Document of
The World Bank
Report No:
PROJECT BRIEF
ON A
PROPOSED LOAN
IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR {AMT} MILLION
(USD 23.8 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
AND
PROPOSED GRANT FROM THE
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND
IN THE AMOUNT OF USD 11.5 MILLION
TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
FOR A
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND RURAL LIVELIHOODS IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
May 15, 2006
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective {Date})
Currency Unit =
= US$1
US$ = SDR 1
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 – December 31
GEF
IEDP
FREEP
PA
N.P.
KMTR
GOI
CEIP
PTO
MOEF
CF
APO
SP1 and
SP2
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Global Environment Facility
India Ecodevelopment Project
Forestry Research Education and Extension Project
Protected Area
National Park
Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve
Government of India
Critical Ecosystem Investment Partnership
Project Tiger Office
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Conservator of Forests
Annual Plan of Operation
GEF Strategic Program 1 and 2
Vice President:
Country Manager/Director:
Sector Manager:
Task Team Leader:
Praful Patel
Michael Carter
Adolfo Brizzi
Malcolm A. B. Jansen
INDIA
Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
CONTENTS
Page
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 .................................................... 2
B.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 3
1.
Lending instrument ............................................................................................................. 3
2.
[If Applicable] Program objective and Phases ...................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.
Project development objective and key indicators.............................................................. 4
4.
Project components ............................................................................................................. 4
5.
Lessons learned and reflected in the project design ............................................................ 7
6.
Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection .............................................................. 7
C.
IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 8
1.
Partnership arrangements (if applicable) ............................................................................ 8
2.
Institutional and implementation arrangements .................................................................. 8
3.
Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results ................................................................ 11
4.
Sustainability and Replicability ........................................................................................ 12
5.
Critical risks and possible controversial aspects ............................................................... 14
6.
Loan/credit conditions and covenants ............................................................................... 16
D.
APPRAISAL SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 16
1.
Economic and financial analyses ...................................................................................... 16
2.
Technical ........................................................................................................................... 16
3.
Fiduciary ........................................................................................................................... 16
4.
Social................................................................................................................................. 16
5.
Environment ...................................................................................................................... 18
6.
Safeguard policies ............................................................................................................. 18
7.
Policy Exceptions and Readiness...................................................................................... 19
Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background ......................................................... 20
Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies ................. 24
Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring ........................................................................ 25
Annex 4: Detailed Project Description ...................................................................................... 31
Annex 5: Project Costs ............................................................................................................... 36
Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements ................................................................................. 37
Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements ..................................... 40
Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements ...................................................................................... 41
Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis ............................................................................. 44
Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues ............................................................................................ 45
Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision ..................................................................... 50
Annex 12: Documents in the Project File ................................................................................. 62
Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits .............................................................................. 63
Annex 14: Country at a Glance ................................................................................................. 67
Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis ....................................................................................... 69
Annex 16: STAP Roster Review ................................................................................................ 76
Annex 17: Maps........................................................................................................................... 89
A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE
1. Country and sector issues
India is one of the twelve megadiversity countries in the world that collectively account for 6070 percent of the world's biodiversity. As well as being a centre of high species richness and
endemism, India is a centre of agrobiodiversity 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. About 90 percent of all medicines in India come from plant species, many of which
are harvested in the wild. Medicinal plants and other non-timber forest products are particularly
important as a source of income and subsistence for tribal and other rural populations, some of
the poorest of the poor. Closed primary forests which cover about 21 million hectares or six
percent of the total land area and one-third of the total forest area in India, is an important source
of timber and fuel wood for the majority of its people. In addition, the natural resources of the
country have a major influence on development and well being of its people (with agriculture,
livestock, forestry and fishery sectors contributing 32 percent of the GDP in 1992/93).
The biodiversity of India is under immense pressures. Unmanaged livestock grazing,
indiscriminate cutting of trees for fuel and timber, unsustainable gathering of non-timber forest
products, hunting, uncontrolled fires, and the haphazard conversion for agriculture,
infrastructure, industrial and commercial development are a major threat to India’s biodiversity.
Similarly, pollution, siltation and spread of invasive alien plant species are a major threat to the
freshwater, coastal and marine habitats within the country. The country’s high level of human
population density and growth, high incidence of poverty and large number of livestock
accelerate the speed of degradation. Degraded landscapes are especially prone to invasive plants
which compete with native species and lead to further degradation and reduced productivity.
Many local people are highly dependent on forests and other natural resources but with limited
rights of access, have little incentive to use natural resources in a sustainable way.
The Government of India has demonstrated a strong commitment to conservation and has
established a network of more than 500 protected areas across different ecosystems and
bioregions. However, these protected areas are largely managed as “islands” surrounded by other
forms of land uses that are often not compatible with conservation goals and outcomes. At the
same time, there are extensive areas of remaining natural habitats, especially forests that harbor
rich biodiversity surrounding the existing protected areas network that are currently not managed
with conservation outcomes. The proposed project will strengthen management and viability of
core protected areas by seeking to influence development and conservation in lands surrounding
these high biodiversity areas by promoting rural livelihoods and integrating conservation
concerns in lands surrounding the core protected areas.
The proposed project will build on the past participatory conservation successes, including the
concluded GEF/IDA Ecodevelopment project by expanding conservation efforts to the landscape
level, and integrating rural livelihoods with strengthened protected area management 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 elsewhere in India. The
1
project would explicitly focus on (i) scaling up of successful conservation models to the
landscape level; (ii) raising awareness of the values of biodiversity goods and services and their
relevance to the development agenda; (iii) promoting explicit linkages between conservation and
poverty alleviation, in both conservation and production landscapes; (iv) mainstreaming
biodiversity into policy and development programs at regional and national levels; (v)
Monitoring, linked to adaptive management, learning and replication; and (vi) Replicating
participatory conservation mechanisms to other PAs and biodiversity –rich landscapes
nationally. Specific lessons from the Ecodevelopment project and other participatory programs
have been identified and are being addressed as part of project design. These are discussed
further in Annex 1.
2. Rationale for Bank involvement
The GOI asked support from GEF under its Operational Program #3 (Forest Ecosystems) to
address its critical biodiversity conservation needs. The Bank shares GOI’s and donor
recognition of the need to reconcile development and conservation needs through creating
appropriate incentive mechanisms for local communities to benefit from conservation and
sustainable use of biological resources. The Bank has been supporting GOI’s very successful
efforts in the past to conserve its rich biodiversity in partnership with local communities and this
project provides an opportunity to further expand these experiences to a broader landscape level
so as to extend and ensure the ecological viability of rich biodiversity areas in the country. The
Bank is actively working with GEF and other donors in a number of countries to develop similar
initiatives in participatory biodiversity conservation and landscape management. The Bank’s
comparative advantage is that it has extensive experience in India in sustainable natural resource
management, decentralization and participatory management and biodiversity conservation.
3. Higher level objectives to which the project contributes
The project will support further Government of India’s efforts to prevent degradation of
biodiversity within the country. It will help GOI mainstream biodiversity and improve rural
livelihoods into 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 the viability of its protected area network and ensure the
survival of critical species. It will contribute towards improving the contribution of biodiversity
to local livelihoods so as to enhance the incentives for conservation and help alleviate poverty in
remote rural forested areas.
The Bank's Country Assistance Strategy for India, emphasizes the need to: focus on new ways to
leverage Bank financing, linked to the Millennium Development Goals and especially
environmental sustainability, knowledge provision, generation and dissemination, including
introducing international and national best practice, building capacity and cross-state learning
through demonstration projects and dissemination; and emphasis on sector-wide approach, which
draws on best practice and links conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity to poverty
alleviation and building social and human capital, including capacity building in government and
non-government sectors.
2
The project is consistent with GEF’s Operational Strategy in that it supports the long term
protection and sustainable use of biodiversity. It conforms to GEF’s 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.
The project supports three Pillars of the GEF Strategic Priorities, namely Pillar 1 (Sustainability
of Protected Areas), Pillar 2 (Mainstreaming of Biodiversity) and Pillar 4 (Dissemination of
Lessons and Experiences). In conformity with these three pillars, the project would support the
sustainability of protected area network, improved protected area management with a broader
landscape and social context; mainstreaming of biodiversity within broader production systems;
and documentation and dissemination of lessons learned, experiences and best practice, the latter
through support for learning centers, cross visits, workshops and small grants to promote
replication of best practices. All components seek to build on recent experiences in the region,
and particularly in India, especially lessons learned from GEF/IDA Ecodevelopment and joint
forest management approaches. The project would also provide opportunity for sharing
experiences within the country and in the region.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Lending instrument
The project is a fully blended GEF and IDA supported operation aimed at strengthening
biodiversity conservation and improving rural livelihoods at the landscape level. The project
will be financed by a GEF grant of US$11.5 million and IDA loan of US$23.8 million. The
Government of India will contribute an amount of US$8.3 million through in-kind and cash
contribution and US$3.5 million will come through in-kind contributions from beneficiaries
(local communities).
Summary of Project Costs by Components and Sources of Financing
Sources of Financing (US$’000)
GOI
IDA
GEF
Beneficiaries
Total
1. Strengthening Biodiversity Conservation Management in Protected Areas and Other Eco-sensitive Areas
1.8
6.8
2.4
0
11.0
2. Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation Practices in Production Landscapes
4.2
12.8
4.0
3.5
24.5
3. Improving Learning and Replication of Participatory Conservation Approaches
0.7
0
4.1
0
4.8
4. Improving National and State level capacity for coordination and promotion of landscape conservation
approaches
1.6
4.2
1.0
0
6.8
TOTAL (US$’000)
8.3
23.8
11.5
3.5
47.1
Component
3
2. Project development objective
Project Development Objective:
The development objective of the Project is to strengthen
and mainstream biodiversity conservation at the landscape level by improving rural livelihoods,
participation, learning and its replication.
3. Project global objective
Project Global Objective:
The Project Global Environmental 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. This will be
accomplished by targeted interventions in and around protected areas as well as changing
behaviors and management practices in intervening production landscapes and eco-sensitive
sites. The basic premise of the project is the improvement in the ecological viability of the PA
network by the management of external pressures, in particularly those that are generated from
lands surrounding the PAs and other biodiversity rich areas in the landscape. This is to be
accomplished by strengthening PA management and improving biodiversity conservation in
lands surrounding the PAs, and improving opportunities for sustainable use of resource uses,
rural livelihood enhancement and community involvement in decisions affecting the
management of such resources.
Key Indicators of success: The key outcome indicators listed in the Results Framework (see
Annex 3) are the following:
1. 1.5m ha of land in Protected Areas in selected landscapes more effectively managed land
managed for conservation outcomes;
2. At least 0.12m ha of targeted production lands across eight landscapes are managed for
conservation outcomes;
3. At least 10 new sites/landscapes adopting conservation best practices developed under
the project;
4. At least 20% of targeted populations in selected landscapes have improved livelihoods;
and
5. At least 50% of key stakeholder including target communities participating in planning
and management of project activities.
6. Improved biodiversity conservation in globally significant areas measured by stable or
increased vegetation cover and key/umbrella indicator species of biological interest.
The project development objective will be achieved using the following guiding principles:


Supporting a bottom-up planning approach that focuses on community priorities and
decisions that are linked to conservation outcomes.
Supporting decentralization by strengthening the role of communities, local government
institutions (Panchayat Raj Institutions, community based organizations, etc) in planning
and implementation, and increasing their potential for becoming sustainable agents of
natural resource management change.
4



Ensuring that community decisions on resource and income generating options are
guided by appropriate knowledge and information about alternatives to existing
unsustainable resource uses.
Adopting an integrated multi-sectoral approach as a strategy for improving the
management of natural resources within the landscape.
Building on successful lessons and experiences from the previous and ongoing
programs.
4. Project components
Overview:
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 and its replication
elsewhere in the country.
The project will be implemented in eight landscape sites in different bio-geographic zones of the
country. The sites were selected on the basis of the following criteria: biodiversity values (e.g.,
biological representativeness, uniqueness, species richness, ecosystem value and functions, etc.),
socio-economic values (e.g., economic value, socio-cultural value, scientific value, etc.) and
management 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 contains a mosaic of land uses, but typically would include one or more
protected areas (or critical conservation areas) that are interspersed with areas of production such
as reserved and production forests, agricultural lands and human settlements, and other forms of
land use. Together these mosaics form viable ecological, socio-economic and administrative
landscape units. The eight landscape sites are: (i) Agasthiyamalai Landscape of Tamil Nadu, (ii)
Agasthiyamalai Landscape of Kerala, with (i) and (ii) forming one large, contiguous and
biodiversity rich forested habitat in the southern Western Ghats; (iii) Rann of Kutch/Wild Ass
Landscape in Gujarat; (iv) Upper Indus Valley Landscape of the Western Himalayas in Jammu
and Kashmir; (v) Dampa Landscape of North-East India in Mizoram; (vi) Askote landscape in
Uttaranchal; (vii) Dibru-Dihing landscape of Northern Assam; and (viii) Satpura Landscape of
Central India in Madhya Pradesh. These landscapes collectively include 12 Protected Areas. In
addition to biological and cultural diversity, each landscape has different management challenges
and opportunities. The landscape sites will receive different levels of investments from the
project based on their needs and opportunities, management strengths and learning potential, and
their priority conservation focus. Five of the landscape sites will receive the full package of
project investments, while the other three will receive investments for learning and capacity
building, research and monitoring, and inter-sectoral collaboration for regional development and
outreach activities.
Component One:
Strengthening Biodiversity Conservation Management in Protected
Areas and Other Eco-sensitive Areas (Total Project Costs $11.0M, GEF $2.4M): This
component will focus on improving the management of protected areas and other eco-sensitive
areas within the selected landscapes. This component will support the following activities: First,
it will support a GIS based mapping exercise to identify appropriate management options for the
5
different parcels of land within each landscape, including identification of critical corridors and
eco-sensitive habitats. Second, it will support the strengthening of management planning and
capacity development to improve conservation management effectiveness, protection and
conservation monitoring. Third, it will support interventions to improve conservation outcomes
in the protected areas and eco-sensitive habitats within the landscapes. Specific activities that
will be supported under this component are conservation mapping, capacity building for
protected area planning, management and monitoring, communications and awareness,
dissemination and learning and small grants to support participatory conservation initiatives in
eco-sensitive areas within the landscapes.
Component Two:
Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation practices in Production Areas
(Total Project Costs $24.5M, GEF $4.0M): This component will support the incorporation of
biodiversity conservation and livelihood considerations across the broader landscape, particularly
in the critical hotspots and conservation corridors that are essential to maintain the viability and
connectivity of protected area units within the landscape. First, it will support dialogue and
capacity building amongst the different sector agencies operating within the landscape to
improve cooperation in conservation action, support studies and small investment grants to
improve conservation outcomes in production areas within the landscapes. Second, it will
provide support for identification and assessment of specific threats to protected areas and other
eco-sensitive areas within the landscape, capacity building for integration of conservation
objectives in other sector and agency plans, and special studies to value ecosystem services and
influence local decision making. Third, it will support participatory conservation action within
and outside protected areas and other eco-sensitive areas surroundings to improve local
community support for conservation and improve local livelihoods. Under this component, the
project will support small, on-the-ground conservation investments in production lands, capacity
building for enhancing conservation outcomes in sector and regional development plans and
programs, environmental assessment, studies, and dissemination workshops and meetings. It will
also support capacity building for informing and improving community decision making and
conflict resolution, community level conservation investments, participatory monitoring to
validate community investments and reciprocal biological and socio-economic impacts and
documentation and dissemination of participatory approaches and best practices.
Component Three: Improving learning and replication of Participatory Conservation
Approaches (Total Project Costs $4.8M; GEF $4.1M):
This component will support
improved learning and scaling up of successful models based on lessons learned from
Components 1 and 2. First, it will support promotion of selected protected areas (e.g. Periyar
Tiger Reserve in Kerala, Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve in Tamil Nadu and Gir National
Park in Gujarat) as learning centers for improving national and regional capacity, skills and
expertise in participatory conservation management. These centers of excellence will provide
training, skills development courses and workshops, cross visits and opportunities for exchange
assignments for other protected areas staff, NGOs and community groups throughout the
country. Second, it will support the establishment of learning networks with a broader network
of protected areas for dissemination of learning and best practices in participatory conservation.
Third, it will support improved opportunities for local protected area managers to learn and
experience participatory conservation approaches from other sites in India and overseas. Fourth,
it will provide incremental support for the expansion of learning networks and replication of
6
landscape models of conservation to other protected areas in the country, the latter through a
competitive grants program. Fifth, it will support policy studies to improve understanding of
policy and legal issues related to conservation and cross learning in support of scaling up.
Component Four:
Improving National and State level capacity for coordination and
promotion of landscape conservation approaches (Total Project Costs $6.8M; GEF $1M):
This component will support efforts to strengthen and build capacity within the Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MOEF) and respective States to coordinate the promotion and
expansion of landscape conservation approaches in the country based on the lessons emanating
from the project and other interventions. It will also facilitate the integration of landscape
conservation into Central and State Conservation Funding Schemes to promote its expansion at
the national and state levels. Under this sub-component, the project will provide support for
contract staff, limited operational costs and technical support to assist MOEF and States in
ensuring coordination and administration of the project and promotion of the participatory
landscape approach.
The project duration would be for a period of six years, which will comprise of the initial
systemic and institutional capacity building process of around one year, followed by
implementation at the landscape level in the remaining five years.
5. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design
Over the last 10 years (since 1996) India has been experimenting with a new model of
ecodevelopment with some successes under GEF/IDA India Ecodevelopment Project (IEDP).
The proposed project seeks to further this effort by extending lessons and achievements and
scaling up to the landscape level. The proposed project has taken into consideration the lessons
learned from past Forestry and protected areas projects, especially the IEDP which tested
participatory conservation and ecodevelopment models around seven protected areas (refer
Annex 1 for details).
6. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection
A number of 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 IEDP and FREP projects, 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 the sustainability and viability of the PA network. The second alternative was to
continue with the sectoral approach among individual sector agencies. This was rejected because
experience showed 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 decision making system that effectively
integrates ecological, economic and social dimensions into sustainable land use decisions and
investments at the village level within the broader landscape. This cross sectoral approach was
found the most appropriate. Project preparation supports team building and integration across
sectors and between stakeholders to achieve conservation and livelihood objectives within the
7
landscape. Project preparation supports intensive stakeholder participation at community and
local government level that would make different actors aware of each other’s concerns and
priorities, and ensure that planning is locally driven and outcomes would be locally owned. The
project will support the further development of best practice in participatory conservation
management and scale up existing practices to the landscape level. It will explicitly promote
replication of best practice, including mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation in the
production landscape to enhance the ecological integrity and viability of core PAs and to
influence the management strategies and development planning of other sector agencies within
the landscape. It will influence models for landscape level conservation beyond target sites to
influence conservation practices nationally and during and beyond the project influence
government conservation spending and the disbursement of approximately US$30 million
annually of central level funding that is available for PA conservation and forest development.
C. IMPLEMENTATION
1. Partnership arrangements
The project provides opportunities to link with, and benefit from, best practices in community
mobilization and participation developed under a suite of Bank, UNDP and GoI Communitydriven development projects. There are also good 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 prepared and approved an ecosystem profile
for the Western Ghats, a recognized biodiversity hotspot and one of the project landscapes. It is
expected that the grant program under the CEPF will start in 2006; this program will provide
excellent opportunities for synergies with BCRLI interventions through additional engagement
of civil society, including local communities, NGOs and the private sector in conservation
initiatives in the landscape. In addition, UNDP’s Andaraman and Nicobars Islands project
provides a good opportunity for collaboration particular in relation to sharing lessons, learning
and training. Explicit modalities for fostering such cooperation and synergies will be developed
at the site level.
2. Institutional and implementation arrangements
Implementation arrangements will be largely based on existing government and community
institutions. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) through its Project Tiger Office
(PTO) will be overall responsible for overseeing the implementation of activities, 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 Director, PTO will be supported by a small team to support intensive
learning, supervision and monitoring, outreach and communication, financial management and
procurement. Implementation of landscape activities will be decentralized. Engagement of other
government agencies and NGOs will be a key element for the success of the project and
appropriate modalities would be defined to ensure the involvement of all appropriate agencies as
well as NGOs. The following summarizes the proposed implementation arrangements:
8

Community level:
Planning and implementation of reciprocal commitments to
conservation and investments at the village level will be implemented through existing or
new village level committees. Planning at the village level will be facilitated through a
planning teams (consisting of a contract ecologist, sociologist and social mobilizers who
would be available at the disposal of the PA director or relevant Conservator of Forests Wildlife). Households at each village will be organized into user groups; such groups will
be collectively responsible for formulation of community-level microplans,
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. Local and
national NGOs with appropriate expertise would be contracted to assist with
microplanning, and capacity building at the community level as well as for independent
monitoring of social and economic impacts of the project interventions.

Landscape level:
The PA Director or Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), as relevant,
at the landscape level will be the key executive for the coordination and implementation
of the project. The respective PA Director or CF(Wildlife), as relevant will be assisted
by a planning team consisting of contract ecologist, sociologist and other specialists to
help facilitate protected area management, participatory conservation, training and
monitoring. The planning Team would draw professional and specialized training support
from competent non-governmental organizations and 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 impact zone surrounding it would be undertaken by the PA Directors, 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 Protected Area planning team (if
necessary) and financial support that is channeled through the PA administration. Other
state agencies and NGOs will be key players in project implementation at the landscape
level and modalities for coordination and implementation of the activities outside the PAs
would be defined for each site.

State level: At the state level the coordination and oversight of the project will be
facilitated through state-level project steering committees, some of which already exist
through the previously completed Ecodevelopment project. This committee will
facilitate the implementation of the project at the landscape level, help resolve financial
and procurement bottlenecks, ensure timely release of funds and reporting. A very
important role of this committee is also to facilitate the coordination of planning activities
across the different sector agencies that operate in the landscape. The Chief Wildlife
Warden at the state level will play an important role to facilitate the implementation of
the project within the Forestry Department.
9

National level:
The Central Ministry of Environment and Forests will be
responsible for overseeing the implementation of the project, ensuring timely release of
funds to the states and reporting, assisting with project supervision and ensuring the
replication of participatory landscape concepts to other sites in the country during after
the project period. The Director, PTO will have a small team to support intensive
learning, supervision and monitoring, outreach and communication, financial
management and procurement. An Assistant/Deputy Inspector General will be appointed
under the Director, PTO on a full-time basis to oversee and supervise the implementation
of the project, provide technical and monitoring oversight and coordinate directly with
the respective Park Directors at the landscape level and state forestry departments to
ensure smooth and effective implementation of the project.
An Operational Manual and overall Project Implementation Plan (PIP) will be prepared by PTO
and finalized at project negotiations. The manual will include a participatory process framework
that will provide procedures and principles to guide community decision making on project
investments. The process framework would describe how project beneficiaries will participate in
project decisions, define procedures for identifying and mitigating existing restrictions on
resource use and livelihood restoration measures to mitigate against resource restrictions, define
grievance redress arrangements and participatory monitoring measures. Annual reviews of the
PIP will lead to the agreement between the GoI and the Bank on annual implementation plans for
the use of project financing.
The project will build on existing GOI financial management systems and those tested under the
previously concluded IDA/GEF Ecodevelopment project. Fund releases from the Central
Government to the States and subsequently to the landscape level will be based on the
submission of an annual plan of operation (APO) for the landscape that would be compiled and
submitted by the executive (Park Director or Conservator of Forests – Wildlife, as relevant) at
the particular landscape site to MOEF. Following review and clearance of the APO by the
MOEF, the Internal Finance Department at the Central level will release funds to the respective
state forestry departments, who would, in turn, transfer the funds to the field level (Park Director
or Conservator of Forests – Wildlife, as relevant). For activities to be implemented outside the
PAs, or forest areas, funds would be released to the sector agencies responsible for
implementation of such activities in their respective areas of jurisdiction by the respective Park
Director. An operational manual will be developed to facilitate the administration and reporting
requirements of the project. Project administration and financial management will be undertaken
by PTO under its established institutional structure including: (i) budget approval and
monitoring; (ii) cash flow management (including processing loan withdrawal applications); (iii)
maintenance of accounting records; (iv) preparation of interim and year-end financial reports; (v)
administration of supporting information systems; and (vi) arranging for execution of external
audits.
PTO has project management experience from managing the IEDP project financed by the
World Bank, and the GEF PDF B Grant for preparation of this project. Certain project-specific
actions to be executed by loan effectiveness will be identified in a Financial Management Action
Plan. Annex 7 will describe in detail the Financial Management arrangements and the Financial
Management action plan.
10
3. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results
Monitoring and evaluation has been mainstreamed into all project components and will be
conducted at three levels: (i) contract compliance; (ii) impact monitoring; and (iii) project
implementation. A detailed monitoring and evaluation program is being developed during project
preparation to monitor the impact of project interventions. Project outcome indicators would
cover a range of ecological, social and institutional parameters, with adequate funding to
strengthen existing and relevant base lines (biological, socio-economic and capacities) and
measure the impact of project interventions on these baselines. Outcome indicators include (i)
more effective management of PAs within landscapes (ii) 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 ; (iii) local
communities deriving measurable social and economic benefits from the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity and rural livelihood activities connected to biodiversity
conservation; (iv) broader civil society and political support for conservation; (v) biodiversity
conservation activities mainstreamed and implemented in forestry and rural development at
target sites; (vi) functioning national networks of learning centers for biodiversity training; and
(vii) improved 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.
Thse studies would be undertaken by local universities, NGOs and research institutions.
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 for SP1 for the
protected areas within the selected landscapes has been created (on file) and will be updated at
least during MTR and final evaluation. A baseline for the SP2 tool will be developed for targeted
selected landscapes during the first year of the project, based on the biodiversity plans and
selected areas for high intervention; this baseline will be updated at MTR and final evaluation.
Semiannual and Midterm evaluation. The Bank will conduct semiannual supervision missions
to assess progress made in the implementation of the project activities. Supervision missions and
the Ecodevelopment Learning cell in PTO will draw lessons learned to date to provide guidance
to the site teams. In addition, the Bank, together with external independent reviewers and key
stakeholders, will conduct a midterm evaluation of project execution. The midterm review will
be conducted no later than three years after the first project disbursement. The midterm review
will focus on (i) progress in achieving project outcomes, (ii) effectiveness of institutional
arrangements for project implementation, (iii) effectiveness of learning networks and
engagement of non-focal sites (iv) effectiveness and suitability of the monitoring system, and (v)
review of success in replication of conservation models at state and national levels.
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 (i) assess attainment of the expected project
results, and (ii) draw lessons learned to be included in the replication plan.
11
4. Sustainability and Replicability
Sustainability:
Ensuring the long-term sustainability and replication of participatory
conservation mechanisms to other protected area sites is a major objective of the proposed
project. The sustainability of the benefits derived from the project will be a paramount
consideration during project preparation. The proposed project would build on the vast national
experience and learning, particularly from the on-going GEF/IDA Ecodevelopment project, other
Bank and donor funded projects, as well as from experience from elsewhere. Options would be
investigated during project preparation, include the establishment of village level revolving funds
(which has been very successful model in the concluded Bank-funded Forestry Research
Extension and Education Project -FREEP), support for self-help groups (that has shown great
promise in FREEP and Ecodevelopment Project), linking conservation efforts with the existing
centrally funded conservation schemes that annually amount to around US$30 million and the
recent Government of India approved Forest Development Agency Program, with provides long
term support for forest conservation, re-evaluating and re-defining existing Government of
India's support to the forest areas outside the protected area network in terms of long-term
sustainability considerations, supporting community-based ecotourism and revenue generation
programs, and even the option of establishing an endowment for supporting participatory
conservation and protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Given its integrated nature, the
proposed project would work toward inter-sectoral coordination, particularly within the forestry
sector and empowering communities to ensure that local government funds are better targeted to
give biodiversity as well as social benefits. Through, the introduction and expansion of
participatory support, incorporation of community needs and aspirations into protected area and
landscape planning and support for local institutions, social sustainability would be addressed
under the proposed project.
Replicability: The project has explicit learning and replication focus. The project would benefit
from experiences and lessons learned from other protected area management and participatory
conservation initiatives in the country and elsewhere. In particular, the lessons learned from
ecodevelopment approaches and experiences, success with self-help group mobilization and
support for conservation, community monitoring and reciprocal commitments, etc. would have
direct relevance for the design of the proposed project. Component 3 of the proposed project
will support the learning and replication of the existing successful approaches and lessons and
experiences emanating from Components 1 and 2 of the project for wider application in the
project states and nationally. It will support the documentation of lessons from the field activities
and dissemination, the establishment and operation of “learning centers” in the some of the
successful Ecodevelopment Project sites that would serve as foci for documenting and
disseminating of lessons and training of protected area personnel and community groups for
replication of current successful models and those to be introduced under the proposed project.
As part of the replication effort, the project will support workshops and exchange visits to
landscape and protected area sites for PA staff, NGOs and community representatives to learn
from other successful experiences. It would provide small grants to expand approaches to other
PAs and support studies for improving understanding of policy and legal issues related to
conservation and promotion of participatory approaches, and dissemination of best practices
through workshops, website development, publications and participation of PA staff and
community representatives in national meetings and conferences. In addition, the project will
12
provide support to the MOEF to build capacity to improve coordination and promotion of the
landscape approach throughout the country. It will facilitate the integration of landscape
conservation approach into Central and State Conservation Funding Schemes to enable scaling
up of the approach elsewhere in the State and Country.
Cost-effectiveness: The project will support the further development of best practice in
participatory conservation management and scale up existing practices to the landscape level. It
will explicitly promote replication of best practice, including mainstreaming of biodiversity
conservation in the production landscape to enhance the ecological integrity and viability of core
PAs 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) influence models for landscape level conservation beyond target
sites to influence conservation practices nationally and b) during and beyond the project
influence government conservation spending and the disbursement of approximately US$30
million annually of central level funding that is available for PA conservation and forest
development.
13
5. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects
Project risk rating – Biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods project
Component
Strengthening biodiversity
conservation in selected
landscapes
Risk
Inadequate capacity of Institutions to promote
participatory Biodiversity conservation practices
Potential reputational risk associated with
relocation of villages.
Biodiversity conservation
practices mainstreamed in
production Landscapes in
consonance with improved
rural livelihood
Rating
L
M
Line departments may be reluctant to adopt
conservation practices in their own programs
M
Sectoral focus of line departments may create
bottle necks and hamper convergence of rural
livelihood programs for addressing poverty
issues in consonance with bio diversity
priorities.
M
14
Mitigation
Project design includes special emphasis on capacity building using
learning centers with successful past track record. The project design
incorporates
- implementation of carefully planned capacity building programs and
exposure visits on participatory techniques and tools for planning,
decision making processes and systems to ensure transparency and
accountability
- hiring of professional contract staff
- seeking professional support of non-governmental and community
based organizations; local self governments and other resource
institutions
Project design supports participatory approaches to improve incentives for
local communities to conservation. It will support community action to
define alternatives and more sustainable resource uses within the landscape,
so that conservation and livelihoods benefits flow. The project will also
support mapping and assessment to help identify opportunities for
redefining PA boundaries to improve ecological viability and reduce the
need for relocation. If relocation may take place due to requests from inpark habitations, due processes would be adopted for ascertaining voluntary
nature of the process, transparent and inclusive decision making and
participatory procedures/processes to ensure livelihood improvement and
independent monitoring of relocation.
Sensitization, awareness programs for mainstreaming conservation at
program will be conducted for participating agencies and institutions
Coordination mechanisms would be created at state and district levels to
ensure policy and implementation support of line departments and other
related agencies/institutions
Improved learning and
replication of participatory
approaches to conservation
Improved national level
capacity for coordination and
promotion of Landscape
conservation approach
Overall at project level
Capacity of National level institution to
implement cross learning, influence policy for
extension of good practices in other sensitive
biodiversity areas.
Lack of capacity to facilitate procurement,
financial management, supervision for review of
progress and monitoring efficiently and
effectively
Inadequate and inaccurate flow of information
may result in misconceptions about the project
and hence lead to opposition by some civil
society groups.
Overall project risk rating
M
The project will ensure adequate professional staffing with required skills
and seek commitment from GoI to support mainstreaming of lessons learnt.
L
Project design will incorporate detailed organizational structure,
responsibilities, administrative structures, staffing, contracting
arrangements and performance indicators
H
Project will consciously :
- Create capacity to communicate timely and correct information to
stakeholders
- Prepare and implement comprehensive consultation and communication
plan.
- Collaborate with stakeholders to ensure inclusive decision making at
project sites
- Promote transparent practices in decision making.
M
15
6. Loan/credit conditions and covenants
D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY
1. Economic and financial analyses
For a complete Incremental Cost Analysis, refer Annex 15.
2. Technical
For a megadiversity country like India with numerous poorly-connected biodiversity initiatives
related principally to the biodiversity sector, a project which strengthens existing biodiversity
sector and extends incorporation of biodiversity concerns into other economic sectors is critical.
Without such a project, success in biodiversity conservation will remain isolated in individual
projects in the forestry, biodiversity and environment sectors. In order to have the maximum
impact throughout India, biodiversity needs to be mainstreamed into other economic sectors with
a direct impact on biodiversity. At the same time, the biodiversity sector needs to produce
products relevant to policy making to promote integration.
This project will work directly to strengthen the Forestry and PA staff to be able to identify and
respond to the needs for integration of conservation outcomes in the larger landscape situation,
incorporate biodiversity concerns into other sectors and provide coordination among all
institutions working with, and producing information to guide policy making and integration.
The end result should be a biodiversity sector capable of contributing to both on the ground
conservation and policy making.
3. Fiduciary
Project Tiger Office and PA authorities will appoint qualified accountants and/or budget officers
to oversee the financial management of the project. Both PTO and the PA authorities will
maintain and manage an integrated management information system. The projects accounting
systems meets the Bank’s fiduciary requirements and produce the financial statements required
for achieving satisfactory project management. Internal and external audits will be carried out
for the project. PTO was responsible for implementation of the IDA/GEF Ecodevelopment
project and most of the states involved have experience in implementing Bank projects. The
overall risk for financial management and disbursement is considered low.
An assessment of the capacity of the PTO and participating states to be responsible for the
procurement necessary for the project will be carried out during project preparation. The
procurement agreement will include a mechanism to assure quality control of all procurement
activities. The overall risk of procurement is considered low.
4. Social
16
The proposed project expands upon the lessons learnt and achievements of IEDP to landscape
level. The project is expected to result in significant positive benefits in terms of
institutionalizing participatory approach and direct benefits from investments. The approach will
follow an inclusive strategy to ensure that the tribals, women and other vulnerable groups will
participate in the decision making process for planning, implementation and monitoring the
activities supported by the project.
Major stakeholders have been identified at the national, state, landscape and village level. Apart
from local communities, the primary stakeholders and beneficiaries of the project investments,
stakeholders also include formal and informal traditional institutions, Community Based
Organizations, NGOs, tribal right groups and other such civil society organizations, government
line departments, academic and research institutions and the federal Ministry of Environment
and Forests. During project preparation, these stakeholders are consulted through: (i) formal
workshops and consultations; (ii) individual and group meetings with national level actors; (iii)
participatory rural appraisal and other participatory exercises with village communities at the
village, sub-village and trans-human level; (iv) meetings with government line departments.
During project preparation, stakeholder consultations are conducted through a representation
sample. For implementation, detailed stakeholder consultations will be included and budgeted
for in all project components and activities. Detailed guidelines and plans will be prepared
during project preparation 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, which
is the bedrock of successful landscape level conservation, plans will be developed with local
communities, particularly in delicate ecosystems (e.g. Upper Indus Landscape) for developing
detailed land use plans during project implementation.
The project will create systems and mechanism to enable collaboration with stakeholders and
provide timely and correct information to them. Follow-up consultation with the stakeholders
will be organized to provide feedback on the extent to which the project design addressed their
concerns and on issues which are beyond the scope of the project.
The Project is unlikely to result in significant adverse impacts. The project will not support
involuntary resettlement and rehabilitation. It is unlikely that the interventions will restrict access
to resources. In situations where there are limitations on use of resources for conservation
purposes (expected to be very limited) a process framework being developed under the project
will provide exolicit procedures and principles that will govern consultations with local
communities will promote extension of choices to address impacts related to access. The process
of developing participatory investment plans will be inclusive and promote equity. These plans
will be based on the participatory resource mapping, identifying stakeholders and extent to which
their household livelihood strategy is dependent on these resources. The collaborative approach
of the project will enable the communities to arrive at collective decisions on the mitigation
measures that will be included in the plans.
The existing and proposed legal and policy framework will be reviewed to address any change in
tenurial rights that may emerge through the consultative process satisfactory to the Bank.
17
5. Environment
As the project’s principal objective relates directly to environmentally sustainable land use and
reversal of current trends of loss of ecosystems and species, few adverse environmental impacts
are foreseen. Project design is based on a highly consultative and participatory process. The
landscape sites experience various degrees of habitat degradation caused by unmanaged grazing
and other forms of use, forest clearance for industry and agriculture, etc. 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, etc) to bring a more
sustainable development and improve biodiversity and sustainable land management outcomes
6. Safeguard policies
This is a category B project. The safeguard policies on Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP
4.01), Pest Management (OP 4.09), and Indigenous People (OP 4.10) are triggered.
Environmental Management Framework, Social Management and Consultative Frameworks,
Indigenous Peoples Development Plan 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: 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. An
environmental management framework will be developed to ensure that all
environmental issues are considered in project planning, implementation and monitoring.

Pest Management: The project might involve procurement and use of pesticides on a
limited scale to enhance crop production. However, the procurement and distribution of
pesticides in India is governed by WHO standards. There is no procurement of pesticides
classified as Class Ia, Ib and II. Training on methods of integrated pest management will
be provided to the extent possible.

Indigenous Peoples: The people in the project area are Scheduled tribe and other
vulnerable group. The project site in Leh Ladakh falls within the within the VI Scheduled
Area. At other sites the Panchayat (Extension) Scheduled Areas Act is applicable to tribal
villages. In accordance with local laws and Bank’s OP 4.10, free prior and informed
consultations will be organized. In addition, the assessments will cover socio-economic
analysis, livelihood strategy, symbiotic relationship with natural resources, institutional
analysis and participatory planning, implementation and monitoring framework to
enhance their capacity to improve their livelihood and address poverty. A separate IPDP
will not be prepared.
Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01)
18
Yes
[ X]
No
[]
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04)
Pest Management (OP 4.09)
Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.11)
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10)
Forests (OP/BP 4.36)
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37)
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)*
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50)
[]
[X ]
[]
[X]
[X ]
[ X]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
7. Policy Exceptions and Readiness
*
By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties' claims on the
disputed areas
19
Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
Over the last 10 years (since 1996) India has been experimenting with new model of
ecodevelopment, involving local communities at the PA site level. The proposed project seeks to
further this effort by extending such efforts to scale up such participatory conservation
approaches to the landscape level. The proposed project has taken into consideration the lessons
learned and best practices from past Forestry and protected areas projects, especially the India
Ecodevelopment Project (IEDP) which tested participatory conservation and ecodevelopment
models around seven protected areas. Some of the key lessons, that have been integrated into
this project, include the need to:
(i) more closely integrate park management activities within a broader landscape and regional
development programs;
(ii) strengthen and expand capacity building and learning amongst park staff, local communities
and other stakeholders through specific training programs, dissemination of lessons learned and
promotion of learning centers or centers of excellence;
(iii) strengthen monitoring of community reciprocal commitments and actions for conservation;
(iv) enhance the role of women in conservation through promotion of self-help groups,
community revolving funds, and other new opportunities;
(v) increase awareness and information about biodiversity values to enable informed and
improved decision making in relation to conservation in the production landscape around PAs
and
(vi) replicate and expand the concept of participatory management building on the
“ecodevelopment” approach, at the landscape, state and national levels.
The IEDP project which worked at seven sites developed a wealth of experience, operational
manuals and best practice in reconciling conservation and local community needs. This
experience has been supplemented by experience from other Forestry and PA projects, including
conservation interventions at KMTR and Great Himalayas N.P. In particular, IEDP and other
conservation initiatives supported by the Bank in India provided some very positive design
features that were successfully tested in the field. These included the need to ensure the
following:
(i) key components of the project give importance to technical and social issues and concerns;
(ii) adequate social assessment, stakeholder participation, and process documentation;
(iii) voluntary relocation, if any, in a protected area context is supported by good dialogue and
consultation of affected persons, design and implementation of the relocation plan by the
affected persons, programs for improving incomes and well being of relocatees, and an
independent monitoring of the relocation process;
(iv) reconcile the legitimate needs of both conservation and communities (quid-pro-quo linkages
between investments benefiting local people and local people’s conservation responsibilities and
actions) and the close monitoring of such reciprocal commitments and impacts;
(v) that design is supported by field oriented assessment of “indicative” planning needs;
20
(vi) the preparation process emphasizes client ownership and consultations with stakeholders;
(vii) the design includes specific contributions by local communities that would help ensure that
project community investments are demand based and lead to better accountability of the forest
department;
(viii) exhaustive documentation and detailed guidelines as part of project preparation; and the
(ix) concept of creating a Community Development Fund is an important pillar for local level
sustainability.
Relevant lessons from the Ecodevelopment and other participatory programs that are relevant for
the proposed project have been identified and are being addressed as part of project design.
These are discussed further in the table below.
Lessons Learned
Poor and marginalized people are often
inadequately represented in EDCs/VDCs, if
represented are unable to influence decisionmaking
Participatory conservation activities have
expanded the duties of forestry staff, but staff
capacities remain weak to implement such
programs
Staff and resource are sometimes depleted in
other PAs to meet project demands and
needs.
Forestry Departments are not best disposed to
implement community development activities
Ecodevelopment promotes a market economy
around PAs, encouraging consumerism,
which was amongst the greatest threats to
PAs.
Recognizing specific risks associated with
each site is necessary to respond early to
conflict situations
Need clarity on legal status of each of the
project sites and implications of any
proposed new legislation to ensure project
design is responsive.
Relevance to Project Design
A full social assessment of each landscape site is underway, which
will inform the design of site specific participatory consultation
and planning processes as well as specific on-the-ground
interventions. Specific steps will be taken to ensure that the
marginalized and most dependent groups are adequately consulted
and part of the decision making process. A process framework is
being developed to guide community decision making.
Capacity building will be a key element of the project to overcome
this constraint. In addition, the burden of project implementation
will be shared with other players, NGOs, community institutions,
other agencies, etc.
Not necessarily so, as it is expected that other players will support
forestry staff in project implementation (see response above).
Also training networks will help build capacity of staff in other
PAs.
The main executing agency will be the forestry departments to
avoid complexity, however other agencies will also 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. This will also help ensure that linkages between
biodiversity conservation and resource use are recognized.
Based on past experiences with IEDP and other projects, there is
no evidence to support this conclusion. What ecodevelopment is
attempting to do is providing people living around PAs a
legitimate way of earning their living, so that they can satisfy their
market needs without adversely impacting on the PA.
The project is disaggregating the risk analysis to the site level so
as to enable the Implementing Agencies (State Forestry
Departments) to make qualified decision on the level of risks
associated with each site, and tailor specific responses to mitigate
against such risks. In addition, project activities will specifically
target the poor and marginalized groups.
Project preparation will provide explicit information on the legal
status of land parcels/unit (including PAs) 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 by Government will also be assessed to ensure
project design responds accordingly.
21
Need for informed and full participation of
beneficiaries in decision making regarding
resource restrictions, management options,
compensation and livelihood restoration
measures
Need for opportunity to expand learning and
replication of participatory approaches to
other sites in India
Need to ensure that sectoral agencies
programs converge with conservation goals
and objectives, particular in areas around
PAs.
Strengthen linkages between conservation
and local livelihoods
Need to improve communication and
awareness of participatory strategy to avoid
public apprehension and criticism.
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 will describe how project beneficiaries will participate
in project decisions, process for identifying any restrictions on
resource use, providing adequate compensation and livelihood
restoration measures to mitigate these, include planning of
alternative options for those affected by resource restrictions,
define grievance redress arrangements and monitoring
arrangements
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 and
State Forestry Departments to better coordinate and expand
participatory conservation approaches as well as enhance funding
for such activities.
The project will establish explicit coordination mechanisms at the
state and district levels to gain policy and implementation support
of sector agencies for improving rural livelihoods of communities
around PAs. 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 conducive will further
contribute towards enhanced sustainability.
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.
The project will include an explicit two-way communications
strategy from preparation onwards to ensure that (i) good public
information is disseminated about the goals and objectives of the
project and (ii) constructive feed back influences project
interventions.
The proposed project would build on these successes and lessons in expanding conservation
efforts to the landscape level, and integrating 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 elsewhere in
India. The project would explicitly focus on:

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.
22

Mainstreaming biodiversity into policy and development programs at regional and
national levels

Monitoring, linked to adaptive management, learning and replication

Replication of participatory conservation mechanisms to other PAs and biodiversity –
rich landscapes nationally
23
Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
[Guideline:
(Recommended length 1 page)
This annex should summarize recent projects supported by the Bank and other international
agencies in the country in the same sector or related sectors. For each project listed, indicate
which of the sector issues discussed in A.1 have been or would be addressed. For Bank-financed
projects completed in the last five years, OED’s rating should be provided. For ongoing Bankfinanced projects, the IP and DO ratings from the latest Project Status Report should be shown.]
24
Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
(To be updated at Appraisal)
PDO
Project Development Objective is to
strengthen biodiversity conservation
at the landscape level by improving
rural livelihoods, learning and its
replication, through participatory
approaches
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
Intermediate Outcomes
Component One: Strengthening
Biodiversity Conservation
Management in selected landscapes
Project Outcome Indicators
Use of Project Outcome
Information
- 1.5M ha of land in Protected Areas
in selected landscapes more
effectively managed for
conservation outcomes. (For PA to
use Management Effectiveness
Tool);
At supervision and mid-term review
success of interventions at PA
planning and capacity building, and
re-evaluate strategy if improvements
in management effectiveness not
achieved
- At least 10 new sites/landscapes
adopting conservation best practices
developed under the project
YR3 re-evaluate strategy if less than
3 new sites not initiated planning for
adoption of best practices
- At least 20% of targeted
populations in selected landscapes
have improved livelihoods measured
by Measurement of Livelihoods
Index by end of project
YR 2 onwards, assess if there is
gradual improvement in livelihood
index in target communities where
investments are being made, and
revise strategy if stagnant index
- At least 50% of key stakeholder
including target communities
participating in planning and
management of project activities
(Measured by Participation Index)
YR3, assess and revise strategy if
less than 25% of target stakeholders
participating in project
-Population of key
indicator/umbrella species stable or
increased
YR3 adjust strategy if population of
key species not stabilizing
-At least 0.12M ha of targeted
biodiversity sensitive sites outside
protected areas managed for
conservation outcomes (forest cover
improvement, key indicator species
stable/increased)
YR3 gauge engagement of key
agencies and re-evaluate strategy if
50% of participating sectors do not
include criteria/guidelines for
achieving conservation outcomes
Intermediate Outcome
Indicators
Use of Intermediate
Outcome Monitoring
- Participatory management plans
adopted on the basis of ecological
considerations in 12 PAs
YR3 re-evaluate planning, capacity
building and management if less
than six PAs not showing
management effectiveness
improvement
- Management plans for at least 20
forest reserves adjoining PAs
integrating and adopting
conservation outcome practices
YR3, re-evaluate strategy if
management plans for less than 3
forest reserves integrating
conservation outcomes practices
25
Component Two: Biodiversity
Conservation practices
mainstreamed in production
landscape, in consonance with
improved rural livelihoods
Component Three: Improved
learning and replication of
Participatory Approaches to
Conservation.
Component Four: Improved
National and State level capacity
for coordination in support of
landscape conservation
- At least 40% Reduction in
dependency (fuelwood collection,
grazing, etc) on PA resources
YR3, revise participatory planning
approach and re-direct capacity
building efforts if less than 5%
reduction in dependencies
- At least 8 landscape units
assigned conservation values
YR3, revise strategy for
coordination and mainstreaming of
other sector agencies, if less 3 units
assigned conservation practices
- At least 5% conservation
livelihoods investments sourced
from non PA agencies
YR3 re-evaluate strategy if less than
three development agencies
supporting conservation livelihood
investments in each landscape
- At least 50% of targeted
institutions show improvement in
Institutional Maturity (measured
through Institutional Maturity
Index).
YR3, intensify capacity building
efforts if less than 10% of targeted
institutions show improvement in
Institutional maturity
- At least ten enabling frameworks
and guidelines developed/revised
and adopted.
YR3, revise strategy if less than
three enabling frameworks under
development
- At least 10 good practices of
conservation documented.
YR3, intensify efforts if less than
three good practices documented
- Increased allocation for
biodiversity conservation in at least
three state level plans by end of
project.
YR4, intensify dialogue state
financial institutions if no single
state increased allocation for
conservation
- At least 10% of Central and State
Conservation Funding Schemes
supporting landscape approaches
YR4 intensify effort to influence
MOEF if learning from project
landscape not being captured at
national and state levels
Institutional Maturity Index: Applicability of this tool enables the community and other institutions to carry out an assessment of their institution
and grade them for inclusiveness in decision making, mechanism to ensure equity, transparency, management of accounts, book – keeping and
monitoring. The process provides an opportunity to the stakeholders to take corrective action.
Participatory Index: This tool assesses institutionalization of participatory processes and conflict resolution mechanisms. The process for
deepening participatory processes is graded to assess the functionaries’ roles and their capacity to implement the consultative framework.
Measure of Livelihoods Index: This is a participative monitoring tool for assessing livelihoods, using the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (SRL)
framework. This framework defines livelihoods in terms of five capitals – Physical, Social, Financial, Human and Natural. The tool has three
parts: (i) a series of indicators of five capitals, which are locally relevant; (ii) Detailed case studies of select families. Choice of families based
on analysis of data from (item i); and (iii) understanding of the vulnerability context, factors which are affecting people’s livelihood and
vulnerability.
Measurement of Protected Area Management Effectiveness: World Bank/WWF Alliance tracking tool for Protected Areas enables protected area
managers to carry out an assessment of progress in improvement of the management effectiveness of their PAs. The tool covers a number of
parameters that influence protected area management, including legal status and regulations, enforcement, ecological viability, planning and
inventory, resource management, personnel management and training, budget security, education and awareness, community participation and
conflict, monitoring and evaluation, etc.
26
Arrangements for Results Monitoring
1.
Monitoring and evaluation has been mainstreamed into all project components and will
be conducted at three levels: (i) national level, in relation to learning and replication impact ; (ii)
site-level impact monitoring; both biological and socio-economic, and (iii) project
implementation. A detailed monitoring and evaluation program is being developed during project
preparation to monitor the impact of project interventions. Project outcome indicators would
cover a range of ecological, social and institutional parameters, with adequate funding to
strengthen existing and relevant base lines (biological, socio-economic and capacities) and
measure the impact of project interventions on these baselines. Outcome indicators include (i)
more effective management of PAs within landscapes (ii) 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; (iii) local
communities deriving measurable social and economic benefits from the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity and rural livelihood activities connected to biodiversity
conservation; (iv) broader civil society and political support for conservation; (v) biodiversity
conservation activities mainstreamed and implemented in forestry and rural development at
target sites; (vi) functioning national networks of learning centers for biodiversity training; and
(vii) improved 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 and research institutions
2.GEF Biodiversity Tracking Tools: The project will develop the GEF SP1/SP2 tracking tools
to complement the monitoring and evaluation of the project progress. A baseline for SP1 for the
protected areas within the selected landscapes is being created (on file) and will be updated at
least during MTR and final evaluation. A baseline for the SP2 tool will be developed for each
targeted landscape site during the first year of the project, based on the biodiversity planning
exercise and selection of areas for high intervention; this baseline will be updated at MTR and
final evaluation.
6.
Semiannual and Midterm evaluation. The Bank will conduct semiannual supervision
missions to assess progress made in the implementation of the project activities. Supervision
missions and the Ecodevelopment Learning cell in PTO will draw lessons learned to date to
provide constant feedback and guidance to the site teams for adaptive management. In addition,
the Bank, together with external independent reviewers and key stakeholders, will conduct a
midterm evaluation of project execution. The midterm review will be conducted no later than
three years after the first project disbursement. The midterm review will focus on (i) progress in
achieving project outcomes, (ii) effectiveness of institutional arrangements for project
implementation, (iii) effectiveness of learning networks and engagement of non-focal sites (iv)
effectiveness and suitability of the monitoring system, and (v) review of success in replication of
conservation models at state and national levels.
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 (i) assess attainment of the
expected project results, and (ii) draw lessons learned to be included in the replication plan.
27
Arrangements for results monitoring
Project Outcome Indicators
Baseline
YR1
YR2
Target Values
YR3 YR4 YR5
0.3 m ha
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.5m
ha
Annually
Protected Area
management
effectiveness
PA managers
0
0
0
2
5
8
+10
Annually
Documentation, fund
allocation from MOEF
PTO
0%
0
2
5
10
15
20%
Annually
Measurement of
Livelihood Index
PA managers and
sociologists
0%
5
10
20
30
40
50%
Annually
Participation Index
PA managers and
sociologists
stable
Annually
Population census
methods
PA managers,
biologists and NGOs
PA managers in
consultation with
Forestry staff
YR6
Frequency and
Reports
Data Collection and Reporting
Data Collection
Responsibility for
Instruments
Data Collection
Project Development Objective
- Extent of land in Protected Areas in
selected landscapes more effectively
managed for conservation outcomes.
- Number of new sites/landscapes
adopting conservation best practices
developed under the project
- Percentage of targeted populations
(60,000 households) in selected
landscapes with improved
livelihoods
- Percentage increase in extent of
participation of key stakeholder
including target communities (60,000
households) in planning and
management
Project Global Objective
-Population of key indicator or
umbrella species is stable or
increased in selected PAs
- Extent of targeted biodiversity
sensitive sites outside protected areas
in selected landscapes managed for
conservation outcomes (forest cover,
stable key/umbrella species
populations)
Intermediate Outcome Indicators
Strengthening Biodiversity
Conservation Management in
selected landscapes
- Participatory management plans
Baseline in
YR1
Baseline in
YR1 (m ha)
1
0
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.08
1.12
m ha
Annually
Forest cover maps,
population census
reports
1
3
6
8
10
12
Annually
PA management
28
adopted on basis of ecological
considerations in PAs within selected
landscapes
- Number of management plans for
forest reserves adjoining PAs
integrating and adopting
conservation outcomes practices
effectiveness tool
PA managers
None
0
1
5
10
15
20
Annually
Modified PA
management
effectiveness tool
PA managers and
biologists
To be
developed
during village
microplanning
0
5
10
20
30
40%
Annually
Participatory
monitoring
Community
Organizations and PA
managers
1
1
2
5
8
8
8
Annually
Participatory
monitoring
-do-
0%
0
1
3
5
7
10%
Annually
Financial reports of
sector agencies
Landscape
Coordinating
Committees
0%
0
5
15
25
35
50%
Annually
Institutional Maturity
Index
-do-
None
0
1
3
5
7
10
Annually
MOEF and state
monitoring records
None
0
2
5
7
9
10
Annually
Publications
Biodiversity Conservation practices
mainstreamed in production
landscape, in consonance with
improved rural livelihoods
- Percentage reduction in
dependency on PA resources
(fuelwood collected, grazing, etc)
- Increase in number of landscape
units assigned conservation values
- Percentage conservation
livelihoods investments sourced
from non PA agencies (currently
zero)
- Percentage of targeted institutions
show improvement in Institutional
Maturity
Improved learning and replication
of Participatory Approaches to
Conservation.
- Number of new enabling
frameworks and guidelines for
conservation developed/revised and
adopted.
- Number of good practices of
conservation documented.
29
MOEF
MOEF/PTO
- Number of State level plans with
increased allocation for biodiversity
conservation by end of project.
None
0
0
1
1
2
3
MTR and COP
State budget
statements
MOEF
Central and State
Financial Reports
MOEF/PTO
Improved National and]State level
capacity for coordination in support
of landscape conservation
- Percentage of Central and State
Conservation Funding Schemes
supporting landscape approach
0
0
0
2
5
7
30
10%
MTR and COP
Annex 4: Detailed Project Description
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
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 and its replication elsewhere in the country.
The project will be implemented in eight landscape sites in different bio-geographic zones of the
country. The sites were selected on the basis of the following criteria: biodiversity values (e.g.,
biological representativeness, biological uniqueness, biodiversity richness, ecosystem value and
functions, etc.), socio-economic values (e.g., economic value, socio-cultural value, scientific
value, etc.) 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 contains a mosaic of land uses, but typically would
include one or more protected areas (or critical conservation 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. The
eight landscape sites are: Agasthiyamalai Landscape (comprising contiguous landscapes in Tamil
Nadu and Kerala in the Southern Western Ghats), Rann of Kutch/Wild Ass Landscape in
Gujarat, Satpura Landscape of Central India in Madhya Pradesh, Upper Indus Valley Landscape
of the Western Himalayas in Jammu and Kashmir, Askote landscape in Uttranchal, Dibru-Dihing
landscape of Northern Assam and Dampa Landscape of North-East India in Mizoram. Each
landscape will receive varying intensity of investments based on their needs, potential value for
learning, and their key conservation focus. It is anticipated that five sites would receive
intensive investments for biodiversity conservation and livelihood improvement, while the other
three will receive investments for specific conservation focus activities, such as learning and
capacity building, research and monitoring, and outreach, as relevant.
Component One:
Strengthening Biodiversity Conservation Management in Protected
Areas and Eco-sensitive Areas: This component will largely focus directly on biodiversity
conservation action, in particular within the conservation rich areas in the landscape, including
protected areas. This component will support the following sub-components:
a) Conservation mapping of landscape units: The project will support the assignment of
conservation values to individual components of the landscape units so as to help
determine appropriate management options for these components. This exercise will
identify biodiversity rich areas outside the protected areas, key dispersal corridors,
locations of high pressure and vulnerability, and options for rationalization of protected
area boundaries to improve their ecological viability and conservation value. Under this
sub-component the project will support GIS mapping, training, consultative workshops
and map publication. The mapping will results in identification of specific locations for
conservation interventions.
31
b) Strengthening Protected Area management capacity: This sub-component will support
the strengthening of Protected Area management planning and the capacity to implement
the management plans, improvement of management effectiveness and protection, and
improvement of knowledge and outreach for conservation. In particular, this subcomponent will support the revision of management plans to incorporate ecological
considerations, including boundary rationalization, buffer zone management and
broadening the focus to cover ecosystems in addition to species. Management planning
will be undertaken in a consultative manner with local stakeholders. The project will
support the testing of different approaches to improve ecosystems and habitats that will
be complemented with scientific monitoring to assess ecological impacts of each
approach. It will support improved communications and visitor management, as well as
opportunity for dissemination and learning through cross visits, twinning arrangements
and study tours, and documentation of conservation knowledge and practices.
c) Promotion of conservation practices outside Protected Areas: Specific interventions to
improve conservation outcomes in such sites will be supported under this sub-component.
In particular, this would includes outreach to improve awareness of conservation values
in eco-sensitive sites, special studies to define management options and small grants to
support participatory conservation initiatives and biological monitoring in these sensitive
sites.
Component Two:
Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation practices in production
landscapes: This project component will support incorporation of biodiversity conservation
and livelihood considerations across the broader landscape, in particular in forest management
activities, livestock management, agriculture and community and other land use planning in
areas outside the protected areas. The anticipated outcome is improved biodiversity conservation
in the production areas in the landscape and improved livelihoods and enhanced opportunity for
local community participation in conservation and sustainable resource use activities. It would
also support the mainstreaming of ecological considerations in regional development activities.
Under this sub-component, the project will largely focus on critical areas that are essential to
maintain the viability and connectivity of the high conservation areas within the landscape.
a) Integration of biodiversity consideration in production areas: In order to facilitate
the integration of biodiversity considerations in production landscapes, the project
will support dialogue and capacity development to facilitate common agreement and
frameworks for cooperation in biodiversity conservation, support studies and small
grants to support critical investments for conservation in important production areas,
such as production forest areas that are managed for timber, bamboo and non-timber
forest products, wetlands that are supporting fishing, grasslands that support livestock
grazing, and other biodiversity important production areas.
b) Mainstreaming biodiversity considerations in regional development:
This subcomponent will support the incorporation of biodiversity considerations into local and
regional planning and regulation, in order to try to minimize the threats on protected
areas and biodiversity sensitive areas. In particular, project support would be
provided to identify and assess such threats and options for their mitigation, meetings
32
and dialogue with key agencies (infrastructure, roads, irrigation, industry, etc.) to
promote convergence of planning in support of conservation, environmental
assessment, capacity building for integration of biodiversity in sector development
plans, and monitoring. This 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 PAs
to regional development agendas.
c) Participatory interventions for improving conservation and livelihood outcomes:
The project will build on existing participatory models of conservation that were
developed and tested under the GEF Ecodevelopment Project, IDA supported
Forestry Research Extension and Education Project (FREEP) and other successful
models available in India and elsewhere and expand such models to the landscape
level to strengthen linkages between conservation and improved livelihoods of local
communities that live adjacent to these areas. This part has four sub-components.
First, it will support biophysical and socio-economic mapping exercise to identify
causes and incidence of degradation of biodiversity in the protected areas and
biodiversity sensitive sites. Second, information generated through this mapping
exercise will be used to identify vulnerable sites and to assess the presence or absence
of incentives that currently guide community exploitation of resources from PAs and
sensitive sites and inform community decisions. Third, it will support community
decision making and prioritization of potential alternative options or sustainable
resource use investments at the local level. Fourth, it will support participatory
community monitoring of reciprocal commitments to conservation and impacts on
biodiversity. The project will finance a range of activities including: capacity
building of PA and other relevant staff and communities for community decision
making and conflict resolution, investments at alternative livelihoods and sustainable
resource use, monitoring to validate investments and documentation and
dissemination of participatory approaches.
Component Three: Improving learning and replication of Participatory Conservation
Approaches: This component will support improved learning and scaling up of successful
models based on lessons learned from Component 1 and 2.
a) Promotion of selected Protected Areas as learning centers to concept of participatory
conservation: Building on expertise built up under the previous GEF Ecodevelopment
Project, World Bank funded Forestry and Forest Research Extension and Education
projects and other similar initiatives, the proposed project would provide small
incremental support to protected areas and/or their related institutions to serve as
foci/centers of excellence and learning for improving capacity, skills and expertise in
participatory conservation management. These centers of excellence would provide
training, skills development courses and workshops, cross visits and opportunities for
exchange assignments for other protected areas staff, NGOs and community groups
throughout the country. Support would also be provided to learning centers for personnel
and skills training, preparation of teaching materials and field guides, equipment and
33
operating costs. The sites for training centers are Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve
in Tamil Nadu, Periyar Tiger Reserve in Kerala and Gir National Park in Gujarat.
b) Documentation and dissemination of practices in participatory conservation: This
component will support documentation of best practices from project landscape and other
sites, develop and test operational guidelines of their application, and dissemination of
such learning more widely through website development, workshops, publications and
participation in national and international conservation meetings, cross visits, travel
seminars and the establishment of learning networks with the eight project sites and other
IEDP and FREEP sites.
c) Extension of learning from national and international experiences:
The project
will support study tours, structured learning and other methods to extend opportunities
for local PA managers to learn and experience participatory approaches from other sites
in India and overseas, in particular related to aspects of institutional and financial
sustainability, participatory monitoring, and replication.
Scaling up of participatory conservation approaches:
Based on lessons from
Components 1 and 2, the project will provide support through a competitive small grants
program to support scaling-up of participatory conservation initiatives in other areas.
Specific criteria for award of grants are the following: (i) expansion of existing local
grown initiatives in conservation; (ii) ability to leverage additional governmental and
non-governmental resources for conservation initiative; and (iii) direct opportunities to
derive livelihood and income benefits from conservation and/or reciprocal commitments
(e.g., ecotourism, sustainable fisheries, non-timber forest products, etc.). In addition, this
sub-component will support the development of policy guidance notes based on learning
from Components 1 and 2, special studies and workshops to improve understanding of
policy and legal issues related to conservation, workshops to inform and facilitate scaling
up, and study tours and field visits to project landscape sites for cross learning in support
of scaling up.
Component Four:
Improving National and State level capacity for coordination and
promotion of landscape conservation approaches:
This component will support efforts
to strengthen and build capacity within the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) and
State forestry departments to coordinate the promotion and expansion of landscape conservation
approaches in the country based on the lessons emanating from the project and other
interventions. It will also facilitate the integration of landscape conservation into Central and
State Conservation Funding Schemes to promote its expansion at the national and state levels in
the Eleventh National Five-Year Development Plan (2008-2012). In particular, this includes the
following centrally funded conservation schemes: Project Tiger, Project Elephant, Assistance to
Parks and Sanctuaries, proposed scheme for wildlife conservation outside protected areas, and
the Forest Development Assistance for support to forest areas outside PAs. Under this subcomponent, the project will provide support for contract staff, limited operational costs and
technical support to assist MOEF in ensuring coordination and administration of the project and
promotion of the participatory landscape approach.
34
The project duration would be for a period of six years, which will comprise of the initial
systemic and institutional capacity building process of around one year, followed by
implementation at the landscape level in the remaining five years.
35
Annex 5: Project Costs
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
Project Cost By Component and/or Activity
1. Strengthening Biodiversity Conservation
Management in PAs and other eco-sensitive areas
2. Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation
Practices in Production landscapes
3. Improving Learning and Replication of
Participatory Conservation Approaches
4. Improving national and State level capacity for
Coordination and Promotion of Landscape
Conservation Approaches
Total Baseline Cost
Physical Contingencies
Price Contingencies
Total Project Costs1
Interest during construction
Front-end Fee
Total Financing Required
1
Local
Foreign
Total
US $million US $million US $million
11.0
Identifiable taxes and duties are US$m ___, and the total project cost, net of taxes, is
US$m___. Therefore, the share of project cost net of taxes is ___%.
36
24.5
4.8
6.8
47.1
47.1
Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
Implementation arrangements will be largely based on existing government and community
institutions. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) through its Project Tiger Office
(PTO) will be overall responsible for overseeing the implementation of activities, 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 Director, PTO will be supported by a small team to support intensive
learning, supervision and monitoring, outreach and communication, financial management and
procurement. Implementation of landscape activities will be decentralized. The following
summarizes the implementation arrangements:

Community level:
Planning and implementation of reciprocal commitments to
conservation and investments at the village level will be implemented through existing or
new village level committees. Planning at the village level will be facilitated through a
planning teams (consisting of a contract ecologist, sociologist and social mobilizers who
would be available at the disposal of the PA director or relevant Conservator of Forests Wildlife). Households at each village will be organized into user groups; such groups will
be collectively responsible for formulation of community-level microplans,
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. Local and
national NGOs with appropriate expertise would be contracted to assist with
microplanning, and capacity building at the community level as well as for independent
monitoring of social and economic impacts of the project interventions.

Landscape level:
The PA Director or Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), as relevant,
at the landscape level will be the key executive for the coordination and implementation
of the project. The respective PA Director or CF(Wildlife), as relevant will be assisted
by a planning team consisting of contract ecologist, sociologist and other specialists to
help facilitate protected area management, participatory conservation, training and
monitoring. The planning Team would draw professional and specialized training support
from competent non-governmental organizations and 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 impact zone surrounding it would be undertaken by the PA Directors, 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 Protected Area planning team and
financial support that is channeled through the PA administration.
37

State level: At the state level the coordination and oversight of the project will be
facilitated through state-level project steering committees, some of which already exist
through the previously completed Ecodevelopment project. This committee will
facilitate the implementation of the project at the landscape level, help resolve financial
and procurement bottlenecks, ensure timely release of funds and reporting. A very
important role of this committee is also to facilitate the coordination of planning activities
across the different sector agencies that operate in the landscape. The Chief Wildlife
Warden at the state level will play an important role to facilitate the implementation of
the project within the Forestry Department.

National level:
The Central Ministry of Environment and Forests will be
responsible for overseeing the implementation of the project, ensuring timely release of
funds to the states and reporting, assisting with project supervision and ensuring the
replication of participatory landscape concepts to other sites in the country during after
the project period. The Director, PTO will have a small team to support intensive
learning, supervision and monitoring, outreach and communication, financial
management and procurement. An Assistant/Deputy Inspector General will be appointed
under the Director, PTO on a full-time basis to oversee and supervise the implementation
of the project, provide technical and monitoring oversight and coordinate directly with
the respective Park Directors at the landscape level and state forestry departments to
ensure smooth and effective implementation of the project.
An Operational Manual and overall Project Implementation Plan (PIP) will be prepared by PTO
and finalized at project negotiations. Annual reviews of the PIP will lead to the agreement
between the GoI and the Bank on annual implementation plans for the use of project financing.
The project will build on existing GOI financial management systems and those tested under the
previously concluded IDA/GEF Ecodevelopment project. Fund releases from the Central
Government to the States and subsequently to the landscape level will be based on the
submission of an annual plan of operation (APO) for the landscape that would be compiled and
submitted by the executive (Park Director or Conservator of Forests – Wildlife, as relevant) at
the particular landscape site to MOEF. Following review and clearance of the APO by the
MOEF, the Internal Finance Department at the Central level will release funds to the respective
state forestry departments, who would, in turn, transfer the funds to the field level (Park Director
or Conservator of Forests – Wildlife, as relevant). For activities to be implemented outside the
PAs, or forest areas, funds would be released to the sector agencies responsible for
implementation of such activities in their respective areas of jurisdiction by the respective Park
Director. An operational manual will be developed to facilitate the administration and reporting
requirements of the project. Project administration and financial management will be undertaken
by PTO under its established institutional structure including: (i) budget approval and
monitoring; (ii) cash flow management (including processing loan withdrawal applications); (iii)
maintenance of accounting records; (iv) preparation of interim and year-end financial reports; (v)
administration of supporting information systems; and (vi) arranging for execution of external
audits.
38
PTO has project management experience from managing the IEDP project financed by the
World Bank, and the GEF PDF B Grant for preparation of this project. Certain project-specific
actions to be executed by loan effectiveness will be identified in a Financial Management Action
Plan. Annex 7 will describe in detail the Financial Management arrangements and the Financial
Management action plan.
39
Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
40
Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
(Recommended length 2-4 pages)
[The following standard text should be used. Insert additional text as needed per the instructions
in brackets]
A. General
Procurement for the proposed project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s
"Guidelines: Procurement Under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated May 2004; and
"Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated May
2004, and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement. The various items under different
expenditure categories are described in general below. For each contract to be financed by the
Loan/Credit, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need for
pre-qualification, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame are agreed between
the Borrower and the Bank in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan will be updated at
least annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements
in institutional capacity.
Procurement of Works: Works procured under this project would include: [Describe the types
of works]. The procurement will be done using the Bank’s Standard Bidding Documents (SBD)
for all ICB and National SBD agreed with or satisfactory to the Bank. [Indicate any special
requirements specific to the project.] [If the project involves procurement carried out by
communities, indicate where details can be found in the Project Implementation Manual or
similar documents.]
Procurement of Goods: Goods procured under this project would include :[ Describe the types
of goods]. The procurement will be done using the Bank’s SBD for all ICB and National SBD
agreed with or satisfactory to the Bank. [Indicate any special requirements specific to the
project.]
Procurement of non-consulting services: [ Provide a general description of non-consulting
services to be procured under the project and information on the bidding documents to be used
for the procurement.]
Selection of Consultants : [Provide a general description of the consulting services from firms
and individuals required for the project.] Short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost
less than $_______equivalent per contract may be composed entirely of national consultants in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines. [If applicable,
provide any information regarding engaging universities, government research institutions,
public training institutions, NGOs, or any special organizations.]
Operating Costs: [Describe the operating costs which would be financed by the project and
procured using the implementing agency’s administrative procedures which were reviewed and
found acceptable to the Bank.]
41
Others: [Describe if any special arrangements for scholarships, grants etc. ]
The procurement procedures and SBDs to be used for each procurement method, as well as
model contracts for works and goods procured, are presented in the [name the Project
Implementation Manual or the equivalent document.].
B. Assessment of the agency’s capacity to implement procurement
Procurement activities will be carried out by [name of the Implementing Agency]. The agency is
staffed by [describe the key staff positions], and the procurement function is staffed by [describe
the staff who will handle procurement].
An assessment of the capacity of the Implementing Agency to implement procurement actions
for the project has been carried out by [name of the procurement staff] on [date]. The assessment
reviewed the organizational structure for implementing the project and the interaction between
the project’s staff responsible for procurement Officer and the Ministry’s relevant central unit for
administration and finance.
The key issues and risks concerning procurement for implementation of the project have been
identified and include [describe the risks/issues]. The corrective measures which have been
agreed are [Describe the corrective measures].
The overall project risk for procurement is [give the risk rating].
C. Procurement Plan
The Borrower, at appraisal, developed a procurement plan for project implementation which
provides the basis for the procurement methods. This plan has been agreed between the
Borrower and the Project Team on [date] and is available at [provide the office name and
location]. It will also be available in the project’s database and in the Bank’s external website.
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.
D. Frequency of Procurement Supervision
In addition to the prior review supervision to be carried out from Bank offices, the capacity
assessment of the Implementing Agency has recommended [frequency] supervision missions to
visit the field to carry out post review of procurement actions.
E. Details of the Procurement Arrangements Involving International Competition
1. Goods, Works, and Non Consulting Services
(a) List of contract packages to be procured following ICB and direct contracting:
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Ref.
No.
Contract
(Description)
Estimated
Cost
Procurement
Method
P-Q
Domestic
Preference
(yes/no)
Review
by Bank
(Prior / Post)
Expected
BidOpening
Date
Comments
(b) ICB contracts estimated to cost above [fill in threshold amount] per contract and all direct
contracting will be subject to prior review by the Bank.
2. Consulting Services
(a) List of consulting assignments with short-list of international firms.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Ref. No.
Description of
Assignment
Estimated
Cost
Selection
Method
Review
by Bank
(Prior /
Post)
Expected
Proposals
Submission
Date
Comments
(b) Consultancy services estimated to cost above [fill in threshold amount] per contract and
single source selection of consultants (firms) for assignments estimated to cost above [fill in
threshold amount] will be subject to prior review by the Bank.
(c) Short lists composed entirely of national consultants: Short lists of consultants for services
estimated to cost less than [fill in threshold amount] equivalent per contract, may be composed
entirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the
Consultant Guidelines.
43
Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
(Refer Annex 15 for Incremental Cost Analysis)
44
Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
Safeguard Issues:
The screening category of the project is B. The safeguard policy for
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01), Forests (OP/BP 4.36), Pest Management (OP
4.09) and Indigenous People ( ) is triggered. The impact of the project on the safeguard policy
on Involuntary Resettlement ( ) would be defined once further social screening and assessment
has been completed. 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. An
environmental management framework will be developed to ensure that all
environmental issues are considered in project planning, implementation and monitoring.

Pest Management: The project might involve procurement and use of pesticides on a
limited scale to enhance crop production. However, the procurement and distribution of
pesticides in India is governed by WHO standards. There is no procurement of pesticides
classified as Class Ia, Ib and II. Training on methods of integrated pest management will
be provided to the extent possible.

Forests:

Indigenous Peoples: The people in the project area are Scheduled tribe and other
vulnerable group. The project site in Leh Ladakh falls within the within the VI Scheduled
Area. At other sites the Panchayat (Extension) Scheduled Areas Act is applicable to tribal
villages. In accordance with local laws and Bank’s OP 4.10, free prior and informed
consultations will be organized. In addition, the assessments will cover socio-economic
analysis, livelihood strategy, symbiotic relationship with natural resources, institutional
analysis and participatory planning, implementation and monitoring framework to
enhance their capacity to improve their livelihood and address poverty. A separate IPDP
will not be prepared.
Environmental Safeguard Policy Issues
Introduction: While the Project is inherently about improved environmental management,
certain project activities may have subtle or indirect adverse environmental impacts which if
overlooked may accrue into bigger impacts. It is in this context and in keeping with the principle
of environmental sustainability which the GoI and its project partners – WB, GEF and State
Governments, an Environmental Management Framework is being prepared.
Specifically, the Environmental Management Framework (EMF) will:
 describe the country’s environmental conditions as well as those pertaining to the sites
identified for implementation of the project interventions in the field;
45
 examines the country’s existing policies, regulations, guidelines and procedures for
environmentally sustainable development in relation to the WB environmental safeguard
policies that are likely to be triggered by the project;
 assesses 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;
 identifies potential adverse environmental impacts of probable project activities and provides
corresponding mitigation measures;
 provides a framework to operationalize environmental management measures based on
existing national environmental policies, regulations and guidelines, and in concord with the
requirements of relevant WB safeguard policies.
Methodology: The EMF is being prepared using information derived from literature review and
stakeholder consultations. Various policies, laws, regulations and guidelines related to
environmental management were extensively reviewed to make a comparative assessment with
WB safeguard policies relevant to the project. In addition, documents pertaining to BCRLIP
planning are being reviewed. This will include reports of local level stakeholder workshops
conducted in the project sites, project design workshops, etc.
Stakeholder consultations are being conducted at the village, landscape, regional and central
levels. Local-level consultations are being carried out with primary stakeholders, specifically the
local communities, local level institutions (PRIs), forestry and wildlife staff and local
government institutions, NGOs and other community institutions. At the landscape and state
levels, consultative meetings are being conducted with NGOs, community institutions, forestry
institutions, government agencies, and other key stakeholders. At the central level, consultations
are being carried out with the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Ministry of Tribal Welfare,
Social Development institutions, national level NGOs, etc.
Environmental Policies: World Bank environmental safeguard policy that is likely to be
triggered by this project is Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01), Forestry (OP 4.36), and Pest
Management (OP 4.09) and Indigenous people ( ). During further project preparation as
assessment would be made if the Policy of Involuntary Relocation ( ) is to be triggered or not.
Potential Environmental Impact of the Project: The potential adverse environmental impacts
from the project are likely to be small and limited with on-the-ground investments taking place at
household and village levels. On the whole, the project has been identified as a “Category B”
project based on World Bank classification for Environmental Assessment.
The project impacts are expected to be moderate to low, for which mitigation measures can be
readily designed and applied. As currently conceived, project activities that may have some
adverse environmental impacts include: cash crop production, promotion of improved cattle
breeds and stall-feeding, reforestation/ afforestation, community and homestead forest
plantations, construction of soil stabilization/ protection structures, rehabilitation of small rural
infrastructure, and alternate income-generating activities. By and large, these activities will be
contributing to the improvement of environmental conditions and local livelihoods.
46
However, it is recognized that the activities above will have certain subtle or indirect adverse
environmental impacts for which simple mitigation measures will be necessary. A list of
potential adverse environmental impacts from the project will be included in the EMF. During
project implementation, site- and design-specific environmental assessments will be carried out
to more accurately and comprehensively identify potential adverse environmental impacts and
corresponding mitigation measures.
During field consultations it will be assessed if local communities are 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
impact(s) and, hence is likely to entail simple mitigation measures which local communities
should be able to readily implement with guidance from PA team and relevant extension staff.
Institutional Arrangements: The implementation of the EMF will involve a number of
institutions ranging from local and landscape level to line Ministries at the respective State
levels. (describe )
Operationalizing the Environmental Management Framework
Social Aspects:
One of the key lessons from the implementation of the India Ecodevelopment 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 is being carried out by the Project
Tiger Office to identify social issues at each of the participating landscapes under the project and
developing a framework that would help address them in an effective manner. A detailed
stakeholder analysis (attached below) has been carried out at each of the participating landscapes
and the specific stakeholders with their interests identified. While in Agasthiyamalai landscape
in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, local communities have been organized into Village Forest
Committees and Joint Forest Management Committees (including pockets of tribal communities)
that have established a relatively strong working relationship with the Forest department and
other line agencies in the area, in the Upper Indus (Changthang) landscape in Jammu and
Kashmir, the process of co-management in collaboration between the local communities, the
forest department and other line agencies of the pastoral lands is just beginning. The situation in
Askote landscape in Uttaranchal is similar to some extent to the situation in Upper Indus
landscape as four different sects of local communities i.e. Bhutia-Buians or the transhumant
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
relationship amongst these 4 different sects would be studied as part of the Social Assessment.
In the Dampa landscape in Mizoram, the ethnic minorities of Bru, Chakma and Reang tribes are
trying to coexist with the largely Mizo population and this calls for focused attention to ensuring
that the minority communities don’t get marginalized. The local communities in the Satpura
landscape in Madhya Pradesh are largely tribal though learning about the relationship between
specific sub groups amongst the tribals would be an important objective of the Social
Assessment. Similarly in Wild Ass/Rann of Kachchh landscape, the unorganized salt farmers
47
(Agarias) are the most socio-economically disadvantaged section of the local communities and
their relationship with other communities in the area is being studied. Based on the information
gathered from the Social Assessment, the project would, in consultation with all local
stakeholders evolve a design that ensures adequate opportunity for all sections of the community
to actively participate and benefit from the interventions undertaken.
Preliminary consultations with the local communities and other stakeholders at each of the
participating landscapes has confirmed a high level of interest amongst 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 important sources of information for
design and implementation of project interventions.
The project is highly unlikely to cause any adverse social impacts including relocation of
communities or acquisition of privately owned land. The Social Assessment being undertaken at
each of the landscapes sites to confirm this. Some adverse impacts might arise from the potential
restriction on access to natural resources for communities residing in and around protected areas.
In the event that either relocation of communities or potential restriction on access to natural
resources does become inevitable, the provisions of the Bank safeguard policy 4.12 on
Involuntary Resettlement shall be applicable. Since a large part of the communities residing in
and around the landscapes are tribal communities, the World Bank policy 4.10 on Indigenous
Peoples shall also apply and its provisions are being used in the process of project design.
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. Grievance redressal mechanisms that are accessible to all sections of the community
would be an important part of the institutional design.
To ensure transparency and equity, a Process Framework (PF) for the participation of local
communities in the implementation of conservation and livelihood improvement activities by the
project is being developed that will detail the principles and processes for assisting communities
to manage any negative potential impacts. Since the exact social impacts of access will only be
identified during project implementation, the Process Framework will ensure that mitigation of
any negative impacts deriving from any potential restriction access by communities to natural
resources (e.g. grazing, fuelwood collection, etc) will be based on a participatory resource
mapping, involving all affected stakeholders, and on their consent regarding 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 for 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.
Restrictions by surrounding communities to utilize resources are possible, but such restrictions to
resource access are not expected to be introduced by the government or project entities. Rather,
they will be based on the consent of the community. In fact, specific forms of resource use may
continue on a reduced scale or may be restricted, but these actions would evolve through an
48
internal community decision making process, and alternative income or resource generations
measures will be agreed with those who may face the loss of some income as a result of
restrictions.
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 would be undertaken to areas where
community based participatory approaches to livelihood improvement and conservation have
been carried out.
49
Stakeholder Analysis – Agasthiayamalai Landscape (Tamil Nadu)
Stakeholder
Local communities
1. KMTR and its surrounding
areas
Characteristics/Interest
High level of conservation
awareness
Potential Impacts/Implications
Favorable
Project Approach/Strategy
Unfavorable
Can be used as a good model for
other communities to be targeted
by the project
1.
2.
Well developed and functioning
institutions (SHGs, VFCs) with a
good economic resource base.
2. Local communities living
immediately north of KMTR.
3. Srivilliputtur and its
surrounding areas.
4. Women and other vulnerable
groups.
5. Forest department
Limited dependence on forests.
Local communities have been
organized (JFM committees)
Moderate dependence on forest
resources
Livelihood issues of the
communities need to be
addressed.
Pockets of tribal communities
1. High dependence on forest
resources for livelihood.
2. Inadequate capacity
3. Lack of Social capital
Exploited by vested groups,
including middlemen.
Low literacy and intra and inter
community conflicts.
Varying scales of empowerment
and capacity.
Varying levels of capacity across
the landscape.
1. Existing institutions can be
potential building blocks for the
project.
In areas where such stakeholders
are adequately empowered, these
serve as pivots for conservation
enhancing activities.
Personnel manning KMTR and
its surrounds highly motivated,
skilled and experienced which
can be used as peer trainers at
other locations where such
50
Use this zone for
demonstration and
learning.
Community members
can act as resource
persons under the
project.
1. Adverse impact on
biodiversity due to dependence
on natural resources.
2. Inadequate capacity to address
livelihood issues.
1. Build on existing JFM
institutions.
2. Introduce livelihood programs
and conservation awareness.
3.
1. Adverse impact on
biodiversity
1. Build local institutions.
2. Capacity building for securing
livelihoods.
3. Use culturally appropriate
agents for institutional
development.
4. Use of conservation awareness
as a strategy for biodiversity
conservation.
Targeted approach for
institutional development of
women and vulnerable groups.
1.
2.
Cross learning through
exchange visits and
targeted capacity
building programmes.
Strengthen capacity by
capacity does not exist.
6. NGOs and other civil society
actors.
Experienced agencies and
individuals with a proven track
record are available.
recruiting
professionals on
contract relating to
ecology and social
development.
The project will utilize the
services of such resource persons
for capacity building and
learning in area to be targeted by
the new project.
These can be used as resources
for replicating the KMTR
lessons.
Stakeholder Analysis – Agasthiayarmalai Landscape (Kerala)
Stakeholder
1. Local communities
1a. Periyar and its surrounding
areas. (Northern part of the
landscape)
1b. Central zone (Thenmala,
Konni, Ranni)
1c. Southern zone ( Neyyar,
Peppara).
Characteristics/Interest
High level of conservation
awareness
Well developed and functioning
institutions (SHGs, EDCs) with a
good economic resource base.
Limited dependence on forests.
Low dependence on natural
resources in Konni and Ranni,
but fairly significant in case of
Thenmala. Thenmala forms a
vital corridor that needs to be
secured.
1. High dependence on forest
resources for livelihood.
2. Institutions exist but
characterized by inadequate
capacity.
3. Interspersed pockets of tribal
communities
1d. Women and other vulnerable
groups.
Varying scales of empowerment
and capacity.
2. Forest department
Varying levels of capacity across
the landscape.
Potential Impacts/Implications
Favorable
Project Approach/Strategy
Unfavorable
Can be used as a good model for
other communities to be targeted
by the project
1. Use this zone for
demonstration and learning.
2. Community members can act
as resource persons under the
project.
In konni and Ranni, impacts are
limited and have functioning
institutions (SHGs and VSS).
The corridor in Thenmala is
disconnected.
Existing institutions will be used
for project activities.
Adverse impact on biodiversity
In areas where such stakeholders
are adequately empowered, these
serve as pivots for conservation
enhancing activities.
Personnel manning Periyar and
its surrounds highly motivated,
Adverse impact in cases where
these groups are inadequately
empowered and targeted.
51
Inadequate capacity to
implement project in select
1. Conservation awareness.
2. The corridor needs to be
secured through swapping
and reorienting forestry
operations.
3. Strengthen existing CBOs.
1. Build and strengthen local
institutions.
2. Use culturally appropriate
agents for institutional
development of tribals.
3. Use of conservation awareness
as a strategy for biodiversity
conservation.
1. Targeted approach for
institutional development of
women and vulnerable groups.
2. Livelihood enhancement.
1. Cross learning through
exchange visits and targeted
skilled and experienced, which
can be used as peer trainers at
other locations where such
capacity does not exist.
Biodiversity rich areas (Ranni)
do not get requisite attention due
to administrative control of
territorial forest divisions.
3. Plantation industry
3.a. Government owned
plantations
3.b. Private plantations
4. Government line departments
5. NGOs and other civil society
actors.
Monoculture plantations in
significant portion of the
landscape in the central and
southern zones.
Collapse of the plantation sector
has adversely impacted the local
economy.
Inadequate coordination resulting
in practices not in consonance
with conservation objectives.
Experienced agencies and
individuals with a proven track
record are available.
pockets may lead to poor
performance. .
Lack of a focused biodiversity
conservation strategy.
These are an important source of
livelihoods to the local
community.
capacity building programs.
2. Strengthen capacity by
recruiting professionals on
contract for various needs.
Rationalization of boundaries to
include such areas within the PA
network.
Negative ecological impacts
associated with monoculture
plantations.
1. Application of prudent
ecological practices for
managing the plantations.
Negative impacts on livelihoods
and consequent pressure on
biodiversity.
1. Strengthen livelihoods in
such areas.
2. Positive engagement with the
industry.
Bringing about convergence and
inter agency coordination.
Negative impact on biodiversity
These can be used as resources
for replicating the lessons from
implementation of IEDP in
Periyar.
The project will utilize the
services of such resource persons
for capacity building and
learning in area to be targeted by
the new project.
Stakeholder Analysis – Askote Landscape (Uttaranchal)
Stakeholder
Local Communities-BhutiasDarma- (live in Dhauli river
basin- high altitude graziers)
Interest/Characteristics
1.
2.
High altitude graziers and
some local traders.
Potential that some of
them would get employed
as part of the proposed
hydroelectric project
(NHPC) coming up close
to their habitation
(Dhauli).
Potential impact
Favorable
Unfavorable
1. Have formed large Van
1. If not involved, can cause
Panchayats and therefore can be
damage to biodiversity through
the communities around whom
over-harvest of “bugiyals”
community based sustainable
(alpine meadows).
forest management can be
2. Are used as tools of
developed through positive
extraction by traders in Musk
engagement.
deer, snow leopard and black
bear etc.
3. Employment in NHPC
project could lead to
unsustainable pressures on
biodiversity resources (forests)
through increase in levels of
52
Project Approach/Strategy
1. To actively engage them
through their Van Panchayats
to practice sustainable natural
resource management.
2. Could be involved in
sustainable management of
Dhauli river basin since they
reside in this region.
Local Communities- Chaudans(14 villages-live close to Kali
river on Indo-Nepal border and
manage Kailash Yatra)
1.
Local Communities- Thakurs(ex-landlords)
1.
2.
2.
3.
Local communities-Vanrajis
(Negroids- Hunter gatherers)
1.
2.
CBO
Mahila Mangal Dal, Yuva
Mangal Dal,
CBO
Trader Association.
NGOs:
Arpan, Seedlings,
1.
Traders who work as
laborers and porters for the
Kailash Mansarovar yatra.
Used as
poachers/smugglers on the
frontline as part of Yatra
and illegal extraction of
Musk Deer, snow leopard,
medicinal plants etc..
Reside in densely
populated areas south of
Dharchula.
Control all trade in this
region also across
international borders.
Are petty traders residing
in the region.
Negroids/Hunter gatherers
slowly getting into settled
agriculture.
Being traditional hunters,
their impact on biological
values esp. wild animals is
quite high.
Community mobilization
and advancement motive
1. Being on the frontline for
managing the KM yatra, could
be involved in sustainable ecofriendly yatra management.
consumption.
1. If not involved can cause
damage through poaching,
smuggling etc..
1.
2.
1.
Being highly skilled
and knowledgeable,
are available
protectors of
biodiversity as
trekkers guides etc..
2. Culturally important
site of Chiplakedar is
close to where they
live and they could be
involved in tourism
and management in
this area.
1. Potential force for supporting
conservation
1. Main objective is to lobby for
better infrastructure and subsidies
Since they are
agriculturists, could
increase natural
resource extraction
for agriculture.
If not effectively
involved could
continue illegal
wildlife trade
including medicinal
plants.
1. If allowed to continue their
lifestyle, can have damaging
impacts on biodiversity.
1.Could form part of the
international trade channel for
smuggling of wild life and
medicinal plants
Can be a potential change agent
1. Low profile, low capacity
53
1. To provide capacity building
and institutional support for
active involvement in
sustainable eco-friendly yatra
management.
2. Could be involved in
sustainable management of
Kali river basin since they
reside in this region.
1. Need to be actively engaged
through outreach, education
and awareness generation.
2. Need for strong regulation of
their activities.
11. Being highly skilled and
knowledgeable, are available
protectors of biodiversity as
trekkers guides..
12. Culturally important site of
Chiplakedar is close to where
they live and they could be
involved in tourism and
management in this area.
1. Can be used as resource
persons/institutions as agents
of change
1. Out reach, awareness
2. Strict regulation
1. Capacity building initiatives
PRI:
Zila Parishad, Panchayat
Samiti, Gram Panchayat, Van
Panchayat
1. Low profile, low capacity
except for Van Panchayats
which are very active.
State:
Revenue, Police, Agriculture,
Horticulture,
Sericulture, PHE, Health,
Education, DRDA, PWD,
Irrigation, Fisheries.
1.
Do not have a biodiversity
conservation mandate.
Investments/decisions do not
take biodiversity concerns into
consideration
1.
Focus on development/rural
livelihood concerns.
1. Inadequate coordination
on issues of biodiversity
concern.
Central:
Central Water Commission,
CPWD, Agriculture,
Horticulture
Central: Customs, IB, DRI,
DGBR,
1.
1.
Focus on development/rural
livelihood concerns.
1. Inadequate coordination
on issues of biodiversity
concern.
Military and para military:
Army, ITBP, SSB, RAW,
1.
2.
2.
Do not have a biodiversity
conservation mandate.
Investments/decisions do
not take biodiversity
concerns into
consideration
Do not have a biodiversity
conservation mandate.
Investments/decisions do
not take biodiversity
concerns into
consideration
1. Van Panchayats are important
stakeholders whose capacity can
be effectively utilized.
1.
Focus on
development/rural
livelihood concerns.
1. Need to ensure that Zilla
Parishad, Panchayat Samiti
and Gram Panchayat have
understanding of
biodiversity conservation
considerations in all
activities.
1. Inadequate coordination on
issues of biodiversity concern.
Stakeholder Analysis – Dampa Landscape (Mizoram)
54
1. Capacity building
initiatives with Zila
Parishads, Panchayat
Samitis, Gram Panchayats
etc..
2. The capacity and work
done by Van Panchayats to
be built upon.
1. Enhance
understanding/awareness on
biodiversity concerns.
2. Assist in better
coordination for biodiversity
conservation and rural
livelihood improvement.
3. Establish systems for
coordinated decision making
on biodiversity conservation.
1. Enhance
understanding/awareness on
biodiversity concerns.
2. Assist in better
coordination for biodiversity
conservation and rural
livelihood improvement.
3. Establish systems for
coordinated decision making
on biodiversity conservation.
1. Enhance
understanding/awareness on
biodiversity concerns.
2. Assist in better
coordination for biodiversity
conservation and rural
livelihood improvement.
3. Establish systems for
coordinated decision making
on biodiversity conservation.
Stakeholder
1. Local communities, including
ethnic minorities.
2. Forest department
Characteristics/Interest
1. Dependent on the landscape
for shifting agriculture and other
natural resource dependent
occupations.
2. Ethnic minorities
characterized by extreme poverty
and low access to livelihood
resources.
3. Significant capacity and skills
in the Mizo community
(excluding ethnic minorities –
Chakmas and Reangs)
Poor institutional capacity.
Potential Impacts/Implications
Favorable
In some parts of the landscape,
land use practices continue to be
conducive to the persistence of
biodiversity.
Project Approach/Strategy
Unfavorable
Trajectory of land use change
progressively unfavorable for
biodiversity conservation.
Persistent dependence of ethnic
minority communities on PA
resources and poor livelihood
security.
Redeveloping shifting
agriculture for improved
productivity and maintenance of
natural vegetation.
Project activities will specifically
target ethnic minorities with
livelihood improvement
activities.
Significant ability of the
community to respond to project
interventions.
Limited ability to absorb and
effectively channelize project
investments.
3. NGOs and other civil society
actors.
Large number of civil society
organizations characterized by
limited capacity and on
occasions aggressive postures on
specific issues.
These can potentially contribute
constructively to the project if
strategically engaged.
Such actors can potentially
interfere with project execution,
included limited disruption.
4. Other government
development agencies.
Significant impact on land use
practices in the landscape
through government schemes and
plans.
Resources can be strategically
channelised to support
ecologically friendly livelihood
improvement activities.
Poor engagement may result in
persistence of biodiversity
depleting investments from line
agencies.
Capacity building activities
specifically through exposure
visits to PAs like Periyar that
have demonstrated innovative
participatory conservation
practices.
1. Such actors will be
consistently and transparently
engaged throughout project
preparation and implementation.
2. Targeted capacity building for
members of such organizations.
1. Project activities will be
significantly targeted towards
bringing about convergence of
actions of line agencies in favor
of conservation and livelihood
improvement.
Stakeholder Analysis – Satpura Landscape (MP)
Stakeholder
1. Local communities.
Characteristics/Interest
1. Dependent on the landscape
for livelihood resources.
Potential Impacts/Implications
Favorable
1. Traditional knowledge can be
potentially used for enhancing
conservation.
2. Fire fighting operations and
other forestry work depend
55
Project Approach/Strategy
Unfavorable
In pockets, resource use practices
may be incompatible with
conservation objectives.
1. Livelihood improvement
interventions with such
communities specially targeting
vulnerable and natural resource
dependent families.
significantly on labor from such
communities.
The reservoir provides livelihood
opportunities for local
communities.
2. Local communities dependent
on the Tawa reservoir.
Dependence of a significant
proportion of people within the
landscape directly and indirectly
on the reservoir through fishing
and agriculture in the draw down
area.
3. Forest department
1. Long institutional history of
forest management.
2. Significant capacity built
through such engagement, with
some gaps vis-à-vis social and
livelihood issues.
3. Territorial forest divisions
oriented towards production
forestry.
Policies, schemes and activities
of such departments not oriented
to conservation and some
livelihood concerns.
Existing capacity can be
channelised for improved
conservation.
Significant engagement of
vibrant civil society
organizations with conservation
and livelihood issues.
Such stakeholders can potentially
contribute constructively to the
project if strategically engaged.
4. Government line agencies.
5. NGOs and other civil society
actors.
1. Potential access to poachers.
2. Crocodile mortality and
disruption of crocodile
breeding.
3. limited disturbance due to
scale of fishing and agriculture
activities.
1. Limited ability to deal
with sensitive social
and livelihood issues.
2. Conservation issues
may be sidelined due
to existing forestry
regimes.
1. Realignment of boundaries.
2. Enhanced policing.
Threats to biodiversity and
ecologically friendly livelihood
strategies enhanced as a result of
actions of such departments.
1. Project inputs directed
towards engendering and
enhancing convergence inn favor
of biodiversity conservation and
conservation friendly livelihood
improvement.
1. Such actors will be
consistently and transparently
engaged throughout project
preparation and implementation.
2. Targeted capacity building for
members of such organizations.
Such actors can potentially
interfere with project execution,
included limited disruption.
1. Capacity building activities
specifically through exposure
visits to PAs like Periyar that
have demonstrated innovative
participatory conservation
practices.
2. Reorienting working plans
towards conservation.
Stakeholder Analysis – Wild Ass Sanctuary (Gujarat)
Stakeholder
Interest/Characteristics
Potential impact
Favorable
Graziers
Largely hold unproductive cattle.
Mostly subsistence farmers.
56
Unfavorable
1. Uncontrolled
grazing having adverse
impact on the
biodiversity.
2. Transmission of
disease from cattle to
wild ungulates.
Project Approach/Strategy
1. Introduce regulatory systems for
grazing.
2. Promote breed up gradation
and dairy industry to improve
livelihoods.
3. Introduce vaccination.
4. Biodiversity sensitization and
Salt farmers (Agariyas)
Fisher folk
Local Farmers
Forest Department
NGOs and other
research/educational
institutions
1. Mostly unorganized small farmers,
few cooperatives and one
large industry.
2. Seasonal activity conducted in
unregulated manner all over the
landscape.
3. Decreasing profitability due to
competition from marine salt
farming.
4. Decreasing brine availability.
1. Seasonal activity carried out in an
unregulated manner.
2. Inadequate awareness of
impact on biodiversity.
3. Mostly subsistence farmers
who are exploited by other
middlemen.
4. Some fisher folk come from
distant locations.
1. Practice rain-fed agriculture that is
likely to get converted to irrigated
agriculture because of Narmada
canal.
2. Local agro-biodiversity threatened
by exotic species.
3. Suffer crop damage by wild animals
(Wild Ass/Blue bull)
1.
2.
3.
Understaffed.
Inadequately trained.
Mandated to conserve wild
biodiversity.
1. NGO activity moderate both 1.
for biodiversity conservation and
rural livelihood improvement.
2. Research
institution
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
Adverse impact
on habitat.
Disturbance due
to transportation.
Endemic species
is threatened.
Per effort catch
is reducing.
Aquatic avifauna
is adversely
affected.
1. Provide source of
nutrition for wild animals.
awareness campaigns.
1. Regulation of licensing and
zonation within landscape.
2. Provide support to units abiding
by zonation (drinking water,
approach road etc.) Biodiversity
sensitization and awareness
campaigns.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1. Attempt to implement
conservation measures with
existing capacity.
2. Conduct regular awareness
programs for forest and
wildlife biodiversity and
ecotourism.
NGOs have some level of
contact through programs
with local communities.
57
1.
Inadequate
control on PA
and influence
over the
landscape.
2. Inadequate
coordination
with local
communities and
other
stakeholders.
1. Inadequate
understanding of
biodiversity issues
prevents desirable
1.
2.
3.
Introduce regulations for
fishing.
Awareness programs.
Organizing fisher folk
into self managed
cooperatives.
Assist farmers with crop
protection measures.
Awareness regarding
importance of local
biodiversity.
Assist in conserving local
biodiversity.
Assist in improved PA
and landscape
management.
Training and capacity
building in landscape
management.
Assist with establishing
linkages with other
stakeholders.
1.
Facilitate improved
understanding of biodiversity
issues amongst NGOs.
2.
Enhance involvement of
3.
Other line
departments/agencies
2.
3.
Private Sector/Industry
interventions
are
also
moderate.
Educational institutions are
inadequate.
Do not have a biodiversity
2.
conservation mandate.
Investments/decisions do not
take biodiversity concerns into
consideration.
1. Prime
motivation
is
profit,
inadequate
corporate
social
responsibility.
2. Low understanding of biodiversity
concerns.
Focus on development/rural
livelihood concerns.
1.
Provide
livelihood/employment to
local communities.
coordination.
research institutions in
landscape.
3.
Explore possibility of
involvement of educational
institutions in capacity building.
1. Inadequate
coordination on issues
of biodiversity concern.
1. Enhance
understanding/awareness on
biodiversity concerns.
2. Assist in better coordination
for biodiversity conservation
and rural livelihood
improvement.
3. Establish systems for
coordinated decision making on
biodiversity conservation.
1.
Effluents
adversely impact
biodiversity.
1.
2.
58
Engage and improve
understanding of
biodiversity concerns.
Sensitize and improve
standards of corporate
social and environmental
responsibility.
Stakeholder Analysis – Upper Indus (Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir)
Stakeholder
Local Nomads (Durbuk and
Kyon)
Local communities (Rang)
Characteristics/Interest
 Pasturalist communities
(Goat, sheep, Yak)
 Mostly poor
 Mostly migrating tribal
community (Changpa)
 Poor literacy
 Lack of drive and
entrepreneurial abilities
 Low value added locally for
Pashmina
 Agro-pasturalists
 Subsistence agriculture
 Slightly better literacy
 Mostly tribal community
(Changpa)
Potential Impacts/Implications
Favorable
 Peace loving and non-violent
nature
 Peace loving and non-violent
nature
Project Approach/Strategy
Unfavorable
 High pressure on land due to
grazing leading to
degradation (selective
grazing of nutritious species)
 Competition with wild life
for pastures
 Negative view towards wild
Ass (Kyong)
 Gazelle and Argali – close to
extinction
 Competition with wild life
for pastures
 Gazelle and Argali – close to
extinction
Forest Department (Wild life)




Highly understaffed
Inadequate skills
Lack of infrastructure
Negative image with public
(perceived as enemy)
 Man animal conflict not
attended
 Conservation focus
 Highly committed staff
 Inadequate skills and
resources for conservation
Military/para military forces
 Sizeable presence
 Inadequate appreciation of
the fragile eco system
 Ability to observe and
enforce discipline if proper
rules are framed and
accepted by senior officers
Hill Council
 Good image of governance
 Can help coordinate activities
 Poaching
 Restrict movement of local
herdsmen
 Large number of vehicles
and un-controlled driving
leading to pasture
degradation
 Camps in lake fringes
causing disturbance to birds
in breeding
 Import of live animals into
the area (i) adding to grazing
pressure and (ii) introduction
of animal diseases to Wild
life
 Lack of organized flow of
59
 Pasture management
 Alternate livelihoods
(handicrafts, eco-tourism)
 Pasture management
 Alternate livelihoods
(handicrafts, eco-tourism)
 Infrastructure
 Capacity building
 Management plan
preparation
 Research and survey
strengthening
 Promote co-management
Institutions/NGOs
 Commands respect of
community
 Empowered to take decisions
 Transparent, honest and
literate image
 Good number of agencies
available
 Scientific as well social skills
available
of all line agencies
 Conservation orientation
 Intersted in conservation and
social development
 Data base available
60
information leading to
inadequate attention to
conservation priorities
 Important role for
coordination and monitoring
 Role in community
awareness creation,
dissemination and social
mobilization
 Role in undertaking surveys
research studies and
monitoring
Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
Planned
PCN review
Initial PID to PIC
Initial ISDS to PIC
Appraisal
Negotiations
Board/RVP approval
Planned date of effectiveness
Planned date of mid-term review
Planned closing date
Actual
April 21, 2004
April 26, 2004
April 26, 2004
October 2006
January 2007
March 2007
Key institutions responsible for preparation of the project:
Project Tiger Office, Ministry of Forests and Environment;
State Forestry Departments
Bank staff and consultants who worked on the project included:
Name
Shankar Narayanan
R. R. Mohan
Mridula Singh
Malcolm Jansen
Asmeen Khan
Papia Bhattacharya
Dhimant Jayendrarav Baxi
Thao Le Nguyen
Lilac Thomas
Kathy Mackinnon
Title
Senior Social Development
Specialist
Senior Social Development
Specialist
Senior Social Development
Specialist
Task Team Leader
Co-Task Team Leader
Financial Management Sp.
Senior Procurement Sp.
Senior Financial Officer
Program Assistant
Lead Biodiversity Sp.
Legal Specialist
Bank funds expended to date on project preparation:
1. Bank resources:
2. Trust funds:
3. Total:
Estimated Approval and Supervision costs:
1. Remaining costs to approval:
2. Estimated annual supervision cost:
61
Unit
SASES
SASES
SASES
SASES
SASRD
SARFM
SARPS
LOAG2
SASAR
ENV
Annex 12: Documents in the Project File
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
Implementation Completion Report – Ecodevelopment Project
Lessons learned from Eco-development Experiences in India
62
Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
Difference between
expected and actual
disbursements
Original Amount in US$ Millions
Project ID
FY
P077977
2005
Purpose
Rural Roads Project
IBRD
IDA
Cancel.
Undisb.
99.50
300.00
P086518
2005
IN SME Financing & Development
P084792
2005
Assam Agric Competitiveness
P077856
2005
P084632
P075058
SF
0.00
GEF
0.00
0.00
415.65
120.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
154.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Lucknow-Muzaffarpur National Highway
620.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2005
Hydrology II
104.98
0.00
0.00
2005
TN HEALTH SYSTEMS
0.00
110.83
0.00
P073651
2005
DISEASE SURVEILLANCE
0.00
68.00
P073370
2005
Madhya Pradesh Water Sector
Restructurin
394.02
P050655
2004
RAJASTHAN HEALTH SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
P055459
2004
P078550
Orig.
Frm. Rev’d
6.65
0.00
120.00
0.00
0.00
148.98
-12.50
0.00
0.00
620.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
104.98
1.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
106.23
-7.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
65.67
-3.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
372.05
-18.64
0.00
0.00
89.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90.37
12.75
0.00
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
PROJECT (SSA)
0.00
500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
372.73
-11.91
0.00
2004
Uttar Wtrshed
0.00
69.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
68.25
-3.48
0.00
P073369
2004
MAHAR RWSS
P073776
2004
ALLAHABAD BYPASS
P079865
2004
GEF Biosafety Project
P082510
2004
Karnataka UWS Improvement Project
P075056
2003
Food & Drugs Capacity Building Project
P050649
2003
P076467
0.00
181.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
186.25
5.76
0.00
240.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
214.68
34.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.90
0.13
0.00
39.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
39.50
11.70
0.00
0.00
54.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
55.59
15.36
0.00
TN ROADS
348.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
331.63
42.87
0.00
2003
Chatt DRPP
0.00
112.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
119.42
5.00
0.00
P073094
2003
AP Comm Forest Mgmt
P067606
2003
UP ROADS
P072123
2003
P071272
P040610
0.00
108.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
91.79
-1.85
0.00
488.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
418.22
97.27
0.00
Tech/Engg Quality Improvement Project
0.00
250.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
279.29
50.26
0.00
2003
AP RURAL POV REDUCTION
0.00
150.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
112.58
65.76
0.00
2002
RAJ WSRP
0.00
140.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
137.16
64.60
0.00
P069889
2002
MIZORAM ROADS
0.00
60.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
46.84
2.97
0.00
P071033
2002
KARN Tank Mgmt
P072539
2002
KERALA STATE TRANSPORT
P074018
2002
P050647
P050653
0.00
98.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
109.30
31.49
0.00
255.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
186.05
7.72
0.00
Gujarat Emergency Earthquake
Reconstruct
0.00
442.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
302.46
324.15
0.00
2002
UP WSRP
0.00
149.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
157.96
102.62
0.00
2002
KARNATAKA RWSS II
0.00
151.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
151.62
46.45
0.00
P050668
2002
MUMBAI URBAN TRANSPORT
PROJECT
463.00
79.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
461.59
104.78
0.00
P010566
2001
GUJARAT HWYS
381.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31.00
179.96
162.63
83.57
P035173
2001
POWERGRID II
450.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
135.78
94.78
8.46
P050658
2001
TECHN EDUC III
-6.98
P071244
2001
Grand Trunk Road Improvement Project
P055454
2001
KERALA RWSS
P070421
2001
KARN HWYS
P055455
2001
RAJ DPEP II
P059242
2001
MP DPIP
0.00
64.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
31.11
12.13
589.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
347.42
240.42
0.00
0.00
65.50
0.00
0.00
10.00
37.64
17.51
-1.14
360.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
214.05
90.72
0.00
0.00
74.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
44.42
10.86
0.00
0.00
110.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
81.76
38.76
11.75
63
P038334
2001
RAJ POWER I
P067216
2001
KAR WSHD DEVELOPMENT
180.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.02
68.83
69.18
0.00
100.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
101.48
70.20
P009972
2000
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS III PROJECT
P010505
2000
P050667
2000
P067330
0.00
0.00
516.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
243.71
209.65
-39.62
RAJASTHAN DPIP
0.00
100.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
64.88
43.10
15.81
UP DPEP III
0.00
182.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.90
50.01
28.49
2000
IMMUNIZATION STRENGTHENING
PROJECT
0.00
142.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.46
-83.17
0.00
P050657
2000
UP Health Systems Development Project
P049770
2000
REN EGY II
P045049
2000
AP DPIP
P059501
2000
IN-TA for Econ Reform Project
P055456
2000
IN-Telecommunications Sector Reform
TA
P050646
1999
P050651
1999
P045051
0.00
110.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
83.94
52.92
0.00
80.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
83.00
58.17
27.22
0.00
111.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
39.08
6.72
0.00
0.00
45.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
37.06
5.30
7.94
62.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
11.57
31.57
1.96
UP Sodic Lands II
0.00
194.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
49.13
39.59
0.00
MAHARASH HEALTH SYS
0.00
134.00
0.00
0.00
16.96
39.65
50.48
2.57
1999
2ND NATL HIV/AIDS CO
0.00
191.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
44.09
39.57
0.00
P045050
1999
RAJASTHAN DPEP
0.00
85.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
23.61
20.01
18.64
P041264
1999
Wtrshd Mgmt Hills II
85.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.87
8.40
0.00
P038021
1998
DPEP III (BIHAR and Jharkhand)
0.00
152.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
65.02
53.87
21.35
P049385
1998
AP ECON RESTRUCTURIN
301.30
241.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.22
82.57
34.51
P035827
1998
WOMEN & CHILD DEVLPM
10.72
P010561
1998
Natl Agr Technology
P010496
1998
P044449
P010511
P010473
0.00
300.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
136.92
121.44
96.80
100.00
0.00
0.00
18.00
22.25
45.26
0.61
ORISSA HEALTH SYS
0.00
76.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
24.08
17.39
-4.19
1997
RURAL WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT
0.00
19.50
0.00
0.00
6.72
3.59
11.07
3.71
1997
MALARIA CONTROL
0.00
164.80
0.00
0.00
46.50
28.99
73.65
27.26
1997
TUBERCULOSIS CONTROL
0.00
142.40
0.00
0.00
13.04
39.70
55.33
36.75
6,277.15
0.00
1.00
164.24
8,318.91
2,774.90
289.39
Total:
6,273.10
INDIA
STATEMENT OF IFC’s
Held and Disbursed Portfolio
In Millions of US Dollars
Committed
Disbursed
IFC
IFC
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic.
2005
ADPCL
42.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
2005
AP Paper Mills
35.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2002/03
ATL
1.69
0.00
0.00
2003
Alok
17.50
0.00
1992/93
Arvind Mills
0.00
2003
BHF
10.99
2001/04
BILT
2001
2003
Equity
Quasi
Partic.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.99
0.00
10.99
0.00
10.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.00
0.00
BTVL
0.00
5.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.80
0.00
0.00
Balrampur
16.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.02
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
1984/91
Bihar Sponge
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
64
Loan
2001/03
CCIL
1.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
1990/92
CESC
14.73
0.00
0.00
32.83
14.73
0.00
0.00
32.83
2004
CGL
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2004
CMScomputers
10.00
10.00
2.50
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2002/05
COSMO
0.00
4.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.20
0.00
0.00
2004
Cairn Energy
40.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1995/05
Centurion Bank
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
2005
DCM Shriram
30.00
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
2003
Dewan
12.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
EXB-STG
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
1995
GE Capital
0.00
0.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.78
0.00
0.00
2001
GTF Fact
0.00
1.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.00
0.00
1994
GVK
0.00
7.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.45
0.00
0.00
1998
Global Trust
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
1994
Gujarat Ambuja
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
2003
HDFC
100.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2001
HIWEL
0.00
1.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.64
0.00
0.00
1998
IAAF
0.00
1.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.29
0.00
0.00
1995/00
ICICI-SPIC Fine
0.00
2.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.79
0.00
0.00
1998
IDFC
0.00
15.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.46
0.00
0.00
2001
IIEL
0.00
3.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.06
0.00
0.00
1990/93/98
IL & FS
0.00
2.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.11
0.00
0.00
1992/95
IL&FS VC
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
1996
India Direct Fnd
0.00
6.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.69
0.00
0.00
2001
Indian Seamless
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1993
Indo Rama
5.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
1996
Indus II
0.00
1.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.73
0.00
0.00
1992
Indus VC Mgt Co
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
1992
Info Tech Fund
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
2001
Jetair
0.00
0.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.00
0.00
2005
K Mahindra INDIA
22.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2003
L&T
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1990/93
M&M
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
2002
MMFSL
10.10
0.00
8.01
0.00
10.10
0.00
8.01
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
0.70
0.00
0.00
1996/99/00
Moser Baer
23.22
9.68
0.00
0.00
23.22
9.68
0.00
0.00
1997
NICCO-UCO
1.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
NIIT-SLP
6.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
2003/04
NewPath
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.03
0.00
0.00
2003
Niko Resources
40.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
Orchid
0.00
3.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.03
0.00
0.00
1997
Owens Corning
8.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
2004
Powerlinks
77.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
1995
Prism Cement
10.90
3.63
0.00
5.45
10.90
3.63
0.00
5.45
2004
RAK India
20.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1995/04
Rain Calcining
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
SBI
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
65
1997/00
SREI
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1995
Sara Fund
0.00
5.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.94
0.00
0.00
2004
SeaLion
5.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001/03
Spryance
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
2004
Sundaram Finance
45.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
45.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
2000/02
Sundaram Home
10.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
1998
TCW/ICICI
0.00
3.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.31
0.00
0.00
2002
TML
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1989
UCAL
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
2004
UPL
17.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
1996
United Riceland
7.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
2002
Usha Martin
21.00
3.60
0.00
0.00
21.00
3.60
0.00
0.00
2001
Vysya Bank
0.00
3.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.66
0.00
0.00
1997
WIV
0.00
1.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.97
0.00
0.00
1997
Walden-Mgt India
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
120.44
56.00
138.28
521.65
98.30
53.50
138.28
Total portfilio:
855.07
Approvals Pending Commitment
FY Approval
Company
2005
AP Paper Mills
2000
APCL
2005
2005
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic.
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
Allain Duhangan
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
Bharat Biotech
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2004
CGL
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
2004
CIFCO
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
2001
GI Wind Farms
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
2005
H & R Johnson
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
2004
Ocean Sparkle
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2005
SRF Ltd.
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
Vysya Bank
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
Total pending committment:
0.08
66
Annex 14: Country at a Glance
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
P O V E R T Y a nd S O C IA L
2003
P o pulatio n, mid-year (millio ns)
GNI per capita (A tlas metho d, US$ )
GNI (A tlas metho d, US$ billio ns)
India
S o ut h
A s ia
Lo winc o m e
1,064.4
540
569.8
1,425
510
726
2,310
450
1,038
1.6
2.1
1.8
2.3
1.9
2.3
29
28
63
65
47
84
39
99
107
90
..
28
63
68
48
84
41
95
103
88
..
30
58
82
44
75
39
92
99
85
D e v e lo pm e nt dia m o nd*
Life expectancy
A v e ra ge a nnua l gro wt h, 19 9 7 - 0 3
P o pulatio n (%)
Labo r fo rce (%)
M o s t re c e nt e s t im a t e ( la t e s t ye a r a v a ila ble , 19 9 7 - 0 3 )
P o verty (% o f po pulatio n belo w natio nal po verty line)
Urban po pulatio n (% o f to tal po pulatio n)
Life expectancy at birth (years)
Infant mo rtality (per 1,000 live births)
Child malnutritio n (% o f children under 5)
A ccess to an impro ved water so urce (% o f po pulatio n)
Illiteracy (% o f po pulatio n age 15+)
Gro ss primary enro llment (% o f scho o l-age po pulatio n)
M ale
Female
GNI
per
capita
Gro ss
primary
enro llment
A ccess to impro ved water so urce
India
Lo w-inco me gro up
KE Y E C O N O M IC R A T IO S a nd LO N G - T E R M T R E N D S
19 8 3
19 9 3
2002
2003
212.3
273.9
510.2
603.3
Gro ss do mestic investment/GDP
Expo rts o f go o ds and services/GDP
Gro ss do mestic savings/GDP
Gro ss natio nal savings/GDP
19.7
6.0
17.6
18.4
21.3
10.0
22.5
23.1
22.8
15.2
24.2
26.3
23.8
14.5
22.2
24.4
Current acco unt balance/GDP
Interest payments/GDP
To tal debt/GDP
To tal debt service/expo rts
P resent value o f debt/GDP
P resent value o f debt/expo rts
-1.7
0.4
15.1
16.5
..
..
-0.6
1.3
34.4
25.2
..
..
0.7
0.7
20.6
13.9
..
..
1.4
18.3
19.6
18.3
..
..
2002
2003
2003-07
5.9
4.2
13.4
4.6
3.0
21.8
8.3
6.7
7.0
6.0
4.6
9.2
19 8 3
19 9 3
2002
2003
E c o no m ic ra t io s *
GDP (US$ billio ns)
19 8 3 - 9 3 19 9 3 - 0 3
(average annual gro wth)
GDP
GDP per capita
Expo rts o f go o ds and services
5.4
3.3
8.0
Trade
Do mestic
savings
Investment
Indebtedness
India
Lo w-inco me gro up
S T R UC T UR E o f t he E C O N O M Y
(% o f GDP )
A griculture
Industry
M anufacturing
Services
36.6
25.8
16.3
37.6
31.0
26.3
16.1
42.8
22.7
26.6
15.6
50.7
22.2
26.6
15.8
51.2
P rivate co nsumptio n
General go vernment co nsumptio n
Impo rts o f go o ds and services
71.8
10.6
8.1
67.4
11.4
10.0
65.0
12.5
15.6
64.9
12.8
16.0
19 8 3 - 9 3 19 9 3 - 0 3
2002
2003
G ro wt h o f inv e s t m e nt a nd G D P ( %)
15
10
5
0
(average annual gro wth)
A griculture
Industry
M anufacturing
Services
3.1
6.4
6.1
6.7
2.4
5.9
6.0
8.1
-5.2
6.4
6.2
7.1
9.1
6.7
7.3
8.7
P rivate co nsumptio n
General go vernment co nsumptio n
Gro ss do mestic investment
Impo rts o f go o ds and services
5.2
5.6
5.3
6.3
4.5
7.1
7.5
10.6
-0.8
3.1
9.5
8.1
7.6
9.9
12.0
11.1
67
98
99
00
01
GDI
02
03
GDP
G ro wt h o f e xpo rt s a nd im po rt s ( %)
30
20
10
0
-10
98
99
00
Exports
01
02
Imports
03
India
P R IC E S a nd G O V E R N M E N T F IN A N C E
19 8 3
D o m e s t ic pric e s
(% change)
Co nsumer prices
Implicit GDP deflato r
G o v e rnm e nt f ina nc e
(% o f GDP , includes current grants)
Current revenue
Current budget balance
Overall surplus/deficit
19 9 3
2002
2003
Inf la t io n ( %)
15
14.4
8.9
5.0
9.5
4.1
3.5
3.7
3.7
10
5
0
..
..
..
17.5
-4.3
-8.3
17.5
-6.0
-10.2
18.7
-4.9
-9.3
19 8 3
19 9 3
2002
2003
9,861
348
434
5,234
16,575
1,694
4,703
3,069
22,683
814
888
16,657
26,739
327
5,754
6,243
52,512
1,432
1,996
40,245
65,422
2,411
17,640
13,498
62,952
1,321
2,341
47,616
79,658
3,059
20,570
17,132
101
106
96
104
96
109
88
96
92
93
100
94
19 8 3
19 9 3
2002
2003
13,141
18,767
-5,626
27,947
31,468
-3,521
77,475
83,620
-6,145
90,568
96,590
-6,022
-527
2,558
-3,270
5,265
-4,935
14,807
-4,703
18,885
-3,595
-1,526
3,727
8,160
98
99
00
01
02
GDP deflator
03
CPI
TRADE
(US$ millio ns)
To tal expo rts (fo b)
Tea
Iro n
M anufactures
To tal impo rts (cif)
Fo o d
Fuel and energy
Capital go o ds
Expo rt price index (1995=100)
Impo rt price index (1995=100)
Terms o f trade (1995=100)
E xpo rt a nd im po rt le v e ls ( US $ m ill.)
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
0
97
98
99
00
01
Exports
02
03
Imports
B A LA N C E o f P A Y M E N T S
(US$ millio ns)
Expo rts o f go o ds and services
Impo rts o f go o ds and services
Reso urce balance
Net inco me
Net current transfers
C urre nt a c c o unt ba la nc e t o G D P ( %)
2
1
0
97
Current acco unt balance
98
99
00
01
02
03
-1
Financing items (net)
Changes in net reserves
2,777
818
10,160
-8,634
13,253
-16,980
8,820
-16,980
M emo :
Reserves including go ld (US$ millio ns)
Co nversio n rate (DEC, lo cal/US$ )
5,649
10.3
19,254
31.4
75,428
48.4
111,648
46.0
19 9 3
2002
2003
94,342
10,123
16,192
105,210
5,141
21,642
118,075
4,128
22,632
E X T E R N A L D E B T a nd R E S O UR C E F LO WS
19 8 3
(US$ millio ns)
To tal debt o utstanding and disbursed
32,139
IB RD
1,779
IDA
7,820
-2
C o m po s it io n o f 2 0 0 3 de bt ( US $ m ill.)
To tal debt service
IB RD
IDA
2,618
246
91
8,345
1,509
294
13,042
3,029
637
20,545
2,048
693
Co mpo sitio n o f net reso urce flo ws
Official grants
Official credito rs
P rivate credito rs
Fo reign direct investment
P o rtfo lio equity
380
1,360
1,318
0
0
368
1,754
2,634
668
3,567
410
-3,657
-1,861
3,611
944
559
-2,765
-1,983
3,137
11,355
Wo rld B ank pro gram
Co mmitments
Disbursements
P rincipal repayments
1,072
1,345
120
929
1,716
964
1,523
1,465
3,196
1,169
1,557
2,403
G: 9,472
A: 4,128
B:
22,632
D: 2,703
68
F: 57,720
A - IBRD
B - IDA
C - IM F
E: 21,420
D - Other multilateral
E - Bilateral
F - Private
G - Short-term
Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
The Baseline Scenario
The Baseline Scenario consists of two related but not necessarily coinciding developments. One
is donor assistance to GoI in support of rural development in areas located outside the twelve
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 development consists of strengthening the
operations of the designated protected areas 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, the Government will maintain current levels of support, which are estimated in
total to be about USD 7.9 million for the period 2007-2013. Additionally, GoI will contribute to
donor-financed interventions to improve the operations of the PAs. This is estimated at USD 1.8
million in counterpart financing to complement the IDA project contribution of USD 6.8 million.
These investments would be undertaken against the backdrop of Government initiatives, costing
about USD 0.7 million, to share lessons learned in PA management from the implementation of
the Ecodevelopment project among other groups of 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 USD 14 million
for the period 2007-2013. 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 USD 4.2 million. And beneficiaries are expected to contribute about USD 3.5 million. Finally
GoI is expected to contribute USD 1.6 million in total for the administration and management of
all of these investments during their 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 USD 6.8 million for the PAs in the project landscape sites and about USD 12.8
million for rural development among the communities located outside the PAs. IDA will also
contribute in total about USD 4.2 for the costs of administration and management of investment
implementation.
Baseline Costs. The full Baseline Scenario is therefore estimated to cost approximately USD
57.5 million including price contingencies. This estimate includes financial resources allocated
or to be allocated for activities related to agriculture, livestock, forestry, extension services and
PA operations. 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 management and rural development in the future without a project and
proposed with project(s) investments in PAs and rural development before consideration of a
GEF alternative.
69
Table: Breakdown of Baseline Expenditures
GoI &
Donors
Beneficiaries (IDA)
On-going PA operations
7.9
PA investments
1.8
On-going social services
Total
7.9
6.8
14.0
8.6
14.0
Rural development investments
7.7
Ecodevelopment lessons
dissemination
0.7
Investment administration &
management
1.6
4.2
5.8
33.7
23.8
57.5
Total
12.8
20.5
0.7
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 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 but pressures on the
boundaries and disturbances within PAs affecting the attainment of conservation objectives 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 PAs.
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 and its replication elsewhere in the country. The GEF
Alternative embodies a project that will intervene in several significant areas, including local
governance, technical capacity building, human resource development, on-the-ground
investments within protected areas and surrounding production landscapes, targeted research,
70
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
 assistance to reform development planning from bottom-to-top and top-to-bottom so that
financial and physical resources in a way that best supports the application of sustainable
land use management,
 environmentally beneficial approaches (e.g., capacity building in land use planning and
management, in analysis of geographic information, in incentive and other policy
frameworks that improve the effectiveness and sustainability of land management),
 increased local, regional and national capacity and skills for supporting participatory
approaches;
 increased investments in the rehabilitation of pasture lands and promotion of innovative
forest rehabilitation/development,
 research and demonstration, and environmental monitoring of land degradation trends,
 incremental support for the additional project administration requirements.
Component 1: Strengthening Biodiversity Conservation Management in Protected Area
and Eco-Sensitive Areas. Under this component, the GEF alternative will support the
incremental costs associated with conservation mapping to identify locations for conservation
interventions, strengthening of PA planning and management, and improved conservation
outcomes in eco-sensitive sites outside traditional PAs within the eight project landscapes. The
incremental cost of these activity compared to the Baseline is about USD 2.4 million.
Component 2: Mainstreaming of Biodiversity Conservation in Production Areas. Under
this component, the GEF alternative will support the incremental costs associated with
incorporation of biodiversity conservation and livelihood considerations across the broader
landscape, particularly in critical areas that are essential to maintain the viability and
connectivity of the high conservation areas within the landscape. The incremental cost of this
component compared to Baseline expenditures for rural extension services and investments in
rural development is about USD 4.0 million.
Component 3: Improving learning and Replication of Participatory Approaches to
Conservation. Under this component, the GEF alternative would support the dissemination of
lessons learned to encourage replication at other sites in India and to provide information useful
to an international community interested in understanding the application of participatory
conservation approaches in other contexts would increase by about USD 4.1 million as compared
to the Baseline.
Component 4: Improving National Level and State level Capacity for Coordination and
Promotion of Landscape Conservation Approaches. Under the GEF Alternative there would be
no appreciable change in the total financing required for project implementation; although,
specific items that are procured might vary. As under the Baseline scenario, donors will help
support capacity for managing investment implementation. While GoI will provide staff and
office facilities, donors will assist the financing of office equipment, consumables, services and
transport. Under the GEF Alternative, however, project management would expand to include
71
local capacity building at the national level to manage the PA learning network described under
component 3. This would amount to an incremental cost of about USD 1 million.
Cost. The total cost of the GEF Alternative is estimated for the six-year period at the level of
about USD 69.0 million (including contingencies). The following table displays expenditures
under the GEF scenario.
Table: Breakdown of Development Expenditures under the GEF Alternative
GoI &
IDA +
Beneficiaries GEF
On-going PA operations
7.9
PA investments
1.8
On-going social services
Total
7.9
9.2
14.0
11.0
14.0
Rural development investments
7.7
16.8
24.5
Ecodevelopment lessons
dissemination
0.7
4.1
4.8
Investment administration &
management
1.6
5.2
6.8
33.7
35.3
69.0
Total
In summary, for a project under the GEF Alternative donors, IDA will finance about USD 23.8
million to finance investments in PAs, in rural development about the PAs and in project
management. GEF would in turn contribution approximately USD 11.5 million to these efforts,
including financing to expand the dissemination of India’s experience in participatory
approaches to conservation for replication elsewhere in India and abroad. Total GoI contribution
to a project under the GEF Alternative would amount to about USD 8.3 million, while
beneficiaries would be expected to contribute about USD 3.5 million towards rural development
investments that improve local livelihoods. Total project costs under the GEF Alternative are
therefore approximately USD 47.1 million. Additionally under the GEF Alternative GoI would
maintain its existing plan and non-plan budget contributions of about USD 21.8 million for the
PAs and surrounding areas for the period of 2007-2013.
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.
72
Incremental Cost Analysis Summary
Component
A. Strengthening
Biodiversity Conservation
in Selected Landscapes:
Cost
Category
Baseline
USD
Million
16.5
Domestic Benefit
Global Benefit
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 habitats but
likelihood of protected area
system becoming
increasingly problematic and
less successful in the long
run.
An improved planning
framework for
managing the
interactions between
designated protected
areas and populations
inhabiting surrounding
landscapes, identifying
potential local
livelihood
opportunities and
constraints.
The development of local
management tools
facilitating the protection of
globally significant habitats.
Institutional capacity
in place to meet
operational
requirements of
protected area
management and
ecodevelopment.
Adjustment of public
expenditures in PA
operations to support
approaches cultivating longterm local participation in
and support for conservation
ideals underlying local PA
management objectives.
Expansion of local
capacity to manage
environmental
resources.
Expanded application of
locally developed tools and
approaches in support of
core conservation objectives
of globally significant
habitats.
Support for local
Limited impact on negative
GEF
Alternative



Conservation
Mapping
0.6
Strengthening PA
Management
Capacity
17.3
Promotion of
Conservation
Practices Outside
Protected Areas
1.0
B. Support for Biodiversity
Total
Incremental
Baseline
18.9
2.4
34.5
73
Conservation in Production
Landscapes
GEF
Alternative
social and extension
services (plan/nonplan budget and IDA
rural-based
investment) and
development of rural
livelihoods.
trends in sensitive resource
extraction, land
encroachment and other
environmental impacts upon
protected areas.
Support for local
social and extension
services (plan/nonplan budget and
IDA/GEF area
investment) and
development of rural
livelihoods.
Mobilization of local support
and increased community
commitment to the
responsible use of natural
resources contributing to
global biodiversity
objectives: the reduction of
risks to protected areas
serving as refuges for fauna
and flora whose populations
have declined, are threatened
or are endangered within the
selected landscapes.
38.5
Transition to
comparable or higher,
environmentally
sustainable rural
livelihoods.
Increased community
involvement and
accountability in land
and natural resources
management.
Generation of diversified,
replicable approaches to
biodiversity conservation in
balance with human
requirements for other rural
areas within the South Asian
and Southeast Asian regions.
Slowing of rate of
local forest and land
degradation.
Improved Learning and
Replication of
Participatory Approaches.
Total
Incremental
Baseline
38.5
4.0
0.7
GEF
Alternative
4.8
On-going staff training
within technical line
agencies on sectorspecific topics,
including training
relating to IDAfinanced rural
investment.
Augmentation of staff
training contributing to
the mainstreaming of
environmental
concerns in agency
operations.
Limited awareness of
biodiversity conservation
risks and opportunities of
managing PAs embedded
within production
landscapes.
Preservation and
dissemination of
knowledge base
assisting the
replication of
ecodevelopment
Increased capacity in South
Asia region for effective
control of threats to
biodiversity conservation
within and outside of a
formal protected area
74
Support for spread of
application of landscape
management/participatory
approach to biodiversity
conservation to other areas
of India.
approaches within
India.
Exposure of wide
range of stakeholders
to potential of linking
livelihood
opportunities with
conservation
objectives.
system.
Contribution of studies and
lessons learned in
participatory approaches to
conservation within
production landscapes.
Development of learning and
training centres accessible to
international community.
Increased national and
local understanding of
ecological, economic
and social
consequences of
alternative uses of
natural resources.
Improved local
capacity for
sustainable land use
decision making.
Project Management/
Totals
Total
Incremental
Baseline
4.8
4.1
5.8
GEF
Alternative
6.8
Total
Incremental
Baseline
GEF
Alternative
Incremental
Capacity developed
for interagency and
inter-state cooperation
in participatory
approaches to
conservation.
Employment of local
resources in project
management.
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.
6.8
1.0
57.5
69.0
11.5
75
Annex 16: STAP Roster Review
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
STAP Reviewer: Julian Caldecott
February 2006
1. 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 Ecodevelopment Project
(IEDP) and similar projects in various locations including several of the eight target areas. The
latter are landscapes which each contain 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 globallyimportant biodiversity resources, including forests, wetlands and grasslands at a range of
elevations in the south (Tamil Nadu, Kerala), centre (Madhya Pradesh), west (Gujarat), north
(Uttaranchal, Jammu & Kashmir,) and north-east (Assam, Mizoram) of the country. These target
landscapes were selected by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) 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 ecodevelopment 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
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
76
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.
77
Weak
government
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.
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 ecodevelopment 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 translated into the following elements of the proposed sixyear project, of which the first year would comprise an establishment and capacity-building
78
phase, with field implementation thereafter. This summary is based on the rather opaque text of
the draft project document.
Component 1: Strengthening biodiversity conservation management in protected areas and
eco-sensitive areas.
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 ecodevelopment interventions.
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
79
agreements will provide a basis, for participatory monitoring of impacts on conservation and
livelihoods.
Component 3: Improved learning, and replication of participatory approaches to
conservation.
a)
Learning centres 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.
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 national and state capacity to coordinate and promote landscapelevel 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
80
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.
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 CBD 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 CBD work programs on forests, dry lands, mountains, protected areas,
incentives and sustainable use.
81
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 project is said to be strongly endorsed by the
GEF focal point.
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.
2.5
Replicability
The project in itself builds on and replicates results from ten years’ in-country experience with
ecodevelopment 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).
3.0
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
82
The Government of India ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 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 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).
3.3.
Other environmental effects
3.4
Involvement of stakeholders
The project document asserts that the project design builds on past ecodevelopment 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 microplanning with targeted
communities.
3.5
Capacity-building aspects
83
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.
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 ecodevelopment 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 ecodevelopment and related
projects in India, have not been justified.
Task Team Comments: The lessons and experiences of the previous ecodevelopment 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
Threats
Root Causes
Opportunities
Recommended
Strategies
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.
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
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
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
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
84
Appropriate management interventions to manage conflicts in resource uses
Improved capacity for community planning and decision making on resource conservation and use
B.
Agasthiyamalai Landscape (Tamil Nadu)
Biodiversity
Significance
Threats
Root Causes
Opportunities
Recommended
strategies
C.
Threats
Root Causes
Opportunities
Recommended
Strategies
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.
Enroachment 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
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
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 ecodevelopment models) serving as foci for this
expansion
Collaborative linkages with CEPF can complement project activities
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 ecotourism as alternative to unsustainable resource use
Support for community based value addition and processing of medicinal and aromatic plant products
Dampa landscape
Biodiversity
Significance
Threats
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 ecodevelopment models) serving as foci for this
expansion
Collaborative linkages with CEPF can complement project activities
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
Agastalyamalai Landscape (Kerala)
Biodiversity
Significance
D.
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.
Enroachment 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
Lack of suitable livelihood alternatives for forest dependent people
Lack of coordination between development agencies and forest department
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.
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
85
Root Causes
Opportunities
Recommended
Strategies
5.
Sathpura landscape
Biodiversity
Significance
Threats
Root Causes
Opportunities
Recommended
Strategies
6.
Threats
Root Causes
Opportunities
Recommended
Strategies
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.
Overgrazing in high altitudinal meadows is a serious threat to pastures that support the wild herbivores
Unregulated collection of medicinal plants
Unregulated tourism in ecosensitive sites
Unplanned and uncoordinated development in ecosensitive areas
Proposed new hydro-power projects can have ecological impacts
Lack of livelihood alternatives and alternative grazing lands for transhumane 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
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
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
Capacity building and skills development for staff, communities and other stakeholders
Improved protected area planning and management
Askote landscape
Biodiversity
Significance
Threats
Part of the Globally outstanding site for biological distinctiveness and species richness, in particular the moist
deciduous ecoregion. 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.
Grazing and fuelwood collection in fringe areas
Alien species invasion in fringe areas
Competing resource use in fringe areas
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
Support for learning network that could strengthen cross learning, study visits and knowledge sharing on park
planning and management
Upper Indus landscape
Biodiversity
Significance
7.
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
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
Improved livelihood programs linked to conservation outcomes;
Management of shifting cultivation lands with conservation outcomes or seeking alternative options to
shifting cultivation
Mainstreaming of conservation outcomes in forests and other lands surrounding protected areas to enhance
ecological connectivity;
Capacity building and skills development for staff, communities and other stakeholders
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.
Habitat destruction and removal of important bamboo species for domestic use impacting on musk deer
habitat
86
Root Causes
Opportunities
Recommended
Strategies
8.
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
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
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
Capacity building and skills development for staff, communities and other stakeholders
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
Dibru-Dihing landscape
Biodiversity
Significance
Threats
Root Causes
Opportunities
Recommended
Strategies
The Dibru-Dihing landscape is part of the Global hotspot of North-East Himalayas. The landscape as such is
Bioregionally 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
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
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
Potential collaboration with CEPF to complement project activities
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, microplanning, 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
87
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.
88
Annex 17: Maps
INDIA: Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
89