INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Report No.: ISDSA6762 Public Disclosure Copy Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 30-Dec-2013 Date ISDS Approved/Disclosed: 08-Jan-2014 I. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Basic Project Data Country: India Project ID: P132739 Project Name: Neeranchal National Watershed Project (P132739) Task Team Grant Milne Leader: Estimated 18-Dec-2013 Estimated 10-Jul-2014 Appraisal Date: Board Date: Managing Unit: SASDA Lending Specific Investment Loan Instrument: Sector(s): General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (50%), Agricultural extension and research (50%) Theme(s): Water resource management (50%), Other environment and natural resources management (50%) Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP No 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies)? Public Disclosure Copy Financing (In USD Million) Total Project Cost: 357.00 Total Bank Financing: 178.50 Financing Gap: 0.00 Financing Source Amount BORROWER/RECIPIENT 178.50 International Development Association (IDA) 178.50 Total 357.00 Environmental B - Partial Assessment Category: Is this a No Repeater project? 2. Project Development Objective(s) The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to support IWMP through technical assistance to improve incremental conservation outcomes and agricultural yields for communities in selected sites, and adoption of more effective processes and technologies into the broader IWMP in participating project states. Page 1 of 9 3. Project Description The project would be implemented through four components: Public Disclosure Copy Component 1: Central Institutional and Capacity Building (US$ 11.3 million), would strengthen the capability of key national and state watershed institutions to more effectively plan, coordinate, deliver, and monitor integrated watershed programs; undertake relevant policy analyses; develop watershed strategies; and report on progress. Component 2: National Innovation Support (US$ 32.0 million) would develop and disseminate innovative knowledge, tools and systems to participating states to improve watershed planning, program implementation, agricultural intensification, water management, and livelihoods. Component 3: Support to IWMP in Participating States (US$ 301.9 million) would improve the effectiveness of state-level IWMP operations for farmers and communities, convergence-integration with other relevant sectors and schemes, and adoption of innovative practices. Component 4. Project Management and Coordination (US$ 11.8 million) would ensure effective and efficient project management. 4. Project location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis (if known) The project would provide technical assistance and demonstrative investments in order to enhance the outcomes of the Integrated Watershed Management Program (IWMP), which is a flagship scheme of the Government of India and operational in all the 28 States. Neeranchal would predominantly focus on dry-land areas in eight states: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand. The states present a wide range of physical characteristics ranging from hilly terrain in northern India (Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh) to forested highlands in central India (Madhya Pradesh and Public Disclosure Copy Chhattisgarh) on one hand to drier landscapes of the western India (Rajasthan and Gujarat) on the other. The eight states also vary in terms of agro-climatic and/or agro-ecological zones with widely varying temperature and rainfall profiles. Broadly, all the states have small and marginal farmers with small sized farmlands facing the challenges of climatic variations with current low levels of resilience to climate change. The project design for state-level investments would build on the model in the new Bank-supported Karnataka Watershed Development Project II, as well as lessons learned from earlier Bank-supported watershed projects , and smaller bi-lateral programs . The project would primarily focus on technical support, complementing ongoing and planned field investments by IWMP, NREGS, and other government programs (minor irrigation, agriculture, tanks, etc.) and may finance some activities as pilots and demonstrations. Technical and institutional capacity built through project would result in improving the efficiency and outcomes of the IWMP. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Anupam Joshi (SASDI) Surbhi Dhingra (SASDS) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered? Explanation (Optional) Environmental Assessment OP/ Yes A number of activities and approaches that BP 4.01 Neeranchal would finance have the potential to Page 2 of 9 influence both the environmental setting and social fabric within a given landscape and therefore, an assessment is required triggering Public Disclosure Copy this policy. The potential impacts, if any, need to be identified and mitigated for ensuring sustainability of investments. Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 Yes Areas that would receive benefits from the technical assistance as well as demonstrative investments on watershed activities are either private agricultural lands and/or common property resource areas. Many natural habitats, including forestland, non-forestland with tree cover, pastures/meadows etc. may be involved and therefore, this policy is triggered for ensuring that these areas do not undergo any degradation and people dependent on these common property resources continue to enjoy the access and rights they currently are entitled to. Forests OP/BP 4.36 Yes Some of the watersheds may include legally defined forest areas and therefore, this policy is triggered for ensuring that activities in forestlands are aligned with their management/working plans and do not result in any significant adverse impact on forest quality and quantity. Pest Management OP 4.09 Yes This policy is triggered to control the chance increased use of pesticides by farmers, which has implications for the quality of soil and water Public Disclosure Copy environment as well as public health concerns. An Integrated Pest Management Framework has been developed due to various locations of proposed interventions across multiple states. Limited amounts of pesticides may be procured, through unlikely, for demonstration purposes. No banned pesticides (formulated products that fall in WHO classes IA and IB, or formulations of products in Class II) would be procured. Physical Cultural Resources OP/ No No excavation is expected. Demonstrative BP 4.11 works are on the surface and/or on already existing farmlands and common property resources. Cultural resources (properties), if any, for example, religious sites, sacred groves etc. would not be disturbed through avoidance of these. Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 Yes Tribal communities exist in some of the watersheds that would be taken up under the project and therefore, this policy is triggered for Page 3 of 9 ensuring that these communities receive adequate benefits from the project and supported activities are not in violation of acceptable social norms Public Disclosure Copy and customs. An Indigenous Peoples Framework has been developed and included in the ESMF. Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP No Land acquisition of any kind is not part of the 4.12 project. Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 No Only small check dams (generally up to 3 m height) are to be supported as demonstrative structures for showcasing design guidelines and standards. This would not result in large water impoundments and flood risk due to failures of these structures. There is also vast experience in constructing small check dams in local watershed programs. This policy is therefore, not triggered. Projects on International No The activities would not result in any changes in Waterways OP/BP 7.50 water balance in any international waterways and therefore, this policy is not triggered. Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP No The project is not located in any disputed areas. 7.60 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: As part of project preparation, key safeguards issues have been identified associated with the Public Disclosure Copy proposed project activities through a Strategic Environment and Social Assessment (SESA). It included collection and collation of secondary data, stakeholder consultations, situational analysis, risk analysis, limited field based primary surveys and policy analysis at the national, state, district, block/project, watershed and community levels. The key social challenges identified are: (i) ensuring participation, inclusion of vulnerable groups and equity through mobilizing individuals and institutions at different levels and locations; (ii) creating opportunities for landless other than labor in watershed works; (iii) challenges of gender mainstreaming in decision making process and building women asset base and gender based discrimination; (iv) gender sensitization of Gram Panchayats and other watershed related institutions; (v) building accountability and transparency in decentralizing service delivery and improving its performance, particularly for convergence and distribution of benefits to avoid incidences of elite capture; (vi) ensuring increased participation of tribal/indigenous communities; (vii) absence of a robust grievance redress system, other that functioning of the Right to Information (RTI) Act; and (viii) ensuring that people/communities continue to enjoy their rights and entitlements on common property resources. The key environmental challenges identified are: (i) soil erosion due to faulty practices, in untreated areas resulting in loss of potential productivity gains, increased surface runoff and local loss of soil biota; (ii) overgrazing of remaining common property resources and increased spread Page 4 of 9 of invasive species, including in aquatic ecosystems and chance introduction of exotic species; (iii) lowering of groundwater and its quality; (iv) limited opportunity for mainstreaming sustainable environmental practices at the watershed level through convergence of various schemes; and (v) Public Disclosure Copy challenges of developing technical capacity to arrest land degradation, reduce soil erosion and improve groundwater status at the implementation level. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: Given the nature of project support and generally positive outcomes of watershed development interventions, no potential indirect and/or long term impacts are envisaged due to anticipated future activities in the project areas. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. A typical watershed development program, which is implemented as a standalone project was considered but rejected as the current demand is for technical and value added support to improve the outcomes of the larger Government funded IWMP. A top down department led project design was considered for undertaking various watershed activities and works but rejected. Instead, based on the social and environmental issues and the gaps identified in the SESA, the project would strengthen the existing and/or new institutions at the grassroots level to enable local communities participate in planning and construction of watershed facilities and subsequently operate and maintain the systems on their own. Support in the form of only technical assistance was considered, but partially modified to include limited demonstrative investments for fully showcasing the investment cycle from planning, coordination up to field level investments. The project is only financing technical assistance in components 1 and 2. For component 3, the project is only financing technical assistance for core activities linked with IWMP in selected sites. The project is therefore not financing operational soil and water conservation works such as field bunds, farm ponds or check dams. In addition Public Disclosure Copy however, participating states will also be supported for minor office upgrading, and small scale research pilots and demonstrations to showcase new approaches and innovations that could be scaled up into IWMP at a later date. For these small scale pilots and demonstrations, the project could therefore finance small trials of new types of soil and water conservation measures, conservation agriculture demonstrations, Integrated Pest and Nutrient Management (IPNM), etc. 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. As part of project preparation, four experienced and independent environment and social development consultants were contracted by DoLR who were supervised by an experienced team leader. This team undertook a Strategic Environment and Social Assessment (SESA) foridentifying, among others, key policy gaps, institutional shortfalls, technical shortcomings along with assessing the current state of watershed development, impacts of watershed investments and inclusion and participation of communities in watershed development programs. Stakeholder consultations were held and a situational analysis was undertaken, which also incorporated stakeholder views and feedback for identifying key environmental and social issues related to watershed programs. Although the scope of the project is largely technical assistance with limited demonstrative investments, a Free Prior Informed Consent was conducted during stakeholder consultations at the watershed level by informing the potential beneficiaries about the nature of the project and potential interventions planned under it. Page 5 of 9 Although the project’s primary support is in the form of technical assistance, it does provide an opportunity to positively influence the watershed outcomes under IWMP. This justifies the need Public Disclosure Copy for looking at the policy/institutional level issues in the watershed sector and not limit to the impact-mitigation approach. Therefore, the SESA is being conducted in two phases. The first phase of SESA is an impact-centered one that provides an analysis of the current state of watershed development and its potential outcomes and covers the potential impacts and compliance with safeguard policy regime. It also includes an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) to address project’s potential negative and positive environmental impacts (both direct and indirect) and develop measures to prevent, minimize, mitigate and compensate for adverse impacts and enhance the positive impacts. The second phase of SESA would be a policy level SESA and will be undertaken during initial days of project implementation. It will focus on mainstreaming environmental and social mitigation action, processes for improving watershed outcomes, effective steps for monitoring and building human resource capacity for ensuring inclusions and participation of the vulnerable communities, among others. It would suggest measures to introduce key policy and process changes in the ongoing IWMP and would also benefit from initial experience of bringing in technological support in community level watershed planning and coordination. The borrower has low capacity to address safeguard policy issues. There is limited prior experience of implementing Bank projects. While watershed improvement is generally associated with positive impacts, capacity to address environmental and social issues is currently weak, especially at the subproject levels. Given the fact that implementation of central schemes is administered at the state level, coordination with multiple states on safeguards may pose a challenge. Given the technical assistance scope of the project, with only limited demonstrative investments on the ground (such as, water and soil conservation works, constructing check dams and other erosion prevention structures etc.), there may be only minor environmental and/or social safeguards issues to be mitigated. The project will support institutional development, generation and adoption of new and innovative technology for watershed planning, and training and capacity Public Disclosure Copy building of stakeholders and the SESA has drawn from ESMF and EMPs of other Bank funded watershed projects. To improve the capacity, an Environment and Social Cell (ESC) is proposed with support from the Project Implementing Unit (PIU). The second phase of SESA would explore the feasibility and appropriateness of establishing this Cell in the proposed Center of Excellence. Until the Cell is established, one Senior Environment and Social Manager would be hired at the PIU, who may move to the Cell whenever and wherever it is established. Adequate provisions for orientation, sensitizing, and training the relevant stakeholders, including beneficiaries, implementing officers etc on environmental and social concerns would be undertaken. This will be closely supervised during implementation. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Stakeholder Analysis resulted in identifying stakeholders at different levels and mapping the key expectations, issues and concerns as related to each stakeholder and the sub-groups thereof. This was based on stakeholder consultations at the Watershed level, PIA level, District level and State level. The key stakeholders include inhabitants of the micro watersheds (in villages), the institutions of local governance (PRI), block level officers and key line departments (for example, forests, agriculture, rural development, MNREGA, etc.), State level institutions and Watershed Page 6 of 9 Development Departments, and the DoLR. The communities in the watersheds are quite diverse – social (scheduled castes, others), economic (landless, small, marginal, and large farmers), ethnic (scheduled tribe, others), gender (female headed households). Public Disclosure Copy As part of disclosure plan, DoLR has disclosed the draft SESA report on its website and invited stakeholder comments/feedback before the report is finalized. An executive summary of SESA is also prepared and translated in the local language and disclosed. Besides DoLR’s website, these documents would be made available in the key stakeholder offices at the state level. B. Disclosure Requirements Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other Date of receipt by the Bank 20-Nov-2013 Date of submission to InfoShop 27-Dec-2013 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors "In country" Disclosure India 27-Dec-2013 Comments: Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework Date of receipt by the Bank 20-Nov-2013 Date of submission to InfoShop 27-Dec-2013 "In country" Disclosure Comments: Pest Management Plan Public Disclosure Copy Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? NA Date of receipt by the Bank NA Date of submission to InfoShop NA "In country" Disclosure India 00000000 Comments: If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources policies, 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: Yes. No separate PMP is prepared and the ones existing under several State level watershed projects would be applied. In country disclosure completed C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level OP/BP/GP 4.01 - Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] report? Page 7 of 9 If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? Public Disclosure Copy Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] in the credit/loan? OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats Would the project result in any significant conversion or Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] degradation of critical natural habitats? If the project would result in significant conversion or Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] degradation of other (non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank? OP 4.09 - Pest Management Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] Is a separate PMP required? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] safeguards specialist or SM? Are PMP requirements included in project design?If yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? OP/BP 4.10 - Indigenous Peoples Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] (as appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] Sector Manager review the plan? If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] Public Disclosure Copy been reviewed and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit or Sector Manager? OP/BP 4.36 - Forests Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional issues Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] and constraints been carried out? Does the project design include satisfactory measures to Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] overcome these constraints? Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] does it include provisions for certification system? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] World Bank's Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] place in a form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? All Safeguard Policies Page 8 of 9 Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of Public Disclosure Copy measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] in the project cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? III. APPROVALS Task Team Leader: Name: Grant Milne Approved By Regional Safeguards Name: Francis V. Fragano (RSA) Date: 07-Jan-2014 Advisor: Sector Manager: Name: Simeon Kacou Ehui (SM) Date: 08-Jan-2014 Public Disclosure Copy Page 9 of 9