Page  1
INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET 
APPRAISAL STAGE 
 
I.  Basic Information
 
Date prepared/updated:  05/11/2010 
Report No.:  AC4934
1. Basic Project Data  
 
Country:  India 
Project ID:  P097985 
Project Name:  Integrated Coastal Zone Management 
Task Team Leader:  Tapas Paul 
Estimated Appraisal Date: March 15, 2010 
Estimated Board Date: June 15, 2010 
Managing Unit:  SASDI 
Lending Instrument:  Specific Investment 
Loan 
Sector:  General water, sanitation and flood protection sector (30%);General agriculture, 
fishing and forestry sector (25%);Solid waste management (25%);General public 
administration sector (10%);Ports, waterways and shipping (10%) 
Theme:  Other environment and natural resources management (33%);Environmental 
policies and institutions (17%);Other urban development (17%);Biodiversity 
(17%);Pollution management and environmental health (16%) 
IBRD Amount (US$m.): 
0.00 
IDA Amount (US$m.): 
221.96 
GEF Amount (US$m.): 
0.00 
PCF Amount (US$m.): 
0.00 
Other financing amounts by source:  
 BORROWER/RECIPIENT 
63.71
63.71 
Environmental Category: A - Full Assessment 
Simplified Processing 
Simple [X] 
Repeater [] 
Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) 
or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies) 
Yes [ ] 
No [X] 
2. Project Objectives 
The project's development objective (PDO) is to assist GoI in building national capacity 
for implementation of comprehensive coastal management approach in the country, and 
piloting the integrated coastal zone management approach in states of Gujarat, Orissa and 
West Bengal.   
 
3. Project Description 
The project consists of four components, one at the national level and one each for the 
three participating states. The national component focuses on expanding the institutional 
capacity and the knowledge base needed for integrated management of coastal zones. The 
three states were chosen for their varying levels of development, industrialization and 
nature of coastal zone management challenges, so that the lessons from the state 
components can be used for ICZM in all coastal states in future. The state components 
include implementation of a range of complementary local pilot investments in select 
small coastal stretches (in total about 3 percent of the coastline of India) to support state 
Page  2
level capacity building. Each of these local pilot investments were designed to 
demonstrate results from integrated and joint actions, and were selected based on wide 
stakeholder consultations. These state level pilot investments directly benefit 1.1 million 
people, while the state and national capacity building activities benefit 7.65 million 
people directly, 35 million people indirectly in the medium term, and eventually all 63 
million people living in the low elevation coastal areas in India. The project cost is 
estimated at Indian Rupees 1330 crore or about US$285.67 million including 
contingencies.  
 
Component One: National ICZM Capacity Building (US$87.3 million).  
 
The national component will include [i] mapping, delineation and demarcation of the 
hazard lines, and delineation of coastal sediment cells all along the mainland coast of 
India; [ii] mapping, delineation and demarcation, as required, of the ecologically sensitive 
areas (ESAs), also all along the mainland coast of India; [iii] capacity building of the 
MoEF as the secretariat for the National Coastal Zone Management Authority (NCZMA), 
and nation-wide training program for ICZM; and [iv] setting up and operationalization of 
the new National Center for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM).  
 
The mapping, delineation and demarcation of hazard line will define the boundaries of 
the coastal zone in mainland India (which in turn will establish planning boundaries of 
the state/local ICZM plans) and will incorporate the effects of recurrent coastal hazards, 
including potential incremental effects induced by climate change (most notably sea level 
rise) within ICZM plans. The hazard line for the mainland coast will be mapped and 
delineated as the landward composite of the coastal 100 year flood lines (including sea 
level rise impacts), and the 100 year predicted erosion lines. Once the hazard line is 
delineated, ground markers will be installed to address the current non-conformity 
between local revenue maps and standard topographical maps. Publicly disseminated 
maps and the ground markers will obviate the need for developers and stakeholders 
repeatedly investing in physical surveys and interpretation to comply with coastal 
regulations. The mapping and delineation of coastal sediment cells and sub-cells are 
required to determine the lateral boundaries of individual ICZM plans. Preparation of 
state/local level ICZM plans is contingent upon the delineation of the hazard line and the 
coastal sediment cells or sub-cells. Mapping, delineation and demarcation, as required, of 
ecologically sensitive areas is important to define these areas which would be conserved 
based on the overall principles of ecological security and precautionary approaches to 
intergenerational resources. The ESAs will include existing protected areas (national 
parks and wildlife sanctuaries) as well as currently unprotected areas (such as mangroves, 
coral reefs, sea grass and sea weed beds, littoral forests, sea beaches, sand dunes, rocky 
cliffs, mud flats, lagoons, salt marshes, estuaries, and habitats of critical species including 
olive ridley turtles and horse-shoe crabs). Contiguous areas containing these ESAs within 
the coastal management zone will be designated as areas to be protected, and MoEF will 
assume the conservation responsibilities for these.  
 
A
new national centre for coastal zone management will be established that will develop 
a
central repository of information and knowledge on ICZM practices in India and 
elsewhere; partner with national and similar international institutes; analyze the successes 
Page  3
and failures in ICZM and develop suitable applications in Indian contexts; promote 
technically sound and practical management approaches to ICZM; evaluate and monitor 
implementation of ICZM approaches, programs and projects; advise the governments and 
other stakeholders on policy, legal and scientific matters related to ICZM; serve as an 
interface between coastal communities, experts and governments; and will promote 
applied research, education and awareness with respect to ICZM including ecological 
literacy. To achieve these objectives, the proposed NCSCM will be established as a self-
sufficient institution, with adequate resources and assured long-term funding, with an aim 
to become a world-class institution for coastal and marine area management.  
 
At the national level, support will be provided for MoEF's medium-term capacity 
building plan, and training of coastal zone managers from all coastal states and union 
territories. This component will also support project management, which will include 
staffing and operation of the national project management unit (NPMU); establishment of 
adequate financial management and procurement management systems; implementation 
of the communication plan and the Right to Information (RTI) related activities; 
implementation of governance and accountability actions; monitoring and evaluation 
(M&E) and third party audits; coordination with states and other stakeholders; and 
special evaluation studies. The aim is that the NPMU, which is being set up as an 
independent society, and its operational systems, will help during the project period in 
setting up the coastal zone management division of MoEF, as per the MoEF capacity 
building plan.  
 
Component Two: Piloting ICZM Approaches in Gujarat (US$74.1 million).  
 
This component will support capacity building of the state level agencies and 
institutions, including preparation of an ICZM plan for the coastal sediment cell that 
includes the Gulf of Kachchh, and pilot investments. The capacity building support and 
the pilot investments complement each other, and serve common objectives. The pilot 
investments are designed to demonstrate integrated management of ecological, economic 
and social concerns in the Gulf of Kachchh (a stretch of 180km or 10 percent of the 
Gujarat coast, but contains two of the world's largest refineries; two major ports and 
several smaller facilities accounting for 70 percent of India's import of crude oil; the 
largest of India's salt industries; several booming industrial and urban centres; India's first 
marine national park; significant parts of remaining coral reefs of the country, and 
important patches of protected forests).  
 
The preparation and adoption of an ICZM Plan for the Gulf of Kachchh has been 
designed as a process of regular revolving stakeholder dialogue, supported by scientific 
and technical inputs related to the natural coastal and marine processes, resource 
endowments, potential coastal hazards and risks to coastal communities. Stakeholder 
analyses and consultations will be used to identify stakeholders' requirements, priorities, 
concern or conflicts, and development risks and opportunities. The content of the plan 
will depend upon stakeholder agreements, subject to the limitation that any plan proposal 
may not affect directly or indirectly the ESAs (as determined by the ESA mapping under 
the national component), or violate the guiding principles set out in the Swaminathan 
Committee Report. The ICZM plan will include and define the implementation 
Page  4
arrangements, the M&E and plan review mechanisms, detailed proposals for financing 
implementation, including resource generation, and all relevant social and environmental 
mitigation measures.  
 
To complement ICZM plan preparation, the component will support capacity building 
of the Forest and Environment Department (which is the secretariat for the Gujarat 
SCZMA), Gujarat State Pollution Control Board (for monitoring and enforcing pollution 
control in the coastal areas), Gujarat Ecological Educational and Research Foundation 
(for developing relevant research capacity in coastal ecology, and for developing suitable 
techniques for transplantation or regeneration of coral reefs), the Bhaskaracharya Institute 
of Space Applications and Geo-Informatics (for preparing GIS-enabled mapping and 
decision support tools for the coastal areas), and any other relevant agencies as may be 
agreed.  
 
This component will also support pilot investments, all located in the Gulf of Kachchh, 
to complement the ICZM plan and capacity building sub-components, and will include 
investments in: (a) conservation and protection of coastal resources including mangrove 
and coastal shelterbelt plantation, coral reef regeneration, and establishment of a marine 
resource information and conservation centre; (b) environment and pollution 
management by completing the sewerage system for Jamnagar City to prevent further 
degradation of the coral reefs; and (c) livelihood security of coastal communities 
including ecotourism and related livelihood improvement activities in the coastal villages 
within and outside forest areas.  
 
Project management support will include staffing and operation of the state project 
management unit (SPMU), and other project management activities similar to the support 
to NPMU. Additional support will be provided to establish a grievance registration and 
redress system, quality assurance consultancies and social audits. To build long-term 
institutional sustainability, the SPMU is aimed to help during the project period in setting 
up the coastal zone management division of the DoFE, as per the state medium-term 
capacity building plan.  
 
Component Three: Piloting ICZM Approaches in Orissa (US$49.3 million)  
 
This component will include capacity building of the state level agencies and 
institutions, including preparation of an ICZM plan for the coastal sediment cells that 
include the stretches of Paradip-Dhamra and Gopalpur-Chilika, including a regional 
coastal process study, and pilot investments. These coastal stretches in Orissa are known 
for their significant ecological and economic resources. The Chilika Lake is one of the 
largest brackish water lakes in the world; the Bhitarkanika is the second largest mangrove 
ecosystem in Asia, and the most significant nesting site of olive ridley turtles. These two 
areas contain a large vulnerable population dependent on coastal resources, and there are 
proposals to expand economic infrastructure such as ports. The content of the ICZM plan 
and the plan process that will be supported will be similar to those described under 
Component Two for ICZM plan preparation in Gujarat.  
 
Page  5
The project will support capacity building of the Forest and Environment Department 
(which is the secretariat for the Orissa SCZMA), Orissa State Pollution Control Board 
(for monitoring and enforcing pollution control in the coastal areas), and the Chilika 
Development Authority (for species and wetland research).  
 
The pilot investments in Orissa are concentrated in selected areas in the two reaches of 
(i) Gopalpur-Chilika and (ii) Paradip-Dhamra, which together consist of 14 percent of the 
coastline of Orissa. These will include investments in: (a) conservation and protection of 
coastal resources including protection of the olive ridley turtle and other aquatic wildlife; 
mangrove and shelterbelt plantation; conservation of archaeological heritage some of 
which serve as cyclone shelters; and a pilot activity in shoreline protection for the village 
of Pentha; (b) environment and pollution management by completing the solid waste 
management system for the coastal town of Paradip to reduce pollution load on the 
coastal stretches known to be nesting habitats; and (c) livelihood security of coastal 
communities including allied farming improvement support in 60 fishing villages on the 
periphery of the Chilika lake and the Gahirmatha Wildlife Sanctuary; support to fisher-
people groups in developing small-scale and community-based tourism, industrial and 
marketing activities, such as coir-making; and provision of cyclone shelters in the 
thirteen remaining coastal villages, where cyclone shelters were not constructed in earlier 
programs.  
 
Project management support will be similar to the support to Gujarat described for 
Component Two, and with the same intention of contributing to Orissa's medium-term 
ICZM capacity building plan.  
 
Component Four: Piloting ICZM approaches in West Bengal (US$75 million)  
 
In West Bengal, the project will support capacity building of the state level agencies and 
institutions, including preparation of an ICZM plan for the coastal sediment cells in the 
coastal areas of West Bengal, and pilot investments. The content of the ICZM plan and 
the plan process will be similar to those described under Components Two and Three for 
Gujarat and Orissa. All three coastal stretches in West Bengal (Sundarban, Haldia and 
Digha-Shankarpur) could be covered in the plan, if the initial coastal geomorphologic 
studies determine that all three stretches are located within one coastal sediment cell.  
 
A
capacity-building sub-component will support the Environment Department (which is 
the secretariat for the West Bengal SCZMA), Calcutta University (for research on 
microbial biodiversity), and the Institute of Environmental Studies and Wetland 
Management (for geomorphologic and wetland research, and for supporting completion 
of a Sundarban resources interpretation centre through an NGO).  
 
Similar to Gujarat and Orissa, the pilot investments in West Bengal will complement the 
ICZM plan and the capacity building sub-components to address the major coastal zone 
management issues in the two targeted coastal stretches of (i) Digha-Shankarpur, and (ii) 
Sagar Island in the Sundarban, covering about 13 percent of West Bengal's coasts. These 
stretches have experienced high rates of coastal erosion in recent years, and significant 
coastal resources and community livelihood are threatened. The pilot investments will 
Page  6
include (a) conservation and protection of coastal resources including mangrove and 
coastal shelterbelt plantation; pilot works in shoreline protection for Digha beach and the 
southern end of Sagar Island; and rehabilitation of the marine aquarium at Digha; (b) 
environment and pollution management by completing the sewerage system for Digha to 
prevent flow of sewage onto the sandy beach; cleaning and environmental improvement 
of the Digha beach, and solid waste management in Digha; improvement of the fish 
auction centre at Digha; and distribution of grid electricity on Sagar Island to replace 
diesel generation and prevent soil and water pollution; and (c) livelihood security of 
coastal communities in Sagar Island including support to CBO coordinated livelihood 
improvement activities; afforestation-based livelihood improvement; promotion of local 
small-scale tourism and ecotourism activities; and provision of cyclone shelters in the 
coastal villages.  
 
Project management support is similar to the support to Gujarat and Orissa described in 
Components Two and Three, and with the same intention to contribute to the medium 
term ICZM capacity building plan of West Bengal.  
 
Carbon finance opportunities will be explored to enhance financial attractiveness of 
interventions such as improved sewerage systems and the mangrove plantations in 
Components two, three and four. The extent of greenhouse gas emission reductions that 
can be claimed will be claimed will be established by two ongoing studies.   
 
4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard 
analysis 
The national component covers the peninsular coasts of India (5,500 kilometer in length). 
The mapping, delineation and demarcation of coastal hazard lines and the ecologically 
sensitive areas will cover this entire coastal stretch. The capacity building components 
will extend to all the coastal states and union territories. The national centre for 
sustainable coastal zone management will be set up in public land within the Anna 
University, Chennai.  
 
Components two, three and four of the project will be located in the states of Gujarat, 
Orissa and West Bengal. Capacity building sub-components are statewide in these three 
states. The project will finance preparation of an ICZM plan and priority investments in 
the Gulf of Kachchh in Gujarat, which presents a range of pollution-related challenges 
due to concomitant presence of oil based industries (world's largest refineries, ports 
handling 70 percent of India's crude oil imports), national marine parks, urban sprawls 
(Jamnagar), etc. In Orissa, the project will finance preparation of an ICZM plan and 
priority investments in coastal stretches of Gopalpur-Chilika and Paradip-Dhamra. These 
two stretches contain very significant fragile ecosystems (Chilika lake, Bhitarkanika 
national park, a number of olive riddle turtle nesting sites) but are subject to development 
pressures owing to upcoming and expanded ports and consequent development of urban 
sprawl and allied infrastructure. In addition, there is rising competition between local 
people's natural resource dependent livelihood needs and major economic growth 
initiatives. In West Bengal, the ICZM plan will be prepared for the entire coast, and 
priority investments will be designed for restoration, from an integrated point of view, of 
Page  7
Digha Beach along the villages of Digha and Shankarpur. In addition, priority 
investments will finance improvement of livelihoods in Sagar Island - the largest of the 
Sundarban islands. These areas from West Bengal face multiple pressures due to mass-
tourism, acute coastal erosion, pollution, and community impoverishment.   
 
5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists 
Ms Sonia Chand Sandhu (SASDI) 
Mr Shankar Narayanan (SASDS) 
Ms Sangeeta Kumari (SASDS) 
Ms Soumya Kapoor (SASSP) 
Mr Parthapriya Ghosh (SASDS) 
Mr Damanjit Singh Minhas (SASDI) 
Mr Kumar Amarendra Narayan Singh (SASDI) 
 
6. Safeguard Policies Triggered
 
Yes No 
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) 
X
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) 
X
Forests (OP/BP 4.36) 
 X 
Pest Management (OP 4.09) 
 X 
Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) 
X
Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) 
X
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) 
X
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) 
 X 
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP
 
7.50) 
 X 
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) 
 X 
II.  Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management 
A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues 
1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. 
Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: 
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01):  
 
This project is essentially designed to address systemic and institutional shortfalls in the 
management of the country's coastal zones, which has led to environment degradation of 
coastal areas, livelihood insecurities within coastal communities and placed fragile 
ecosystems at further risk.  The challenge is further exacerbated due to the impacts of 
frequently occurring natural disasters and climate induced risks. In this context the 
project supports the GoI's program on comprehensive coastal zone management.  
 
The environmental impacts of the project are expected to be positive, beneficial, and 
aimed at long term sustainability. However, at a local and transient scale, the activities 
proposed under the project may result in damage to environmental resources, unless 
carefully planned. Therefore, during design of the project, adequate attention was placed 
on avoidance and mitigation of any potentially damaging environmental affects.  
 
Page  8
The key environment and social issues addressed through the EA and SA process 
mainly pertain to potential conflicts of biodiversity and marine ecosystems due to the 
diversion of coastal land to locate major industries and development infrastructure such 
as ports, harbours and jetties along the fragile coast lines of the three participating states. 
Exacerbation of coastal fragility is further due to destructive fishing practices and 
susceptibility to natural disasters such as cyclones, storms, floods and earthquakes 
(especially in Gujarat), displacing large number of poor agricultural and fishermen 
populations.  The vulnerability of coastal areas is further aggravated due to the high 
dependence of these populations, on coastal natural resources. In addition to the stated 
issues, in Gujarat, the Gulf of Kachchh is marked with very little freshwater inflows and 
large patches of mangrove forests under stress. The Orissa coast is subject to extreme 
tidal variations, saline intrusion, causing heavy losses to agricultural production; large-
scale mortality of Olive Ridley turtles due to mechanised trawling and non-use of the 
Turtle Excluder Device (TEDs); gradual northward shifting of the mass turtle nesting site 
of Gahirmatha coast; reclamation / utilizing the mangrove forests for cultivation, fuel, 
building materials and large scale shrimp farming; and the alteration of fresh water flow 
due to construction of upstream hydrological structures.  The West Bengal coast is 
seriously threatened from land reclamation for agriculture and settlement; construction of 
series of irrigation and drainage canals over centuries interfering with the natural 
gradients; setting up of fisheries in the rivers, canals, creeks and estuaries; excessive 
exploitation of mangrove forest wealth like timbers and fire woods; indiscriminate 
collection of prawn seedlings and excessive fishing round the year specifically in the 
Sundarbans; and unplanned development in coastal tourist town in Digha.  
 
A
comprehensive environment and social management plan (ESMP) has been prepared 
for all pilot investments. This is in addition to introducing improved management of 
coastal resources and protection of communities through innovative and improved 
implementation processes, beginning with the mapping and physical delineation of the 
hazard line and ecologically sensitive areas which will exponentially enhance the 
information base of local populations.  Further, the ICZM plan processes, being 
supported by the project in the three states will be designed as fully participatory 
processes, with identification and involvement of all stakeholder groups, especially 
vulnerable communities dependent on coastal and marine resources. This would ensure 
that the concerns related to equitable share and protection of traditional access to coastal 
and marine resources will be adequately incorporated in the ICZM plans and decision-
making processes.  Additionally, mitigation measures are in place to prevent increases in 
vulnerability by enhancing livelihoods of the coastal poor through improvements in the 
quality of the resource base and improving access to these resources and to social 
infrastructure. Opportunity has been identified and plans are in place for enhancing 
cultural assets through provision of resources to restore or rehabilitate cultural sites in the 
three focal states.  
 
The potentially direct environmental impacts identified in  areas covered by the pilot 
investments  include (i) effects on small local natural habitats from mangrove and 
shelterbelt plantation, (ii) potential for introduction of alien species from plantation 
activities; (iii) impediment to site level natural drainage created by small infrastructure 
Page  9
works, such as cyclone shelters; (iv) conversion of grazing and pasture land for plantation 
or for small infrastructure works such as laboratories at remote places. Each of these 
direct impacts has been avoided by careful project design. A second set of potentially 
direct impacts include (i) unplanned and uncontrolled disposal of construction debris; (ii) 
unplanned disposal of solid wastes; (iii) soil and water pollution from implementation 
and operation of planned activities such as eco-tourism or alternative livelihood works; 
(iv) tree felling and land clearance for small facilities such as cyclone shelters, laboratory 
buildings, new national institute; (v) noise pollution and local oil spill from patrolling 
boats, and (vi) lack of workers' safety. Each of the activities financed by the project is 
providing for adequate mitigation and management measures for such direct impacts, for 
example by ensuring sufficient provision for water supply, sanitation, sewage treatment, 
planned debris disposal etc. The project may also have indirect impacts on the 
environment such as (i) impacts on neighboring natural habitats, or edge deterioration of 
protected forests, (ii) impacts from entry level activities in villages where community 
mobilization is planned for mangrove and shelterbelt plantation or other ecological 
conservation works, (iii) soil pollution and offensive smell around the planned sewage 
treatment plans, (iv) impacts on avifauna from beach illumination, (v) instability of 
neighboring coastline from the pilot coastal protection works, and (vi) accelerated 
environmental deterioration at the source of construction materials. All potential indirect 
impacts have been avoided by careful site selection and investment design. In cases 
where the possibilities of such indirect impacts cannot be fully discounted (e.g., as related 
to sourcing of construction materials), management actions are proposed in the ESMP as 
well as part of the implementation requirements of the activities.  
 
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04):  
 
The Policy has been triggered from a precautionary point of view as avoidance for any 
potential adverse impact, any possible issues beyond the scope of the project, but with the 
potential to affect the project activities - such as from accidental oil-spills; or from 
cyclones. No project activity will involve any (significant or insignificant) conversion or 
degradation of natural habitats (whether protected or not). No activity in the project will 
include anything to affect (i) the integrity of the natural habitats (by land use or water 
use). No land clearing; no replacement of natural vegetation; no permanent or temporary 
flooding of natural habitats; no drainage, dredging, filling or chanelization of wetlands is 
promoted or facilitated by the project. Additionally, the project does not promote any 
infrastructure to induce ribbon development at all.  
 
The Project will monitor the chances of third-party impacts on the coastal zone 
ecological resources, and in the event of any such third party impacts, take quick actions 
during project implementation period, including, for example, mobilizing resources from 
the undisbursed balances to facilitate and undertake, as and when necessary the requisite 
mitigation or impact reduction measures. Project activities are designed to enhance 
capacities required to manage long-term conservation needs. Possibilities, howsoever 
distant, of impacting the native vegetation has been carefully avoided. Activities within 
protected areas have been carefully designed to avoid even remote chances of impacts on 
micro-habitats. Further, the project preparation has facilitated definition of criteria and 
methodology to determine ecological richness of habitats which are outside the currently 
Page  10
protected areas, through analytical works and building consensus among a large number 
of experts and academia. This is already seen to be a contribution to management 
processes which ignore relatively small natural habitats outside the protected areas.  
 
Forests (OP/BP 4.36):  
 
The project has no impact (direct, or related to quality or health, or related to people's 
rights and welfare) on any existing natural forest or any forest plantation.  The project (i) 
does not include any logging, (ii) does not impact the health or quality of any forest, (iii) 
does not either increase or decrease access or rights of communities to forests or minor 
forest produce; (iv) does not propose to bring about any changes in management, 
protection and utilization of forests. No activity linked to the project is likely to (i) have 
impact on health or quality of the forests (including mangrove and shelterbelt); or (ii) 
adversely affect the rights and welfare of people and their dependence upon or interaction 
with the forests in the project area. All possibilities of edge deterioration have been 
carefully examined and avoided. All possibilities, however remote, of introducing 
invasive exotic species have been carefully avoided. The project also does not restrict 
traditional access of communities to minor forest produce. .For all new mangrove and 
shelterbelt plantations, the project uses community management approaches, which is the 
established practice in India promoted by Bank projects.  No regulatory clearance under 
the Forest (Protection) Act will be required for the project activities including for 
mangrove and shelterbelt plantation.  
 
Pest Management (OP 4.09):  
 
The project does not involve, nor does it promote use of chemical or synthetic pesticides 
or fertilizers.  Use of pesticides or herbicides in mangrove plantation is unheard in India. 
No de-weeding or clearing is planned. However if such a case would arise, pesticides or 
herbicides will not be used.  
 
Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11):  
 
The project does not have any direct adverse impact on any known physical cultural 
property. The project does not involve excavation works, or polluting activities that might 
potentially impact chance finds. The project in fact supports conservation, renovation and 
restoration of seven dilapidated cultural properties (although none of these are listed as 
national heritage). These include five ancient temples, one cemetery and a small fort. The 
objective of financing conservation of these properties derives its bases from their 
historical recognition as shelters during cyclones, apart from their being of significant 
architectural and cultural value. All architectural conservation and restoration works will 
be undertaken by specialized supervisors and craftsmen. The policy is triggered to ensure 
that the architectural conservation and restoration works are undertaken at the best 
professional standards, and are duly supervised. The project also supports renovation and 
restoration of a marine aquarium at Digha (West Bengal), and a new oceanarium-cum-
research centre at Dwarka (Gujarat). Both of these investments are designed to preserve 
the natural heritage of local coastal areas, and have the potential to be converted into 
natural heritage tourism sites. The Digha beach (and the casuarina plantation on the sandy 
beach) in West Bengal is also a part of common folklore. In addition to the activities 
listed, the project will ensure that cultural values are preserved while planning and 
Page  11
implementing all project financed activities through a variety of measures included in the 
design of these activities.  
 
Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10):  
 
The project does not have any direct adverse impact (such as displacement from land or 
livelihood) on the Scheduled Tribe population. The Policy is triggered as Schedule Tribe 
population live in the areas where pilot investments, especially village level livelihood 
activities, and entry-level activities for mangrove and shelterbelt plantation will be 
implemented. The Social analysis was undertaken (as part of EA/SA) to identify the 
different scheduled tribe groups who could be among the potential beneficiaries.  As per 
result of the screening (part of the SA process), no village contains any distinct IP 
settlement (or a distinct tribal habitat).  Of the 267 villages in the project area, only one 
village in Gujarat has substantial tribal population (87%) and in itself a tribal settlement. 
The village plan prepared by villagers is itself the IPP. In all other villages, the IP 
population is too low - 1% or less in 205 villages;  1-5% in 36 villages; 5-10% in 9 
villages; 10-25% in 12 villages; and 25-50% in 4 villages - in none of these villages the 
scheduled tribe population can live in IP settlements that characterize the IP community 
with respect to collective attachment to distinct habitats, or with respect to distinct 
cultural, economic, social or political institutions. Therefore, no IPP has been prepared 
for these villages.  
 
However, a village plan will be prepared by the villagers for each village, with the 
project's priority executing agencies as facilitators. All activities including 
implementation of the village level plans for livelihood improvement and environmental 
conservation activities will be planned and implemented after free, prior and informed 
consultation with entire village community. Project's criteria for beneficiary selection (in 
the cases of individual and group activities related to livelihood generation) includes 
criteria to ensure that all vulnerable groups including scheduled tribe groups are included.  
 
To ensure transparency, the beneficiary selection criteria will be widely publicized. 
(Note the scheduled tribe population in the project area does not have any separate or 
distinct language distinct from the overall communities.) Stakeholder consultation during 
preparation in villages during project preparation included consultation with members of 
all vulnerable groups.  
 
Consultation will continue as part of preparation of the ICZM Planning processes, 
where any further culturally appropriate needs of the scheduled tribe communities will be 
identified. In addition, the project's communication plan will include specific provisions 
to communicate with all vulnerable sections of coastal communities, including the 
Scheduled Tribes.  
 
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12):  
 
The EA/SA, and the detailed investigations for preparation of the detailed project 
reports for the pilot investments activities has confirmed that there is no involuntary 
resettlement. No land acquisition, and /or restriction of access to protected areas and /or 
displacement from livelihood.  
Page  12
There is no land acquisition, and the project design has ensured that the potential for 
involuntary resettlement is absolutely minimized. Site verification has been conducted for 
15,500ha of revenue and forest land to be used for the project; and no squatters or 
encroachment has been identified. However, possibility of future discovery of cases of 
involuntary resettlement cannot be absolutely ruled out given (i) the possibility of 
incremental coastal erosion before the start of coastal protection works, which could 
require additional voluntary land donation that may not be clearly documented; and (ii) 
the need for formal agreement with stakeholders for in-situ restoration works.  
 
To address these possibilities, the project has prepared a resettlement policy framework, 
consistent with the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 and the Bank's 
OP 4.12. As the number of potential attributable cases is unknown, notional numbers 
have been used to define a resettlement and rehabilitation budget, which will be updated 
if and when these chance cases are discovered during the implementation period.  
 
The project will finance preparation of ICZM plans for selected stretches in three states. 
Each of these plans will be prepared on a regional plan scale. It is unlikely that the 
planning exercise will be able to identify directly attributable cases of involuntary 
resettlement. However, the plan process will include an examination of the final plan for 
its consistency with OP 4.12 and the applicable national policy and legislation on 
displacement from or loss of access to traditional and customary rights and assets.  
 
The RFP in the project consists of (1) a monitoring mechanism to identify potential, 
even if unlikely, cases of (non-building) squatters and encroachers; (2) an entitlement 
framework to compensate and assist for possible types of losses; and (3) a grievance 
mechanism to widely publicized.  Regarding potential claims from voluntary land donors, 
vendors who want in situ site improvement, all have been consulted. The specific sub-
project plan is prepared with full prior information and agreement. All cases of future 
disagreement will be identified through (i) continuing consultation, (ii) regular 
monitoring, (iii) social audits and third-party monitoring, (iv) grievance redress system.   
 
2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future 
activities in the project area: 
The overall environmental impacts of the project have been assessed to be positive, 
beneficial, and aimed at long term sustainability.  At a cumulative level, also the impacts 
are assessed to be beneficial, and the ICZM plan process will further ensure that these 
beneficial impacts are enhanced.   
 
3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize 
adverse impacts. 
Alternatives analyzed for overall project design included: (i) design the project as a 
narrow investment operation, concentrating on habitat protection and pollution control, in 
which the MoEF, has substantial experience. This would have been limited with respect 
to sustainable outcomes for coastal resources (e.g., coral reefs cannot be protected unless 
sewage flow to the reefs stops);  would not have responded to the request from GoI for 
Page  13
supporting their reform agenda; and may have been limited, in addressing jurisdiction 
issues e.g., MoEF has no jurisdiction on urban sanitation or similar other sectors 
responsible for degradation of coastal ecology; (ii) to dedicate most of the project 
investment for coastal protection infrastructure, indirectly linking capacity building 
actions. This was rejected due to the lack of understanding of regional coastal sediment 
transport processes, the risk of creating larger impacts elsewhere in the coasts, and lack of 
institutional viability; (iii) to limit the project only to training, awareness campaigns and 
studies on coastal conservation - mainly at national level but with possible inclusion of 
modules for each coastal state. This was rejected as it would have had only marginal 
impact on sustainable development of the coastal zone; would not have helped adoption 
of ICZM approaches (as the global experiences point out); and as such was not requested 
by the GoI.  
 
The selection of priority investments was evolved through a consultative process among 
relevant stakeholders. This offered the possibility of demonstrating investments in 
conservation of ecological and cultural heritage resources, livelihood improvement 
activities for coastal communities, including alternative livelihood for people where 
return from traditional livelihood is reducing; and pollution control or mitigation.  In 
design of the priority investments, attention was focused on clear demonstration of inter-
sectoral integration; community participation; mainstreaming gender, poverty and equity 
issues.  As applicable, design of each priority investment concentrated on the need to 
demonstrate physical, environmental and financial sustainability; quality control; and 
clear allocation of financial and human resources for operation and maintenance. The 
alternatives to the project proposal were evaluated considering the following concerns: 
(a) the pilot states selected for project interventions are generally more complex in nature 
with relatively higher degree of contradictions thereby likely to have more adverse 
impacts; (b) pilot investments were short listed where inter-sectoral coordination was the 
key to success of the proposed investments. The success of these interventions will assist 
in institutional arrangements & adequate knowledge systems to enable the desired shift to 
ICZM approaches; and (c) the priority stretches were selected by the state governments 
based on the priority of environmental issues and problems associated with it.   
 
4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard policy issues. Provide 
an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. 
A
comprehensive Environment and Social Assessment (EA and SA) was conducted by 
MOEF through a specific consultancy, supported by systematic and wide spectrum 
stakeholder consultations. The EA and SA followed a robust methodology and identified 
the potential environmental and social risks arising out of the project's support, 
recommended their management measures and incorporation of these in the project 
design; the capacity building initiatives that need to be undertaken at the national and 
state levels; appraised the national and state projects reports and stakeholder concerns; 
recommended measures to mainstream environmental and social impact management 
measures in the draft terms of reference for preparing ICZM Plans in the three states; 
reviewed the environmental and social assessments for each of the state level priority 
investments; and ensured management measures are integrated in their design through 
appropriate inclusion in detailed project reports and bid documents. Specific attention 
Page  14
was provided on environmental issues and linkages to livelihoods; environmental risks 
and linkage to protection of people's health and enhancement of cultural heritage assets. 
The EA and SA was also scoped to assess compliance of project investments with the 
GOI regulatory framework and the Bank's safeguard policies.  
 
The EA/SA examined the potential impacts at local and site levels, and proposed 
avoidance, mitigation and management measures. Each of the activities financed by the 
project is carefully examined and designed to avoid potential negative impacts, and 
provides for adequate mitigation and management measures for direct and indirect 
impacts. The avoidance, mitigation and management measures are being incorporated in 
detailed project reports and bidding documents, as required. A comprehensive 
environment and social management plan (ESMP) has been prepared for all pilot 
investments. The ESMP, typically covers all identified environment and social issues and 
potential impacts due to the project interventions, the specific project activity, the key 
environment and social issue associated with it, the proposed management measure 
(preventive, avoidance or minimization, compensation), the monitoring measure 
proposed to ensure its continued implementation and sustainability, institutional 
responsibility, budget and timeline for implementation and monitoring.  
 
The project will be implemented by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, GoI 
(MoEF), and the Departments of Environment (DoE) in the states of Gujarat, Orissa and 
West Bengal. The mandate and primary function of these implementing agencies is to 
protect and conserve the environment, through a mix of regulatory, institutional and 
financial tools. These agencies employ the best environmental professionals in the 
country, and have invested for a long time in specialized institutes for research and 
development of application tools on environmental conservation and pollution 
management. Many of these institutions (such as the Botanical Survey of India; the 
Zoological Survey of India; the Wildlife Institute of India; the Forest Research Institute 
established and financed by MoEF; the Gujarat Ecology Commission, the Gujarat 
Ecology and Environmental Research Foundation, Gujarat Institute for Desert Ecology 
established and financed by DoE, Gujarat; Chilika Development Authority established 
and financed by DoE, Orissa) are world class institutes and/or are recognized 
internationally. In each state, the DoE is assisted by its State Pollution Control Boards 
(SPCBs), while at the national level the pollution control norms are set by the Central 
Pollution Control Board (CPCB). Since 1996, relevant regulations on coastal zone have 
been enforced by the MoEF and the National Coastal Zone management Authority 
(NCZMA) (at the national level) and the DoE and the State Coastal Zone Management 
Authorities (SCZMAs) (at the state level).  
 
Each of these institutions, admittedly face considerable resource gaps to fulfill the needs 
of a rapidly emerging economy. However there is no obvious capacity gap, particularly 
with respect to institutional arrangements for addressing environmental safeguard issues 
that may arise in relation to the project in general. On social safeguard issues though 
(which are the domain of separate ministries in GoI and separate departments in state 
governments), the MoEF and the DoEs do not have adequate capacity, and depend on the 
relevant state departments, particularly those that address issues of land acquisition and 
Page  15
consequent resettlement and rehabilitation. Note that there are no known cases of land 
acquisition in the project. Therefore, this is not a significant gap in relation to 
implementation of the project.  
 
This project promotes ICZM approaches to address the relevant environmental and 
social issues in the coastal zones of India, and as such environmental and social 
(safeguard) issues are at the core of the ICZM approach. Evidently, MoEF and the DoEs 
do not have the requisite capacities to fully plan and implement ICZM approaches. 
Therefore, the project is specifically designed to create capacity for adopting and 
implementing ICZM approaches at the national level, and for building capacity and 
demonstrating benefits of ICZM in three pilot states of Gujarat, Orissa and West Bengal. 
At the national level, the role for the project is to create enabling capacity, tools, and 
requisite knowledge building institutions. At the pilot state level, the role is to support 
preparation and subsequent adoption of ICZM plans, in addition to pilot activities to 
demonstrate integrated and joint actions. As part of these capacity building initiatives, all 
relevant environmental and social management issues will be addressed. Specifically, for 
managing the project, the national project management unit at MoEF (NPMU), and state 
project management units in DoEs (SPMUs) are being set up. Each of these 
(NPMU/SPMUs) will have an operations cell which will have one environment specialist 
as manager and six technical specialists to manage and coordinate project activities. 
These specialists will include (i) an ecologist/environmentalist, (ii) a marine 
scientist/oceanographer, (iii) a fisheries specialist, (iv) a social development specialist, 
(v) an M&E specialist, and (vi) an engineer/planner. In addition, a communications and 
capacity building# cell will be created and will be headed by a communications manager, 
who will be supported by a communications officer and a capacity building specialist.  
 
The SPMUs and the NPMU will also be able to draw on other institutions for resolving 
issues related to environmental and social safeguards. The project management 
component includes sufficient resources for managing both known and unforeseen issues. 
On the management of social issues, over and above managing social safeguards, the 
NPMU/SPMUs will operationalize effective grievance and redress systems, social audits, 
and a fully participatory process for preparation of ICZM plans. For management of 
larger environmental issues, they will undertake special studies and evaluation, as part of 
the evaluations on achieving ICZM objectives.   
 
5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and 
disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. 
This project benefits from inputs derived from wide spectrum stakeholder consultations 
carried out over a period of time.  These included consultations conducted by the EA/SA 
consultants; those initiated by MOEF, and their appointed organizations, other formulated 
committees, both at the State and National levels.  Inputs were also derived from policy 
level consultations conducted specifically for the Draft CMZ Notification 2008.  
 
Stakeholder consultations for priority investments in the States were designed such that: 
(i) a wide cross section of people / communities/ including all categories specifically 
vulnerable groups were included in the decision making process; (ii) links between 
Page  16
communities and their natural resource base, especially adjacent to project locations were 
explored; (iii) public awareness and information sharing on the overall project 
components and priority investments, alternatives, benefits and entitlements where 
applicable were promoted; and (iv) views on designs and solutions from the communities 
were solicited. Outputs from this process were integrated into the design where 
technically feasible.  
 
Consultations undertaken for revision of CRZ and formulation of CMZ Notification: As 
documented in the Swaminathan Committee report which primarily evolved from 
widespread consultations with various stakeholders and in-depth discussions with NGOs.  
The NGOs consulted were primarily of the opinion that CRZ Notification has been 
repeatedly relaxed and amended(about 25 times) and most of the times amendments/ 
relaxations paved way for developmental activities, contrary to the principle of 
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the objective of the CRZ Notification. Key 
suggestions included the need for stringent enforcement mechanisms, with greater 
transparency and accountability in implementation of the notification. Further, the 
notification should be strengthened by protecting the rights of the fishermen communities 
and others, who are dependent upon coastal resources.  
 
Various other consultations were also conducted by different organizations in addition 
to the comments/suggestions received by MoEF on the draft notification. This was 
followed by an appointment of a specific high level review committee (again chaired by 
Prof. Swaminathan) to examine the comments received by MoEF on the draft CMZ 
notification, 2008 and to advise on the policy and legal framework for integrated coastal 
zone management. The expert committee concluded that the coastal zone management 
notification of 2008 be allowed to lapse. Thereafter, MoEF is advised to draft a revised 
notification maintaining the CRZ notification, 1991 as the basic framework, with suitable 
additions/ amendments taking into account the new challenges likely to arise from 
climate change induced sea level rise, and the growing pressure of population on coastal 
resources and biodiversity.  
 
Consultations with state officials on the Draft CMZ Notification:  
 
The various state officials were positive towards the proposed approach for demarcation 
of the hazard line to be based on scientific data and principles. All the States agree that 
such a foundation for coastal management is necessary, although the return interval (on a 
1
in a 100 years or lower) could be debatable. The concept of Hazard Line substituting 
the Setback Line was also welcomed by the State/ UT Governments, with general 
consensus that its basis should be re-visited after 5to 10 years. Most of the coastal states 
preferred to retain the existing CRZ regulation with appropriate modifications. The 
States/ UTs insisted on a Participatory Management, which is the essence of the 
Swaminathan Report for the delineation of the Hazard Line and also the CMZ 
Notification before being implemented by the MoEF. The State Governments and the 
UTs opined that the local government must be vested with greater powers to implement 
coastal regulation and the ICZMP. The suggestion to strengthen the State Coastal Zone 
Management Authority was also made during the meeting. Suggestions and objections on 
Page  17
the Draft CMZ Notification have been sent to the MoEF by all the State/ UT 
Governments and are awaiting a follow up by the Ministry.  
 
Consultations undertaken by an appointed NGO on behalf of MoEF regarding the 
proposed CMZ Notification:  
 
The Center for Environment Education (CEE) conducted 35 consultations across 13 
coastal states and UTs (from July to August, 2008), with representatives of local 
communities and NGOs, and submitted a report to MoEF in September 2008. The key 
issues and concerns raised in the consultations held by the Centre for Environment 
Education are summarized as follows: (i) retention of the Coastal Regulation Zone with 
the incorporations of improvements; (ii) improving clarity regarding the  setback line, 
ecologically sensitive areas, integrated coastal zone management and the methodologies 
of management, etc.; (iii) improvements and penalties to existing violations regarding the  
CRZ Notification, 1991 which has enough scope to manage coastal zones efficiently if 
implemented effectively; (iv) involvement of  stakeholder groups particularly from local 
communities for drafting the CMZ Notification, 2008 framework; (v) caution regarding 
the  CMZ Notification, 2008 introducing new management methodologies which are 
open to subjective interpretation and can/ could be used to promote and legalize corporate 
activities,  promote Special Economic Zones (SEZ), thus opening up the coastal space 
and resources to the industrial sector without considering the basic rights of the local 
community; (vi) adequate addressal of the roles of the local authorities and state 
governments in the proposed CMZ Notification, 2008 management methodology and 
structure, to ensure basic rights and opportunities for local communities and their 
representatives (Panchayat Members) to participate and plan the activities in their local 
environment and settlement areas; (vii) apprehensions of further dilution of  the CRZ 
Notification, 1991 especially regarding interests of fisher folk; (viii) need for a legislation 
or an Act on coastal management to ensure protection of the coastal ecology and the 
basic rights of the traditional coastal communities. Elected members of the legislative 
assembly should discuss the coastal policies to initiate such an Act.  
 
Consultations undertaken for Project components by MOEF:  
 
Consultations were held by MoEF pertaining to the National components of the project 
on mapping of hazard line (defining hazard line and parameters to be considered), 
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (criteria to be adopted for selection of ESA#s) and 
capacity assessment to manage India's coastal zones in an integrated manner. This 
involved a national level workshop series of regional workshops, and brain storming 
sessions involving national and international technical experts. In addition to the above, 
various consultations were conducted by the three participating states i.e. Gujarat, Orissa 
and West Bengal in each of the states involving various stakeholder groups in the form of 
formal and informal discussions. The various issues raised by the stakeholders were 
addressed by the state implementing agencies and integrated into the project design 
where relevant and to the extent possible.  
 
Consultations undertaken for Project components by the Communication Consultants:  
 
These consultants, appointed by MoEF for developing the communication strategy, 
aimed to use this forum to  generate awareness about the ICZMP among various 
Page  18
stakeholder groups, minimizing misconceptions and creating stakeholder buy-in for the 
Project and the ICZM approach; help create two-way channels of communications 
between stakeholder groups at various levels and the project authorities to help in the 
design and implementation of the ICZMP; help develop the strategic communication 
capabilities of agencies engaged in implementing the program at the national, state and 
local levels; help incorporate processes and mechanisms that enhance public disclosure 
and transparency within the ICMP project design and implementation activities. The key 
outcome from these consultations is mentioned below: - (i) all print media reports are on 
the MOEF#s draft CMZ notification, and very little on the ICZMP has been reported; (ii) 
confirmed perception that regulations were not understood by the common coastal 
dweller, in particular the addressal of fisher people's views and concerns; (ii) need for 
accurate information to counter belief that livelihoods are not really safeguarded by this 
project; (iii) confirmed confusion regarding the transformation of CRZ categories to 
CMZ zones; (iv) need for greater information sharing regarding concerns over lack of 
transparency in implementation, lack of mechanisms of monitoring and redressal of 
grievances. Further these consultations helped to identify communications gaps that 
needed to be addressed for various stakeholder groups.  
 
EA/SA Study Consultations covering all three states: The Consultants (CED) project 
team held with officials of State departments like forest, environment, fisheries, water 
resources etc and some other stakeholders like fishermen, boat workers and other coastal 
inhabitants. The main objective was to identify social and environmental issues in the 
project areas pertaining to the priority investments.  
 
Additional consultation with non-government organizations, community organizations 
and experts by the MOEF and the states of Gujarat, Orissa and West Bengal:  
 
Each of the above agencies undertook substantial consultation at state capitals and at 
community level with several non-government agencies, community agencies and 
experts. Altogether 122 non-government agencies or community organizations were 
consulted (86 at national level, 22 in Gujarat, 14 in Orissa and 18 in West Bengal), and a 
total of 118 expert consultation sessions were organized during January 2008 to 
September 2009. During November 2009 to March 2010 a total of 10 large regional 
stakeholder workshops were organized by MoEF in different parts of the country to 
discuss with a wide range of stakeholders including NGOs and communities on the 
coastal zone conservation and protection. Five of these 10 workshops were attended and 
led by the Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests. In each such stakeholder 
workshops, this project was discussed in detail. Consultations will continue throughout 
the project period.   
 
B. Disclosure Requirements Date
 
Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: 
Was the document disclosed 
prior to appraisal?
 Yes 
 
Date of receipt by the Bank 
11/28/2009 
 
Page  19
Date of "in-country" disclosure 
11/28/2009 
 
Date of submission to InfoShop 
11/28/2009 
 
For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive 
Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors 
 
Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: 
Was the document disclosed 
prior to appraisal?
 Yes 
 
Date of receipt by the Bank 
11/28/2009 
 
Date of "in-country" disclosure 
11/28/2009 
 
Date of submission to InfoShop 
11/28/2009 
 
Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: 
Was the document disclosed 
prior to appraisal?
 Yes 
 
Date of receipt by the Bank 
11/28/2009 
 
Date of "in-country" disclosure 
11/28/2009 
 
Date of submission to InfoShop 
11/28/2009 
 
Pest Management Plan: 
Was the document disclosed 
prior to appraisal?
 
Date of receipt by the Bank 
 
 
Date of "in-country" disclosure 
 
 
Date of submission to InfoShop 
 
 
*
If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources, 
the respective issues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of the Environmental 
Assessment/Audit/or EMP. 
If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please 
explain why: 
C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (to be filled in when the 
ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting) 
 
OP/BP/GP 4.01 - Environment Assessment 
 
Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? 
Yes 
If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) 
review and approve the EA report? 
Yes 
Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the 
credit/loan? 
Yes 
OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats 
 
Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation of 
critical natural habitats? 
No 
If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of other 
(non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures 
acceptable to the Bank? 
N/A 
OP/BP 4.11 - Physical Cultural Resources 
 
Does the EA include adequate measures related to cultural property? 
Yes 
Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential 
adverse impacts on cultural property? 
Yes 
Page  20
OP/BP 4.10 - Indigenous Peoples 
 
Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework (as 
appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples? 
N/A 
If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector 
Manager review the plan? 
N/A 
If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been reviewed 
and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit or Sector Manager? 
N/A 
OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement 
 
Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process 
framework (as appropriate) been prepared? 
Yes 
If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector 
Manager review the plan? 
Yes 
The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information 
 
Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's 
Infoshop? 
Yes 
Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a 
form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected 
groups and local NGOs? 
Yes 
All Safeguard Policies 
 
Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities 
been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard 
policies? 
Yes 
Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project 
cost? 
Yes 
Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the 
monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? 
Yes 
Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the 
borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal 
documents? 
Yes 
D. Approvals 
 
Signed and submitted by: 
Name 
Date 
Task Team Leader: 
Mr Tapas Paul 
01/29/2010 
Environmental Specialist: 
Ms Sonia Chand Sandhu 
01/29/2010 
Social Development Specialist 
Mr Parthapriya Ghosh 
01/29/2010 
Additional Environmental and/or 
Social Development Specialist(s): 
Mr Shankar Narayanan 
01/29/2010 
Approved by: 
 
Regional Safeguards Coordinator: 
Mr Sanjay Srivastava 
03/15/2010 
Comments:  Cleared on understanding that site specific EAs/EMPs and RAPs as applicable 
including safeguards monitoring reports will be shared with the Safeguards team during 
implementation. 
Sector Manager: 
 
 
Comments:   
Page  21