E N V I R O N M E N T- D E P A R T M E N T A 3 D.IlS S E M I N AT i.0 N . N O T E S TOWARD ENVIRONMENTALLY AND SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Number 42 Social Assessment Series May 1996 India: Using Social - tenure and use rights and the needs and India: Using Social aspirations of local people with a long history of inhabiting and managing forests. Assessment to Foster It also requires increasing local people's involvement in conserving protected areas Participation in Prote'cted in a nonconfrontational way. Areas When discussions began on an ecodevelopment project in India to be funded by the World Bank and the Global Designers.of the India Ecodevelopment Environment Facility, the Ministry of Project found social assessment (SA) to be a Environment and Forestry (MOEF) and good starting place for stakeholder and the Bank team were interested in. learning nongovernmental organization (NGO) from past mistakes and in broadening participation in project preparation. The SA public involvement to increase the likeli- also prompted collection of socioeconomic hood that change would be sustainable. and biophysical information to feed into Aware of past failures of top-down ap- ' project implementation and monitoring, and proaches and the promise of participatory enabled designers to build on the experience resource management programs, the of people's involvement in forestry, conser- MOEF consulted with NGOs, including a vation, and rural development projects in national coordinating NGO, the Indian India. The SA enabled stakeholders to Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), identify interactions between parks and about participatory approaches to people, map out potential and actual con- ecodevelopment. Following these consul- -flicts, and agree on a framework for ongoing tations, the MOEF agreed to prepare an participation during project implementation ecodevelopment project jointly with the through which communities and park IIPA. The IIPA promised to be a valuable officials will choose ecologically. appropri- partner to the MOEF because of its previ- ate development activities and livelihoods. ous community forestry successes and because other NGOs trusted the IIPA and were. likely to join in the collaboration. Approaching Biodiversity in India In the past twenty years, state govern- ments and India's Forest Department have SA Objectives developed an extensive network of pro- The MOEF and the IIPA wanted to tected areas to conserve biodiversity and avoid a rigid blueprint design. Therefore, back it up with strong enforcement mea- they. agreed to undertake an indicative sures. Recently, Indian state governments planning approach to build consensus have recognized that conserving and among stakeholders around a guiding protecting biodiversity entails far more than ecodevelopment action plan that could be identifying areas of biodiversity importance iterative and adjusted throughout the life of through surveys and inventories and em- the project. The IIPA had extensive experi- ploying a guard force. The long-term. ence with the use of participatory rural survival, protection, and management of - appraisal (PRA) and proposed that PRA forests depends on political, social, and methods be used in the SA. to involve - economic factors. It requires support stakeholders in the project preparation measures that take into account local land process. The MOEF agreed to this approach. Jessica Moti (SA2AW) is the task manager for the India Ecodevelopment Project. For information on the project or.the SA contact her atThe Wortd Bonk, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, D.C., 20433, U.S.A. Fax: (2021 477-8277. Good practice guidelines for SA in Bank-Global Environment Facility projects are available from Maria Aycrigg (ENVGC), fax: (202) 522 -3256. Jointly, the MOEF and IIPAdesigned an meetings were held with representatives of SA to- national and state'instiitutions and of NGOs' __-;________ Involve stakeholders in designing the from March 1992 to May. 1995: They f ecodevelopment proJect ; ' : 0-' ;,0 0discussed project design component's, Inraton * Ensure that the indicative plan and proposed activities, and detailed work plans. incentives for change are acceptable to Grazing/opn stakeholders Finidings 9$ ~~~~~~~~~~livestock use Pinpoint the areas of interaction'between A stakeholder identification process people and the proposed protected areas alerted project planners to the multiple uses Fuelwood coilectior and map out potentialfconflicts of protected area resources and the long and sale * Develop means to mitigate negative history of human habitation in forest areas impacts so as to ensure commitment to - (see the table). The stakeholders with Poachingtimber sustainable development interest, in the projectsitesinclude the smuggling * Gather, analyze, and use operationally following: Visitor use and relevant social information, such as data * Triba groupswhocollect:nontimber environmental on gender and ethnicity forest products (NTFP) and.grazers irmpacts * Define a framework for ongoing partici- whose livelihoods are highly dependent reouce. NTFP uise and pation: during implementation, monitor- on access to fodder and forest resourcesn ing, and evaluation The establishment of protected areas has' co * Assess the social impact of, - severely curtailed their access and'led Industrial land ecodevelopment investments over time. most residents to pursue employment - or Water use SA Methods - t- f f0 , ' outside protectedareas. C u and S ; . SAMethods' 4: 0 R 00 0 ,: ' * Cultivators who have been legally The SA employed a variety of methods,- excluded from national park and sanctu ritual hunting including stakeholder workshops, consulta- ary boundaries anid have long histories of' Reduced forestry tions, and PRA (see box 1). Throughout the forest habitation. - employment process, state forestry department arnd NGO * People responsible for cultural sites,. ' representatives and project officials engaged which attract large numbers of pilgrims.. Crop depredation ; in joint activities. At least thirty-eight * People in recently settled forest villages by wildlife Livestock damage f ; ; - S X t; t ; 0 i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~by wildlife Box 1. SocialAssessment Methods by wildlife Human injury and death A variety of participatory methods were used to gather,,analyze and disseminate information for the _______and _dath__ -indicative plan and SA, namely: *:Stakeholder workshop.s and consultotions A MOEF workshop,in -1992, which involvedrepresentativesfrom : protected areas throughout the country and key NGO s, set the stage for a multilevel consultation process.- Participator.y rural approisal (PRA-J State and park officials and NGOs undertoo'k PRA.in cffected communi- - - ties to establish boseline profies of affected populations and ossess the-capapty of locrl institutions to - implemnent ecodevelopmeht activities. In some villages, NGOs and officals conducted PRAs joitly: hrogh: :PRA, information was gathered on * . : . - the identification of stakeholders, including tribals, women, and the poor - the potential social impacts 6f ecodevelopment plaes in each. stdt' - strategies for includig vuinerable groups in de6isionmakin-g - strategies for reducing negative impa cts and increosing positive interactions. : : :-* Secondary data, including the number, distributioi7, and composition of peoplein and around ihe protected areas, socioeconomic parometers, and the social organizations and culture, supplemented PRA dota. * Focused studies. NGOs dnd research institutes undertook special studies on social and-other factors relevant to project design.. * Consultative workshops and brainstorming meetings. Notiondl ond state institutions and NGOs were invited to discuss.findings from surveys and studies.. f ? ~~~~~~~~~~~-. - ----- - . - - - ------ -:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- -- --S R ----------- - .. .. . ... .... .g ....... .......... People-Protected Area Interactions by Project Area and Intensity Park Buxa Gir -Nagarhole Plaamau Pench Periyar RanthamMhore Simlipal A' /VIVA'V A'V V/A' A' / /// 1/V A' / //A' // / / A' A' /V /V /V11/ VV/V~// 1 VVV V v/ /' .A ./ . /V/ //11 //I /1/ . /// // '// -/A/ // / /11/ /1/V //v' ////v // / //// I,/I A' /// // A' ///. that were created to provide labor for - none commercial forest management, but whose / very low, occasional job opportunities have declined with the VV low, infrequent - designation of forest areas as protected. /// medium, fairly frequent * Government agencies with interests in //// high, frequent mining, hydropower generation, irriga- i*//// very high, very frequent tion, fisheries, roads, and tourism. * Periphery villagers who acquire substan- tial supplemental income from collecting Outcomes. and selling nontimber forest products and The SA made a complex project less working for commercial forestry.opera- difficult to prepare because it provided a tions and small-scale industries, but means to focus on real and potential con- .whose access and opportunities are flicts that, if left undetected and unresolved, decreasing with the designation of would jeopardize implementation. The SA protected areas. contributed to the design of the ecodevelop- -ment project (see box 2) by helping to *.Develop a strategy *for site-specific Box 2. Indi Ecodevelopment Project plannin. 'Give. the. This lproject is desigriec'to strengthen the conservation 'and managerment, of wide vanety of protected areasby.increasing local community benefits and local involve- * technical and social Ment, reducing conflict, and engaging local support. The' project focuses issues associated . ma~iriy,on village ecodeveloprnent 'activities that seek to reduce neggtive with each of the imat onbiod ~riyi 'daro62nd. protected areas by providing - *Possible investmients alternative livelihood and. developnment.opportunities li.nked to conservation in each project site, agreements:betwee'n the communities and'the park authorities.~ participatory .microplanning ~will .Each village 'will be allow~ed to choose. its own ecbdevelopnn oppilni- *be 'used in each te,sc s village to arriveat Ec-ot'Ourisr nd Alternative fuel inifiatives' Agrof6restry ndfirewood plantations Watershed management * local reciprocal ~Handicrafts Artisanal small indlustries areents betenAgricutural, livestock, or small-cale *park officials and: irrigation projects. :communities on *alternative liveli- Proje'ct-funded research willJfocus on. biological,and socio'economic issues -hoods and regource - relaited. to-improving park managemert, on ethnobiology, and on traditional useM and indigenous resource use and, management.:Capacity bu'Ilding co'mmu: * Generate NGO ~~nication" and extension pfbgramswl fciltt lerning and disseminiate commitment. During fessons learned from demonstration projects to a wider audience. consultative work- So~pon eurce: orld Bank, 'Integrating Conservation .and Development," facing~ * Shopsand meeings, the. Global Environm-nfral Chdllen,ge: A Progress R66ort bn World Bank * more than thirty. .Global Envi'ronment Operations j ]995)j: 10-11. environmriental NGOs endorlsed the microplanning approach as a vilable 2alongside biological arialysis~ to elvaluate. program for addressing huiman. and- .'the social consequences ofinetes eniomentalissues.. This endorsement- and -the social factors that fetipe was c-rucial to sustaining NGO involve- mentation. This is also reflected in th&' ment in the project, because NGOs will roect design: areai-specific planning work:with communities during the and monitoring will addre-ss concerns -microplanning process and the implemen- prtaining to legal anid usufruct rights,. tatiotn of local ecodevelopment- agree- and status, traditional economies, ments. - cultural use 'of national resources, Integrate tribal concerns The pDroject - livelihood strategies, ability to adapt to: * will address.tribal c'onceens in. an integral new sites.and economies, attitudes 'fashion rather than as a subsidiary tribal .toward,conservation, social distribution development plan or com-pDonent.' of proposed proj:ect investmnents, and Identi4fy vulnerable groups. The SA - benefits foregone. sensitized lOCal and state officials to the importance of inivolving: tribals, women,'.. Conclusion the poor,- and landless households in the . -Pre-project'collaboration between MOEF vicinity of the protected ara uneging 'officials and aexperienced, reputable NGO *ecodevelopment because they are the .' was extremnely important in gaining the tiuist most vulnerable to misdirected -invest-: .'of other NGQs. In additionl,when pafticipa- ments. ' tory skills are lacking, project designers mst -.Develop synerg between planning,and be in toinetnsc kl.Th monitoring'functions. Finally, the SA willingness ofloca developmnt'tNGOs to4 sensitized planners to the impnortance of organize and be trained in PRA eniabled the conqducting socioeconomic,analysis. participatory process to begin quickly. Printed on 1 00% post-consumer recycled paper