over resource use, and more. In terms of monitoring biological indicators, the Wildlife Institute of India in collaboration with the respective landscape-level societies and the state wildlife departments will identify selected species and their baselines in the first year of the Project, and annually monitor species changes through the life of the Project. Landscape societies will also annually monitor changes in protected area management effectiveness (SP1 tool) and effectiveness of mainstreaming biodiversity (SP2 tool) at the protected area and landscape level, respectively. These data would then be aggregated at the landscape and later at the national level, along with institutional indicators.

31

6. Semiannual and mid-term evaluations. The World Bank will conduct semiannual supervision missions to assess progress made in implementation. Supervision missions and the M&E cell in MOEF will monitor the Project to provide constant feedback and guidance to the site teams for adaptive management. In addition, external independent reviewers will biennially conduct evaluation of progress and impacts. The mid-term review will be conducted no later than three years after the first project disbursement. The mid-term review will focus on (a) progress in achieving project outcomes; (b) effectiveness of institutional arrangements for project implementation; (c) effectiveness of learning networks and engagement of non-focal sites; (d) effectiveness and suitability of the monitoring system; and (f) readiness of new sites for project financing.

7. Final evaluation. A final evaluation will be conducted in the last semester of project execution. The key objectives of the final evaluation will be to measure overall impact and draw lessons and further strengthen and refine the conservation models to be replicated at other sites without project funding.

32

Arrangements for results monitoring

Project outcome indicators

Baseline a

Target Values Data Collection and Reporting

YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR6 Frequency

and Reports

Data Collection

Instruments

Responsibility for Data

Collection

Project Development Objective: Project Global Environment Objective

Landscape conservation approaches successfully adopted in two landscapes b Institutional and methodological framework and guidelines for landscape conservation approaches developed and tested in high biodiversity sites At least 600,000 hectares within landscapes more effectivelyc managed for conservation outcomesd

0

No framework for landscape conservation exists

Around 300,000 ha

with limited e

management in PAs

Mapping, management planning, and landscape visioning completed Framework under development Management planning for PAs initiated

Landscape conservation management activities in two sites Framework developed Management plans for PAs prepared and adopted

Landscape management activities under imple-mentation Framework developed and adopted Improved management of 300,000 ha mainly within PAs

+2 Improved management of 420,000 ha

+2 Document experiences in testing guidelines and further refine them Improved management of 450,000 ha

At least 4 Formal approval of guidelines and procedures by MOEF based on field testing Improved management of 600,000 ha

Annual Annual Annual

Investment plans, progress and monitoring reports Project annual reports, management. plans, etc Update of tracking tool for PA effectiveness (SP1/SP2)

MOEF, state societies, PA management, and ecologists MOEF, societies, independent reviewers PA manager, ecologist

Intermediate Outcome Indicators

Demonstration of landscape conservation approaches in two pilot sites At least two

Management

Management

Management

Management

Biennial

Measurement

PA managers,

33


Baseline a



and Reports

Data Collection

Instruments


Collection

protected areas covering 550,000 hectares with strengthened management and protection (40% increase in management effectiveness) At least 50,000 ha of targeted production areas outside PAs managed for conservation outcomes Population of key indicator species/ umbrella species stable or improving within PAs At least 20% of target user groups adopt alternate and/or sustainable resource use practices At least 75% of targeted villages or user groups completed and successfully implementing micro-plans with

effectiveness measured at rating of 32 (SP1) in LRK and rating of 30 (Askot) 0 No regular surveys of key indicator species, except Wild Ass (3,863 in 2004) LRK – 1,100 HH (fishing), 15,000 HH (salt mining), Askote – 44 villages dependent on wild plant harvest 0

Mapping identifies key eco-sensitive areas in landscapes WII identifies key indicator species for monitoring in two pilot landscapes Baselines refined through micro-planning Micro- planning commences in 40 villages

plans completed and adopted and management effectiveness increased by 10% Initial monitoring of key indicator species Micro-planning completed defining alternative and sustainable options Micro-plans completed in 40 villages and initiated in another 40

5,000 ha managed for conservation outcomes Micro-plan implement-ation in 40 VPs/User Groups and initiated in another 35

effectiveness increased by 20% 10,000 ha managed for conservation outcomes Second monitoring to identify trends of key species 5% adopt alternate and/or sustainable resource use practices 40 micro-plans yielding livelihood benefits 20% increase in incomes for VPs/user groups where micro-plans prepared in Year 1

25,000 ha managed for conservation outcomes 10% adopt alternate and/or sustainable resource use practices 80 micro-plans yielding livelihood benefits

effectiveness increased by 40% 50,000 ha managed for conservation outcomes Regular monitoring to assess population status 20% adopt alternate and/or sustainable resource use practices At least 115 micro-plans yielding livelihood benefits 20% increase in incomes for VPs/user groups where micro-plans prepared in Year 1 - 3

Annual Biennial(Wild Ass baseline 3,800) End of project Annual

of management effect- tiveness using SP1 tool Micro-plans and sector development plans Census Participatory community monitoring and special studies Community monitoring records and micro-plans

ecologist, and WII PA managers, sociologist, and social mobilizers WII and PA biologist VPs/ user groups, sociologist, ecologist, and independent monitoring VPs/ user groups, sociologist, and independent monitoring and studies

34


Baseline a



and Reports

Data Collection

Instruments


Collection

conservation benefits At least 20% of targeted populations in landscapes have improved cash or non-cash improved incomes from project-supported interventions

Current baselines vary depending on source of income and dependency [e.g., salt mining, Rs 40,000-50,000 /HH/year; fishing and grazing (supplement incomes) and much higher for wild plant trade

Baselines refined during micro-planning

10% increase in incomes for VPs/user groups where micro-plans prepared in Year 1

Annual

Community records, research institution studies

VPs, user groups, societies

Strengthening skills and capacity for Replication and Scaling-up of Landscape Conservation Approaches. National curriculum for landscape conservation developed and training institutionalized through five new annual training courses Key stakeholders from at least five national priority landscapes trained

No national curriculum specific to landscape conservation exists No current training for policy makers, senior staff

National curriculum under development Trainees identified from the five priority

Training modules developed and landscape courses offered 50

Five courses conducted 100

-do- 150

Training modules revised 200

Five courses conducted 250

Annual Annual

WII annual training reports WII annual training reports

MOEF and WII and World Bank missions MOEF and WII and World Bank missions

35


Baseline a



and Reports

Data Collection

Instruments


Collection

in landscape conservation approaches At least 10 new documents on good practice prepared and knowledge dissemination events sponsored

etc. A number of good practice notes from previous projects exists

landscapes Key topics for documentation identified after needs assessment by WII

2 new notes

4 new notes

8 new dissemination notes

+ 10 new dissemination notes

Annual

MOEF annual reports

MOEF and World Bank missions

Scaling up and Replication of successful models of landscape conservation Adoption of landscape management approaches in two additional sites with project funding Adoption of landscape management approaches or specific elements of it in three additional sites with GOI funding

0 0

Select 2 candidate sites and initiate preparation

Project design and consultation completed and meeting project readiness conditions Consult with MOEF/GOI on opportunities for adjustment of existing strategies for fund allocation to conservation

Initiation of landscape conservation activities in two sites

Management planning and micro-plans completed and fully implemented Landscape conservation funded by GOI in 1 additional landscape

2 Landscape conservation funded by GOI in 2 additional landscape

At least 2 Landscape conservation funded by GOI in 3 or more additional landscape

Annual Annual

MOEF annual reports MOEF annual reports

MOEF, new landscape societies and World Bank missions MOEF and World Bank missions

36


Baseline a



and Reports

Data Collection

Instruments


Collection

Coordination of landscape Conservation Approaches Effective and well-staffed national coordination unit within MOEF actively supporting landscape approaches On time completion of key project outputs against implementation plan Design of landscape sites for Component 3

National coordination unit with 2 full-time GOI senior staff and four contract staff Weak capacity 0

Full complement of (9) admin. staff and technical (2) contract staff in place at project start up Capacity building for improved reporting. Landscape sites selected and design initiated

11 Bi-annual progress reports, annual work plans approved in time, quarterly FMRs and annual audit reports submitted, procurement plans updated Design completed and sites meet readiness criteria

11 -do- - Landscape activities initiated

11 -do-

11 -do -

11 -do -

Annual Annual Annual up to year 3

MOEF progress reports MOEF progress reports MOEF and consultant reports

MOEF and Bank supervision missions Bank supervision missions Bank supervision missions

a As the project is of a pioneering nature and aims to create new frameworks, new institutional arrangements and new capacity for landscape conservation, which do not exist currently, some baselines for the project will likely be zero. b As measured by (i) landscape vision agreed; (ii) sector plans incorporating biodiversity outcomes; and (iii) Community institutions effectively implement micro-plans

c At least 50% of 30 identified management effectiveness conditions at “medium “ or above ranking. d As measured by the World Bank/WWF for Conservation of Nature Protected Area Tracking Tool (on file). e Less than 25% of 30 identified management effectiveness conditions at “medium” or above ranking.

37

Annex 4: Detailed Project Description

1. The Project supports four complementary components that are aimed at strengthening and mainstreaming conservation outcomes in demonstration landscape sites and their replication elsewhere in the country. 2. It is expected that the Project will be implemented in four landscapes in different bio-geographic zones of the country, starting with two landscape sites and extending to two additional sites in Year 3. This would be complemented by a knowledge management component in three field learning centers and a national capacity-building component. The landscape sites are selected on the basis of the following criteria: (a) biodiversity values (e.g., biological representativeness, biological uniqueness, biodiversity richness, ecosystem value and functions, etc.), and (b) socio-economic studies and conservation feasibility (e.g., protection status, level of threats, size and ecological vulnerability, management capacity and commitment to conservation, and new models of participatory natural resource management of state governments and local communities, etc.). Each landscape unit would contain a mosaic of land uses, but typically would include one or more protected areas that are interspersed with reserved and production forests, agricultural lands and human settlements, and other forms of land use, that collectively form a viable ecological, socio-economic and administrative unit. 3. The two initial landscape sites are Rann of Kutch/Wild Ass Landscape in Gujarat and Askot Landscape in Uttarakhand. The landscape sites will provide the learning on how to scale up conservation management to the landscape level with communities and other sectoral agencies. Additional learning will come from the three learning centers (Periyar in Kerala, Kalakad in Tamil Nadu, and Gir in Gujarat), building on their earlier experiences with the GEF/IDA Eco-development project. In addition, the Wildlife Institute of India, through the national capacity-building component of the Project will distill lessons from the landscape and learning centers to develop good practice that would guide the development of national curriculum for landscape conservation management. Component 1, Demonstration of Landscape Conservation Approaches in Two Pilot Sites: 4. Component 1 willdevelop tools, techniques, knowledge and skills towards improved conservation and rural livelihoods outcomes at the landscape level in the Little Rann of Kutch in Gujarat and Askot in Uttarakhand Lessons from the two pilot sites will feed into the development of the national capacity component (Component 2). The outcome of Component 1 would be sustainable management of natural resources at the landscape level. This component will have four complementary activities.

a) Participatory biological and socio-economic mapping of the landscape units: The first step toward improving understanding of biological values and resource dependencies and threats in the landscape would be (a) biological mapping to identify areas of high biodiversity and conservation value within the landscape, including key dispersal corridors; and (b) overlay of socio-economic information

38

to identify resource dependencies and threats and ‘hot spots’ or locations for targeted interventions under the Project. This exercise will also help determine appropriate management options for the high biodiversity areas and provide information that could guide project investments in conservation management and livelihood. Under this sub-component, the Project will support consultancies for mapping and training and stakeholder consultations.

b) Strengthening conservation management planning in high biodiversity areas:

This sub-component will support the revision of management plans of protected areas within the landscape to integrate ecological and sustainability considerations with land use and social needs, and boundary rationalization and biological corridor management to appropriately cover ecosystems in addition to species. Management planning will be undertaken in a consultative manner with local stakeholders and facilitate the resolution of boundary disputes. The Project will support the testing of different approaches for participatory management of ecosystems and habitats within protected areas and conservation corridors and other biodiversity important areas involving local stakeholders, as appropriate. It will support improved communications and visitor management, monitoring and assessment of ecological and social impacts.

c) Mainstreaming biodiversity considerations in production landscapes: In order

to facilitate the integration of biodiversity considerations in buffer zones and production areas within the landscapes, the Project will support dialogue and capacity development to facilitate common agreement and frameworks for cooperation in biodiversity conservation, and support studies and technical assistance to facilitate integration of biodiversity considerations in sector plans of development agencies (e.g., forestry, fisheries, agriculture, irrigation, infrastructure, etc). This sub-component will also support studies on valuation of ecosystem services from specific landscape units to promote better understanding and appreciation of the contribution and relevance of biodiversity conservation and protected areas to regional development agendas

d) Improving participatory conservation and livelihood outcomes: The Project will

build on existing participatory models of conservation and support the incorporation of rural livelihood interventions around protected areas, critical hot spots, and corridors within the landscape. Building on information generated from the biological and socio-economic mapping, this sub-component will support the preparation and implementation of participatory village-level micro-plans that prioritize potential investments for improving sustainable use of resources and improving local livelihoods and reciprocal commitments to conservation. Micro-planning and livelihood improvements will be facilitated by planning teams, training, technical support for livelihood and income generation activities, and participatory community monitoring to validate investments and reciprocal commitments to conservation, and documentation and dissemination of good practices.

39

Component 2, Strengthening Knowledge Management and National Capacity for Replication of Landscape Conservation Approaches 5. Component 2 will support improved knowledge and capacity development building on learning and experience from the two piloted landscapes (Component 1) and other local conservation models This component will have two sub-components.

a) Improving knowledge and capacity through field learning centers: This sub-component will support the development of field learning centers at Kalakad, Periya and Gir, providing hands-on training (including to staff from the two landscapes sites in Component 1) through study tours, exchange assignments, and workshops; and supporting documentation and dissemination of conservation good practice. These three learning centers have had good experiences and developed good practice and capacity through previous donor- and local-funded programs and hence can be of great value to participants in other biodiversity rich landscapes. The field learning centers will be supported through additional specialized training for improving teaching skills, developing and preparing teaching materials and field guides, acquiring limited teaching equipment; and for operating costs. Each of the three centers will specialize on specific topics based on their experience and skills. The Kalakad Training Center will focus on community mobilization and micro-planning, participatory monitoring, management of community revolving fund, and self-help groups. The Periyar Training Center will primarily support training in community institutional development and organization, sustainable financing for protected areas and community livelihoods, and private–public cooperation. The Gir Training Center has expertise in regional planning and multi-sectoral coordination based on experience in the Greater Gir Landscape.

b) Improving national capacity for landscape conservation: This sub-component will be implemented through the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) to facilitate the promotion of landscape conservation approaches nationwide. This sub-component will support distillation of lessons from field and learning sites. It will develop curriculum and new training courses for policy-makers, senior- and mid-level forestry and wildlife staff, range forest officers, and other development sector agencies to build capacity and support for landscape conservation. And it will develop operational manual and guidelines for landscape management. Trainees will be selected from priority high biodiversity landscapes within at least 5 of the 10 bio-geographic zones in the country. The WII will establish close linkages with the 3 field learning centers and 2 pilot landscapes to draw lessons and experiences to inform curriculum development. Landscape conservation courses will supplement current WII training models on protected area planning wildlife management. This sub-component will also support documentation of good practices, regional workshops, and international study tours for WII and landscape-level staff.

40

Component 3, Scaling Up and Replication of Successful Models of Conservation in Additional Landscape Sites 6. Component 3 will include support for scaling up of successful models of landscape conservation to additional areas from Year 3 onwards, in cases with and without project support, building on and expanding from experiences of the initial two piloted sites. Two additional sites will receive project support; it is expected that other capacitated sites will replicate landscape conservation approaches utilizing Government of India and state conservation funding. The additional landscape sites will be selected on the basis of the following criteria: biodiversity values, level of threats, conservation feasibility, and level of local support, and state of readiness.16 The design and preparation of the two additional landscape sites will be completed by the end of Year 2 of the Project for which consultancy support will be provided through the Project. Component 4, Coordination for Landscape Conservation 7. Component 4 will support the coordination of landscape conservation at the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF). Activities to be financed include establishment of Management Information Systems for project and landscape monitoring, impact evaluation, and limited operational and technical support to enable MOEF to coordinate and administer the implementation of project activities and facilitate its replication elsewhere in India. This component will also support the preparation of the two additional landscape sites for project support (Component 3), establishment of a national communication system for the Project, policy and legal studies relating to conservation, impact assessment and review, and third-party monitoring of the Project. It will also support efforts to facilitate the convergence of existing and potential funding sources in support of promoting landscape conservation action in India.

16 Readiness conditions include completion of project preparation and social and environmental assessment, formation of landscape society with adequate financial management, procurement and technical capacity, and completion of 18-month procurement plan and site-specific operational plan.

41

Annex 5: Project Costs

Project Cost by Component and/or Activity

Component and/or activity Local US$

million

Foreign US$

million

Total US$

million

1. Demonstration of landscape conservation approaches in selected pilot sites

12.0 12.0

2. Strengthening knowledge management and national capacity for landscape conservation

5.6

0.1 5.7

3. Scaling up and replication of successful models of conservation in additional landscape sites

6.7 6.7

4. National coordination for landscape conservation

3.8 3.8

Total baseline cost 28.1 0.1 28.2 Physical contingencies Price contingencies 2.8 2.8

Total project costs 30.9 0.1 31.0

Total financing required 30.9 0.1 31.0

Annex

1. The overall implementation arrangement the perspective of implementation and monitoring from the national, state, landscape, and community levels. The multiimplementation of planned project activitiesfunctions; and project monitoring, learning Figure 1, Implementation Arrangement Framework at the Project and Community Level

Implementation arrangements at the 2. Ministry of Environment and Forests.Survey Division will be the and monitoring, providing policy guidanceensuring the replication of participatory landscape concepts to other sites in the country during and after the project period. 3. A project management team will support the and Survey Division. The team will comprisesecured through individual consultancy support intensive learning, supervision and monitoring, communication, financial

42

Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements

implementation arrangement set-up for the Project is developed from

the perspective of implementation and monitoring from the national, state, landscape, and multi-level implementation arrangement will focus on

implementation of planned project activities; financial management and procurement and project monitoring, learning, and reporting.

Implementation Arrangement Framework at the Project and Community Level

arrangements at the national level

Ministry of Environment and Forests. The MOEF through its Conservation and will be the national-level entity for overseeing project implementation

providing policy guidance to the state-level implementation entitiesensuring the replication of participatory landscape concepts to other sites in the country during and after the project period.

A project management team will support the Joint Secretary at the Conserva. The team will comprise of existing and contract staff

individual consultancy contract arrangements); their tasks will besupport intensive learning, supervision and monitoring, communication, financial

is developed from the perspective of implementation and monitoring from the national, state, landscape, and

will focus on financial management and procurement

Implementation Arrangement Framework at the Project and Community Level

Conservation and entity for overseeing project implementation

implementation entities, and ensuring the replication of participatory landscape concepts to other sites in the country

the Conservation existing and contract staff (the latter

; their tasks will be to support intensive learning, supervision and monitoring, communication, financial

43

management, and procurement. Specialized technical support, including communication and monitoring, would be provided through this individual consultancy contract arrangement. The consultant contract will be finalized and approved by time of project effectiveness. Implementation of landscape activities will be decentralized. A Project Director and Assistant Project Director, deployed on a full-time basis under the Joint Secretary, MOEF, will oversee and supervise the implementation of the Project, provide technical and monitoring oversight, and coordinate directly with the respective entities at state landscape level (society) to ensure smooth and effective implementation of the Project. Implementation arrangements at the state level

4. State societies and foundations17. Each of the two demonstration states has established a State Landscape Society (registered under the Societies Act) for implementation and monitoring of project activities. This Society (or Foundation) will facilitate project implementation at the landscape level; help resolve financial and procurement bottlenecks; ensure timely release of funds; and move forward the accounting, auditing and reporting. The State Landscape Society will act as the receiver, depository, and disburser of funds. It will provide assistance to field-level agencies, help facilitate channeling of non-project funds to project communities, establish M&E structures, and facilitate the smooth implementation of on-the-ground activities. The State Landscape Society will have an Executive Body and Governing Body. A very important role of a state-level implementation agency is to facilitate the coordination of planning activities across the different sector agencies that operate in the landscape.

Implementation arrangements at the landscape level 5. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the state landscape society, as relevant will be in charge of coordination and implementation of the Project. The respective CEOs will be assisted by a planning and management team consisting of contract ecologist, sociologist, and other specialists to help facilitate protected area management, participatory conservation, training, and monitoring. The planning and management team will draw professional and specialized training support from competent NGOs and other institutions. The implementation of participatory conservation activities and mainstreaming of conservation objectives in regional planning and production areas will be facilitated and coordinated through the existing district coordinating committees. While the planning and implementation of activities within the protected areas and participatory conservation activities in the immediate surrounding impact zone would be undertaken by the PA Directors or respective Conservator of Forests, the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation in the non-PA areas (e.g., forest production areas, wetlands/fishery areas, grasslands, etc) would be implemented through the relevant line agencies, with technical support from the planning and management team and financial support that is channeled through the State Landscape Society.

17 All the existing administrative and governance arrangements of these Societies and/or Foundations as enshrined in their respective byelaws would apply to the project

44

Implementation arrangements at the community level

6. At the community level, depending on the local situation, the Project will operate through van panchayats, user groups, and local community institutions; and for certain project-specific inputs, there would be community groups such as self-help groups, common interest groups, and their federations such as cooperatives and producer companies. In the case of Askot, van panchayats would be the field-level implementing unit. In the case of LRK landscape, communities will be organized into sub-district or taluka-level user societies that would be the field-level implementing entities. Households at each village will be organized into user groups; such groups will be collectively responsible for formulation of community-level micro-plans and prioritizations of investments, ensuring community reciprocal commitments and participatory monitoring of biodiversity and socio-economic impacts. Specific eligibility criteria would help prioritize community-level investments and ensure their direct linkage with conservation objectives and reciprocal commitments to conservation. 7. Planning at the village level will be facilitated through the planning and management teams (consisting of a contract ecologist, sociologist and social mobilizers) who will support the CEO of the State Landscape Society. Local and national NGOs with appropriate expertise would be contracted to assist with micro-planning, livelihood and micro-enterprise development, as well as independent monitoring of social and economic impacts of the project interventions. As part of project preparation, a training needs assessment, based on experiences from the previous IEDP project, was undertaken; training and capacity-building activities are defined in Component 2. The planning and management team would be provided hands-on-training in participatory methodologies in the field training centers.

8. Table 2 summarizes the proposed state-wise landscapes and below-level project governance structure and implementation arrangements. Table 2. Governance Structure and Implementation Arrangements, State-wise Landscape and Below Levels State Landscape Registration Society Governing

body chairperson

Executive committee chairperson

Chief executive officer

Community- level arrangement

Gujarat Little Rann of Kutch

Society Act LRK BCRLIP Society

Minister of Forests

Principle Chief Conservator of Forests (wildlife)

DCF, LRK User Groups

Uttarakhand Askote Society Act Askot BCRLIP Society

Minister of Forests

Conservator Wildlife Circle Almora

DCF Van Panchayat

45

Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements

1. The Project supports four components that are aimed at developing and promoting new models of conservation at the landscape scale through enhanced capacity and institution building for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation outcomes. The four major components are:

• Component 1, Demonstration of Landscape Conservation Approaches in Selected Pilot Sites

• Component 2, Strengthening Knowledge Management and National Capacity for Landscape

Conservation

• Component 3, Scaling Up and Replication of Successful Models of Conservation in

Additional Landscape Sites

• Component 4, National Coordination for Landscape Conservation

2. While Components 1 and 3 encompass community involvement and community investments, other components focus on training, capacity building, and documentation.18 The implementation and financial management (FM) arrangement is explained in the subsequent paragraphs. 3. MOEF implementation arrangement. The MOEF will provide overall policy guidance and supervision for the Project. 19 A Project management team (PMT) will be constituted by MOEF and will have the overall responsibility for project financial management. The project management team will carry out the following financial management tasks:

(a) Annual budgetary provision for the Project and monitoring of project expenditure against project budget;

(b) Approval of annual work plan and budgets;

(c) Ensuring sufficient and timely funds flow for activities at landscape level and for national-level activities;

(d) Regular financial reporting at all levels of the Project and compilation of quarterly financial reports and annual financial statements of the Project;

(e) Timely submission of annual reimbursement claims to the Bank; and

(f) Ensuring annual external and internal audits at for the project as per the agreed TOR.

4. A project plan would be prepared by each of the state landscape societies, learning societies, and WII and agreed upon with the project management team. Based on the project plan, an annual work plan would be formulated as the basis for determining the funds required for each year of action plan. The project management team would agree on the amount of

18 Component 3 would be carried out in landscapes, which will be decided and finalized during the project period.

There would be disbursement conditions for this component. 19

The Conservation and Survey Division of MOEF and a designated project management team would be

responsible for coordination of the implementation of the project.

46

transfers to state landscape societies, learning societies, and WII based on the annual work plan20 for the states. 5. Budgeting. Based on the annual work plan, the project management team would request budget provision for the Project. The GOI would allocate the budget to MOEF as per the fund release procedure of GOI. The budget approved by GOI would be itemized in the Government’s Budget in a separate budget head under MOEF, “01.07 – BCLRI (Externally Aided Project),” from which the budget can be drawn for the Project. Also there is a specific head “01.07.31 Grants in Aid” which can be used for transferring funds directly to the societies. The budget head would be conformed during negotiations.

6. Fund flow. Designated officers of MOEF would have the authority to use the project budget head; and based on sanctions and bills provided by such officers, the payments can be made through the Treasury. The project management team would issue a sanction order to the pay and accounts officer (PAO) who would process the payments; and since all payments would be made by PAO, no separate bank account is envisaged at the central level. The project funds would directly flow from MOEF-PAO to state landscape societies with regard to state landscape components and also direct transfers would be done with regard to the learning societies.

7. In case of Components 1 and 3, the funds would flow from MOEF to the state landscape societies and subsequently to the communities and van panchayats. In case of Component 2, the amount would be directly transferred to the learning centers and WII, which would be the end user of the funds.

8. Accounting system. The MOEF-PAO will maintain accounts as per the government accounting system while the project management team will maintain a parallel set of books21 in the computerized accounting system for timely reporting and would maintain detailed accounts for the transfers and expenditure. The project management team will maintain the project accounts separately using computerized accounting software22 and follow double-entry accounting system. The project management team will prepare and submit quarterly Interim Unaudited Financial Reports (IUFRs) for the Project.23

9. The project management team will reconcile their accounts with PAO on a monthly basis and the accounts with state landscape societies on a quarterly basis. State landscape societies will reconcile their accounts with the balances released/unutilized by communities on a monthly

20

Initial advance would be given based on work plan and following reimbursements would be made based on the

actual expenditure incurred and reported by the societies. 21

It would maintain BCRLIP landscape society accounts so that the advance given and work done can be reported

properly. The books of account to be maintained are cashbook, BCRLIP ledger, general ledger, and other relevant

works ledger. Formats of the books/registers for the Project are provided in the FM Manual. 22 Tally accounting software would be used at both PMU and landscape societies. The option of using Tally at field

agencies level can also be explored but is not envisaged at this juncture. 23

IUFR for every quarter is to be submitted within 45 days from the quarter end.

47

basis. Only amounts that are actually expended24 are eligible for bank financing. To strengthen the internal control framework, the Project would implement procedural controls to improve management of advances at various levels and accounting for the same. The initial payment of 40 percent would be made based on the annual work plan and the next installment would be paid based on the usage of the initial installment. Once 60 % of the initial installment is utilized and utilization certificate is furnished by the societies further payment would be made. The payments would be made as follows:

Installment Eligibility criteria Amount to be released

First Approval of annual work plan (AWP) by MOEF

40% of the AWP amount

Second Submission of utilization certificate for first installment and expenditure of at least 60% of first installment

40% of the AWP amount

Third Submission of utilization certificates for first and second installments and expenditure of 100% of first installment and at least 60% of second installment

20% of AWP amount

Note: Any ununtilised amount at the end of the project would be refunded to the Bank if the same has been claimed previously.

10. Accounting software. The project management team would implement TALLY (accounting software) for project accounting at the center and at all implementing agencies, which would be linked to the project management team for accounting and reporting. The required cashbook and accounts would be generated through the software. It is expected that the IUFR and accounting reports would be prepared based on TALLY records.

11. Financial Management Manual. A Financial Management Manual has been developed that lays down in detail the applicable accounting policies and procedures. The Manual has a separate section for the bookkeeping and accounting arrangements at each level of the Project. A Chart of Accounts has been developed to enable uniform data capture and classified by expenditure center, budget heads, and project components. All operational and control systems are described in the Financial Management Manual to guide implementation of sub-projects and to help ensure necessary fiduciary control.

12. Auditing arrangement: The Project accounts would be audited by CAG for certain components executed by MOEF, WII, and Uttarakhand forest department through their field audit offices. For other components a chartered accounting firm would be hired to carry out the audit as per the agreed terms of reference. The CAG has agreed to issue a consolidated audit report for the project provided the ministry provides the consolidated project financial statement and also the audit reports of the other agencies, which they may accept based on sample test check audit. The project audit report is to be submitted to the World Bank within 6 months from

24 Expenditure means actual payment made by them to contractors/laborers against works done and does not

include advances/transfers made. Any advances/transfers made should be treated as advances and not as

expenditure eligible for claims. The same can be claimed once the amount is paid against actual expenditure.

48

the end of the financial year.25 The format of the project financial statements is outlined in the Financial Management Manual.

13. Internal audit. Internal audit would be an integral part of the project design and would be carried out by a chartered accounting firm. The auditors would be selected on criteria agreed upon with the Bank. The audit would be carried out as per the agreed term of reference. The internal audit would cover all the project activities, including project management team, state landscape society, and sample field agencies, which are being funded by this Project on a quarterly basis. The auditor would be selected from the panel of empanelled chartered accounting firms with the CAG.26 The auditors will be appointed based on selection criteria agreed with the Bank. The project management team and state landscape society would constitute an audit committee for reviewing the internal and external audit reports and taking up special audits of field agencies where there are indicative problems of financial issues. Within six months of project effectiveness, the project management team will have in place suitable external and internal auditor(s) pursuant to TOR acceptable to the Bank.

14. Staffing arrangement. The project management team capacity in terms of financial management is at present minimal, and it has been agreed that the project management team would appoint a Chartered Accountant or a qualified post-graduate in commerce as FM Manager and one commerce graduate as accountant throughout the project period (within 3 months of effectiveness). The FM Manager would be responsible for training and helping state level societies and other agencies to prepare timely accounts and reports for the Bank. 15. The financial management performance in terms of timely reporting and maintenance of the agreed financial management system would be evaluated after six months of project effectiveness. If the financial management performance is found to be not satisfactory, the recruitment of a financial management consultant, both at the national level and at the state landscape level would be discussed and agreed to. The TOR for the same would be finalized within three months of effectiveness, and the financial management consultant would be hired within six months of effectiveness, as relevant. At the central level a chartered accounting firm would be hired to carry out this work. The financial management consultant in case of the states would be state-based chartered accounting firm that would provide qualified staff to work with the state societies for accounting and reporting purpose. The financial management consultant would be responsible for training and helping the state societies and other agencies in preparing timely accounts and reports for the Bank.

16. State Landscape Societies (Component 1). Askot and LRK landscapes have been registered as societies under the Societies Registration Act. These societies would be the nodal agency for executing the Project at the state level and are governed by a Governing Body, which would provide policy guidance for the Project and Executive Committee that would be responsible for day-to-day functions.

25 Audited accounts include project financial statements, management letter, and claims reconciliation 26

The auditor will be normally appointed for a minimum period of two years and maximum period of 3 years.

49

17. Both these societies will transfer the amount to identified implementing agencies,27 which would be newly formed or existing at the district level based on the annual work plan (the consolidation of micro-plans of the area falling under the jurisdiction of the respective agencies). A memorandum of understanding would be signed by the state landscape societies with the van panchayats, forest departments, user groups, and common interest groups clearly indicating the activities to be carried out; the amount that would be released in installments28 and the timeframe within the amount released should be utilized by the agencies.

18. These implementing agencies will maintain separate bank account for this Project. In case further amounts are transferred to a smaller group, which is not a legal entity but is executing certain activities of the Project and are registered with the implementing agencies, then such groups should also open separate bank accounts for the Project and maintain the accounts.

19. Based on the plan the agencies carry out the work and submit reports to the project facilitation units situated in the range office. Once the range office is satisfied with the work and certifies the amount of work, it issues a recommendation to the state societies for release of payment. While the initial funds would be transferred as advance, further installments would be provided by the state societies only when the accounting reports and utilization certificates are submitted by the agencies. Based on both the technical and financial reports the societies would release funds to the agencies. The operational guidelines would be developed by such societies which would specify as how the funds would be transferred to agencies, and what reports are required from such entities.

20. The state societies will report to the project management team directly and maintain their accounts using the same computerized accounting software. The accounting software will be used as the source for preparing financial reports and reporting to project management team. The society will maintain agency accounts so that the advance given and work can be reported properly. The books of account to be maintained are cashbook, agencies ledger, general ledger, and other relevant work ledger. Formats of the books/registers would be provided in the Financial Management Manual. This society will submit quarterly reports to the project management team on the receipts and expenditure from the Project. The society would carry out bank reconciliation on a monthly basis.

21. As the state landscape societies are newly formed entities, there is no financial management capacity in these societies. For improving the financial management capacity the following actions are being agreed with the societies:

(a) Appointment of commerce graduate as FM Manager to serve throughout the project period (within 3 months of effectiveness);

(b) Setting up and maintaining the computerized accounting system throughout the project period (within 3 months of effectiveness);

(c) Opening of separate bank account for the Project; and

27

Agencies can be van panchayats, forest departments, common interest groups, and societies. 28

Installment payment would be released based on the agreed micro-plan and based on certain milestones agreed at

the time of memorandum of understanding. Initial advance would be given based on micro-plan and following

reimbursements would be made based on the actual expenditure incurred and submission of accounting reports

50

(d) Project audit by an independent auditor (chartered accounting firm) as per the agreed TOR (throughout project period).

22. In case of Askot landscape, the funds would be routed through state landscape societies to the van panchayats29 (formed under Uttaranchal Panchayati Forest Rules 2005), which would execute the work as per the annual plan of operations. The van panchayats would open and maintain a separate bank account for the project. Following are the minimum requirements before the funds can be transferred to the van panchayats:

(a) An memorandum of understanding detailing the activities to be carried out by the van panchayats30 and other terms are agreed;

(b) A project bank account has been opened by the van panchayats, which would be operated jointly by 2 members of the van panchayats;

(c) An annual plan of operations for the van panchayats has been prepared and agreed by the state society;

(d) The van panchayats has given an undertaking that the community contribution would be provided by them as per the project rules;

(e) A list of good, works, and services to be financed;

(f) An accounting system with simple bookkeeping and reporting (cashbook and vouchers) are maintained by the van panchayats;

(g) Agreeing on reporting formats to be provided by the van panchayats on regular basis to the society; and

(h) The van panchayats have been given training on the accounting and reporting requirements.

23. A sample of 5 van panchayats would be assessed for FM capacity when their proposal is accepted for funding. The funds would be transferred once such assessment is completed. The FM action plan for such van panchayats would be agreed and the action needs to be completed by these van panchayats before transfer of funds by the landscape society.

24. The forest department is expected to carry out some activities. The society would enter into a memorandum of understanding with the forest office and provide payments for the same. The forest department must maintain separate cashbook for the same and report to the society on the expenditure as well as provide copy of the expenditure vouchers to the society for future audit. Payments to the forest department would be treated as advances until the department settles the expenditure.

25. In case of LRK landscape, nearly 30 societies would be formed at the divisional level to support the communities. These societies would be formed in the first year of the Project. In this case, the first sample of 5 societies would be assessed as they are formed. The FM action plan

29 More than 80 van panchayats are expected to be funded by the project. 30 The first few van panchayats would be assessed for FM capacity when funds are transferred. The funds would be transferred once such assessment is completed.

51

for such communities would be agreed and the action needs to be completed by these panchayats before transfer of funds by the landscape society.

26. Community groups would maintain a simple cashbook to exhibit the amount received and expenditure incurred. These communities would maintain a separate bank account for this Project so that the funds can be traced. Any contribution from societies would also be deposited in the project bank account. Two office bearers shall be the authorized signatories and operate the bank account. The bank account will be managed by the designated office bearers and subject to audit requirements of the Project. The communities will submit monthly statements of accounts and work progress to the van panchayats and common interest group/society. Communities would carry out bank reconciliation on a monthly basis. In addition, the books/registers, vouchers, and bank passbooks of such communities would be open for perusal by own members, landscape society, project management team, and the World Bank. Apart from the above, periodic social audits would be conducted by the members of the executing agencies as well as staff from the landscape societies. Also third-party monitoring would be done periodically by a firm recruited by MOEF. For transparency, information of project-related funds and expenditures would be displayed at the community level.

27. In case of field agencies, any graduate within the village can be employed to write the books of account. Training on accounting arrangements at the village level will be provided to the book writers by the landscape societies. The landscape societies would appoint a firm to provide training to these village-level entities.

28. Societies in scaling up landscapes (Component 3). In case of new landscapes, which are still to be identified, the first action would be register as state societies in line with Component 1 and then agree on how the activities would be carried out. As this component would be developed in the first two years of the project life, disbursement would begin once the societies are registered and the FM and procurement assessments for these societies are completed and a credible action plan has been agreed. The FM action plan would be completed before transfer of funds by project management team to the State Landscape Societies.

29. Field learning centers (Component 2). Apart from the landscape societies, the Project has 4 societies that would be involved in the capacity-building activities. The societies involved in this component are:

(a) Wildlife Institute of India – Society

(b) Periyar Foundation-Society

(c) Kalakad Society

(d) GIR –Society 30. Each of the learning centers will prepare an annual work plan. The plan will be approved by the project management team based on which advance for the first 2 quarters is provided; and replenishment of the advances will be based on the actual expenditure. The MOEF/project management team will transfer the funds after the following conditions are met by the learning centers:

52

(a) Each of the learning centers has opened separate bank account for the Project (within 3 months of effectiveness).

(b) Each of the learning centers have set up and maintaining the computerized accounting system throughout the project period (within 3 months of effectiveness).

(c) Appointment of commerce graduate throughout the project period (within 3 months of effectiveness).

(d) Audit of these entities, by independent auditor (chartered accounting firm) as per the agreed TORs.

External Audit 31. The Project accounts will be audited by CAG for certain components executed by MOEF and WII through their field audit offices. For other components, a chartered accounting firm would be hired to carry out the audit as per the agreed TOR. The CAG has agreed to issue a consolidated audit report for the Project, provided the ministry provides them with the consolidated project financial statement and with the audit reports of the other agencies, which they may accept based on sample test check audit. The project audit report will be submitted to the Bank within 6 months from the end of the financial year.31 The format of the project financial statements is outlined in the Financial Management Manual. The annual audit report submitted by auditor should consist of (a) annual financial statements; (b) audit opinion; (c) reconciliation of claims sent; and (d) management letter highlighting weaknesses, if any, and identifying areas for improvement.

32. The CAG at MOEF level will audit the Project accounts and financial statements based on the books and records maintained by project management team and PAO. The CAG audit report would provide details of the amount drawn from the budget and transfers made and expenditure at project management unit (PMU) level. The project specific TOR have been agreed with CAG office.

33. The MOEF will appoint a chartered accounting firm to prepare a consolidated audit report for the societies not audited by the CAG. The annual audit report submitted by MOEF should consist of (a) consolidated annual financial statements as well as society annual financial statements; (b) audit opinion; and (c) management letter highlighting weaknesses, if any, and identifying areas for improvement. The auditors should also provide reconciliation of expenditures reported in the IUFRs with the figures of project financial statements and withdrawal claims submitted during the year and certify the claims. Certification of the project financial statements should also include sample audit of field agencies that are funded by the Project. This would be applicable in case of the LRK society and the Askot society. The auditor32 would be selected from the panel of empanelled chartered accounting firms with the CAG. The auditors will be appointed within six months of project effectiveness and be based on selection criteria agreed with the Bank. The TORs for the same has been agreed.

31 Audited accounts include project financial statements, management letter, and claims reconciliation 32 The auditor will be normally appointed for a minimum period of two years and maximum period of 3 years.

53

34. The following audit reports will be monitored in the Audit Reports Compliance System:

Implementing agency Audit Auditors Audit due date

DEA/GOI Special account CAG 6 months after the end of each fiscal year (March 31)

MOEF-PMU, WII society, Project financial statements

CAG

6 months after the end of each fiscal year (March 31)

KMTR society, Askot society, LRK society, PTR society, GIR society

Project financial statements

Chartered accounting firm

6 months after the end of each fiscal year (March 31)

Disclosure of Information 35. The following information would be disclosed in the MOEF website:

(a) IUFRs for every quarter.

(b) Annual Project Financial Statements.

(c) Annual Project Audit Reports

Disbursement Arrangements 36. Two designated accounts, one for the GEF funds and the other for the IDA funds would be maintained in the Reserve Bank of India for the project and would be operated by the CAAA in accordance with the World Bank’s operational policies. There will be a one-time fixed advance of US$1.5 million for IDA funds and US$0.8 million for GEF funds will be maintained throughout the project life and adjusted toward the end of the project. The project will submit withdrawal applications supported by IUFRs to CAAA for submission to Bank for replenishment of the designated account or reimbursement. The Bank will replenish the designated account equivalent to the amount claimed on eligible expenditure by the Project and as reported in the IUFRs.

37. Disbursements will be made based on quarterly IUFRs submitted by the project.33 These IUFRs would reflect the actual expenditure under various components. Any advances given by the Project would be separately shown in the IUFRs. The PMU would submit consolidated IUFRs for all the components. 38. All expenditures reported in the IUFRs will be subject to confirmation/certification by the annual audit reports. Any difference between the expenditure reported in the IUFRs and those reported in the annual audit reports will be analyzed; and those expenditures, which are confirmed by the Bank as being not eligible for funding (refundable to IDA), would be adjusted

33 To be submitted within 45 days from end of quarter.

54

in the subsequent disbursements. The IUFR has been designed and agreed and would be conformed during negotiations. Supervision 39. In the early stages, FM supervision activities will focus on the adequacy of action plan items designed. As the project implementation moves forward, desk reviews of internal and external audit reports and financial management reports will be conducted. Site visits will be planned as needed to review internal control procedures and practices. The focus during supervision will be on building capacity at all levels of accounting and reporting. Adequacy of FM Arrangements 40. The project management team will be responsible for implementing the above agreed FM arrangement for the Project and has agreed to a time-bound action plan with the World Bank to mitigate the perceived risks. Based on the current arrangements and the agreed actions, the residual FM risk is ”substantial”,34 which will be reviewed and revised as needed during periodic missions.

RISK RATING SUMMARY

H – High S – Substantial M – Modest L – Low Initial

risk Issues Mitigation measures Residual

risk

Inherent Risks

Country level M Country-level FM risk for India is rated “Modest”

M

Entity/Project level

H Newly formed implementing agencies have limited experience in handling such projects. Also the implementing entities are widespread and numerous. Also the money flowing to village level in some cases is not statutory legal bodies. Some of the implementing agencies are still under formation.

Refer mitigation measures given in following areas

S

Overall Inherent Risk

H S

Control Risks Budget M GOI would release to MOEF budget

for the Project and MOEF would fund based on the annual work plan

Budget would be provided at the central level.

M

Accounting H Accurate accounting of expenditure depends on implementation of computerized accounting systems at all levels. At best, computerization can be done up to state society level. At VP/CIG level, the capacity

The Project has agreed to computerize accounting at the center and state level. Accounting would be done based on actual expenditure. Training would be given to agencies for bookkeeping

S*

34

Due to project being implemented by various agencies across the state with varying institutional capacities.

55



risk

is very weak for maintaining the accounts in terms of process and staff. Inadequate accounting controls at these agencies would affect the project accounting.

and accounting. Also steps for continuous monitoring of advances would be established as a part of the accounting system. A detailed FM Manual has been prepared for this purpose.

Internal Controls

H As these are new entities, internal controls have to be designed as a part of the operation and financial management manual. Control aspects particularly in the area of accounting for advances would need to be strengthened.

The Project would prepare operational guidelines for each of these entities, which would be used for executing project. Also internal audit would be agreed as a part of the project design

S

Funds flow H As most of the funds would be utilized by field agencies, control over funds flow is of utmost importance for the Project.

The Project would follow an installment-based fund flow system, which increases the control on the funds and decreases the fund exposure of the Bank to certain level. As the fund release is linked to submission of accounting statements by the agencies, it incentivizes the agencies to submit accounting reports on time and this is an integral part of the Project design. This would strengthen the accounting and reporting for the project funds.

S

Financial Reporting

H Timely flow of information is critical to the preparation of quarterly FM report. A delay at any level would affect the preparation of the reports and impact timely disbursement. As most of the expenses are done by field level, their reporting of expenditure on time is important for the Project to book the expenditure.

PMU will coordinate the preparation of FM reports. Accounting would be computerized both at state and central level, which would help in faster compilation of records and generation of reports. Also the utilization certificate-based accounting system and tranche-based fund flow would ensure that field agencies submit reports to the Project at the earliest. Staff strengthening would be required at all levels. Financial management consultancy will also help in collecting and collating records.

S

Auditing H External audit needs to be designed for the Project to cover all the implementing agencies at all levels. As there are multiple levels, auditing and consolidating the financial reports would be a challenge.

At the central level CAG would be the auditor. The Project has agreed to appoint a professionally qualified firm for carrying out audit at state levels. The state auditors would audit the Landscape societies that are being funded by this Project. Also internal audit would be designed which would be carried out by chartered accounting firm

M

56



risk

appointed by PMU

Overall Control Risk

H S

Residual Risk Rating

S

*As there are more than 125 accounting units, even after mitigation the accounting risk is pegged as substantial because of the various capacities that are expected at different levels of the Project.

PMT Askot LRK WII GIR Periyar Kalakad Overall

Entity level H H H M M M H S

Project level H H H H M M M S

Overall inherent level H H H S M M M S

Budgeting M M M M M M M M

Accounting S H H M S M S S

Internal controls S H H S S S S S

Fund flows H H H M M M M S

Financial Reporting H H H M M M S S

Auditing H H H M M M S M

Overall Control Risk H H H M M M S S

Overall Project FM

risk

H H H M M M S S

41. Component 3 would be carried out in landscapes, which will be decided and finalized during the project period. For this component, disbursement would not be carried out till all the required fiduciary assessments are carried out and action plan is agreed with the landscapes.

57

Financial Management Action Plan

S. No.

Agreed Action Time Frame

1. Activation of budget head and requisition of budget for the FY11-12

Budget head exists but being reconfigured for FY11-12.

2. Finance and accounts officer and staff appointment at PMU; Appointment of FM staff at state societies

Within three months of effectiveness.

3. FM software to be operationalized in PMU/state Within three months of effectiveness.

4. Completion of assessment of first 5 van panchayats in Askot Agreeing on action plan and completion of activities before funds are disbursed by the state societies. This is expected to be operational after effectiveness as and when societies are established.

5. Completion of assessment of first three new village societies to be formed in LRK

Agreeing on action plan and completion of activities before funds are disbursed by the state societies. This is expected after effectiveness as and when societies are established.

6. Operational guidelines to be finalized for transfer of funds Finalize and agree with bank before funds are disbursed by state societies to these entities. Expected as and when societies are established.

7. Appointment of external and internal auditors Within six months from effectiveness.

58

Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements

A. General 1. Procurement of all goods, works, and services under the Project will be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works and Non Consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers (January 2011), and Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loan and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers (January 2011), and as the agreed procedures described in the Legal Agreements. 2. The Project supports demonstration landscape of LRK and Askot where community involvement and investment will be required, knowledge management through Field Learning Centers at Gir, Kalakad, and Periyar and a national capacity-building activity through the Wildlife Institute of India. The MOEF35 will be the primary coordinating and oversight agency at the central level. 3. The MOEF has developed a draft Procurement Manual for the Project to ensure consistency in procurement by all implementing agencies. Once cleared by the World Bank, it will be disseminated to all agencies engaged in the implementation of the Project. The provisions of the Manual applicable for community participation in procurement: (a) will be translated in local language and issued to vana sangrakshan samiti and community groups; (b) will use as a base and follow national competitive bidding (NCB), the Bank’s Standard Bidding Document, as agreed with the GOI Task Force and as amended from time to time; and (c) will use the Bank’s Consultant Guidelines, the Bank’s Standard Request for Proposal, for procuring all consultancy services. 4. For procurement under the Project, the materials to be used in works will be in the Scope of Work of the contractor, and the implementing agency will not procure these items separately to supply to the contractors. However, for participation in procurement, the community at their own option can separately procure goods and have them installed through separate contracts. 5. The procurement arrangements for the Project are described in general below. For each contract to be financed by the grant and/or loan, the different procurement or consultant-selection methods, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and others are agreed between the Borrower and the Bank and specified in the Procurement Plan. Initially the Procurement Plan will be prepared for first 18 months of the Project. The Procurement Plan will be updated at least annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity.

35 The project would be coordinated by MOEF through its Conservation and Survey Division, which will have overall responsibility for

coordination with State Level Societies and Foundations and ensure that procurement is carried out in accordance with agreed procedures and processes. Based on the capacity assessment of Conservation and Survey Division, the mitigation measures, as required have been included.

59

Procurement Implementation Arrangement 6. National, state, district, landscape, and community stakeholders shall implement the Project. There are two landscape sites and three learning centers in the project. At national level, MOEF will be responsible overall for coordinating procurement activities. The State Landscape Societies and Foundations will be the state-level implementing agencies. 7. National level. To ensure smooth and efficient implementation, MOEF shall take the following actions:

a) Select an individual consultant within three months of effectiveness, who will serve on Project Management Team and be well versed in Bank procurement procedures among other skills;

b) Review procurement plans and bidding documents before sending for Bank clearance. c) Organize procurement training for identified procurement persons; d) Remain proactively engaged in providing necessary guidance and ensure through internal

review that agreed procurement procedures are being followed; e) Coordinate with all implementing agencies for the timely submission of procurement

reports and MIS data of all contracts carried out under the Project so that annual information for all post-reviewed contracts can be made available to the Bank; and

f) Remain a repository for all complaints and ensuring proper, efficient, and smooth redressal in a time-bound manner.

8. State level.

a) In case of the Field Learning Centers, the Executive Committees of state landscape Societies or foundations shall carry out some procurement activities. For community procurement, these societies/foundation will act as nodal support agency.

b) The WII Society will carry out their procurement under NCB component. c) Both the landscape sites at Askot and LRK have new registered societies, which will act

as nodal agencies responsible for the day-to-day coordination, execution, and support to the community procurement at landscape sites.

d) Since the societies are new, the procurement capacity should be addressed by ensuring procurement training of identified point person in each of the societies before project effectiveness. The trained point persons will become the resource persons who will coordinate and provide oversight and support for community procurement.

e) The State Landscape Society may carry out some procurement at the landscape sites.

9. In addition, the central-, state-, and division-level offices will need some small procurement for office equipment, computers, printers, copiers, fax machine, and small civil work for refurbishing of the office premises. For those contracts below US$200,000 equivalent, the procurement would follow NCB, shopping, or direct contracting depending on cost and nature of procurement. Goods to be procured will be specified and cleared with Bank in the Procurement Plan.

60

10. Community level. For the landscape sites, the Project supports a bottom-up approach that focuses on community prioritizing decisions on majority of the procurement activities. The members of local community groups such as vana sangrakshan samiti, user groups, etc. will formulate community level micro-plans. The members of local community groups will formulate and execute micro-plans with the help of the Executive Committee of the Society or through staff hired from a support organization. The selection of the support organization by the implementing agency will be done following agreed procedures as specified in the Procurement Manual. Most procurement at the landscape sites relating to park management and livelihood will be identified in the village annual micro-plan when it is prepared through a consultative process. The State Societies will sign a memorandum of understanding with the respective community-level organizations, which will clearly specify the role and responsibilities of the community with regard to procurement. Most of the conservation-related activities are labor intensive and below US$15,000 and will be carried out by the members of local community groups. The biodiversity conservation activities, for trenches, fences, soil, and water conservation, might include protection measures through vegetative treatment and small stabilization structures such as gully plugging, terracing, staggered trenches, etc. The livelihood activities could include livestock improvement and fodder production though cattle breed improvement, fodder plantations, pasture re-generation; and alternative income generations through sericulture, bee-keeping, pig rearing, poultry, rope production, weaving, tailoring, and food processing. Goods procurement is likely to include small agricultural equipments/tools, seeds and planting materials, small items/materials for establishing village-level enterprises and income-generation activities. The point person dealing with procurement in the vana sangrakshan samiti or community organization will be trained by Society, either directly or by hiring support organizations. Social oversight would be accomplished through approval of all micro-plans by the Landscape Society, access to the community of all documents relating to procurement, and suo motu disclosure by the vana sangrakshan samiti of contract award data and material procurement data, including cost of procurement, and labor employment at the place of work. 11. The selection of an NGO/SO will be through agreed procedures as specified in the Procurement Manual. These NGO/SO will assist with micro-planning and capacity building at the community level. 12. No international competitive bidding (ICB) procurement is envisaged under the Project. Most procurement would be small and would be covered under shopping or NCB. Consultancy contracts are not expected to exceed US$500,000. B. Assessment of the Agency’s Capacity to Implement Procurement 13. Procurement activities will be coordinated by MOEF at the central level. Procurement by MOEF will be limited to procurement of goods, services, and works for their own use under the Project. The MOEF Conservation and Survey Division will be the nodal coordination agency; their capacity assessment suggests that some staff were involved in the previous Bank-funded Eco-development Project. State Societies or Foundations will coordinate and, if required, carry out procurement at the state level. At the community level, the relevant community group will carry out procurement. However, overall capacity in Bank procurement procedures is limited.

61

14. Capacity assessment of New Societies/Foundations formed for the Project at the state level suggests that they have no prior experience in Bank procurement. The main procurement risks that can be perceived at this stage are those relating to: (a) normal fiduciary risks of transparency and fairness; (b) inappropriate planning for procurement at community level; (c) misuse and wastage in decentralized procurement undertaken due to limited supervision and oversight capacity within the Project; (d) inadequate record-keeping; (e) absence of an operating Grievance Redressal/Complaint Monitoring System; (f) lack of appropriate dispute resolution procedures and lack of established system of public disclosure of information on procurement actions; (g) no single document which includes all rules, procedures and standard form to be followed; (h) selection criteria of NGOs; and (i) deficiencies in planning, monitoring, evaluation and reporting. 15. The above deficiencies and the other applicable deficiencies have been addressed by the following risk mitigation measures:

(a) Staffing and capacity building. To address the capacity issue, MOEF shall appoint an individual procurement consultant with sufficient knowledge and hands on experience of Bank-funded project to provide oversight function for the entire procurement, including for State Societies. State Societies will identify a procurement person in each State. MOEF will ensure necessary hand-holding support. The procurement point persons at all levels will undergo training in Bank procurement procedures. The focus of training shall be on procedure applicable for this Project.

(b) Training. MOEF will arrange for adequate training on a regular basis through dedicated

structured modules for the State Societies/Foundation. Provide structured training to the officials and improve the capacity for carrying out project related procurement.

(c) Procurement manual. To ensure consistency, procurement will be carried out as per

agreed Procurement Manual. This is expected to eliminate bias, prejudices, individual preferences, and corruption while ensuring quality. Community-driven procurement will likely be done through a sub-committee in accordance with agreed procurement procedures to lower the risk.

(d) Monitoring mechanism. MOEF will establish a clear monitoring mechanism and

mandatory reporting requirement to ensure that all required information with regard to procurement from all implementing agencies, including MOEF, is available for review in a timely and regular manner.

(e) Social audit. A Social Audit Committee elected at the community level will verify all

procurement actions undertaken by vana sangrakshan samiti. At the community level, locally appropriate disclosure processes and transparency mechanisms like wall writing and translation of materials are required to be carried out. Social oversight would be in the nature of requirement of approval of all micro plans by the sub-committee and suo

moto disclosure by sub-committee of contract award data and material procurement data, including cost of procurement, and labor employment at the place of work.

62

(f) Complaint redressal mechanism. Complaints redressal mechanism will be set up and segregated in order of gravity. Senior officers may be asked to process serious cases and report in given timeframe. During supervision missions, regular review of progress in handling complaints will be undertaken. The MOEF website will provide details on the redressal mechanism.

(g) Information sharing and disclosure requirements. Contract registers will be maintained

at the community level. The list of community and state society contracts shall be compiled and made available annually to MOEF by the State Societies. The MOEF will maintain a project website. On the website the procurement plan, expressions of interest, request for proposals, and bid documents shall be made available. The results of bidding (other than carried out by community) would be displayed on the website within a set time. The name of the committee members should also be made public through the website. All procurement information shall be shared during community meetings, through notice boards and if feasible through the website. Putting visible signs in sites where works are being carried out by displaying the name of the contractor, scope of work being carried out, project cost, and completion dates is highly recommended. Information in regard to all contracts carried out at center, state or district level will be regularly updated on the Project website.

(h) Record-keeping. To address inadequate record-keeping, MOEF and state societies will

maintain all records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the state on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated.

(i) Procurement audit along with financial audit. For post-review of the procurement done

by and implementing agency, including communities (vana sangrakshan samiti), the project will hire an independent consultant whose TOR will be agreed with the Bank or be included in the financial audit contract requirement of a procurement person as key staff who will review the compliance of the agreed procedures. The report of this consultant will be made available to the Bank. The Bank will review the report of the consultant. In addition, the Bank may also carry out the post review of any contracts awarded by any implementing agency.

(j) Bidding documents and NCB condition. For all procurement of goods and works

under NCB, the bidding documents shall be prepared following the Bank’s Standard Bidding Document and shall be agreed with the Bank, before issuing the same for invitation of bids. Only the model bidding documents for NCB agreed with the GOI Task Force (and as amended from time to time) shall be used for bidding. The following conditions must be met in order for the bidding process under NCB to be acceptable to the Bank:

63

i) Invitations to bid shall be advertised in at least one widely circulated national daily newspaper, at least 30 days prior to the deadline for the submission of bids.

ii) No special preference will be accorded to any bidder either for price or for

other terms and conditions when competing with foreign bidders, state-owned enterprises, small-scale enterprises etc.

iii) Except with the prior concurrence of the Bank, there shall be no negotiation of price with the bidders, even with the lowest evaluated bidder.

iv) Extension of bid validity shall not be allowed without the prior concurrence of

the Bank (A) for the first request for extension if it is longer than four weeks; and (B) for all subsequent requests for extension irrespective of the period.

v) Re-bidding shall not be carried out without the prior concurrence of the Bank.

The system of rejecting bids outside a pre-determined margin or “bracket” of prices shall not be used in the Project.

vi) Rate contracts entered into by Directorate General of Supplies & Disposals

will not be acceptable as a substitute for NCB procedures. Such contracts will be acceptable however for any procurement under Shopping procedures.

vii) Two or three envelope systems will not be used.

16. In case of new landscapes sites, that have not been identified, separate procurement assessments will be carried out. Disbursement to such implementing agencies will only start after the assessment is completed and procurement activities identified and cleared by the Bank in the Procurement Plan. 17. In view of the decentralized nature of procurement, and given that societies and foundations is new the overall risk for procurement is “High”. Procurement of Works 18. This procurement by the community will be identified from micro-plans/annual action plans. These are likely to be mostly labor-intensive works. The Forest Department or line departments will provide technical guidance. Most of the contracts under these micro-plans will be below US$15,000 equivalent, and the procurement would follow either shopping/direct contracting depending on cost and nature of procurement as agreed with the Bank in the Procurement plan. In addition to the above, some small civil work for office building including refurbishing of the office premises may be required at the center, state or division level. Contracts will be below US$200,000 equivalent and the procurement would follow either NCB or shopping depending on cost and nature of procurement and will be procured in accordance with the agreed procedures and the Procurement Plan.

64

19. In exceptional cases and with Bank concurrence some of the activities in inaccessible areas may be procured using Force Account. If Force Account is the only available options, the use of Force Account should be managed so as to introduce productivity controls approximating those of commercial contracting. The Borrower will agree with the Bank on appropriate production standards for the works items involved, and Bank disbursements should be linked to the production of pre-determined physical units. However, no deposit work will be carried out under the Project. Works to be procured will be included in the Procurement Plan and cleared with the Bank. Procurement of Goods & Equipment 20. In accordance with the agreed micro-plan, equipment might be required for livelihood activities and will be procured by community as per the Procedures Manual. In addition, the Project envisages procurement of various goods and equipments by the State Societies and MOEF spread over the project period. Methods of Procurement 21. Goods estimated to cost US$200,000 or more per contract and works estimated to cost US$1,000,000 or more per contract will be procured following ICB procedures as per Section II of the Bank’s Procurement Guidelines. Goods and non-consultancy services estimated to cost US$30,000 or more but less than US$200,000 per contract and works estimated to cost US$30,000 or more but less than US$1,000,000 per contract will be procured following NCB procedures which generally meet the requirement of Paragraph 3.3 and 3.4 of the Bank Guidelines. 22. Goods, works and non-consultancy services estimated to cost less than US$30,000 per contract may be procured following shopping procedures, which meet the requirement of Paragraph 3.5 of the Bank’s Guidelines. 23. Goods, works and non-consultancy services, which meet the requirement of Paragraph 3.7 and 3.8 of the Bank Guidelines, may be procured following direct contracting procedures. 24. The proposed procedures and activities, which meet the requirement of paragraph 3.19 of the Bank Guideline and as elaborated in the Procurement Manual and approved by the Bank, may be carried out by community participation. 25. Works and non-consultancy services that meet the requirement of paragraph 3.8 of the Guidelines may be implemented with prior clearance from the Bank following force account methods. 26. Consultancy services will be procured following fixed budget selection, least cost selection, consultant qualification, single source, quality-based selection, and quality cost-based selection methods in accordance with the Bank’s Guidelines. The services of individual consultants will also be procured as per the provisions stipulated in the Procurement Manual and

65

the Bank’s Guidelines. Shortlists of consultants for services estimated to cost equal or less than US$500,000 equivalent per contract may be composed entirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines. Operating Costs 27. The operating costs will include salaries and allowances of contracted staff recruited in the implementing units at MOEF, state, as well as division levels; all cost of staff travel and subsistence costs; and office rental and office supplies, vehicle rentals, equipment maintenance contracts, etc.

Review Requirements

28. The Procurement Plan shall set forth those contracts, which shall be subject to the Association’s Prior Review. All other contracts shall be subject to Post Review by the Association. Procurement Plan

29. The MOEF and State Landscape Societies or Foundations have developed their first 18- months Procurement Plan, which will provide the basis for the procurement and procurement methods. The Procurement Plan will be updated in agreement with the project team annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity. This will uploaded on Bank’s external website. Frequency of Procurement Supervision 30. In addition to prior review supervision to be carried out from Bank staff every six months, annual visits to the field to carry out post-review of procurement actions is considered necessary.

66

Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis

Overall Benefits 1. The Project would conserve globally significant biodiversity in four landscapes and develop capacity for increased future conservation. The Project will support mutually dependent activities that in combination would reduce negative environmental impacts of local people on biodiversity and increase protection of biodiversity in the landscape sites, as well as ensure that development activities in the landscapes are conducted in a manner that helps conserve biodiversity. In the project landscapes, over the long term, the Project would help to slow and halt the current declines in:

(a) Area and degree of ecosystem richness, complexity, and diversity;

(b) Presence, productivity, and abundance of significant species;

(c) Extent of connectivity between critical habitats within the landscapes;

(d) Extent of nutrient recycling and rate of regeneration; and

(e) Control of spread of weeds and exotic species.

2. The Project would also increase the capacity of government officials to effectively manage biodiversity within protected areas and lands surrounding them. It would increase the capacity of local communities to play a positive part in protected areas and forest management and increase local community support for conservation. The Project will facilitate convergence of sectoral planning and help support the enhancement of conservation outcomes in lands outside the protected areas. It will also develop stakeholder consensus on conservation-related strategies within the landscapes. The Project will create processes and organizational frameworks that would help in strengthening conservation planning and outcomes in the landscapes that could be expanded to other ecologically significant areas. In addition to these overall benefits that derive from the total package, each project component would produce specific outputs and conservation benefits. Outputs from Demonstration of Landscape Conservation Approaches in Two Pilot Sites 3. Mapping of Conservation and Eco-sensitive Areas in Landscapes. This activity will produce a comprehensive and carefully developed map through a participatory process, involving the use of biological parameters to assign conservation values to different parcels of land within the landscape. This would help define:

(a) Options for development of strategies and actions to improve conservation outcomes within these parcels of lands;

(b) Conservation actions for critical habitats and dispersal corridors between protected areas and areas of species concentration to improve the ecological viability of species; and

(c) Broaden the focus of existing PA management planning options to enhance conservation outcomes in PA surroundings so as to improve the viability of the protected areas.

67

4. Landscape Level Conservation Management Vision.This activity would:

(a) Define a decision-making framework for developing and implementing agreeable strategies for conservation within the landscape;

(b) Facilitate the integration of multiple, land use objectives within the landscape in support

of conservation;

(c) Define “trade-offs” among development and conservation objectives; and (d) Define clear responsibilities among tenure holders for conservation.

5. Conservation Management in Protected Areas. This activity would:

(a) Provide a comprehensive and carefully designed work program for protecting and managing ecosystems and habitats in the protected areas and biodiversity sensitive sites;

(b) Broaden the focus of existing PA management planning capacity to more comprehensively cover ecological considerations (e.g., boundary demarcation and management, buffer zone management, ecosystems management), PA-related concerns of local people, and strategies for relevant government programs and policies (e.g., research, environmental education, ecotourism); and

(c) Ensure activities outside the scope of the Project will not undermine effective conservation of the protected areas within the landscape.

6. Protecting and Managing Ecosystems and Habitats. The benefits of this activity include:

(a) Restoration of ecosystem and habitat health (e.g. weed control, soil and water conservation, etc), including those identified in the management plans;

(b) Improvement of fire control, increase effectiveness of anti-poaching efforts, reduce the extent of wild animal straying out of the protected areas;

(c) Reduction in the negative impacts of visitors, in accordance with recommendations of ecological research and ecotourism strategies; and

(d) Increased employment, livelihood opportunities and byproduct sharing for local people (PA neighbors) in PA management strategies.

7. Integrating Biodiversity Considerations in Production Areas. This activity will result in:

(a) Enhancement of viability and connectivity of habitats and migratory routes for critical species;

68

(b) Improvement in conservation of biologically important species and habitats in production landscapes (e.g. production forests, grasslands, wetlands, agricultural and grazing lands, etc); and

(c) Improvement in long-term productivity and viability of these production areas and provision of adequate incentive for managing them sustainably.

8. Participatory Conservation and Livelihood Development. Village micro-planning actions will:

(a) Provide a basis for conflict resolution by identifying and defining reciprocal commitments through an interactive and replicable participatory negotiation process;

(b) Strengthen the capacity of communities to obtain support services to negotiate with outsiders (e.g. traders, outside groups who use PA resources);

(c) Secure an equitable distribution of benefits, and ensure participation of women, tribal, and other disadvantaged groups in community decisions about resource distribution and village investment selection;

(d) Preserve and apply traditional knowledge systems in resource management;

(e) Increase the capacity of local communities to play a positive role in PA protection and conservation;

(f) Partially off-set negative economic impacts of protected areas on local people (particularly vulnerable groups such as tribals and women); and

(g) Slow or halt unsustainable resource use (e.g., grazing, salt mining, fishing, poaching) by local people.

9. Evaluation of Ecosystem Services. This activity would provide adequate information to enable informed decision-making on key policy-related actions to improve conservation outcomes and benefits. Outputs from Strengthening Knowledge Management and Capacity for Landscape Conservation 10. Promoting Knowledge and Information through Field Learning. This component will provide capacity building, documentation and dissemination, and field learning of conservation good practice and methodologies; and:

(a) Strengthen capacity of agencies and stakeholders to obtain greater ecological and environmental benefits from their conservation and development activities;

(b) Improve capacity of PA staff elsewhere in the country to benefit to from experiences

in the demonstration sites and be able to apply tools and techniques developed under the Project;

69

(c) Enhance knowledge and learning of benefits of conservation that could be applied

elsewhere in the country;

(d) Provide critical ecological and socioeconomic information needed to improve strategies for PA management, village investment, and mainstreaming biodiversity considerations in development planning; and

(e) Produce a cadre of well-trained personnel in the country for expansion of

conservation outcomes.

11. National Capacity Building. This sub-component will provide new national curriculum development and training based on lessons distilled from the pilot landscape sites, field learning centers, and other good practice in the country; and:

(a) Provide new curriculum and training modules for development of national training courses for landscape conservation;

(b) Train a cadre of competent persons within priority landscapes to facilitate replication

of landscape models more widely nationwide, (c) Provide a institutional and methodological framework and guidelines based on

learning from the field to promote landscape conservation approaches nationwide; and

(d) Institutionalize landscape training programs within the Wildlife Institute of India.

Outputs from Scaling Up and Replication of Landscape Conservation 12. This component would promote the scaling up of landscape conservation approaches to other sites in the country, with or without project support, through learning and skills development from Components 1 and 2; and:

(a) Provide new opportunities for further testing of landscape approaches under different management and local situations;

(b) Provide an additional wealth of information and experience for improving tools and techniques for landscape management; and

(c) Facilitate greater government and local support for landscape conservation through mainstreaming of such approaches in GOI budget allocations for conservation.

Outputs from Project Coordination 13. Overall, this would assist in the integration, timeliness, dissemination, quality, accountability, and adaptive management of project implementation by providing administrative,

70

financial, communication, technical, and review services. It would also provide for broad policy and institutional support for expansion of conservation concepts in the country.

14. The feasibility analysis and justification of this Project is not based on quantified and economic rates of return. Currently, there is no data to monetize benefits, and available methodology for quantifying biodiversity benefits of this Project would result in estimates of relative weights for various benefits that would not be consistent with judgments by specialists. As well, an unbalanced assessment where costs alone are known and benefits are unknown would not provide a useful basis for decision-making. The Project supports a valuation exercise that might provide the basis for future decision-making on ecological issues. The project design does incorporate a process approach to the analysis of village-level investment financial feasibility, a process that also incorporates technical, social, and environmental considerations. The small size and variation in site conditions of village investments would make detailed site-specific feasibility review prohibitively expensive. Participatory investments with beneficiary contributions ensure least-cost approaches since participants will have an incentive to minimize their cost sharing. In addition, selection of investments within a fixed budget constraint, the requirement for beneficiaries to contribute their own resources, and monitoring would give local people incentive to seek necessary expert advice and to take responsibility for selecting investments to maximize their well being and for specialist review to address generic issues, ensure meeting of feasibility requirements, and provide experimental learning and adaptive management through the dynamic planning, monitoring, and adjustment processes.

71

Annex 10: Governance and Accountability Action Plan

KEY ISSUES AND AREAS OF RISK

1. The Governance Management Framework builds upon the lessons learned from the previous Bank-funded Eco-development Project and a detailed diagnostic study as part of project preparation on fraud and corruption risks associated with the Project.36 The framework is designed to improve project governance and implementation, and to reduce the risk of corruption. The following key governance risks apply to the Project:

� Project institutions and processes may not adequately address issues relating to

transparency, voice, and accountability, including access to relevant information.

� Weak or lack of a system to handle grievances and complaints may affect effective participation of communities and reduce accountability.

� Weak or lack of adequate procurement and financial management capacity may result in collusive practices and mis-use of project funds.

� Lack of adequate financial management safeguards may lead to corruption and fraudulent practices.

� Weak implementation arrangements and capacity may adversely affect achievement of project outcomes and impacts.

2. If these governance risks are not adequately addressed, it will likely result in the compromising of project outcomes and benefits as it would undermine the: (a) targeting and delivery of benefits to the intended project beneficiaries; (b) quality of works, goods, services, and products; (c) sustainability of conservation approaches and benefits and the long-term sustainability of the relevant participating institutions; and (d) replicability or scaling up of project approaches.

Overall Mitigation Measures 3. To mitigate the perceived risks, the Governance Management Framework is designed to address governance risks through the following key design features: (a) community oversight through active participation in planning and implementation to ensure greater transparency and accountability; (b) a complaints handling and grievance redressal mechanism; (c) enhanced procurement and financial management capacity and procedures and greater national-level financial oversight; (d) a pro-active communications and information disclosure program; and (e) independent reviews on a biennial basis to access project progress and impacts. 4. A more detailed analysis of the key risk areas and related vulnerability and an action plan for addressing governance and accountability risks is presented in the following table.

36 BCRLIP – Governance and Accountability Action Plan – Adam Smith International.

72

Governance and Accountability Action Plan to Address and Mitigate Risks

Issues identified for monitoring

Proposed mitigation measures

Specific milestones By when

Lack of implementation of transparency and full disclosure Risk rating: Moderate

Increased community participation in decision-making relating to community investments

PIP/COM outlining procedures for community participation

Finalized by Negotiations

Registration and legal status to community institutions and direct access to funds

First set of VP/user groups by January 1, 2012, and subsequently for balance groups

Empowering local communities in financial management and accountability

Disclosure of community related investments and financial activities through display boards, account sharing meetings

Beginning (January 2012) and through project period. Quarterly community meetings

Bank oversight and supervision

Twice yearly beginning from December 2011

Participatory monitoring at community level to ensure benefits accrue to intended beneficiaries

Village micro-plans include clear monitorable indicators for measuring impacts and identifying benefit flows

Monitoring through project period; Third-party monitoring to verify benefit flows beginning December 2012.

Disclosure of Tenders and contract notices

All major tender and contract notices and information posted on MOEF website

Already done for all project preparation contracts and will be continued during implementation phases

Lack of knowledge and capacity to implement RTI Act Risk rating: Moderate

Improving capacity for implementation of provisions of RTI

Training of staff at national and landscape levels

Initial training completed in December 2009 and regular refresher courses annually

Website provide information on project activities

Websites at MOEF and landscape sites and WII provide information on project activities

MOEF website functional in relation to project and websites at landscape

73




sites and WII updated by October 1, 2011

Oversight and implementation of provisions of RTI Act

Dedicated officer at MOEF for implementation of RTI Act and nodal officers with specific RTI role at landscape sites. Regular progress reports

MOEF dedicated officer in place by December 31, 2011 and in landscape sites by March 30, 2012. Annual progress reports

Deficient or absence of grievance and complaints handling arrangements Risk rating: Moderate

Arrangements for registering, tracking and monitoring complaints and complaints resolution

Dedicated telephone line and website access for filing complaints

At MOEF by January 1 2012 and Landscape sites by March 1, 2012

Computerized system in place for registering, tracking and monitoring complaints and complaints segregation

At MOEF by December 2011 and at landscape sites by March 2012

Monitoring of grievance redressal system functioning

Reporting of grievances filed, and follow up actions

Annual reports prepared by MOEF and reviewed by Bank missions on annual basis beginning December 2011

Weak financial management and procurement capacity and oversight Risk rating: High

Specialized procurement and FM staff and staff trained

Qualified procurement and FM staff in place in all implementing entities

By Negotiations and regular refresher courses

Transparent financial management based on established best practices and procurement policy compliant with Bank Guideline

Procurement and financial management manual developed and under implementation by project entities. Disseminating to all concerned the Procurement manual with standard bidding documents, adherence to thresholds for prior review, meeting disclosure requirements, public display of contracts, etc.

Manuals finalized by Negotiations and implementation continues through project period

Post review and verification of acquired assets and oversight

Bank review missions to review FM and procurement progress and enquire about any perceived or actual misuse of funds and how these

Bi-annually beginning December 2011

74




were addressed

Lack of capacity at community level for financial management Risk rating: Substantial

Improving capacity at community level (VPs/User Groups) to manage project funds

VPs/User Groups trained in accounting, book keeping and fund management

First VP/User Groups by March 2012 and training and refresher courses regularly thereafter for first batch, second and third batches

Improving financial management oversight

Approval of Work Plans and reconciliation of fund transfers

MOEF on an annual basis beginning December 2011

Financial Audits to ensure funds used for appropriate purpose

Annual audit reports submitted to the Bank beginning June 2012

Lack of flow and availability of information Risk rating: Moderate

Public disclosure and communication system for sharing of information and feedback

Communication needs assessment (completed) and plan

By Negotiations

Communication plan developed and under implementation

Functional by January 2012 and under implementation thereafter through life of project

Limited technical capacity may adversely affect the mainstreaming of conservation outcomes Risk rating: Low

Capacity building to improve technical capacity

On-the-ground training for landscape staff in field learning centers (Component 2)

Already initiated for landscape staff and continuous thereafter

Acquisition of additional technical expertise to supplement existing national and landscape level capacities

Contract technical staff (sociologist, ecologist, livelihood specialist, etc) in accordance with TORs agreed with the Bank

Technical staff in place at MOEF by December 2011 and at landscape sites by March 2012

Independent monitoring of project progress towards achieving outcomes

Third party independent monitoring

Beginning December 2012 and biennially thereafter

Poor coordination amongst line agencies can constraint achieving project outcomes Risk rating: Low

Improving coordination across sector agencies in landscape

Governing Body of Society ensuring coordination and oversight of line agency collaboration and participation coordination

Bi-Annual meeting of Governing Body beginning December 2011 dealing with coordination concerns

75

Communications 5. The Project Implementation Plan (PIP) and Community Operational Manual (COM) articulate an overall communications strategy for the Project and an overall plan to include stake-holder feedback in project implementation. In the case of the Governance and Accountability Action Plan (GAAP), the Project will update information in the project website, develop and circulate materials relating to governance and accountability practices. GAAP Implementation 6. The implementation of the GAAP will be under the overall direction of the Project Director/MOEF and CEOs of field-based State Landscape Societies. A staff within MOEF will be designated to follow-up on the activities identified in the Action Plan. The State Landscape Society, similar to MOEF, will have designated staff (existing or contracted) for implementation of various aspects of the PIP and GAAP. At the Project launch workshop, MOEF will ensure that all participating entities understand and own the GAAP.

Monitoring 7. The Project will contract independent institutions to undertake biennial monitoring of the Project, in particular to (a) review the quality and outputs of the capacity-building investments and (b) to review site-based pilot activities and their impacts and outcomes. In addition the project Management Information System will generate reports based on activities conducted under the different components. These will all be publicly disclosed on the project web-site and published in an annual report.

Costs 8. The cost of the GAAP implementation is integrated across the components, but primarily based on (a) incremental staff monitoring costs; (b) cost of the grievance-handling system; (c) third-party monitoring and assessments; and (d) disclosure and stakeholder consultations. These costs may vary depending on the efficacy of the mitigation measures, for example the amount of independent monitoring will depend on how the societies respond to feedback on mitigation measures.

76

Annex 11: Safeguard Policy Issues

1. The Project is unlikely to result in significant adverse impacts, as its components and activities are designed to mainstream biodiversity conservation and livelihood improvements in selected landscapes. The screening category of the Project is B. Based on the project design and proposed activities, the Environmental and Social Assessment has triggered the World Bank’s Safeguard Policies for Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01), Forests (OP/BP 4.36), Pest Management (OP 4.09) and Indigenous People (OP/BP 4.10 ). The discussion of the policies and their applicability is given below:

• Environmental assessment. This is applicable given the Project’s emphasis on environmental management spanning over large spatial territories. However, potential adverse environmental impacts on human populations are expected to be limited. The potential impacts could emerge from activities related to sustainable approaches of resource use or other alternative livelihood strategies on the local environment. An environmental management framework has been developed to ensure that all environmental issues are screened, scoped and effectively mitigated and managed in project planning, implementation and monitoring.

• Forests. This is triggered as the Project aims to bring about changes in the management, protection and/or sustainable utilization of natural forests or its produce (non-timber forest products). The forestry component proposed in the Project will encourage activities (such as weed eradication, planting of native species, integration of biodiversity considerations in forestry existing operations, etc) to enhance environmental contribution of forest areas and encourage sustainable community-based benefit sharing of minor forest products. Activities proposed are not likely to impact significantly upon forest areas and logging operations are not part of the activities.

• Indigenous peoples. The Bank’s OP 4.10 is triggered as the demonstration landscapes have vulnerable groups that are classified as Scheduled Tribes. The tribal groups, along with other vulnerable communities in the landscape are among the intended beneficiaries of the project activities related to livelihood improvement. In accordance with local laws and OP 4.10, free, prior, and informed consultations with tribal and other vulnerable groups in the landscape communities were organized. The social assessment includes an analysis of socio-economic conditions, existing livelihood strategies and symbiotic relationships with natural resources, and community institutional structures; and defines mechanisms for participatory planning, implementation, and monitoring to enhance opportunities for livelihood improvement and reduction of poverty. The requirement for carrying out informed consultation with indigenous and vulnerable communities in the project area through the project implementation and monitoring is integrated in the participatory process framework. The main provision of an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) has been integrated into the project design, specifically through the Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF), and the Participatory Process Framework summarized below. The Participatory Process Framework, along with the

77

ESMF, applies to and informs all project components and activities included under the Project. The Participatory Process Framework incorporates key requirements of OP 4.10 that relate to “free, prior and informed consent”, “broad community support,” and “culturally appropriate benefits”. It provides guidelines for preparation, during project implementation, of the landscape management and village livelihood plans, and ensures that the indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups in the project landscapes participate in design, implementation, and monitoring of the Project interventions, and share equitably in the benefits of the parks and protected areas.

• Involuntary resettlement. No acquisition of privately owned land, displacement of people, or loss of livelihood by the Project is anticipated in the proposed demonstration landscape sites. Hence OP 4.12 is not triggered by the Project. In LRK, there is one village located within the PA boundary, but this is not considered inviolate. With the recent revision of the sanctuary boundaries in Askot, all settlements fall outside the sanctuary boundary. While the Project will not impose any new restrictions of resource use, it is recognized that it will operate in areas where access restrictions to natural resource use exist under the prevailing laws of the country. The proposed Project will try to help the local communities improve their livelihoods under existing access restriction situation. The Project intends to facilitate community-based management of local resource base in order to improve the productivity, security, and sustainability of people’s livelihoods. For example, this might include addressing the diminishing returns to Agiaries (salt miners) in LRK on account of the deteriorating quantity and quality of brine and the increasing competition from marine salt mining. Community-based regulations can help reduce operating costs and improve profitability and along with alternate livelihood opportunities can help enhance and improve incomes of these families. The Project will therefore emphasize in creating sufficient awareness of the benefits of community-based initiatives that reflect the communities own needs and priorities. In situations where existing limitations on use of resources exists, the Project will also promote extension of choices to address impacts related to existing access regulations. The process of developing participatory village micro-plans will be inclusive and promote equity in benefit sharing. Village micro-plans will be based on the participatory resource mapping, identifying existing resource dependencies, and the extent to which their livelihood is dependent on these resources. The collaborative nature of the Project approach will enable communities to make collective and informed decisions on mitigation measures against unsustainable resource use. These mitigation measures will be included in the village micro-plans and its implementation monitored carefully.

• Pest management. The Project might involve procurement and use of pesticides on a very limited and localized scale to enhance crop production in farmer fields. However, the procurement and distribution of pesticides will not involve any Class Ia, Ib, or II as classified by the World Health Organization. Training on methods of integrated pest management, including organic manure, will be promoted to the extent necessary.

78

Environmental Safeguard Policy Issues 2. Potential environmental impact. The Project is inherently about improved environmental management and mainstreaming biodiversity conservation with livelihood concerns at the landscape level. Some project activities could have limited and much localized environmental impacts requiring simple mitigation measures, which if overlooked may accrue into bigger impacts. 3. Project activities that may have some limited adverse impacts might include cash crop production, promotion of improved breeds of cattle and stall feeding, community and homestead forest plantations, construction of soil stabilization structures, rehabilitation of small rural infrastructure, non-timber forest product harvesting, and alternative income-generation activities. By and large, these activities are expected to contribute to the improvement of environmental conditions and local livelihoods. 4. The impacts from these activities are expected to be small and localized for which mitigation measures can be readily designed and applied. The Project is classified as “Category B” based on the World Bank’s classification for Environmental Assessment. To deal with potential environmental impact and in keeping with the principle of environmental oversight, an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) has been prepared. 5. Specifically, the ESMF covers the following aspects:

• Description of the country’s environmental conditions as well as those pertaining to the sites identified for implementation of the project interventions in the field;

• Examination of the country’s existing policies, regulations, guidelines, and procedures for environmentally sustainable development in relation to the World Bank environmental safeguard policies that are likely to be triggered by the Project;

• Assessment of local perception and understanding of the Project especially with regards to its benefits, impacts, and issues, and the willingness and capacity to address potential adverse environmental impacts;

• Identification of potential adverse environmental impacts of probable project activities and provides corresponding mitigation measures;

• Framework for operationalizing environmental management measures based on existing national environmental policies, regulations, and guidelines and in concord with the requirements of relevant World Bank safeguard policies.

6. Methodology. The ESMF has been prepared using information derived from literature review, field visits, and stakeholder consultations. Various policies, laws, regulations, and guidelines related to environmental management were extensively reviewed to make a comparative assessment with Bank safeguard policies relevant to the Project. In addition, documents pertaining to BCRLIP planning have been reviewed. This includes reports of local-level stakeholder workshops conducted in the project sites, project design workshops, and other consultations.

79

7. Stakeholder consultations were conducted at the village, landscape, regional, and central levels. Local-level consultations were carried out with primary stakeholders, specifically the local communities, local-level institutions (Panchayat Raj Institutions), forestry and wildlife staff and local government institutions, NGOs, and other community institutions. At the landscape and state levels, consultative meetings were conducted with NGOs, community institutions, forestry institutions, government agencies, and other key stakeholders. At the central level, consultations were carried out with the MOEF, Ministry of Tribal Welfare, social development institutions, national-level NGOs, and others.37 8. A list of potential adverse environmental impacts from the Project and their possible preventive and mitigation measures are included in the ESMF. During project implementation, site- and design-specific environmental mitigation measures will be developed and, if required, limited environmental impact assessments will be carried out to more accurately and comprehensively identify potentially adverse environmental impacts and corresponding mitigation measures. 9. During field consultations, local communities were asked if they were willing and confident to implement mitigation measures, where necessary. Given the positive environmental benefit of the Project, it is likely that there will not be any significant potential adverse environmental impacts and, hence, is likely to entail simple mitigation measures which local communities are able to readily implement with guidance from the PA team and technical staff.

Operationalizing the Environmental and Social Management Framework 10. Implementation of the ESMF will involve the national-, state-, and landscape-level officers and beneficiaries. At each of the participating sites, it is proposed to hire services of ecologist and sociologist who would primarily be responsible to ensure compliance with the ESMF. In addition two environment officers would be nominated at the field level (community groups, village forest development committee, joint forest management committee, and others) to assist the ecologist in routine monitoring and implementing the ESMF. 11. A workshop would be organized for categorizing identified or anticipated sub-projects for investments into three categories, as given below in the table. This workshop would also develop standard mitigation templates listing all necessary and any additional measures to minimize adverse impacts and enhance positive impacts. There would be a follow up to the workshop to disclose and discuss the categorization for any necessary fine-tuning and finalization of the mitigation measures.

37 Details of the consultations are available in a summary document on the MOEF/NTCA web-site.

80

Environmental Categorization of Livelihood Activities

E1 Subprojects with minimal adverse environmental impacts and standard safeguards and/or pre-identified mitigation measures are sufficient to address impacts; requires routine monitoring by nominated environment officer at community level; in addition PFT monitors 50% of E1 projects selected randomly for compliance with safeguards sheet

E2 Subprojects with moderate adverse environmental impacts and other than standard safeguards and/or pre-identified mitigation measures, some additional site-specific measures are required to address impacts; requires regular monitoring by PFT; in addition PIU reviews compliance status of 50% randomly selected projects

E3 Subprojects with substantial adverse environmental impacts; these would require a rapid EIA and along with standard safeguards and/or pre-identified mitigation measures, additional site-specific measures, as recommended by the REIA would be required to address impacts; all subprojects (100%) requires complete monitoring by PFT and PIU and reported to Society; in addition MOEF reviews all E3 subprojects annually

12. Once the proposed investments would be categorized as described above, the following implementation mechanism will operate that include provision for monitoring and evaluation:

81

Flowchart Depicting Proposed Process for ESMF

Proposal (Developed by CG + PFT)

1st level screening by the trained nominated environment officer giving rough estimates regarding resources required, availability, access and impacts etc

PIU 2nd level detailed screening done by Ecologist

who also confirms Environmental Category

If E1, attaches safeguards sheet and PIU grants approval

M & E

During implementation nominated environment officer undertakes routine monitoring; in addition PFT monitors 50% of E1 projects selected randomly for compliance with safeguards sheet

Society

If E2, attaches safeguards sheet and recommends other site-specific

measures and forwards to Society for review and approval (Society may add/ modify mitigation measures)

M & E

During implementation PFT undertakes regular monitoring; in addition PIU reviews compliance status of 50% randomly selected projects

NTCA

If E3, proposal reaches MOEF, which contracts a consultant for a Rapid EIA based on which approval is granted or proposal is rejected; when approved would usually come with additional safeguards and mitigation measures

M & E

All subprojects (100%) requires complete monitoring by PFT and PIU and reported to Society; in addition MOEF reviews all E3 subprojects annually

Social Aspects 13. One of the key lessons from the implementation of the India Eco-development project has been the importance of adequate attention to aspects of social development at every stage of project design and implementation. A detailed social assessment has been carried out by the

E1

E2

E3

82

MOEF to identify the key social issues at each of the participating landscapes under the Project and develop a framework that would help address them in an effective manner. A detailed stakeholder analysis (on file) has been carried out at each of the participating landscapes and the specific stakeholders with their interests identified. In Askot landscape in Uttarakand the process of co-management among local communities, forest department, and other line agencies of the landscape has been initiated. There are four different indigenous groups in the Askot landscape—Bhutia-Buians or the trans-humant populations, the Bhutia-Darmas or the high altitude graziers, Chaudans who help manage the Kailash pilgrimage, and the Thakurs or the ex-landlords — offer different opportunities for participatory approaches to conservation depending on the activities they are involved with. The relationships between the four different groups were studied as part of the social assessment. In the Little Rann of Kutch landscape, the unorganized salt farmers (Agarias) are the most socio-economically disadvantaged section of the local communities and their relationship with other communities in the area was studied. Based on the information gathered from the social assessment, the Project, in consultation with all local stakeholders has attained a design that ensures adequate opportunity for all sections of the community to actively participate and benefit from the interventions undertaken. 14. Consultations with the local communities and other stakeholders at each of the participating landscapes has confirmed a high level of interest among them to evolve mechanisms for addressing livelihood concerns of the poorest sections of the community as a way of enabling them to contribute to conservation of local biodiversity. Local communities and other stakeholders have been and would continue to be an important source of information for design and implementation of project interventions. 15. The Project is highly unlikely to cause any adverse social impacts, including relocation of communities or acquisition of privately owned land. As the Project is not expected to support any involuntary relocation or resource restrictions, the Involuntary Resettlement policy of the World Bank is not triggered. The social assessment at each of the landscapes sites confirms this. However, as the Project will operate within existing restriction on access to natural resources for communities residing in and around protected areas, the project design includes specific arrangements for project beneficiary participation in decision-making on resource access and its management, livelihood restoration measures to mitigate any existing restrictions and grievance redressal measures. Restrictions by surrounding communities to utilize resources are possible, but the Government or project entities are not expected to introduce such restrictions to resource access. Specific forms of resource use may continue on a reduced scale or may be restricted, but these actions would evolve through an internal community decision-making process, and alternative income or resource generation measures will be agreed with those who may face the loss of some income as a result of the community-imposed restrictions. The Project will promote opportunities for community-regulated use of resources so that it results in a win-win situation for both communities and conservation. Since a large part of the communities residing in and around the landscapes are tribal communities, the World Bank O.P. 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples shall also apply, and its provisions are being used in the process of project design. 16. To ensure transparency and equity, free, prior and informed consultation and ensure broad based support, a Participatory Process Framework has been developed to ensure free, prior, and informed consultation with all stakeholders, including indigenous and vulnerable

83

people during the planning and implementation of conservation and livelihood improvement activities. The Participatory Process Framework details the key project activities and processes for assisting the participating communities. Since the exact social impacts of access will only be identified during project implementation, the Process Framework will ensure that potential mitigation of any negative impacts arising from existing restrictions on access by communities to natural resources (e.g., grazing, fuelwood collection, etc) and will be based on participatory resource mapping, involving all affected stakeholders, and on their consent regard to the scale of restriction and the type of mitigation measures to compensate any loss of income. Any desired changes by the communities in the ways in which local populations exercise customary tenure rights in the project sites will not be imposed on them, but will emerge from a consultative process satisfactory to the World Bank. Annual project work plans, including management arrangements for community access to resources in project sites and associated mitigation measures, will require World Bank agreement. 17. A robust complaint-handling and grievance redressal system at the village, landscape, state, and national level is part of the institutional design and is integrated with the participatory project process framework and the Governance and Accountability Action Plan (GAAP). The Coordination Team at MOEF will be dealing with any complaints/grievances raised at the national level or referred by the state-level societies. The state-level societies will have a designated pubic information/grievance-handling officer who will be responsible for managing the registering, monitoring, and resolution of any complaints that are raised by the communities, especially with respect to resource use restrictions, adverse livelihood impacts, and procurement. The grievance mechanism will be accessible to all sections of the community, especially the vulnerable social groups. The resource user groups will be able to raise any grievances through the site-level project facilitation teams and follow up on their resolution through the project management units (range, division, and landscape) and the state-level society 18. To ensure that all project stakeholders including local communities and the forest department and other line department officials have the required capacity to implement a project in a truly participatory and consultative manner, adequate provision is being made for training and capacity development of all stakeholders. Exposure visits will be undertaken to areas where community-based participatory approaches to livelihood improvement and conservation are ongoing.

19. Widespread dissemination of the provisions of the Bank safeguard policies and training to ensure that those responsible for implementing its provisions have due knowledge and capacity would be ensured.

84

Project Process Framework for participation of all stakeholders, including indigenous and vulnerable people

Project Phase Timeframe Specific Project Activity Tools Required Expected Outcomes Roles, Responsibilities

P

re

Pla

nn

ing P

ha

se

On

e Y

ear

(b

efo

re p

roje

ct

effe

ctiv

enes

s)

Establishment of landscape level societies and staffing

Meetings, Memorandum of Articles and Association, Societies Registration Act

A registered landscape society as a legal entity State Government

Constituting and staffing of PFT HRM Formation of Project Facilitation Teams

Landscape Societies Hiring of contractual staff HRM Increased technical capacity of

landscape societies Completion of documents (Safeguards/FM/Procurement/COM)

Documentation Completed documents MOEF, Landscape Societies

Pla

nn

ing P

ha

se

Fir

st P

roje

ct Y

ear

Community orientation and mobilization with informed consultations on IP and vulnerable groups

Stakeholder consultations, brochures, pamphlets, IEC strategy, meetings, orientation workshops. Culturally appropriate means for consultation, discussion and dissemination amongst indigenous groups

Willing and ready communities and indigenous groups to partner project implementation; beneficiaries awareness regarding reciprocal commitments, Grievance Redress mechanisms etc. Consultations with IP groups and others well documented.

PFT

Participatory mapping of conservation values of landscape

Participatory GIS mapping, training, consultative workshops, map publication,

Identification of biodiversity rich areas outside the PA, key dispersal corridors, vulnerable areas

Ecologist, Sociologist, Livelihood Specialist,

LBs

Mapping of community resources, rights and utilization status (including those of indigenous and vulnerable people)

Consultations, participatory mapping, information sharing for increased transparency

Improved understanding of natural resources, their distribution and access and use patterns

Ecologist, Sociologist, Livelihood Specialist,

LBs, NGOs

Strengthening of local bodies Training, skill building, workshops, GAAP provisions, Grievance Redress System

Empowered local bodies to take charge of village level project implementation

Landscape Societies, PFT, NGOs

Defining landscape level conservation management vision and objectives

Decision support framework, stakeholder consultative workshops

Increased understanding of conservation objectives and related tradeoffs

PA Managers, State Forest Department, Landscape Society,

NGO, MOEF Strengthening conservation management planning in high biodiversity areas

Conservation tools, bio-indicators, visitor management,

Revised management plans, ecosystem based approach, improved facilities, ESMF

85


communications, awareness, documentation

provisions

Categorization of sub-projects as E1, E2 and E3

Workshops List of sub-projects categorized across the two landscapes

MOEF, PA Managers, Ecologists, Sociologists ESMF Provisions Apply

Two national level workshops with Ecologists, Sociologists and other relevant stakeholders to categorize the proposed investments and sub-projects into various categories depending on the degree of threat (adverse environmental impacts) posed by them Developing sub-project specific mitigation measures and EMP

Workshops Preventive and mitigation measures and EMP

MOEF, PA Managers, Ecologists, Sociologists ESMF Provisions Apply

Once the investments and sub-projects have been categorized, location specific mitigation and preventive measures would be developed to address the adverse impacts and provisions would be designed to enhance the positive impacts; wherever required, an EMP would be prepared depending on the category of proposed investments/sub-projects

Development of village level micro-plans including conservation and sustainable use livelihood strategies (for all stakeholders including indigenous and vulnerable people)

Consultative workshop, FGD, PRA, customizing GAAP provisions

Microplans with proposed livelihood strategies and ESMF provisions developed in transparent and participatory manner with GAAP provisions

PFT, NGOs ESMF Provisions Apply

Screening of proposed investment/sub-projects (FORMAT 1 & 2 filled); Applying the ineligible projects filter; measures developed for implementing GAAP provisions in a transparent and participatory manner; detailing out the reciprocal commitments and community level participatory approaches

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n P

ha

se

Sec

on

d t

o s

ixth

pro

ject

yea

r

Implementing the provisions of the village micro-plans, including livelihood activities

Training workshops, skill building, actual investments, livelihood strategies, M&E for GAAP provisions

Improved livelihoods, increased incomes, participatory conservation outcomes, sustainable use of local resources, NTFPs etc, undertaking community level initiatives for livelihoods and conservation

LBs, PFT, Landscape Societies

ESMF provisions, safeguards monitoring

PFT and Ecologists/Sociologists would closely monitor the implementation of ESMF provisions; project beneficiaries (stakeholders) would also undertake participatory monitoring for meeting the reciprocal commitments and also to monitor the livelihoods with conservation outcomes

Implementing the revised management plans

Management plans, digitized maps, social plans, habitat improvement

Rationalization of park boundaries, better conservation planning, improved habitats and biodiversity

PA Managers, State Forest Department ESMF provisions Apply

86


Measures to enhance positive environmental gains would be implemented as well implementation of mitigation measures to contain adverse impacts would be ensured; PFT and contractual specialists (environment and social) would assist in monitoring, as well facilitate participatory monitoring of selected indicators

Third Party Mid-Term Review

Mid-Term Stage Independent Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey

Integrating biodiversity conservation in production areas

Studies, small grants support, dialogue, MoU

Framework for cooperation in buffer areas, better and organized livelihoods in NTFP, sustainable timber, agriculture, fishing, grazing etc

Landscape Societies, State Government

Departments/Agencies, State Forest Department

Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in regional development

Consensus building, stakeholder cooperation, ecosystem valuations, dialogue, meetings, workshops, studies

Clearer understanding of role of ecosystem goods and services in regional development

Improving participatory conservation and livelihood outcomes

Community decision making, PRA, microplan implementation, participatory monitoring

Socio-economic mapping, rights and resource dependencies, settlement of rights, PFT, NGO, LBs,

Landscape Societies

ESMF Provisions Apply

Preventive and mitigation measures, as provided in the ESMF would be implemented and oversight would be provided through participatory monitoring involving relevant stakeholders; in addition GAAP provisions and Grievance Redress mechanism would apply Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Conservation Landscapes

Stakeholder consultations, special studies

Valuation of ecosystem services, methodological framework for assessing ecosystem values

Landscape Societies

Capacity building and learning from demonstration landscapes

Cross visits (national), national level knowledge and information sharing workshops

Better PA management capacity at the MOEF, landscape and PA level

MOEF, PA Managers, Landscape Society, PFT,

Project Beneficiaries

Support to knowledge centers Awareness, documentation, training, capacity building, workshops, cross-visits

Learning centers to improve participatory conservation activities, disseminate knowledge and lessons, training material, field guides

MOEF, Landscape Societies

Documentation and dissemination of practices in participatory conservations and extension of learning from national and international experiences

Documentation, website, publications, cross visits, participation in national and international events on

Enhanced learning and dissemination of best practices

MOEF, Landscape Societies, NGOs, PA

Managers

87


conservation Enhancing knowledge for improved understanding of policy and legal issues

Special studies, workshops, Policy guidance notes Landscape Societies, MOEF, PA Managers

National Level Capacity Building for Promotion of Conservation Approaches

Participation in national and international seminars, workshops, cross tours, training, use of new technology

MOEF capacity development for replicating successful landscape conservation approaches in at least one additional landscape

MOEF

Scaling Up of Conservation Approaches in Additional landscapes Sites

Workshops, training, livelihood strategies, GIS mapping, management plans

Successful replications of livelihood and conservation approaches at landscape level

MOEF

National Coordination for Landscape Conservation

M&E, workshops, dialogue and interdepartmental meetings

Capacity enhancement of MOEF and State Forest Departments, increased cooperation between various line departments and agencies within the landscape

MOEF, State Government Departments

Project End Independent Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey

Pre Planning Phase Planning Phase Implementation Phase Component 1 activities Component 2 activities Component 3 activities Component 4 activities ESMF Provisions would apply

88

Annex 12: Project Preparation and Supervision

Planned Actual PCN review April 21, 2004 Initial PID to PIC April 26, 2004 Initial ISDS to PIC April 26, 2004 Appraisal July 2009 July 17, 2009 Negotiations February 28, 2011 March 23, 2011 Board/RVP approval May 17, 2011 Planned date of effectiveness September 1, 2011 Planned date of mid-term review September 30, 2014 Planned closing date March 31, 2018

Key institutions responsible for preparation of the Project: Ministry of Forests and Environment; Landscape Societies of LRK (Gujarat) and Askot (Uttarakand);Wildlife Institute of India; and Societies of KMTR, Periyar, and Gir World Bank staff and consultants who worked on the Project

Name Title Unit Shankar Narayanan Senior Social Development Sp. SASDS R. R. Mohan Senior Social Development Sp. SASDS Mridula Singh Senior Social Development Sp. SASDS Malcolm Jansen Task Team Leader SASDI Asmeen Khan Lead Governance Specialist EAPVP Papia Bhattacharya Financial Management Sp. SARFM Samik Sunder Das Senior Rural Development Specialist SASDA Nagaraju Duthaluri Senior Procurement Sp. SARPS S. Krishnamurthy Priti Jain Jacqueline Julian

Financial Management Sp. Senior Procurement Specialist Operations Analyst

SARFM SARPS SASDA

Anupam Joshi Environmental Specialist SASDI Junxue Chu Senior Financial Officer CTRFC Lilac Thomas Program Assistant SASDO Kathy Mackinnon Lead Biodiversity Sp. ENV Juan Carlos Alvarez Phillip Beaureguard

Senior Counsel Senior Lawyer

LEGES LEGES

Sandra Sousa Program Assistant SASDO Barry Deren Marie Elvie

Consultant Team Assistant

SASDO

Cecilia Belita Senior Program Assistant SASSD Genevieve Dutta Program Assistant SASDO Usha Rai Consultant (documentation) Varun Singh Social Development Sp SASDS

89

Bank funds expended to date on project preparation: 1. Bank resources: US$485,000 2. Trust funds: US$224,000 3. Total: US$709,000

Estimated approval and supervision costs:

1. Remaining costs to approval: BBGEF ($20,000) 2. Estimated annual supervision cost: BB ($80,000) and BBGEF ($60,000)

The overall supervision strategy for the Project will draw heavily from the lessons learned from the India forestry and Eco-development projects and good practice in supervising community-driven development and livelihoods projects in the country. The Project will use a combination of project monitoring tools and systems developed to ensure depth in supervision, reduce corruption, and strengthen governance; and physical supervision by Bank teams with expert staff, third-party monitors, a complaints-handling mechanism and physical, financial, and technical audit. Key lessons from the Detailed Implementation Review incorporated in the supervision strategy are: (a) need for comprehensive site visits/physical verification by Bank-managed teams; (b) independent monitoring of project outcomes; (c) follow up on detailed fiduciary issues highlighted in aide-memoires; (d) strengthening of prior and post-reviews of contract to highlight fiduciary red flags; (e) verifying authenticity of bidders; (f) reconciling payments with contracts; and (g) monitoring MIS and contract information for large numbers of decentralized low-value procurement. Supervision teams will consist of fiduciary (procurement/FM) specialists who will visit the project sites. The Project will also have an in-built social accountability mechanism at the level of community institutions (van panchayats and user groups), which will emphasize transparency and local-level accountability in terms of decision-making and grievance redressal. Issues that cannot be dealt with at the community level will be referred to the projects grievance redressal mechanism to be instituted.

90

Annex 13: Documents in the Project File

Implementation Completion Report – Eco-development Project

Lessons learned from Eco-development Project experiences in India

PEACE Project Preparation Documents

ATREE Environment and Social Impact Assessment

Governance and Accountability Action Plan Report

BCRLIP “ Stakeholder Consultations” Reports

Draft Project Implementation Plan

Draft FM Manual

Draft Procurement Manual

Draft Community Operations Manual

Draft 18-month Procurement Plans

Financial management questionnaire

Procurement questionnaire

Financial Management Assessment

Procurement Assessment

List of nominated Project Directors, FM and procurement nodal officers

Draft Communication Needs Assessment

Baseline for SP1 and SP2 tools for LRK and Askot

91

Annex 14: Incremental Cost Analysis

The Baseline Scenario The GOI already contributes substantial resources through central schemes and State budgets towards protected area management as well as funding for rural development and the Forest Management Agency program. All of these activities support a Baseline Scenario that consists of two related, but not necessarily coinciding, developments. One is donor assistance to GOI in support of rural development in areas located around important protected areas within the selected landscapes within the country’s PA system. This assistance can be justified chiefly on the basis of economic efficiency without explicit linkage to the management objectives of the PAs. The second line of development assistance includes explicit support to strengthen protected area management within the framework of existing management plans. The Baseline Scenario includes activities undertaken by following parties. Government and Domestic Beneficiaries. Regarding the operations of the PA in the project landscape sites (LRK and Askot) and learning centers based on existing PAs (Gir, Kalakad and Periyar), the Government will maintain current levels of support, which are estimated in total to be about US$5.2 million for the period 2009-2015. These investments include limited GOI initiatives, costing of about US$0.7 million to share lessons learned from the previous Eco-development project with stakeholders associated with PAs elsewhere in India. In the area of social services and development, the Government will maintain current levels of expenditure for rural services in the areas of the Project in the sectors of forestry, livestock, agriculture and social infrastructure. Projected current social expenditures for the communities located around the PAs in the project landscapes are estimated at US$9.3 million for the period 2009-2015. The Government will also contribute towards the financing of community-based rural development activities receiving IDA project assistance. The Government’s contribution to project-financed development activities in this period is estimated at US$3.7 million. Local beneficiaries are expected to contribute about US$0.9 million. Finally GOI is expected to contribute US$1.5 million in total through MOEF and WII level for the administration and management of all of these investments during implementation. Donors and IFIs. The GOI can expect external donors to help finance the development priorities outlined in its five-year development plans and to provide assistance to its efforts to protect the environment. Under the baseline scenario IDA support under the Project will amount to approximately US$4.7 million for the PAs in the project landscape sites and about US$5.3 million for rural development among the communities located within the broader landscape around the PAs. IDA will also contribute in total about US$3.1 for the costs of administration and management of investment implementation. Baseline Costs. The full Baseline Scenario is therefore estimated to cost approximately US$38.4 million including price contingencies. This estimate includes financial resources allocated for activities related to agriculture, livestock, forestry, extension services and PA operations and limited resources available to support the national capacity building component. This baseline scenario is consistent with current national development goals and institutional capacity. The following table presents the costs constituting the baseline, including expenditures on PA

92

management and rural development and relevant training programs at WII in the future without a project, including investments in project PAs, rural development and WII before consideration of a GEF alternative.

Table: Breakdown of Baseline Expenditures

GOI & Beneficiaries

Donors (IDA)

Total

On-going PA operations 5.2 5.2

PA investments 1.2 4.7 5.9

On-going social services 9.3 9.3

Rural development investments 5.1 5.3 10.4

Eco-development lessons dissemination

0.7 2.3 3.0

Investment administration & management

1.5 3.1 4.6

Total 23.0 15.4 38.4

Baseline Benefits and Constraints. Under the Baseline Scenario the Government will continue to strengthen (through plan/non-plan budget allocations and donor assistance to forestry and wildlife agencies) of local capacity to manage protected areas within the existing scope of operations. Incremental improvements in rural livelihoods and quality of life and some reduction in poverty in the areas in which PAs are embedded should be achieved through nationally funded eco-development programs but pressures on the biodiversity within PAs and the broader landscape will likely remain and in time may become increasingly more difficult to contain. This will particularly be the case if the sustainability of rural livelihoods is not closely linked to the sustainability of environmental conditions and the quality of conservation management within the broader landscape and beyond the PA boundaries.

GEF Alternative Scope. Under the GEF Alternative, investments in rural development and the improvement of conservation management would be closely linked and mutually re-enforcing. The Project supports four complementary components that are aimed at strengthening conservation and improving local livelihoods across a range of globally and nationally important landscapes under different management regimes. The Project also supports explicit components to build national capacity and replicate successful landscape conservation models to additional high biodiversity sites across the country. The GEF Alternative embodies a project that will intervene in several

93

significant areas, including local governance, technical capacity building, human resource development, on-the-ground investments within protected areas and surrounding production landscapes, targeted research, information dissemination and environmental monitoring in order to realize potential global benefits for sustainable land management and biodiversity conservation. In particular, the GEF Alternative will provide:

• Targeted investments in high biodiversity sites, both protected areas and sensitive sites in the broader production landscapes

• Assistance to reform development planning and mainstream biodiversity into development so that financial and physical resources are used in a way that best supports land and natural resources management,

• Increased local, regional and national capacity and skills for supporting participatory approaches to landscape-level conservation;

• Increased investments in improved livelihoods, the rehabilitation of pasture lands and promotion of innovative forest rehabilitation/development to benefit communities and biodiversity,

• Research and monitoring of key biodiversity indicators, and environmental threats, including participatory monitoring by communities,

• Development of a national capacity building program to build expertise in forestry departments and other line agencies to deliver landscape-level conservation; and

• Incremental support for the additional project administration requirements.

Component 1: Demonstration of Landscape Conservation Approaches in Two Pilot Sites This component will test planning and management techniques to improve biodiversity conservation and rural livelihood outcomes in two demonstration landscapes (Little Rann of Kutch in Gujarat and Askot in Uttarakhand). These landscapes include protected areas, biological corridors and eco-sensitive sites in production landscapes. This component will support: (i) Participatory ecological and social mapping to identify areas of high biodiversity value and resource use; (ii) Improved management of biodiversity- rich areas within and outside protected areas; (iii) Mainstreaming of biodiversity considerations in production areas within the landscapes through dialogue and collaboration with sectoral agencies (forestry, livestock, agriculture, irrigation, infrastructure, etc), (iv) Development and implementation of micro-plans and livelihood strategies to enhance local community benefits from sustainable management of natural. Under this Component, GEF will finance the incremental costs of biodiversity mapping, planning and implementation of conservation management plans, habitat management activities, research and monitoring, and technical support and training for mainstreaming of biodiversity considerations in sector development plans and programs. The incremental cost of these activity compared to the Baseline is about US$3.1 million. Component 2: Strengthening Knowledge Management and National Capacity for Landscape Conservation This component will support: (i) Field Learning Centers at Periyar (Kerala), Kalakad (Tamil Nadu) and Gir (Gujarat) to provide hands-on training building on lessons learned and experiences from other conservation models. Each of the three learning centers will specialize in

94

specific topics based on their comparative advantages and experiences; and (ii) a National capacity building program through the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) to facilitate the promotion of landscape conservation approaches nationwide, including development of a national curriculum and delivery of targeted training courses for policy makers, senior and mid-level forestry and wildlife staff, range forest officers and other development sector agencies to build capacity and support for landscape conservation. This component will develop operational good practice guidelines for landscape conservation as well as other knowledge management materials, including documentation of lessons learned and local language field guides. Under this component, GEF will fund the incremental costs of training and exchange visits, and specialized staff to provide training (ecologist, sociologist, etc) at the field learning sites as well as incremental costs of development and delivery of national training programs and knowledge management materials. The incremental cost of these activity compared to the Baseline is about US$2.5 million.

Component 3: Scaling Up and Replication of Successful Models of Conservation in Additional Landscape Sites.

This component would support the replication of proven landscape conservation approaches to two additional high biodiversity landscapes from year 3 onwards with project financing. Under this Component, GEF will finance the incremental costs of biological mapping, protected area planning and management, research and monitoring, and technical assistance for mainstreaming biodiversity considerations in development plans and programs. The incremental cost of this component compared to Baseline expenditures is about US$2.1 million.

Component 4: National Coordination for Landscape Conservation. This component will support coordination for landscape conservation through the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF). Activities to be financed include: establishment of Management Information System (MIS) for monitoring, impact evaluation; a national communications program; legal and policy studies; and limited operational and technical support to enable MOEF to coordinate, administer and replicate project activities and lessons learned elsewhere in India. This component will also support preparation activities for the two additional landscape sites to be supported under the Project (Component 3). Under this Component, GEF will finance the incremental costs of policy and legal studies for protected area and landscape management, third party impact monitoring for independent evaluation, and regional workshops to disseminate best practice and learning from the pilot sites. The incremental cost of this component compared to Baseline is about US$0.5 million. Cost

The total cost of the GEF Alternative is estimated for the six-year period at the level of about US$46.5 million (including contingencies). The following table displays expenditures under the GEF scenario.

95

Table: Breakdown of Development Expenditures under the GEF Alternative

Development expenditures GOI & beneficiaries

IDA + GEF

Total

On-going PA operations 5.2 5.2

PA investments 1.2 9.8 11.0

On-going social services 9.3 9.3

Rural development investments 5.1 5.3 10.4

Eco-development lessons dissemination 0.7 4.8 5.5

Investment administration & management 1.5 3.6 5.1

Total 23.0 23.5 46.5

In summary, for a project under the GEF Alternative, IDA will finance about US$15.4 million to finance investments in biodiversity conservation, rural development, national capacity building and project management. GEF would contribute approximately US$8.1 million to these efforts, including some financing to replicate and expand landscape-level approaches beyond the pilot demonstration sites. Total GOI contribution to a project under the GEF Alternative would amount to about US$6.6 million, while beneficiaries would be expected to contribute about US$0.93 million towards rural development investments that improve local livelihoods. Total project costs under the GEF Alternative are therefore approximately US$31.0 million. Additionally under the GEF Alternative GOI would maintain its existing plan and non-plan budget contributions of about US$15.5 million for the PAs and surrounding areas for the period of 2009-2015. The Baseline Scenario, GEF Alternative and incremental costs, as well as corresponding local, national and global benefits, are displayed in summary form in the following table.

96

Incremental Cost Analysis Summary

Component Cost

Category

US$

Million

Domestic Benefit Global Benefit

A. Demonstration Sites

• Conservation

Mapping

• Strengthening PA

Management

Capacity

• Promotion of

Conservation

Practices Outside

Protected Areas

• Improved

livelihoods and

benefits

Baseline 17.4 Strengthening and

continuing operation

(plan/non-plan and

IDA assistance to

forestry and wildlife

agencies) of local

capacity to manage

protected areas within

existing scope of

operations

Protection of globally

significant biodiversity in

protected areas but PAs

isolated islands and coming

under increasing threat from

outside pressures.

GEF

Alternative

Total

0.6

13.2

0.7

6.0

20.5

An improved planning

framework and maps

for biodiversity values

and resource use to

identify “hotspots” and

appropriate

interventions for

biodiversity

management and

livelihood

interventions to reduce

threats

Improved management

of PAs and reducing

threats

Institutional capacity

in place to mainstream

biodiversity in sectoral

plans

Improved livelihoods

and expanded local

capacity to manage

environmental

resources

The development of local

management tools

facilitating the protection of

globally significant habitats.

Update of PA plans,

strengthened enforcement,

habitat improvement works,

improved monitoring

Adjustment of public

development expenditures in

PA and broader landscapes

to support approaches

cultivating long-term local

participation in, and support

for, conservation objectives

at a landscape level.

Expanded application of

locally developed tools and

approaches in support of

core conservation objectives

of globally significant

habitats.

Incremental 3.1

97

Component Cost

Category

US$

Million


B Strengthening

Knowledge Management

and National Capacity for

Landscape Conservation

Baseline

3.0

Limited exchange of

eco-development

experiences at PA

level through national

training programs

Some increased wildlife

management capacity

Limited impact on threats to

global biodiversity in PAs

only

GEF

Alternative

Total

5.5

5.5

Active promotion of

good practice models

of eco-development

through cross

exchange and training

at centers of

excellence.

Distillation of lessons

and good practice

adopted into national

curriculum and

promoted through WII

Mobilization of local support

and increased community

commitment to the

responsible use of natural

resources at landscape level

contributing to global

biodiversity objectives

Capacity built at local and

national level, with Forest

Dept, communities and

development sectors to

promote active biodiversity

conservation across

biologically important

landscapes. Lessons relevant

to other high biodiversity

Increased capacity in South

Asia region for effective

control of threats to

biodiversity conservation

within and outside of a

formal protected area

system.

Development of learning and

training centers accessible to

international community.

Incremental 2.5

C. Scaling Up and

Replication of Successful

Models of Conservation in

Additional Landscape Sites

Baseline

13.4

Limited replication of

some elements of PA

eco-development

models to other PA

sites

Limited application of good

practice models of

biodiversity conservation

targeted only at limited

number of PAs

GEF

Alternative

15.5

Deliberate replication

policy through

expansion of

landscape level

Support for spread of

application of landscape

management/participatory

approach to biodiversity

98

Component Cost

Category

US$

Million


Total

15.5

approach to at least 2

new landscapes with

project support

National policy

influenced to target

state and national

resources to

replication of

additional landscapes

conservation to other areas

of India.

Adoption of landscape management approaches in at least 5 landscape sites of global biodiversity value with State and national Government non-project funds

At least 600,000 hectares within landscapes of global biodiversity importance more effectively managed for conservation outcomes

Incremental 2.1

D. National Coordination

Baseline

4.6

Employment of local

resources in project

management.

GEF

Alternative

Total

5.0

5.0

Employment of local

resources in project

management.

Contribution of studies and

lessons learned in

participatory approaches to

conservation within

production landscape.

Development of learning and

training centers accessible to

international community.

Incremental 0.5

Totals Baseline 38.4

GEF

Alternative

46.5

Incremental 8.1

99

Annex 15: STAP Roster Review

STAP Reviewer: Julian Caldecott

February 2006

(The STAP Review is based on the original design of six sites at Work Program stage. The review still remains valid although the number of sites has been subsequently reduced)

Overview: This Project is within the GEF Biodiversity Focal Area. It is relevant to GEF Operational Programs 3 (Forest Ecosystems) and 4 (Mountain Ecosystems); the text, but not the cover summary, states that it is also relevant to OP 2 (Dryland Ecosystems). It also seems likely to be relevant to OP 12 (Integrated Approach to Ecosystem Management). It appears to comply with all GEF criteria. The Project aims to take advantage of a supportive policy environment, and to build upon prior experience of Indian stakeholders in the India Eco-development Project (IEDP) and similar projects in various locations including several of the eight target areas. The latter are landscapes which each contains one or more important areas for biodiversity (‘protected’ or ‘critical’ conservation areas), interspersed with production forests, farmlands, settlements and infrastructure. They are thought to be potentially viable ecological, socioeconomic and administrative units, with each one illustrating somewhat different management challenges and opportunities. Taken together, the portfolio of target areas contain a very large sample of India’s globally-important biodiversity resources, including forests, wetlands and grasslands at a range of elevations in the south (Tamil Nadu, Kerala), center (Madhya Pradesh), west (Gujarat), north (Uttaranchal, Jammu & Kashmir,) and north-east (Assam, Mizoram) of the country. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MOEF) selected these target landscapes after review by state-level agencies, NGOs and other institutions, including the Wildlife Institute of India. Project design was refined and consensus built through national and site workshops. Three of the target areas will be used mainly as learning centers, where lessons learned elsewhere can be taught and adapted to local conditions. The aim in the other five target areas is to deploy a complete suite of interventions aimed at improving conservation management in a total of 1.5 million ha of protected areas and on 120,000 ha of production landscape around them. This will involve: conservation mapping to identify priority sites; building protected area management capacity; promoting conservation practices among the population at large; integrating biodiversity considerations within the management of production areas, and within local and regional planning and regulation; and participatory resource assessment, analysis and mapping at the community level. Additional components allow for learning from these experiences and disseminating the lessons, and for improving national and state capacity to coordinate and promote landscape-level conservation approaches. Although the project description is not perfectly articulated, it is clear that the designers are confident that an extension and deepening of the participatory eco-development model can help resolve conservation issues at the field level over large areas, and will generate much new knowledge which can and should be shared widely. This assumption requires further

100

explanation and explicit justification in future drafts of the project document, but it is meanwhile concluded that this is potentially an important project with considerable potential for generating global environmental benefits, and that it should therefore proceed to the next phase of its development. 2. Observations in relation to key GEF issues 2.1 Scientific and technical soundness The project document lists only briefly the abundant threats to ecosystems and biodiversity in India, but without a summary analysis of threat issues, root causes, and project responses. A table such as the one below (Table 1) is needed assure the reader that the logic of conservation intervention has been considered. In its absence, there are many assumptions lying behind the text of the project document which may well be valid, but which ought to be articulated if only in summary form, based on the detail contained in Annex C Section (c), Attachment 1(a) Characteristic and Significance of Proposed Landscape Sites and 1(b) Landscape Stakeholder Analyses.

Table 1: Example of a threat, root cause and intervention summary

Threat issues Root causes Project responses

Loss of traditional

rules

Demographic, socio-economic and cultural changes;

breakdown of local political structures; replacement of

traditional systems by centralized policies and laws that do

not recognize traditional ways of managing natural resources.

Validation of local inputs to the

design of resource management

regimes.

Loss of traditional

knowledge

Reduced relevance and local responsibility for resource

management.

Validation of local responsibility;

knowledge sharing among pilot sites.

Limitations of

traditional

knowledge

Mis-match between knowledge about certain species or

harvesting strategies and market demand for other species or

for more intense harvesting pressures.

Training of foresters; participatory

planning; knowledge sharing among

pilot sites.

Lack of

alternatives for

generating income

Harvesting of non-timber forest products offers a rare

earning opportunity to the rural poor, especially to the

landless, marginal farmers, women and to marginalized tribal

people; it often provides a buffer in times of low

employment, crop failure, etc.

Inclusion of rural communities in

authorized resource harvesting

regimes; long-term benefits from

sustainable harvesting.

Weak community

property rights

Most resource harvesting is in government forests where

communities have no formal property rights, so collectors

have no incentive to harvest sustainably.

Formal harvesting plan and licensing

agreement establishes clear long-term

property rights.

Threat issues Root causes Project responses

Weak govern-

ment control

Most Indian foresters lack knowledge needed to manage the

harvesting of non-timber forest products (NTFPs); the lack

of comprehensive national legislation and policy on NTFPs.

Training for state forest department

officials; development of national

and state policy and law.

Competition for

land and other

resources

Growing human and livestock populations and demand for

land for settlement, agriculture, pasture and development-

related infrastructure.

Sustainable resource use and clear

ownership rights help raise the value

of forests and encourages their

preservation.

101

The project document also takes a consistently optimistic stance on what the Project is likely to achieve. It starts with the premise that the IEDP, and related Joint Forest Management (JFM) actions, have created a successful conservation model, which can be scaled up to the landscape level, with appreciation for biodiversity values being amplified through environmental education, and mainstreamed into policy and development programs before being replicated nationwide. The key paragraph to this effect observes that previous GEF support “... has been instrumental in

the development of participatory eco-development models, resulting in substantial on-the-ground

improvements and valuable lessons in biodiversity conservation. The proposed Project will build

on these experiences to scale up participatory mechanisms to the landscape level through four

complementary components that are aimed at strengthening conservation and improving local

livelihoods across a range of globally and nationally important landscapes under different

management regimes and its replication elsewhere in the country.” Much of the rest of the Project document repeats these assertions in various ways, but without a detailed and critical analysis of IEDP and JFM experience to justify its starting point. More specific detail on the many lessons learned from this prior experience would be helpful. That said, it is hard to argue with the guiding principles of the proposed Project, which include that it should:

• Support a bottom-up planning approach focused on community priorities and decisions for livelihood activities that are linked to conservation outcomes;

• Support decentralization by strengthening the role of communities and local government institutions in planning and implementation, and increasing their potential for becoming agents of natural resource management change;

• Ensure that community decisions on resource and income generating options are guided by appropriate knowledge and information about alternatives to current unsustainable resource uses; and

• Adopt an integrated multi-sectoral approach to improving the management of natural resources within the landscape.

These principles are intended to be adapted into the following elements of the proposed six-year Project, of which the first year would comprise an establishment and capacity-building phase, with field implementation thereafter. This summary is based on the rather opaque text of the draft project document. Component 1: Increasing Sustainability of the Protected Area Network.

a) Conservation mapping. This process, involving GIS mapping, training and workshops, will identify sites of high conservation value (specified as those with high species richness that are outside protected areas, or that provide ecological linkage between protected areas, or that are considered to be ‘special’ – presumably meaning ecologically distinctive and under-protected - or that are under threat). It will also identify options for adjusting the boundaries of protected areas so as to improve their viability and connectedness, and locations for conservation and eco-development interventions.

102

b) Strengthening protected area management capacity. Stakeholder consultation and

knowledge exchange among stakeholders in different sites will allow management plans to address ecological factors, boundaries, and habitat, buffer zone and ecosystem management in an improved manner.

c) Promoting conservation outside protected areas. Environmental education, studies and

small grants to support participatory conservation and monitoring activities will be used to promote understanding of conservation values and ecosystem services in sensitive sites (such as biological corridors between protected areas).

Component 2: Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation approaches in production landscapes.

a) Integrating biodiversity in production areas. Studies, dialogue and small grants will be used to promote multi-stakeholder agreements to improve the biodiversity-friendliness of production systems such as forests, wetlands and grasslands, all of which are harvested or used for multiple outputs.

b) Mainstreaming biodiversity in regional development. Studies, advocacy, meetings and

other forms of multi-stakeholder dialogue will be used to encourage government and private actors to be more responsive in their plans to the threats to, and values of, ecosystems and biodiversity, thus helping to avoid planning failure.

c) Improving conservation and livelihood outcomes. Communities living close to important

areas for biodiversity will be encouraged and enabled to undertake participatory biophysical and socioeconomic mapping. This will help them to understand their reliance on ecosystems and biodiversity, and how their activities can degrade these resources, thus informing community decisions regarding resource management. It will also yield information on environmental threats and the needs and incentives which drive them, allowing financing to be offered for community-level investment in alternative livelihoods and sustainable resource use, in exchange for agreements to comply with conservation priorities. The maps will provide a baseline, and the agreements will provide a basis, for participatory monitoring of impacts on conservation and livelihoods.

Component 3: Improved Replication of participatory conservation approaches.

a) Learning centers for participatory conservation. Existing facilities at three protected areas will be resourced with staff training, teaching materials, equipment and operating costs so that they can act as places for teaching and learning about participatory conservation management.

b) Learning networks for disseminating best practices. Best practices in participatory

conservation in the target sites and elsewhere will be documented and disseminated through web-sites, workshops, publications, cross-visits, etc., as well contact among an organized network of practitioners.

103

c) Learning from national and international experience. Protected area managers will visit

other sites in India and overseas, in order to expose them to participatory conservation experiences and the associated issues of sustainability, monitoring and replication.

d) Multiplying participatory conservation initiatives. The implementation of (1) and (2)

above will inform the development both of policy guidance notes, workshops, study tours and field visits to encourage replication of the participatory conservation approach, and of selection criteria for a competitive small grants program to support similar initiatives in and around protected areas elsewhere. It is anticipated that these criteria will specify that conservation initiatives must be locally-defined, that they must leverage additional support, and that they must yield livelihood and income benefits for participants.

Component 4: Improving Capacity to promote landscape-level conservation approaches. Support will be provided for contract staff, to meet incremental operating costs, and to provide technical assistance to MOEF, so as to build the ministry’s capacity to promote landscape-level and participatory conservation initiatives. This it is expected to do by influencing central and state conservation funding schemes and the content of the 11th Five-Year Development Plan, especially by realigning expenditure through Project Tiger, Project Elephant, Assistance to Parks and Sanctuaries, and other institutional processes.

Taking all the above into account, but with the proviso that additional justification and analysis is needed, as well as thorough editing of the text, the Project seems to be scientifically and technically sound. 2.2 Global Environmental Benefits The Project document establishes clearly the global biodiversity significance of India’s rich, often unique and increasingly endangered biodiversity resources, drawing attention to the country’s role as one of the world’s twelve megadiversity countries. It also explains the importance of the national system of about 500 protected areas (variously described as occupying “less than 4.0%”, or “4.3%” of national land area) in sustaining these resources, while touching on the threats and weaknesses in that system. It is proposed to strengthen management of protected areas and surrounding landscapes in a number of key landscapes distributed throughout the country, while enhancing public understanding of, support for and participation in ecosystem and biodiversity management. The choice of the target landscapes seems to have been nationally-driven by the MOEF with input from professional conservationists, and there is no particular reason to doubt that they are not all high priorities from the point of view of biodiversity conservation, the better protection of which will bring significant global environmental benefits. These benefits will be amplified greatly if the intention of the Project to demonstrate, disseminate and replicate successes is realized.

104

2.3 GEF context

The Project will support the GEF Biodiversity Focal Area by strengthening protection and conservation of biodiversity-rich forests and other natural habitats, and by improving the management of ecosystems in production landscapes to enhance biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. It is consistent with GEF Operational Program 2 (Dryland Ecosystems), OP 3 (Forest Ecosystems), and OP4 (Mountain Ecosystems) by addressing conservation of globally important biodiversity and sustainable use of forests and other natural habitats across a range of bioregions and habitat types. It is also probably compliant with OP 12 (Integrated Approach to Ecosystem Management) it aims to mainstream protected area, ecosystem and biodiversity management within community and landscape-level development activities. The Project also fits the objectives of the following GEF Strategic Priorities:

• It will contribute to SP-1 (Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas) by promoting participatory conservation models to secure key protected areas and surrounding landscapes within different bioregions, and by encouraging and enabling the replication of such initiatives nationwide.

• It will contribute to SP-2 (Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and Sectors) by targeting conservation and livelihood interventions at sensitive sites within the production landscape, by improving management practices in production systems, and by promoting integration of biodiversity conservation needs within regional development planning.

• It will contribute to SP-4 (Generation and Dissemination of Best Practices for Addressing Current and Emerging Biodiversity Issues) by establishing active learning networks, through ongoing analysis of experiences, lessons and best practices, and by influencing government policies and development plans.

The Project also responds to the Convention on Biological Diversity guidance on strengthened protection of vulnerable ecosystems through an ecosystem approach to landscape management, while the livelihoods and community components would provide more equitable sharing of benefits from biodiversity conservation. It will directly contribute to Convention on Biological Diversity work programs on forests, dry lands, mountains, protected areas, incentives and sustainable use. The GEF grant would help meet the costs of activities required to achieve global conservation benefits, which would be incremental to the baseline national program undertaken by the Government with support from elsewhere. The GEF focal point is said to strongly endorse the Project. 2.4 Regional context The project document would benefit from a summary of lessons learned from decentralized, participatory ecosystem and biodiversity management activities elsewhere in the South and South-east Asian regions.

105

2.5 Replicability The Project in itself builds on and replicates results from ten years’ in-country experience with eco-development and joint forest management activity, and is designed with replicability as an important concern, especially within Components 3 and 4. 2.6 Sustainability

The Project is oriented towards sustainability – of ecosystems, landscapes, protected areas, communities and institutions. It is designed to put in place processes by which people will become better able to understand why they should conserve ecosystems and biodiversity in their own interests, and better able to discuss and resolve issues that get in the way of that aim. Specific measures relevant to sustainability relate to:

• Ecological sustainability (e.g. by promoting conservation of more complete ecosystem units at the landscape level, and sustainable harvesting of fuel-wood, non-timber forest products, etc. within production landscapes).

• Social sustainability (e.g. by incorporating community needs and aspirations into protected area and landscape planning, and supporting local institutions).

• Financial sustainability (e.g. by establishing village-level revolving funds and supporting sustainable livelihoods and businesses, and by influencing the alignment of future government expenditure).

• Institutional sustainability (e.g. by seeking to mainstream the participatory conservation process within protected area, state and national policy and practice).

Observations in relation to secondary GEF issues 3.1 Linkages to other focal areas Preventing further deforestation and encouraging forest ecosystem restoration in India would provide a link to carbon storage and the reduction of net greenhouse gas emissions. 3.2 Linkages to other programs and action plans The Government of India ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on 18 February 1994. The Project is closely linked to the government’s forestry and biodiversity policy agenda. The National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016), the National Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2002) and the National Conservation Strategy (1992) and the National Forest Policy (1988) all give priority to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. These policies affirm the country’s commitment to the participation of civil society in environmental management. Other related policy statements and laws also show strong commitment to biodiversity conservation as part of sustainable development, with an emphasis on ensuring people’s active participation through site-specific approaches that integrate local knowledge, benefit sharing, skills development and participation in conservation. This landscape approach is further strengthened by a number of

106

national conservation projects, notably Project Tiger, initiated in 1973, Project Elephant, initiated in 1992, and other similar initiatives of MOEF.

The project document explains how the Project relates to and will build upon a number of other biodiversity–related activities in India, including:

• Ongoing GEF projects such as Conservation and Sustainable Use of Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve Coastal Biodiversity (UNDP) and Conservation and Sustainable Management of Dry lands (UNDP).

• Other proposed GEF projects including Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods in Indian Sunderbans (ADB) and Management of Coral Reef Ecosystem of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (UNDP), although it does not mention Mainstreaming Medicinal Plant Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Objectives and Practices into Forest Management in India (UNDP).

3.4 Involvement of stakeholders The project document asserts that the project design builds on past eco-development initiatives that have benefited from extensive stakeholder dialogue and consensus through their design, implementation, evaluation and derivation of good practices. It also stresses that the Project was designed and landscape sites chosen MOEF with input by state-level agencies, NGOs and other institutions, including the Wildlife Institute of India. Project design was refined and consensus built through national and site workshops. It further notes that stakeholder consultation is being undertaken at the site level, including national and state-level conservation, forestry, rural development, tourism, tribal and poverty-alleviation agencies, national and local NGOs, a variety of community organizations and institutions, private sector and other interested persons. At each site, social assessments have been undertaken to identify stakeholders, communities and their resource dependence, critical social and economic concerns and opportunities, institutional and organizational arrangements for project implementation, expected social development outcomes, indicators and means of monitoring these outcomes, and their implications for the project design. During project implementation, it is anticipated that more rigorous social assessments of community user groups will be undertaken in the context of micro-planning with targeted communities. 3.5 Capacity-building aspects Sub-component 1(b) concerns capacity building at the protected area level, and proposes that stakeholder consultation and knowledge exchange will allow management plans to address relevant tasks in an improved manner, although no details are provided on exactly how capacity will be strengthened. Component 4 proposes to provide support to MOEF in the form of contract staff, to meet incremental operating costs, and to provide technical assistance, which is intended to build the ministry’s capacity to promote landscape-level and participatory conservation initiatives.

107

3.6 Innovativeness The Project is very closely modeled on prior experience in India and thus cannot really be described as innovative. If the proponent’s belief is correct that the eco-development model for participatory conservation is fully successful, however, this is not necessarily a drawback. 4. Conclusions

The main reservations that this reviewer has with the project document are as follows:

A. STAP REVIEW COMMENT: That the underlying assumptions on which it is based,

concerning the success and widespread applicability of previous eco-development and related

projects in India, have not been justified.

Task Team Comments: The lessons and experiences of the previous eco-development project

are now discussed in Annex 1 of the PAD.

B. STAP REVIEW COMMENT: That the analysis of threats, root causes and intervention

logic has not been clearly explained

Task Team Comments: An analysis of threats, root causes and intervention logic is presented

below for each landscape site:

A. Wild Ass/Rann of Kutch

Biodiversity

Significance

Unique desert system and the sole habitat of the last surviving population of the endangered and endemic

Indian Wild Ass and supports the largest breeding colony of the Greater and Lesser flamingoes in South and

South East Asia. Globally outstanding for biological distinctiveness and richness. Important wetland with

more than a million flamingoes breeding in the area. Important area for the Endangered Houbara bustard. It is

home to the unique saline grassland called Banni which harbors unique and endemic salt tolerant grasses and

numerous wild relatives of commercially cultivated and economically valuable species.

Threats Colonization by exotic species (especially Prosopis juliflora and Acacia auriculiformes);

Destruction and fragmentation of habitats as a result of deforestation and growth of salt mining;

Uncontrolled livestock grazing and unregulated fishing

Potential intensive agriculture as a result of Kutch irrigation channel construction within sanctuary

Root Causes Lack of policies to guide land use considering ecological considerations

Lack of inter-agency coordination resulting in disparate and uncoordinated programs;

Overlapping jurisdiction among state agencies over key resources in the protected areas and surroundings that

affect management

Lack of appropriate incentive for community conservation action

Opportunities Good practice of community-managed forests, sacred groves and water bodies in Gujarat

Effective national network of NGOs, community institutions, government agencies (established by SRISTI)

working toward conservation of biodiversity and indigenous knowledge, with good database;

Learning Center at Gir supporting cross learning, site visits and capacity enhancement of communities and

forestry staff

Recommended

Strategies

Community defined zoning and self regulatory systems within the PA and landscape

Improved coordination and decision making between activities of other sectors and Forest Department

Outreach to enhance awareness and understanding of the benefits of conservation and linkages to livelihoods

Improved opportunities for increased sustainable livelihoods to reduce pressure on conservation hotspots

Support for formal classification of the sanctuary and transfer of legal control to the Forest Department

Appropriate management interventions to manage conflicts in resource uses

Improved capacity for community planning and decision making on resource conservation and use

108

B. Agasthiyamalai Landscape (Tamil Nadu)

Biodiversity

Significance

Global Biodiversity hotspot. Globally outstanding eco-region in terms of endemism, species richness and

biological distinctiveness. Over 2,000 flowering plants of which 37% are endemic, rich variety of medicinal

plants. Great altitudinal variation in flora. Over 77 mammal species, 500 species of birds and large numbers

of reptile, fish and amphibian species.

Threats Encroachment of land for settlements, coffee cultivation and other infrastructure

Enclave habitations creating need for expansion of agricultural land, increase forest products exploitation, etc.

Timber and animal poaching

Fragmentation of natural habitats and disruption of connectivity between biodiversity rich sites

Root Causes Lack of suitable livelihood alternatives for forest dependent people

Lack of coordination between development agencies and forest department

Opportunities Good capacity and skills and functioning community institutions around Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger

Reserve that could serve as valuable asset for extending participatory programs to landscape level;

Effectively functioning Self Help Groups in landscape;

Existing Institutions have capacity and skills and can serve as potential building blocks for project

Good community resource mobilization capacity exists at KMTR that can be easily replicated elsewhere

Provides an good opportunity to test and expand participatory conservation initiatives in a much larger

landscape across two states with KMTR and PTR (successful eco-development models) serving as foci for

this expansion

Collaborative linkages with CEPF can complement project activities

Recommended

strategies

Improved livelihood programs linked to conservation outcomes;

Mainstreaming of conservation outcomes in forests and other lands surrounding protected areas to enhance

ecological connectivity;

Improved management of enclaves with conservation outcomes;

Support for community based value addition and processing of medicinal and aromatic plant products

C. Agastalyamalai Landscape (Kerala)

Biodiversity

Significance

Global Biodiversity hotspot. Globally outstanding eco-region in terms of endemism, species richness and

biological distinctiveness. Over 2,000 flowering plants of which 37% are endemic, rich variety of medicinal

plants. Endemic Bird Area. Number of endemic and important mammal, bird, reptile, fish and amphibian

species.

Threats Encroachment of land for settlements, coffee cultivation and large reservoirs;

Enclave habitations with need for agriculture, forest products and employment;

Fragmentation of habitats and disruption of ecological connectivity

Indiscriminate use of chemicals in commercial plantations surrounding PAs

Root Causes Lands surrounding PAs not managed with conservation outcomes;

Lack of viable employment opportunities for enclave villages

Lack of coordination between development sectors and forest department

Negative ecological impacts due to expansion of monoculture plantations in PA surroundings

Opportunities Good capacity and skills and functioning community institutions around Periyar Tiger Reserve that could

serve as valuable asset for extending participatory programs to landscape level;

Effectively functioning Self Help Groups in landscape;

Existing Institutions have capacity and skills and can serve as potential building blocks for project

Good community resource mobilization capacity exists at PTR that can be easily replicated elsewhere

Provides an good opportunity to test and expand participatory conservation initiatives in a much larger

landscape across two states with KMTR and PTR (successful eco-development models) serving as foci for

this expansion

Collaborative linkages with CEPF can complement project activities

Recommended

Strategies




Improved management of enclaves with conservation outcomes;

109

Support for community based ecotourism as alternative to unsustainable resource use

Support for community based value addition and processing of medicinal and aromatic plant products

D. Dampa landscape

Biodiversity

Significance

Part of Globally important hotspot and globally outstanding in terms of species richness, biological

distinctiveness and endemism. Contains the last remaining low to medium elevational forests in North East

India. Site is extremely important for amphibians and reptiles and is a good representative of the bird fauna of

the Indo-Chinese Tropical Moist Forests.

Threats Indiscriminate practices of shifting cultivation and fires

Unmanaged collection of timber, fuelwood and non-forest products for local community use

Commercial cultivation of crop plantation on shifting cultivation lands

Root Causes Unmanaged people-PA conflicts in resource use

Lack of viable alternative to shifting cultivation

Lack of coordination between sector agencies operating in the landscape

Poor institutional capacity for management of landscape

Opportunities Functional Natural Resource Committee exists in Mizoram that could support project coordination

Potential opportunity for collaboration with CEPF program

Active NGO organizations with potential capacity to contribute to project with training

Recommended

Strategies


Management of shifting cultivation lands with conservation outcomes or seeking alternative options to

shifting cultivation



Capacity building and skills development for staff, communities and other stakeholders

5. Sathpura landscape

Biodiversity

Significance

Part of the Globally outstanding site for biological distinctiveness and species richness, in particular the moist

deciduous eco-region. Ten forest types that contain a rich assemblage of flora of around 1,800 species, but is

particular important for its primitive plants such as epiphytic mosses (37 species) and terrestrial mosses (46

species), other bryophytes (57 species), pteridophytes (138 species), gymnosperms (7 species) and 54

monotypic plants that point to the relict nature of the vegetation. This landscape represents part of the largest

contiguous habitat for the tiger in India. The landscape supports a number of mammal and bird species.

Threats Grazing and fuelwood collection in fringe areas

Alien species invasion in fringe areas

Root Causes Competing resource use in fringe areas

Opportunities Long institutional history in forest management

Significant existing staff and capacity in conservation management

Strong NGO and civil society organizations with conservation and livelihood interest and capacity

Well managed landscape that can provide learning and expertise to other sites

Recommended

Strategies

Support for learning network that could strengthen cross learning, study visits and knowledge sharing on park

planning and management

6. Upper Indus landscape

Biodiversity

Significance

Globally outstanding for species richness and biological distinctiveness. Landscape is extension of Tibetan

Plateau with high elevational alpine steppe, dry alpine scrub and Marsh meadows with great endemism and

diversity of faunal species and support a number of medicinal plants. At least 17 mammal species listed as

endangered in Schedule I of the Wildlife Act and 15 in the Appendix I of CITES. Includes small

concentrations of highly vulnerable populations of Tibetan Yak, Gazelle, Wild Ass and Wild Sheep. Lakes

and marshes are breeding grounds for Black necked Crane and other rare avian fauna.

Threats Overgrazing in high altitudinal meadows is a serious threat to pastures that support the wild herbivores

Unregulated collection of medicinal plants

Unregulated tourism in eco-sensitive sites

110

Unplanned and uncoordinated development in eco-sensitive areas

Proposed new hydro-power projects can have ecological impacts

Root Causes Lack of livelihood alternatives and alternative grazing lands for transhumance populations

Lack of coordinated planning between development and conservation needs

Lack of regulatory mechanisms to ensure sustainable levels of harvesting of medicinal plants

Poor institutional capacity for management of landscape

Opportunities Low human population density so provide an opportunity for good success

High commitment and interest amongst government agencies for conservation

Existing NGO programs for promotion of community based ecotourism

Recommended

Strategies

Strategies for community management and regulation of grazing lands, meadows and medicinal plant

collection

Community based ecologically sensitive ecotourism

Improved coordination between development agencies and forest department for conservation outcomes in PA

surroundings


Improved protected area planning and management

7. Askot landscape

Biodiversity

Significance

Bio-regional outstanding site for endemism and regional important site for species richness and biological

distinctiveness. Wide altitudinal variation that supports over 2300 plant species. 29 species of mammals and

225 bird species including three critically endangered bird species (Satyr Tragopan, Monal Pheasant and

Cheer Pheasant. High diversity site for orchids containing over 47% of the North Western Himalayan Orchid

Flora.

Threats Habitat destruction and removal of important bamboo species for domestic use impacting on musk deer

habitat

Habitat destruction due to unmanaged livestock grazing and alpine herb collection

Loss of protection of key species due to hunting

Indiscriminate extraction of wild plants for pharmaceutical and aromatic industry decimates wild populations

Root Causes Inadequate staff and capacity makes protection difficult in steep terrain

Lack of employment and livelihood opportunities for communities

International border provides opportunities for trade in wildlife species and products

Lack of coordination between conservation and development agencies

Opportunities Functioning van panchayats that can effectively participate in project implementation

Hunter/gatherers highly skilled and knowledgeable in terrain and biodiversity can potentially be converted to

conservation/ecotourism agents

Recent boundary redefinition to identify best conservation management options for PAs in landscape

Recommended

Strategies


Mainstreaming of conservation outcomes in development agencies plans and programs in landscape

Improved PA management, protection and enforcement

Community based alternative livelihood programs, including high–value ecotourism

8. Dibru-Dihing landscape

Biodiversity

Significance

The Dibru-Dihing landscape is part of the Global hotspot of North-East Himalayas. The landscape as such is

Bio-regionally outstanding for its endemism and regionally important for species richness and biological

distinctiveness. The site contains a complex mosaic of vegetation types with more than 150 floral elements of

which six are endemic. Variety of habitats, including floodplains biomes and moist evergreen forests

support threatened species like elephant, tiger, lesser cats and hoolock gibbons

Threats Pressure on encroachment on forest lands and exploitation of forests and forest products

Unregulated grazing and non-timber forest product collection

Fragmentation of natural habitats due to development and encroachment pressures

Timber and animal poaching

111

Root Causes Large human populations on unproductive tea estates degrade forests for livelihoods and forest products

Lack of employment and alternative income options for forest dependent communities

Lack of coordination between conservation and development agencies reduces ecological viability

Lack of capacity and skills within forest department

Opportunities Potential collaboration with CEPF to complement project activities

Recommended

Strategies

Alternative livelihood strategies for forest dependent communities

Alternative energy and livelihood programs for laborers on unproductive tea estates

Improved coordination for conservation outcomes in lands surrounding Pas

Improved capacity and skills for forest staff, communities, laborers and other stakeholders

Community management and regulation of grazing and non-timber forest product collection

C. STAP REVIEW COMMENT: That the intention to build capacity mentioned in various parts of the project document is not accompanied by an explanation of exactly what capacities will be strengthened and how. Task Team Response. The proposed Project is primarily a learning project with the opportunity to expand and replicate successful conservation models across India. Accordingly the Project will support learning and capacity building. All components of the Project include substantial capacity building efforts for project staff, NGOs, local communities and other stakeholders. Learning will be supported by numerous ways, including establishment of learning centers, learning networks and on-the-ground training. Learning will be conducted through skills development training, workshops, cross-visits, exchange visits, traveling road shows, study tours, structured learning, etc. Under Component 1, the Project will support capacity building of PA staff and communities on conservation mapping, PA planning and management, including habitat management, species management, alien plant species management, inventory and species and habitat monitoring, outreach and visitor management. Under Component 2, the Project will support capacity building of forestry and other sector staff in integration of conservation outcomes in production landscapes, environmental assessment, economic evaluation, etc. It will also provide skills development for PA staff, NGOs and local communities in community mobilization, resource assessments, micro-planning, conflict resolution, participatory monitoring and evaluation, management of community assets and financial resources, etc. Under Component 3, the Project will support staff training for running learning centers, documentation of experiences and best practices. It will also support training of staff, communities, NGOs etc. of other PAs in the planning and management of participatory conservation programs through a range of methods such as workshops, structured training, cross visits, study tours and exchange visits. Under Component 4, the Project will build capacity of central and state agencies in participatory conservation approaches. D. STAP REVIEW COMMENT: That the project document requires very thorough editing,

completing, and ideally a significant reduction in length. Task Team Response: The project summary document has been accordingly revised.

That said, in my view this is potentially an important project with considerable potential for generating global environmental benefits, and it should therefore proceed to the next phase of its development.

112

Annex 16: Statement of Loans and Credits

INDIA: BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION & RURAL LIVELIHOODS PROJECT (BCRLIP)

Original Amount in US$ Millions

Difference between expected and actual

disbursements

Project ID FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. Rev’d

P096021 2010 AP Road Sector Project 320.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 304.20 -15.00 0.00

P101650 2010 A. P. RWSS 0.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 131.23 -15.00 0.00

P102549 2010 Tech Engr Educ Quality Improvement II

0.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 286.00 0.00 0.00

P102771 2010 IIFCL - India Infras Finance Company Ltd

1,195.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,192.01 0.00 0.00

P110051 2010 Haryana Power System Improv Project 330.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 302.21 -26.97 0.00

P110371 2010 Sustainable Urban Transport Project 105.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 105.23 0.00 0.00

P071250 2010 Andhra Pradesh Municipal Development

300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 279.25 -20.00 0.00

P116020 2010 Banking Sector Support Loan 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,995.00 0.00 0.00

P115566 2010 POWERGRID V 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 988.00 -12.00 0.00

P094360 2009 National VBD Control&Polio Eradication

0.00 521.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 404.69 43.35 0.00

P096023 2009 Orissa State Roads 250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 235.36 1.74 0.00

P100101 2009 Coal-Fired Generation Rehabilitation 180.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 179.55 13.50 0.00

P093478 2009 Orissa Rural Livelihoods Project 0.00 82.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.46 3.82 0.00

P100735 2009 Orissa Community Tank Management Project

56.00 56.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 103.57 0.97 0.00

P102331 2009 MPDPIP-II 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.66 -13.56 0.00

P112033 2009 UP Sodic III 0.00 197.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 192.60 -3.18 0.00

P101653 2008 Power System Development Project IV 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 374.68 -146.32 41.68

P102547 2008 Elementary Education (SSA II) 0.00 1,350.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 740.48 -142.49 0.00

P095114 2008 Rampur Hydropower Project 400.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 290.82 49.32 0.00

P100789 2007 AP Community Tank Management Project

94.50 94.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 170.77 51.54 0.00

P078539 2007 TB II 0.00 170.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90.69 -16.76 0.00

P096019 2007 HP State Roads Project 220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 195.63 60.98 0.00

P083187 2007 Uttaranchal RWSS 0.00 120.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.92 62.78 0.00

P099047 2007 Vocational Training India 0.00 280.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 193.85 25.70 0.00

P071160 2007 Karnataka Health Systems 0.00 141.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.63 -3.57 0.00

P078538 2007 Third National HIV/AIDS Control Project

0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 166.51 136.93 0.00

P090768 2007 TN IAM WARM 335.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 366.69 118.58 0.00

P090764 2007 Bihar Rural Livelihoods Project 0.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.09 -2.69 0.00

P090592 2007 Punjab Rural Water Supply & Sanitation

0.00 154.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 134.93 103.54 0.00

P090585 2007 Punjab State Roads Project 250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 135.79 19.84 0.00

P075060 2007 RCH II 0.00 360.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 208.83 121.91 0.00

P102768 2007 Stren India's Rural Credit Coops 300.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 235.75 145.23 0.00

P078832 2006 Karnataka Panchayats Strengthening Proj

0.00 120.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.59 -48.15 0.00

113

Original Amount in US$ Millions

Difference between expected and actual

disbursements

Project ID FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. Rev’d

P079675 2006 Karn Municipal Reform 216.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 168.05 107.05 0.00

P079708 2006 TN Empwr & Pov Reduction 0.00 120.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.66 30.13 0.00

P086414 2006 Power System Development Project III 400.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.72 -55.28 0.00

P092735 2006 NAIP 0.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 154.89 62.86 0.00

P093720 2006 Mid-Himalayan (HP) Watersheds 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.60 8.25 0.00

P083780 2006 TN Urban III 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 167.70 118.45 7.10

P073651 2005 DISEASE SURVEILLANCE 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 48.87 43.89 0.00

P084632 2005 Hydrology II 104.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80.56 74.25 54.94

P073370 2005 Madhya Pradesh Water Sector Restructurin

394.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.62 264.12 232.55 0.00

P094513 2005 India Tsunami ERC 0.00 465.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 367.82 365.22 -29.76

P077977 2005 Rural Roads Project 99.50 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.49 61.95 0.00

P084790 2005 MAHAR WSIP 325.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 195.61 150.61 0.00

P077856 2005 Lucknow-Muzaffarpur National Highway

620.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 147.28 107.28 0.00

P086518 2005 SME Financing & Development 520.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 248.03 -150.97 -50.97

P075058 2005 TN HEALTH SYSTEMS 0.00 110.83 0.00 0.00 20.06 7.12 22.50 -0.39

P084792 2005 Assam Agric Competitiveness 0.00 154.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.14 49.11 0.00

P050655 2004 RAJASTHAN HEALTH SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

0.00 89.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.45 29.30 0.01

P078550 2004 Uttar Wtrshed 0.00 69.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.65 1.04 0.00

P082510 2004 Karnataka UWS Improvement Project 39.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.76 6.76 0.00

P071272 2003 AP RURAL POV REDUCTION 0.00 315.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 86.56 -96.13 -31.13

P050649 2003 TN ROADS 398.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.50 23.80 0.00

P067606 2003 UP ROADS 488.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.95 74.95 0.00

P050647 2002 UP WSRP 0.00 149.20 0.00 0.00 40.11 45.42 57.14 0.00

P050653 2002 KARNATAKA RWSS II 0.00 151.60 0.00 0.00 15.04 12.65 0.41 0.00

P050668 2002 MUMBAI URBAN TRANSPORT PROJECT

463.00 79.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.05 167.51 180.51

P040610 2002 RAJ WSRP 0.00 159.00 0.00 0.00 25.84 52.75 21.79 0.00

P069889 2002 MIZORAM ROADS 0.00 78.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.69 -26.91 -2.94

P071033 2002 KARN Tank Mgmt 32.00 130.90 0.00 0.00 25.07 107.54 47.01 -6.37

P072539 2002 KERALA STATE TRANSPORT 255.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.73 70.73 0.00

Total: 12,991.43 7,658.91 0.00 0.00 133.16 13,296.03 2,099.29 162.68

INDIA

STATEMENT OF IFC Held and Disbursed Portfolio

In Millions of US Dollars

Committed Disbursed

IFC IFC

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

2005 ADPCL 39.50 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006 AHEL 0.00 5.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.08 0.00 0.00

114

Committed Disbursed

IFC IFC


2005 AP Paper Mills 35.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 5.00 0.00 0.00

2005 APIDC Biotech 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.01 0.00 0.00

2002 ATL 13.81 0.00 0.00 9.36 13.81 0.00 0.00 9.36

2003 ATL 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005 ATL 9.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006 Atul Ltd 16.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2003 BHF 10.30 0.00 10.30 0.00 10.30 0.00 10.30 0.00

2004 BILT 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00

2001 BTVL 0.43 3.98 0.00 0.00 0.43 3.98 0.00 0.00

2003 Balrampur 10.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

2001 Basix Ltd. 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00

2005 Bharat Biotech 0.00 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.30 0.00

1984 Bihar Sponge 5.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.70 0.00 0.00 0.00

2003 CCIL 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006 CCIL 7.00 2.00 0.00 12.40 7.00 2.00 0.00 12.40

1990 CESC 4.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.61 0.00 0.00 0.00

1992 CESC 6.55 0.00 0.00 14.59 6.55 0.00 0.00 14.59

2004 CGL 14.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.38 0.00 0.00 0.00

2004 CMScomputers 0.00 10.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2002 COSMO 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005 COSMO 0.00 3.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.73 0.00 0.00

2006 Chennai Water 24.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2003 DQEL 0.00 1.50 1.50 0.00 0.00 1.50 1.50 0.00

2005 DSCL 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006 DSCL 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005 Dabur 0.00 14.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.09 0.00 0.00

2003 Dewan 8.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.68 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006 Federal Bank 0.00 28.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.99 0.00 0.00

2001 GTF Fact 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00

2006 GTF Fact 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00

1994 GVK 0.00 4.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.83 0.00 0.00

2003 HDFC 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

1998 IAAF 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00

2006 IAL 0.00 9.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.70 0.00 0.00

1998 IDFC 0.00 10.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.82 0.00 0.00

2005 IDFC 50.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

IHDC 6.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006 IHDC 7.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006 Indecomm 0.00 2.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.57 0.00 0.00

1996 India Direct Fnd 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00

2001 Indian Seamless 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006 JK Paper 15.00 7.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.38 0.00 0.00

2005 K Mahindra INDIA 22.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005 KPIT 11.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 8.00 2.50 0.00 0.00

2003 L&T 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

115

Committed Disbursed

IFC IFC


2006 LGB 14.21 4.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.82 0.00 0.00

2006 Lok Fund 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2002 MMFSL 7.89 0.00 7.51 0.00 7.89 0.00 7.51 0.00

2003 MSSL 0.00 2.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00

2001 MahInfra 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00

Montalvo 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.00

1996 Moser Baer 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.00

1999 Moser Baer 0.00 8.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.74 0.00 0.00

2000 Moser Baer 12.75 10.54 0.00 0.00 12.75 10.54 0.00 0.00

Nevis 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00

2003 NewPath 0.00 9.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.31 0.00 0.00

2004 NewPath 0.00 2.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00

2003 Niko Resources 24.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.44 0.00 0.00 0.00

2001 Orchid 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00

1997 Owens Corning 5.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.92 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006 PSL Limited 15.00 4.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.54 0.00 0.00

2004 Powerlinks 72.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.16 0.00 0.00 0.00

2004 RAK India 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1995 Rain Calcining 0.00 2.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.29 0.00 0.00

2004 Rain Calcining 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005 Ramky 3.74 10.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005 Ruchi Soya 0.00 9.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.77 0.00 0.00

2001 SBI 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1997 SREI 3.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.21 0.00 0.00 0.00

2000 SREI 6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

1995 Sara Fund 0.00 3.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.43 0.00 0.00

2004 SeaLion 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00

2001 Spryance 0.00 1.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.86 0.00 0.00

2003 Spryance 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00

2004 Sundaram Finance 42.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.93 0.00 0.00 0.00

2000 Sundaram Home 0.00 2.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.18 0.00 0.00

2002 Sundaram Home 6.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.71 0.00 0.00 0.00

1998 TCW/ICICI 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00

2005 TISCO 100.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2004 UPL 15.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

1996 United Riceland 5.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.63 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005 United Riceland 8.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2002 Usha Martin 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00

2001 Vysya Bank 0.00 3.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.66 0.00 0.00

2005 Vysya Bank 0.00 3.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.51 0.00 0.00

1997 WIV 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00

1997 Walden-Mgt India 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

2006 iLabs Fund II 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total portfolio: 956.52 249.41 42.30 536.35 604.74 175.91 38.60 236.35

116

Approvals Pending Commitment

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

2004 CGL 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

2000 APCL 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006 Atul Ltd 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

2001 Vysya Bank 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006 Federal Bank 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

2001 GI Wind Farms 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

2004 Ocean Sparkle 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005 Allain Duhangan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total pending commitment: 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00

117

Annex 17: Country at a Glance

INDIA: BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION & RURAL LIVELIHOODS PROJECT

Lo wer-

P OVER T Y and SOC IA L So uth middle-

India A sia inco me

2008

Population, mid-year (millions) 1,140.0 1,543 3,702

GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$) 1,040 986 2,078

GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions) 1,186.7 1,522 7,692

A verage annual gro wth, 2002-08

Population (%) 1.4 1.5 1.2

Labor fo rce (%) 1.9 2.2 1.6

M o st recent est imate ( latest year available , 2002-08)

Poverty (% o f population below national poverty line) .. .. ..

Urban population (% o f to tal population) 29 30 41

Life expectancy at birth (years) 64 65 68

Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) 52 59 46

Child malnutrition (% o f children under 5) 44 41 26

Access to an improved water source (% o f population) 89 87 86

Literacy (% of population age 15+) 66 63 83

Gross primary enro llment (% o f schoo l-age population) 113 108 109

M ale 115 111 112

Female 111 104 106

KEY EC ON OM IC R A T IOS and LON G-T ER M T R EN D S

1988 1998 2007 2008

GDP (US$ billions) 293.1 416.3 1,176.9 1,159.2

Gross capital formation/GDP 23.6 22.6 38.7 39.7

Exports o f goods and services/GDP 6.1 11.2 21.2 22.7

Gross domestic savings/GDP 22.2 21.0 35.2 34.3

Gross national savings/GDP 22.0 22.6 38.1 37.6

Current account balance/GDP -2.9 -1.0 -1.5 -2.6

Interest payments/GDP 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.6

Total debt/GDP 21.0 23.7 17.4 19.9

Total debt service/exports 28.8 20.5 13.0 9.0

Present value o f debt/GDP .. .. .. 17.5

Present value o f debt/exports .. .. .. 58.5

1988-98 1998-08 2007 2008 2008-12

(average annual growth)

GDP 5.5 7.2 9.1 6.1 7.3

GDP per capita 3.5 5.6 7.6 4.7 5.3

Exports o f goods and services 11.6 15.2 7.5 12.8 5.6

ST R UC T UR E o f the EC ON OM Y

1988 1998 2007 2008

(% of GDP)

Agriculture 30.5 26.0 18.1 17.5

Industry 26.2 26.1 29.5 28.8

M anufacturing 16.2 15.5 16.3 15.8

Services 43.4 47.9 52.4 53.7

Househo ld final consumption expenditure 65.8 66.7 54.7 54.1

General gov't final consumption expenditure 12.0 12.3 10.1 11.6

Imports o f goods and services 7.5 12.8 24.7 28.0

1988-98 1998-08 2007 2008

(average annual growth)

Agriculture 3.1 2.7 4.9 1.6

Industry 6.1 7.6 8.1 3.9

M anufacturing 6.6 7.2 8.2 2.4

Services 7.0 8.9 10.9 9.7

Househo ld final consumption expenditure 5.6 6.0 6.0 3.6

General gov't final consumption expenditure 4.9 4.5 8.4 20.2

Gross capital formation 6.4 12.6 15.6 10.7

Imports o f goods and services 13.6 16.1 8.6 17.9

Note: 2008 data are preliminary estimates.

This table was produced from the Development Economics LDB database.

* The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bo ld) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will

be incomplete.

0

5

10

15

20

25

03 04 05 06 07 08

GCF GDP

Growth of capital and GDP (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

03 04 05 06 07 08

Exports Imports

Growth of exports and imports (%)

India

Lower-middle-income group

Development diamond*

Life expectancy

Access to improved water source

GNIper

capita

Grossprimary

enrollment

India

Lower-middle-income group

Economic ratios*

Trade

Indebtedness

Domesticsavings

Capital formation

118

India

P R IC ES and GOVER N M EN T F IN A N C E

1988 1998 2007 2008

D o mest ic prices

(% change)

Consumer prices 11.2 13.1 6.2 8.0

Implicit GDP deflator 8.2 8.0 4.9 6.2

Go vernment f inance

(% o f GDP, includes current grants)

Current revenue 19.0 .. 21.9 20.9

Current budget balance -2.8 .. -3.2 -7.6

Overall surplus/deficit .. .. -6.0 -9.6

T R A D E

1988 1998 2007 2008

(US$ millions)

Total exports (fob) 14,257 33,219 159,007 190,000

Tea 435 1,038 1,703 ..

Iron 825 893 9,005 ..

M anufactures 10,110 25,792 102,943 108,281

Total imports (cif) 23,618 47,544 257,789 296,614

Food 1,304 2,524 4,575 ..

Fuel and energy 3,009 6,399 79,641 ..

Capital goods 4,803 10,064 58,393 71,237

Export price index (2000=100) .. .. 152 161

Import price index (2000=100) .. .. 162 182

Terms of trade (2000=100) .. .. 93 89

B A LA N C E o f P A YM EN T S

1988 1998 2007 2008

(US$ millions)

Exports o f goods and services 18,210 47,484 256,240 276,408

Imports o f goods and services 26,842 58,565 310,301 345,993

Resource balance -8,632 -11,081 -54,061 -69,585

Net income -2,519 -3,544 -4,917 -4,511

Net current transfers 2,652 10,280 41,944 44,279

Current account balance -8,499 -4,345 -17,273 -30,049

Financing items (net) 7,495 8,174 109,437 9,969

Changes in net reserves 1,004 -3,829 -92,164 20,080

M emo :

Reserves including gold (US$ millions) 4,802 32,490 309,287 351,259

Conversion rate (DEC, local/US$) 14.5 42.1 40.1 45.9

EXT ER N A L D EB T and R ESOUR C E F LOWS

1988 1998 2007 2008

(US$ millions)

Total debt outstanding and disbursed 61,659 98,774 204,992 230,611

IBRD 5,590 7,991 6,680 7,429

IDA 12,186 18,562 25,378 25,419

Total debt service 6,055 12,039 39,036 31,076

IBRD 777 1,377 702 703

IDA 179 423 894 970

Composition of net resource flows

Official grants 700 490 1,145 1,169

Official credito rs 2,661 948 2,565 3,539

Private credito rs 5,679 3,187 29,798 11,782

Foreign direct investment (net inflows) 91 2,635 25,127 41,169

Portfo lio equity (net inflows) 0 -601 34,986 -15,030

World Bank program

Commitments 2,648 1,755 3,309 1,200

Disbursements 2,478 1,399 1,805 2,083

Principal repayments 383 1,129 1,050 1,159

Net flows 2,095 270 754 924

Interest payments 573 671 546 514

Net transfers 1,522 -401 208 410

Note: This table was produced from the Development Economics LDB database. 12/9/09

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Current account balance to GDP (%)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Exports Imports

Export and import levels (US$ mill.)

0

2

4

6

8

10

03 04 05 06 07 08

GDP deflator CPI

Inflation (%)

742925419

7581

23042

121894

45246

A - IBRDB - IDA C - IMF

D - Other multilateralE - BilateralF - PrivateG - Short-term

Composition of 2008 debt (US$ mill.)

119

Annex 18: Description of Landscape Sites

1. Little Rann of Kachchh (LRK) Landscape: Situated close to the Gulf of Kachchh in the Saurashtra region of the State of Gujarat, the Little Rann of Kachchh (LRK) is a unique landscape comprising saline mudflat and marshes, which in monsoon gets transformed into a very large seasonal wetland proving a haven for the migrant avifaunal and invertebrate diversity. The Rann is the only stronghold for the endangered wild equid subspecies Equus hemionus khur in Asia. During the monsoon the seasonal wetland charged by freshwater inflow and ingress of seawater teems with plant and animal life. It becomes a major marine nursery for the famous endemic “Kachchh Prawn” and a feeding ground for numerous fish and invertebrate species. This large saline mudflat has been the traditional breeding ground for the lesser flamingo since 1893. It lies in the migratory route of a large number of bird species and draws a host of waterfowl and demoiselle and common cranes.

2. The total landscape area is 6,979 square kilometers of which the LRK Wild Ass Sanctuary encompassing the whole Rann; the inward slopes of the fringe, all bets, and some length of the feeder creek is 4,953 square kilometers. The landscape of Rann carries five major habitats. These are (a) Rann fringe, the elevated rim that carries thorn-scrub forest and human habitations; (b) Bets or islands that do not get inundated and also carry thorn-scrub; (c) Riverine tracts along the ingress of the inflowing rivers; and (d) Water bodies and barren mudflats. 3. The landscape covers 108 villages in Kachchh, Rajkot, Surendranagar, Patan, and Banaskantha districts. The total population is about 271,000 of which 5.7 percent are Scheduled Tribes; 8.7 percent Scheduled Castes, and the remainder belong to other groups. 4. The livelihood of the people is highly dependent on the resources of the sanctuary, i.e., salt farming on the dry Ranns and its underground brine; seasonal brackish water prawn fisheries in the flooded parts of the Rann; and livestock grazing in the bets and fringe areas. Subsistence rain fed farming and wage labor are other sources of income. 5. Askot Landscape: The landscape lies between the Longitudes 80°10′0″E and 81°0′0″E, and Latitudes 30°35′0″N and 29°35′0″N, at the tri-junction of the borders of Nepal, India, and Tibet (China). The northern boundary of the Landscape faces NNE and extends in a straight line above Nabhidang near Lipu Lekh and goes west to the head of the Lissar Yangti river in the Darma basin. The high passes of Lowe Dhura, Nuwe Dhura, and Lampiya Dhura fall within this northern boundary. The Eastern boundary is formed by the true right bank of the Kali River, from Nabhidang to Jauljibi along the Indo-Nepal boundary, moving in a south-westerly direction. The Western boundary runs along the Gori River on the true left bank, from Jauljibi, until it crosses the Ralam Gadh and follows the ridge to Harsling peak. Thereon it follows the ridge further past Burjikang Dhura, to include all of the Ralam basin, and goes along the ridgeline till it meets the Bhamba Dhura peak, and follows it further along the boundary of the Askot WLS to Kalgangdhura and on till it meets the Tibet border again at the head of the Lissar basin. 6. Situated in the north-eastern part of the newly created state of Uttarakhand, the landscape lies wholly within the district of Pithoragarh. It borders China (Tibet) in the north and Nepal in

120

the east. The landscape is physio-graphically a mix of lower mid and higher Himalayas and is a catchment for the river Kali, which defines the international border between India and Nepal. Rivers Kuti, Dhauli, and Gori are the three main tributaries of river Kali that lie in the landscape. Bio-regionally it is an outstanding site for endemism and regionally important site for species richness and biological distinctiveness. A wide altitudinal variation supports over 2,300 plant species, 29 species of mammals, and 225 bird species, including three critically endangered bird species (Satyr Tragopan, Monal Pheasant, and Cheer Pheasant). It is also a high diversity site for orchids, containing over 47 percent of the North Western Himalayan Orchid Flora. A scheduled tribe community called Bhotia predominantly inhabits the landscape while Ban Rajis have been classified as a “primitive tribe” of the area. 7. Askot Wildlife Sanctuary is currently under the process of re-notification. Accordingly while it is proposed that the total area of the sanctuary would remain unchanged, its boundaries would get revised to exclude all human habitations. The landscape area will also be increased to include some areas that are closer to the Nanda Devi biosphere reserve to the west. There are 129 inhabited revenue villages with 14,010 households. The scheduled castes constitute 17.01 percent; tribal 16.28 percent; and 318 people belong to the Ban Raji, the primitive tribe. In three river basins the trans-humant population, Shaukha, and the Rang Bhotia, inhabit 27 villages for six to seven months from late April to October. 8. Of the total number of settlements within the landscape approximately 10.85 percent of the villages lie in the sub-tropical altitudes, 50.39 percent in the Warm Temperate zone, 17.05 percent in the Cold Temperate zone, 5.43 percent in the Sub-alpine zone, and 16.28 percent in the Alpine zone. Village forest covers about 46.5 percent of the land area in alpine and sub-alpine areas, Civil and Soyam Revenue land about 45.2 percent, Reserve Forests 5.9 percent, and Agriculture land 2.3 percent of the landscape. The land holding is 0.15 hectares, which is roughly equivalent to the average in the rest of the state. The marginal farmers are heavily dependent on forests and alpine grasslands, for animal husbandry and for extractive use.

121

Maps: IBRD 36368R & 36370R

122