63684 IEG Review of 20 World Bank–Funded Projects in Tiger Landscapes 12 IEG Review of 20 World Bank–Funded Projects in Tiger Landscapes Richard Carlos Worden and Colin Rees Evaluation Brief 12 2011 The World Bank http://www.worldbank.org/ieg Washington, D.C. © 2011 Independent Evaluation Group Communications, Learning, and Strategy The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Email: ieg@worldbank.org Telephone: 202-458-4487 Fax: 202-522-3125 http://www.worldbank.org/ieg All rights reserved This Evaluation Brief is a product of the staff of the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) of the World Bank. The findings, in- terpretations, and conclusions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denomina- tions, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank or IEG concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. IEG encourages the dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to re- produce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to ieg@worldbank.org. ISBN-13: 978-1-60244-142-2 ISBN-10: 1-60244-142-1 Contents v Abbreviations vii Acknowledgments ix Executive Summary xiii Management Comments 1 1. Background and Purpose 3 2. Method and Scope of Work 7 3. Findings 7 Identification of Potential Threats 10 Mitigation of Identified Threats 13 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures to Address Threats 19 4. Conclusions and Outstanding Issues 23 Appendix A: List of Evaluated Projects 24 Appendix B: Rating Scale for Assessing Impacts of World Bank-Funded Projects on Wild Tigers 25 Bibliography Box 18 1 Two Examples of Protecting Tiger Populations Tables 4 1 Breakdown of Selected Projects 5 2 Operational Manual Statements and Policy Notes 9 3 Identification of Potential Impacts 13 4 Mitigation of Potential Impacts 18 5 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures and Programs Figure 19 1 Average Evaluation Ratings Summarized by Thematic Area Abbreviations CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund GTI Global Tiger Initiative ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Project ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report IEG Independent Evaluation Group ISR Implementation Supervision Report IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature NGO Nongovernmental organization OD Operational Directive OP Operational Policy OPN Operational Policy Note RMP1 Lao PDR Road Maintenance Project (first) RMP2 Lao PDR Road Maintenance Project (second) SOS Save Our Species Program WBG World Bank Group v Acknowledgments This brief was prepared by Richard Carlos carried out under the overall direction of Vinod Worden (Task Manager) and Colin Rees (Consul- Thomas, Director-General, Evaluation. Adminis- tant) under the supervision of Monika Huppi, trative and logistical support was provided by Manager, IEG Sector Evaluation, and Cheryl Svetlana Raykova and Marie Charles. Heather Grey, Director, IEG-World Bank. The work was Dittbrenner provided editorial support. vii Executive Summary B iodiversity is critical to maintaining the integrity of ecosystems and the ecological processes that support species and human well-being. The world is facing an unprecedented rate of species extinction: one in eight bird species, one in four mammals, and one in three amphibians are threat- ened. Species can recover with concerted conservation. As a charismatic endangered species, tigers have competing demands and an increased emphasis become a powerful symbol of biodiversity loss on climate change” (ECG 2010). globally, as their numbers have dropped from 100,000 at the turn of the 20th century to an At present, the Bank is according importance to estimated 3,000–3,500 tigers in the wild today. biodiversity by taking a leading role in strategic The need to protect tigers has taken on great partnerships, such as the Global Tiger Initiative urgency, and international efforts are attempting (GTI), the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund to pull them back from the edge of extinction. (CEPF), and the Save Our Species (SOS) From November 21 to 24, 2010, the Russian program. By prioritizing such initiatives, the Federation hosted leaders from 13 tiger range Bank aims to bring crucial attention and funding countries at a conference in St. Petersburg. The to ecosystem and biodiversity conservation. It is goal was inter alia to eliminate illegal trade in also crucial at the same time to integrate conser- tiger parts while protecting tiger habitats—and vation in development projects in sectors such as to double the tiger population by 2022. The infrastructure and rural development, which can World Bank has provided strong leadership and have negative effects on biodiversity without support for the initiative. adequate mitigating actions. Biodiversity interventions can have potentially There is growing awareness that, in addition to large cobenefits: biodiversity conservation, targeted conservation efforts, the design and climate change stabilization, food and water implementation of development projects need security, and poverty reduction. The World Bank to ensure that biodiversity conservation and has been the largest financier for biodiversity, poverty reduction reinforce each other (for with commitments of more than $2 billion over example, see ECG 2010). Prompted by the the last two decades and substantial leveraging interest expressed by the GTI and the World of cofinancing. However, the number of new Bank President, IEG reviewed a sample of 20 projects approved that contain biodiversity closed World Bank-supported development activities has dropped considerably since the projects in or near tiger habitats in Asia that had mid-2000s. The Evaluation Cooperation Group the potential to cause significant degradation or notes “…numbers of projects directly targeting conversion of protected natural habitats and biodiversity issues have declined in the World the plant and animal species living within them. Bank and some other IFIs…perhaps due to This work complements earlier evaluations of ix E V A L U AT I O N B R I E F 1 2 targeted biodiversity conservation projects and clients’ and stakeholders’ safeguard imple- seeks to provide key lessons going forward. mentation capabilities. • One-third of the projects did not take ade- These 20 projects, which had closed in the past quate steps to address the indirect impacts decade,1 covered rural transportation, watershed of projects on protected habitats and species management, forestry, and integrated develop- within a project’s area of influence, and about ment. They were assessed to see— one-third did not incorporate mitigation meas- ures recommended in project preparation doc- 1. Whether they had identified potential threats uments to address such impacts and risks to tiger populations and their habitats in par- during implementation. ticular, as well as those of other protected species and natural habitats more generally Finally, in assessing the effectiveness of mitiga- 2. The extent to which they had incorporated tion measures, this review revealed gaps in mitigation measures to protect tigers and other documented information about impacts and protected species and natural habitats into outcomes: project preparation and implementation 3. The effectiveness of mitigation measures em- • Fewer than half of the projects demonstrated ployed during project implementation. adequate supervision of clients’ implementa- tion of mitigation measures and monitoring and In terms of identifying threats to biodiversity, the evaluation programs or adequately supervised evaluation found the following: safeguard policy compliance. • Most monitoring data were used to verify pro- • Almost all projects satisfactorily identified po- cedural compliance or to measure inputs rather tential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts than environmental outcomes, nor was it ap- and risks to natural habitats and protected parent whether serious or imminent threats had species such as tigers, and most gathered ad- triggered corrective actions to address them. equate baseline data on sensitive species and • In terms of direct project impacts on protected habitats. habitats and species, only three projects pro- • There were lapses in the application of the vided evidence of having implemented miti- Bank’s Natural Habitats safeguard policy and a gation measures effectively, and none could lack of clarity regarding its analytical require- demonstrate successful mitigation of the more ments, apart from those required under the En- serious indirect threats to protected habitats vironmental Assessment safeguard policy. and species. In terms of preparing adequate mitigation plans A number of key lessons emerge from the experi- and measures, the analysis revealed that— ence of the 20 closed2 projects reviewed. First, there was a pattern of solid due diligence assess- • Roughly three-quarters of the projects evalu- ment work conducted early during project ated used appropriate assessment tools and preparation and appraisal process. However, that prepared adequate mitigation plans to pre- was not followed up by adequate environmental vent and minimize direct impacts to pro- supervision and monitoring of impacts and tected natural habitats and species, and outcomes, as only a few projects reported on the considered the need to strengthen local effectiveness of mitigation measures. This is 1. Of the 20 projects closed in 1999, the original 2009 closing date of one was extended, and the project was thus still active at the time of the evaluation. The remainder of the projects closed between 2000 and 2010. Details are provided in Appendix A. 2. Due to extension of closing date, one of the projects reviewed was still active. x I E G R E V I E W O F 2 0 WO R L D BA N K – F U N D E D P R O J E C T S I N T I G E R L A N D S C A P E S consistent with a main finding of the IEG evalua- issues requires policies and programs at national tion of the safeguard and sustainability policies, and transnational levels. which recommended that the WBG, countries, and partners put more emphasis on supervision, To address the global challenge of biodiversity better monitoring of implementation of applica- loss, the Bank is taking a leading role in joint ble safeguard policies, increased transparency actions and strategic partnerships with donors, through public access to periodic progress governments, the private sector, and civil society, reports, greater use of local partnerships, and such as the SOS microgrant financing program, independent verification of implementation the GTI, and the CEPF. The SOS program, under activities and outcomes. In response, the WBG preparation for Board approval, aims to address has committed to a program to strengthen the the funding gap for biodiversity conservation by supervision of safeguards implementation. mobilizing innovative grant financing and private sector engagement in partnership with the World Second, there was inconsistent application of the Conservation Union. safeguard policy for Natural Habitats and little apparent difference between those projects that The GTI has spearheaded an international applied it and those that did not. There were no framework to curb illegal networks trafficking in notable differences in the analyses undertaken wildlife, such as tiger parts, and has supported the by projects that triggered the Natural Habitat International Consortium on Combating Wildlife policy and those that addressed biodiversity Crime to strengthen regional cooperation, concerns under the Environmental Assessment improve wildlife crime reporting, establish tiger policy. Nor were the outcomes achieved by the trade data, and enhance law enforcement under two groups of projects much different from each the Convention on International Trade in other. This suggests a need to further clarify the Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The appropriate application and distinct analytical GTI is working with partners on innovative requirements of the Natural Habitat safeguard funding schemes, such as a Wildlife Premium policy. piggy-backing onto the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation+ carbon market Third, a fundamental question arises regarding and the Global Tiger Recovery Program. The CEPF how far the Bank’s responsibility extends to has awarded over $100 million to more than 1,500 ensure that clients address indirect impacts that nongovernmental organizations and private extend beyond the project’s area of influence and sector organizations in the biodiversity hotspots. are driven by forces of a regional or even global nature, such as the poaching crisis and unsustain- This review has shown that as important as these able extraction of natural resources. Although the targeted biodiversity efforts is the need for the Bank’s operational policies require attention to Bank, countries, and partners to strengthen indirect impacts within a project’s area of efforts to integrate biodiversity conservation into influence, it is beyond the reach of safeguards of projects in sectors where they can have negative individual projects to address underlying causes biodiversity impacts without mitigating actions, or drivers of impact, such as organized networks such as rural transport, watershed management, illegally trafficking in wildlife. Addressing these or integrated rural development. xi Management Comments M anagement welcomes the Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) review of 20 World Bank-supported projects in selected tiger range countries. At the launch of the Global Tiger Initiative (GTI) Strategy is to further enhance the Bank’s work in June 2008, World Bank president Robert B. in natural resource management and biodiver- Zoellick requested such an independent review sity, and how best to link global public goods like to help the Bank in learning lessons from the biodiversity and ecosystem services into Bank past to inform future engagement in the context country-level policy and program- and project- of habitat conservation and wildlife protection. level support. The reviewed projects were approved by the Board of Executive Directors as far back as 1994, Management acknowledges the lessons and all projects have since closed. None of these derived from the IEG review and is commit- 20 projects was a stand-alone biodiversity ted to continue improving the results project, and 11 were in the transport sector. effectiveness of Bank-financed projects while supporting its clients in their efforts Bank management welcomes the timing of to ensure environmental and social the evaluation, as it feeds into the Bank’s sustainability of their projects. The IEG updated Environment Strategy to be review complements its July 2010 evaluation of finalized in the spring of 2011. As a vanish- environmental and social safeguard policies, and ing icon of historical, ecological, and cultural many of the broader issues raised in the review importance, the tiger has become a powerful are being addressed in the context of the Board- symbol of the threat to biodiversity globally and endorsed Management Action Plan. In this of the urgent need to protect the species as part context, management appreciates the opportu- of the broader agenda of biodiversity conserva- nity to elaborate and provide clarification on tion. The Bank is committed to biodiversity some of the more specific issues identified in this conservation and has been the largest financier review. for biodiversity conservation since the 1980s. More recently, the Bank has launched a series of Management notes that the median year of initiatives to promote policy changes to address concept review of the 20 reviewed projects biodiversity and environmental concerns, is 1997. Some of the design issues noted in the including the GTI, the Critical Ecosystems IEG review have been previously identified in Partnership Fund, and the Save Our Species other reviews and subsequently addressed— program. The GTI is a corporate initiative such as monitoring and evaluation, for example, launched by the World Bank President in June requiring adequate baseline data by the time of 2008, aimed at mainstreaming conservation into the first Implementation Status and Results the development agenda and reversing the Report (ISR) and the need for an increased focus decline in wild tiger populations. In this context, on project impact design, supervision, and one key element of the updated Environment evaluation. xiii E V A L U AT I O N B R I E F 1 2 Management is pleased that IEG has noted biodiversity are extremely complex and diverse. the up-front due diligence undertaken by In most cases, the primary drivers of threats to the Bank and its borrowers, including assess- biodiversity are best dealt with at a broader ment work undertaken in terms of identification policy level, through environmental impact of potential threats to natural habitats and assessment policies, incentives, and their endangered species, including the collection of enforcement; specific programs; and last but not key baseline data. In particular, management least at the level of protected area management. notes that the review states, “Almost all projects This includes the need to support strengthening satisfactorily identified potential direct, indirect, of governance to address activities such as illegal and cumulative impacts and risks to natural logging and other forms of illicit habitat destruc- habitats and protected species such as tigers, and tion, poaching of threatened and endangered most gathered adequate baseline data on species, and wildlife trade in contravention of sensitive species and habitats.” Management international conventions and national laws. intends to continue to take appropriate action to ensure that infrastructure projects, including Management concurs with the IEG review roads, take effective measures to mitigate that there are distinct limits to the degree potential impacts and risks to sensitive ecosys- to which the Bank and borrower can be tems and habitats. held responsible for “indirect impacts.” Both the Bank and most implementing organiza- At the same time, management recognizes tions at the national and subnational levels have that there is scope for improvement in the well-defined mandates and authority that do not monitoring and reporting on environmen- extend into addressing the wide range of tal impacts and outcomes during project “drivers” behind many forms of habitat destruc- implementation and has therefore increased tion and loss of species. Because of the Bank’s its focus on improved reporting of mitigation role in supporting specific projects (for instance, plans and outcomes through ISRs and a road project implemented by a ministry of Implementation Completion and Results transport), it is important that far-reaching Reports. Management is also taking measures to potential “indirect impacts”—if outside the strengthen supervision of the implementation of scope of the particular project—are addressed safeguard policies as part of its response to the through policy and programmatic efforts. IEG safeguards evaluation. These include, at the Management is encouraging governments and project level, expanded training on the applica- their development partners to use strategic tion of the policy for Natural Habitats environmental assessments to address issues up (Operational Policy 4.04) and initiating a front at the macro level to support development program for accreditation of staff working on the of policy-, strategy- and program-level interven- implementation of environmental and social tions. Individual projects are seldom the primary safeguard policies. cause for nor can they provide the complete solution to natural habitat and biodiversity Management recognizes the need to shift threats. Similarly, some of the more far-reaching from an emphasis on projects to also indirect impacts concerning habitat and conser- include a broader focus on supporting vation of tigers or other endangered species countries in the context of national (which are often outside the boundaries of policies, legislation, and programs on sector investment projects and beyond the scope habitat conservation and the protection of of the Bank’s safeguard policies) are best endangered species such as the tiger. It is clear addressed through complementary legal from the IEG review and operational experience measures to control poaching and trafficking in that the drivers of threats to natural habitats and animals in collaboration with regional and xiv I E G R E V I E W O F 2 0 WO R L D BA N K – F U N D E D P R O J E C T S I N T I G E R L A N D S C A P E S national governments and their partners in both mainstreaming biodiversity considerations into development and law enforcement. the design and implementation of Bank- supported projects to complement focused Management appreciates the advice that stand-alone biodiversity conservation efforts is the Bank should further mainstream key to achieve results in this area. Management biodiversity into sectors that can have signifi- intends to continue advancing this agenda cant effects on biodiversity, such as infrastructure through proactive support to improve environ- and rural development. Management agrees that mental aspects of Bank-supported projects. xv 1. Background and Purpose B iological diversity is critical to maintaining the functional and structural integrity of ecosystems and the ecological processes that support life and well-being. The earth’s biodiversity has been declining over the past several decades at an increasingly rapid rate, with steep declines in habitat and species numbers including extinction (Butchart and others 2010). One in eight bird species, one in four mammals, importance and concern, with the “primary goal and one in three amphibians are threatened. But [of] maintaining the long-term potential of world species can and do recover with concerted biological resources to meet the needs and aspira- conservation efforts. Tiger populations have tions of future generations—a fundamental princi- dropped from more than 100,000 at the turn of ple of sustainable development” (World Bank the 20th century to an estimated 3,000–3,500 1991, p. 69). Although the World Bank supports tigers in the wild today (Smithsonian National this goal through initiatives such as the Global Zoological Park and World Bank 2008; WWF and Tiger Initiative (GTI), the Critical Ecosystem others 2010). Three of the nine subspecies of Partnership Fund (CEPF), and the Save Our tigers have become extinct during that time (GTI Species (SOS) innovative grant-making partner- No date–a), and the remaining populations ship and country level biodiversity conservation inhabit only seven percent of their traditional projects, its main focus and mission is to alleviate range (WWF and others 2008; Sanderson and poverty, increase economic growth, and improve others 2006; Dinerstein and others 2007). the quality of life. It therefore has to integrate efforts to improve the quality of people’s lives with As a vanishing icon of historical, ecological, and efforts to conserve biodiversity. These are cultural importance, the tiger has become a mutually reinforcing goals, but there are often powerful symbol of the threat to biodiversity. short-term trade-offs, winners, and losers—and International efforts are under way to attempt to hence hard choices. pull tigers back from the edge of extinction. From November 21 to 24, 2010, the Russian The World Bank and other agencies have Federation hosted leaders from 13 tiger range supported efforts to conserve biodiversity countries at a conference in St. Petersburg. The through targeted interventions. Historically, the goal was inter alia to eliminate illegal trade in Bank has been the largest financier for biodiver- tiger parts while protecting tiger habitats—and sity conservation, with commitments of more double the tiger population by 2022. than $2 billion over the last two decades and substantial leveraging of cofinancing. But the The conservation of biodiversity has thus number of new projects approved that contain emerged as an environmental issue of global biodiversity activities has dropped considerably 1. The number of projects coded as containing biodiversity peaked at 39 in fiscal 2005 and has since then dropped to around 20 per year. Total commitments (including Global Environment Facility funding) coded to biodiversity have witnessed substantial year-to-year fluctuations over the last five years, reaching almost $175 million in fiscal 2005, $43 million in 2007, $262 million in 2009, and $84 million in 2010. 1 E V A L U AT I O N B R I E F 1 2 since the mid-2000s.1 The Evaluation Cooperation tried to see to what extent the projects took into Group notes: “...numbers of projects directly consideration the need to mitigate potential targeting biodiversity issues have declined in the impacts to protected natural habitats and species World Bank and some other IFIs... perhaps due to while supporting investments to meet human competing demands and an increased emphasis development needs. The review approached this on climate change” (ECG 2010). question along three thematic lines of evaluative questions: Also important to biodiversity conservation is the integration of conservation and other environ- • Determine the extent to which threats to tiger mental protection measures in the planning and populations and habitats (as well as those of implementation of development projects in other protected species and natural habitats) sectors (for example, infrastructure, energy, and had been identified. rural development), which can have consider- • Ascertain whether mitigation measures and able negative effects on biodiversity if mitigating programs had been adequately designed and actions are not made an integral part of project prepared to address those threats. design and implementation. • Assess the effectiveness of mitigation meas- ures addressing threats and adverse effects on Prompted by the interest expressed by the GTI tiger populations and habitats (as well as other and the World Bank President, the Independent protected species and natural habitats). Evaluation Group (IEG) conducted a desk review of 20 World Bank-supported rural development, This work complements earlier evaluation work rural transportation, and integrated conservation focused more directly on the effectiveness of and de- velopment projects that posed signifi- specific biodiversity conservation projects and cant potential adverse impacts and risks to tiger initiatives which are not the subject of this populations and habitats (as well as other evaluation. (See the Bibliography for a listing of protected species and natural habitats) in Asian other relevant IEG evaluations and other countries. As a basis for lessons going forward, it relevant Bank publications.) 2 2. Method and Scope of Work A n electronic search of World Bank projects located in tiger range coun- tries that were classified as Category A (significant potential adverse ef- fects) or Category B (limited environmental impacts) projects and were either nearly closed (that is, with project activities substantially completed, but the project not officially closed) or had closed within the past 10 years was undertaken by GTI staff. It resulted in a list of 115 projects. However, the proj- ect location was only specified at the “administrative unit 1” level, equivalent to an entire state or province. As a result, when these projects were manually comment on the standardized assessment overlaid at a higher level of resolution with tiger template containing the evaluation questions conservation landscape maps developed by the IEG had developed for the assessment. For the GTI’s partner organizations (WWF and others), final selection of 20 projects for evaluation, the many were found to be located far from tiger following criteria were used: habitats, with little or no potential to cause adverse impacts. • Minimum area of at least 1,000 square kilo- meters of project overlap with tiger conserva- Therefore, a second screening process was tion landscapes at time of project preparation utilized to eliminate those projects not overlap- • Projects with higher degrees of connectivity ping with or within close proximity to tiger inter alia to other nearby sensitive habitats, habitats; those not considered likely to generate such as protected areas, wildlife reserves or significant adverse impacts, such as projects in the wilderness, national parks, or other managed health, education, water supply and sanitation, natural areas (that is, World Conservation Union and urban and social development sectors; and [IUCN] Categories I–VI) those in countries where the Bank had negligible • Projects with significant potential to cause ad- lending, such as Malaysia and Thailand. China was verse impacts on tigers and their habitats, as dropped because few loans were made in the area well as to other protected species and natural containing the last remaining tiger populations in habitats the northeastern border with Russia. This process • A well-balanced mix of well-known and well- reduced the list to 49 projects. studied projects (for example, the Ecodevel- opment Project in India), along with less visible At this point, IEG convened a group of biodiver- but more typical Bank projects, such as dis- sity conservation experts from the World Bank persed road rehabilitation projects. and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to prioritize the projects against the jointly agreed- On this basis, IEG selected 20 closed1 projects to upon selection criteria listed below and to assess, which is reflected in the breakdown of 1. Due to extension of closing date, one project was still active. 3 E V A L U AT I O N B R I E F 1 2 Table 1: Breakdown of Selected Projects Environmental Assessment Number of Region category Sector or topic projects SAR EAP A B Rural transportation 11 7 4 5 6 Rural development 2 2 0 2 Integrated conservation and development 3 1 2 1 2 Watershed and natural resources management, including forestry 4 1 3 2 2 Total 20 9 11 8 12 Source: IEG. Note: EAP = East Asia and Pacific Region; SAR = South Asia Region. projects according to topic, region, and category (for example, Implementation Status and Results (see Table 1). Given the small sample size and Reports, Implementation Completion Reports purposeful selection of projects for review, the [ICRs] and ICR Reviews). sample is not statistically representative of all Bank-supported projects that potentially Each project was assessed using a six-point rating affected tiger populations or habitats (or other scale, with 1 representing highly satisfactory and broader biodiversity indices), but it does present 6 highly unsatisfactory (Appendix B presents an illustrative cross-section and is similar in size definitions for each value). This six-point scoring to that of several other studies undertaken system was then collapsed into two groups: recently to address the issue of threats to satisfactory, with scores from 1 to 3, and unsatis- biodiversity posed by Bank-supported projects, factory, with scores from 4 to 6. Questions that including threats to tigers and their habitats.2 A could not be assessed due to a lack of informa- list of the projects reviewed is presented in tion were classified as not evaluable. Another Appendix A. evaluator then validated the assessments to ensure internal consistency and credible IEG developed a standardized assessment comparisons across projects. Follow-up in- template of 15 evaluative questions to apply to all terviews with Bank staff were then conducted in 20 projects, based on the Bank’s operational an attempt to fill in the remaining information policies for environmental assessment and gaps and to deepen the understanding of key natural habitats (see Tables 3, 4, and 5). The issues not apparent from reviewing project template was discussed with the group of Bank documents. and NGO biodiversity experts convened by IEG (see page 3). A biodiversity conservation expert The evaluative questions were clustered around reviewed all available project documents three themes: (a) identification of potential generated during project preparation and threats, (b) mitigation plans and measures to appraisal (that is, Staff Appraisal Reports, Project minimize such threats, and (c)the effectiveness Assessment Documents, and Environmental or performance of those measures to minimize Assessments) as well as during the supervision negative impacts on tiger populations and and post-supervision phases of the project cycle habitats (as well as on other sensitive species or 2. A Smithsonian report (Smithsonian National Zoological Park and World Bank 2008) examined 30 World Bank projects; the GTI-SGI Working Group Paper (No date–b) examined 16 World Bank projects as case studies; and a joint UNDP–World Bank study (UNDP and World Bank 2007) reviewed 10 case study projects. 4 I E G R E V I E W O F 2 0 WO R L D BA N K – F U N D E D P R O J E C T S I N T I G E R L A N D S C A P E S habitats). These themes are directly related to Table 2: Operational Manual Statements and Policy and anchored in the Bank’s operational policies Notes on environmental assessment and natural Policy Date(s) habitats, which have been developed over the Environmental Assessment past three decades to guide the application of OMS 2.36 1984 environmental assessments and other environ- OD 4.00 (Annex A) 1989 mental safeguard policies, such as natural OD 4.01 1991 habitats, forests, and pest management. OP/BP 4.01 1999, 2004, 2007 Specifically, the review assessed the degree to Natural Habitat which the conversion or degradation by Bank- OPN 11.02 1986 supported projects posed significant impacts OD 4.00 (Annex D) 1989 and risks to protected natural habitats and species (including tigers) in a project’s area of OP 4.04 1995, 2001, 2004 Source: World Bank. influence. If threats were identified, the review Note: OD = Operational Directive; OMS = Operational Manual Statement; OP/BP = Operation Policy; assessed whether mitigation measures were OPN = Operational Policy Note. planned and implemented, as required by the Bank’s environmental safeguards policies. conditions be assessed and potentially significant Finally, if mitigation measures were taken, the direct and indirect impacts on critical natural review assessed the results or effectiveness of habitats and other natural habitats predicted them to address potential impacts. within the project’s area of influence, including “all its ancillary aspects, such as power transmis- Relevant operational policies have their origins sion corridors, pipelines, canals, tunnels, reloca- in the mid-1980s and include Operational tion and access roads, borrow and disposal areas, Manual Statement (OMS) 2.36 for Environmental and construction camps, as well as unplanned Assessment and Operational Policy Note (OPN) development induced by the project.”3 The 11.02 for Wildlands. These and their subsequent evolution of these policies over the years has not updates are listed in Table 2. substantively changed in terms of their purpose or requirements. Their central purpose has OMS 2.36 was issued in May 1984 and stated that consistently remained to help ensure that the Bank “will not finance projects that cause projects under consideration for Bank financing severe or irreversible environmental degrada- are “environmentally sound and sustainable, and tion” or that would “significantly modify natural thus improve decision making.”4 areas.” This was replaced in 1989 by Operational Directive (OD) 4.00, Appendix A and OD 4.01 in OPN 11.02 for Wildlands was issued in June 1986 1991; these outlined Bank policy and procedures and spelled out the justification and policy for conducting environmental assessments for guidance when Bank projects and lending lending operations. These were in turn replaced operations affected natural habitats. It described by the current Operational Policy and Bank the various types of wildland management plans Procedure for Environmental Assessment (OP and design considerations and highlighted the and BP 4.01) in January 1999 and last updated in need for adequate supervision and long-term March 2007. monitoring as a “key aspect of conservation of biological diversity in Bank projects” (World OP 4.01 on Environmental Assessment (OD 4.00, Bank 1991). OP 4.04 superseded OPN 11.02 in Annex A, which preceded and was replaced by September 1995, was updated in June 2001, and OP 4.01) requires that environmental baseline was revised slightly in 2004 to its current form. 3. OP 4.0, Environmental Assessment, Annex A – Definitions, January 1999, p. 1. 4. OP 4.01, Environmental Assessment, January 1999, p. 1. 5 E V A L U AT I O N B R I E F 1 2 OP 4.04 (Natural Habitats) strictly prohibits Bank There is considerable overlap in the intent, support for projects that would lead to the signif- methods, and procedures of these two icant conversion or degradation of any critical safeguard policies, but they have several natural habitat and explicitly allows such impacts important differences. These differences in “other” natural habitats only when there is no include a specific reference in Natural Habitat feasible alternative and acceptable mitigation policy (OP 4.04) to take the “precautionary measures are included in the project design, approach” when appraising and supervising implementation, and funding. Bank-supported projects to ensure environmen- tally sustainable development outcomes; clear ”Significant conversion” is defined by the Natural definitions of “critical natural habitats” and Habitat policy (OP 4.04, Appendix A) as the “other natural habitats,” including the specific “elimination or severe diminution of the integrity conditions under which projects may proceed if of a critical or other natural habitat caused by a they are likely to cause significant degradation major, long-term change in land or water use,” or conversion of noncritical natural habitats, and whereas “degradation” is defined as any modifi- the identification of credible, recognized lists cation that “substantially reduces the habitat’s of protected animal and plant species, such as ability to maintain viable populations of its native rare, threatened, endangered, vulnerable, and species.”5 Those impacts can “result directly migratory species.8 from the action of a project or through an indirect mechanism (for example, through Essentially, the Natural Habitat safeguard policy is induced settlement along a road).”6 a specialized application of the environmental assessment process that contains standards by Bank policy requires that the potential for such which decisions can be made regarding the impacts be identified early in the project prepara- adequate identification of threats, specific forms tion phase so that appropriate conservation and of mitigation measures, and acceptable levels of mitigation measures can be defined and their “residual impact” (those impacts remaining after estimated costs included in the project´s financ- mitigation measures have been applied) in ing. An important distinction is made between instances where Bank-supported operations are “critical natural habitats”7 and other (noncritical) located in or near natural areas or habitats of natural habitats in terms of the conditions under protected species that might be adversely which such impacts may occur in noncritical affected by changes in ecological conditions vital natural habitats. Similar to the evolution of the to their continued existence and viability. In operational policy on environmental assessment, contrast, OP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment) is the purpose and requirements of the operational procedurally prescriptive and does not establish policy on natural habitats have not substantially standards of acceptable residual impact. Finally, changed over time. The evaluation criteria interviews with regional safeguard advisors applied to the 20 projects reviewed in this assess- revealed the powerful signaling effect that trigger- ment are thus anchored in these requirements. ing safeguard policies has on stakeholders. 5. OP 4.04, Annex A – Definitions, June 2001, p. 1. 6. OP 4.04, Annex A – Definitions, June 2001, p. 1. 7. Critical natural habitats are defined in OP 4.04as legally protected areas, areas proposed for protection, unprotected but of known high conservation value, or that maintain conditions vital for the viability of rare, vulnerable, migratory, or endangered species in these areas. 8. OP 4.04, Annex A – Definitions, June 2001, p. 1. 6 3. Findings Identification of Potential Threats T he vast majority of evaluated projects adequately identified the spatial overlap with or proximity of the project´s area of influence to tiger habi- tats as well as to other protected animal and plant species and natural habitats. Almost all projects identified the potential numbers and habitat. The symbolic visibility of impacts of indirect or cumulative threats to tigers and their role as a top predator make them tiger habitats as well as to other natural habitats excellent proxies of much broader indices of and protected species to the extent that they biological health and diversity and overall ecologi- were present. Three-quarters of the projects cal services. Therefore, though they were singled gathered relevant baseline data. Eleven projects out in this report, other indicators of biodiversity were found to have satisfactorily applied the were also considered because the Bank’s relevant appropriate Bank environmental safeguard safeguard policies address these broader policies; five did not, and four others provided concerns. insufficient information about the environ- mental context to determine if the appropriate Thus, the first set of evaluation questions safeguard policies requirements had been addressed different aspects of potential risks taken into account. Overall, the majority of posed to natural habitats and protected species unsatisfactory or non-evaluable ratings were (including tigers), as required by the Bank’s found in just three projects. safeguard policies: (a) the extent to which the potential threats posed by project-related activi- The first set of five evaluation questions addressed ties overlapping with, or in close proximity to, the identification of threats to protected natural protected natural habitats were identified; (b) the habitats and animal and plant species—including extent to which potential threats to protected tiger populations and habitats1—that could cause species, including tiger populations, posed by the significant degradation or conversion of those project were identified; (c) whether indirect or areas and populations. Tigers were the focus of cumulative impacts caused by external activities this study in part because of the public concern or processes induced by the Bank-supported and attention being paid to their rapidly declining project were identified; (d) whether studies of 1. The term “protected areas and species” is used throughout this report as a form of shorthand to indicate both natural habitats and species that are recognized as having special status or importance by the Bank or other authoritative sources determined by Regional environment sector units. This includes internationally accepted IUCN Natural Habitat Categories I–VI or the IUCN Red Lists for either Threatened Animals or Threat- ened Plants, as well as areas recognized by traditional local communities, areas with known high suitability for biodiversity conservation, that maintain conditions vital for the viability of these protected areas, or that are critical for rare, vulnerable, migratory, or endangered species. Definitions can be found in OP 4.04, Annex A – Definitions. 7 E V A L U AT I O N B R I E F 1 2 baseline ecological conditions, demographic Assessment, which revealed high levels of trends, social pressures, or land-use patterns that wildlife trafficking along the border with China. could potentially affect tiger habitats or popula- tions had been conducted in preparing the Proximity to or overlap with populations of projects; and (e) whether the relevant Bank protected species (such as tiger populations) safeguard policy requirements had been applied. was satisfactorily identified in 18 of the 20 projects assessed. The Bengkulu Regional Some plant and animal species are highly adaptive Development Project was the only project that “pioneers” in terms of filling new ecological niches acknowledged the presence of tiger populations or vacuums created by changing conditions. in the nearby national park of Kerinci Seblat, but Tigers, however, are extremely territorial and poor it did not adequately conduct surveys to detect “dispersers.” They often will not cross a new or their presence within the project’s area of upgraded road of more than a certain width or one influence. It was not possible to determine that is travelled frequently. This can effectively cut whether tigers or other protected species were them off from former habitat and prevent them identified in the Vietnam Rural Transport Project. from maintaining viable reproducing populations. Consequently, to know whether protected areas or Analysis of the third question, regarding whether species are at risk from direct or indirect threats cumulative or indirect impacts (in addition to associated with a Bank-supported project, it is direct impacts) on natural habitats and protected necessary to analyze the ecological context of the species within a project’s area of influence were project and baseline conditions. adequately identified, revealed that 18 projects satisfactorily identified all types of threats. One Identification of potential threats to protected project (RMP1) did not provide adequate site- natural areas (as defined by the IUCN’s six specific information about indirect and cumula- categories of protected areas and cited in OP tive impacts to protected species or natural 4.04) was satisfactorily identified in 17 of the 20 habitats and relied too heavily on overly generic projects assessed. The only projects where and vague government guidelines. Another potential threats to protected natural habitats project (Vietnam Rural Transport) did not were not adequately identified were the Indone- prepare an environmental assessment or provide sia Bengkulu Regional Development, which any information about such impacts because of recognized the benefit of reducing human the project’s sequential approach and “small pressures on the nearby national park of Kerinci environmental impacts.” Consequently, as far as Seblat, but did not identify protected natural could be determined, environmental manage- habitats within its own area of influence, and the ment needs were not incorporated in its Lao PDR Road Maintenance (RMP1) and Vietnam implementation. Rural Transport projects, which did not adequately identify threats to protected natural Nearly three-quarters (14) of the projects habitats because impacts were considered gathered adequate baseline data during the “minor and localized.” preparatory phase. Typically, these data were gathered during the preparation of the project However, it appears that the cumulative effects environmental assessments or a comprehensive of a multitude of small road works and the environmental assessment (either regional or indirect impacts of improved access created by sectoral). In three cases it was not clear from the maintaining the road networks near natural areas project documentation to what extent adequate were not adequately considered under these baseline data had been collected. In another three projects. In the case of Lao PDR, the three cases, the information gathered through Second Road Maintenance Project did much baseline studies and biosurveys or inventories better at identifying protected habitats and was judged inadequate and of poor quality. species by conducting a Strategic Environmental Documentation of local community and NGO 8 I E G R E V I E W O F 2 0 WO R L D BA N K – F U N D E D P R O J E C T S I N T I G E R L A N D S C A P E S involvement as well as ample opportunities for policy when that appeared to be warranted. One public consultations in nearly all 20 projects of these projects was found to be in violation of proved satisfactory. These are important positive both OP 4.01 and OP 4.04 by an Inspection Panel findings, as sound environmental assessments, investigation (the Cambodia Forest Concession along with client implementation, local involve- Management Project). Two of the four assessed ment, and project supervision, are the founda- projects in Indonesia fell into this category, but tions of environmental management. only one of six assessed projects in India did so. Finally, four projects could not be evaluated For 11 of the 20 projects there was evidence that because the information provided in project relevant Bank safeguards policy requirements documents was insufficient to ascertain whether were adequately applied, taking into account the significant degradation or conversion of natural project’s potential to cause “significant degrada- habitats or protected species occurred. tion or conversion” of natural habitats and protected species either by applying the require- Only 2 of 11 rural transport projects (Tamil Nadu ments under the Natural Habitats safeguard and Grand Trunk projects in India) applied the policy (OP 4.04) or under the Environmental Natural Habitats policy. The other nine rural Assessment policy (OP 4.01). Six projects transport projects, also located in or near critical satisfactorily considered impacts to protected natural habitats or populations of protected habitats and species under the umbrella environ- species, addressed the issues under the Environ- mental safeguard policy (OP 4.01) without mental Assessment policy, but only four of these apparently triggering the Natural Habitat policy nine projects did so satisfactorily. The two (OP 4.04). projects that applied the Natural Habitat policy did not notably differ in the nature or scale of Five other projects neither triggered the Natural impacts from the other projects, making it Habitats safeguard nor adequately addressed unclear why they applied the Bank’s Natural potential significant impacts to protected areas Habitats policy when the others did not. Nor or species under the Environmental Assessment were the assessment methods or mitigation Table 3: Identification of Potential Impacts Evaluative questions Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Not evaluable To what extent was project overlap with, or proximity to, protected areas (such as national parks and reserves or IUCN Categories I – VI of Protected Areas) identified as a potential threat of significant degradation or conversion? 17 3 0 To what extent was project overlap with, or proximity to, protected species (such as tiger populations and/or habitats) identified as a potential threat of significant impact? 18 1 1 To what extent were indirect threats or cumulative impacts associated with other activities in the project area of influence identified as posing significant risks to protected species and/or habitats? 18 1 1 To what extent were relevant data gathered (for example, biodiversity baseline studies or bio-inventories), identifying and assessing potential significant adverse impacts on protected species and/or habitats? 14 3 3 Were relevant safeguard policy requirements identified and applied? 11 5 4 Average identification ratings (%) 78 13 9 Source: IEG. Note: A six-point rating scale was used: 1 = highly satisfactory, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = moderately satisfactory, 4 = moderately unsatisfactory, 5 = unsatisfactory, 6 = highly unsatisfactory. Ratings from 1 to 3 were grouped into a “satisfactory” category; ratings from 4 to 6 were grouped into an “unsatisfactory” category. “Not evaluable” means insufficient information was available to answer the evaluation questions. 9 E V A L U AT I O N B R I E F 1 2 measures they proposed substantively different for example, with the maintenance, improve- from the other road projects, as far as could be ment, or rehabilitation of existing roads or the determined. This raises concerns about the lack construction of new roads or highways. Potential of clarity in consistently applying the Natural impacts include fragmentation or loss of natural Habitats operational policy and its additional habitats, changes in water drainage patterns, analytical requirements compared to the land slumping or landslides, soil erosion and Environmental Assessment policy. These con- leaching of toxic minerals, contamination or cerns have been confirmed in interviews with sedimentation of nearby water bodies, pollution Regional safeguard and biodiversity staff in the and disturbance from road work crews, and East Asia and Pacific and South Asia Regions. wildlife road kills. Mitigation of Identified Threats Mitigation measures are typically well understood and straightforward to implement, For most of the projects reviewed, adequate such as realigning roads to avoid or minimize mitigation plans were prepared to address contact with sensitive areas or species, direct impacts, appropriate assessment methods engineered water drainage and land stabilization were used, project activities to strengthen the structures, and non-engineered solutions to capabilities of local clients and partners were problems such as minimizing impacts from developed, and sufficient resources were worker camps and land moving operations in the budgeted to implement efforts to mitigate the first place, controlling wind and water erosion negative impacts of identified threats. In terms through immediate re-vegetation and replanting of addressing indirect threats to protected of hedges or trees to act as physical barriers, species and natural habitats, such as encroach- restoring borrow pits and quarries, and vigilant ment and settlement into natural areas and environmental monitoring, reporting, and verifi- poaching of wildlife, less than half of the projects cation as part of adaptive management and prepared adequate measures to address those project supervision. threats; a third chose not to address them even though they were identified in project prepara- Indirect impacts are those associated with a tion documents. project but that are not a direct result of an activity of the project itself. They are typically The Environmental Assessment operational induced by the project, such as human coloniza- policy (like OD 4.01 before it) requires that tion and settlement attracted to an area by mitigation measures be adequately designed and improved access to natural resources, less implemented “by preventing, minimizing, government oversight and control, or by those mitigating, or compensating for adverse environ- seeking greater security from persecution or mental impacts and enhancing positive impacts; cheaper land prices. The impacts that may ensue and includes the process of mitigating and include the illegal poaching or capture of managing adverse environmental impacts wildlife, logging of trees, and extraction of throughout project implementation.”2 This natural resources from the area. applies to both direct impacts of the project as well as indirect impacts from other activities Mitigation measures are typically more difficult unrelated to but induced by and within a to implement but tend to follow the same mitiga- project’s area of influence. tion hierarchy as for addressing direct impacts, which is avoidance first, then minimization of Direct impacts are those associated with the unavoidable impacts through better manage- actual effects of the project itself having to do, ment or government controls. The last type of 2. OP 4.01, Environmental Assessment, January 1999, paragraph 2, p. 1. 10 I E G R E V I E W O F 2 0 WO R L D BA N K – F U N D E D P R O J E C T S I N T I G E R L A N D S C A P E S mitigation is to compensate for residual impacts sectoral, or regional environmental assessments through offsets of similar existing or new in cases of potential large-scale, cumulative protected areas. The residual impacts remaining sectoral or regional effects; (d) whether project after prevention and minimization options have activities had been prepared to strengthen the been exhausted must be compensated for under capabilities of local stakeholders and counter- the Natural Habitat policy (like OPN 11.02 before parts (for example, improving protected areas it), which states that such “mitigation measures management or community patrols); and (e) include, as appropriate, minimizing habitat loss whether resources to support mitigation and establishing and maintaining an ecologically programs had been included in project similar protected area.”3 implementation budgets. When projects or a program are likely to have Three-quarters of the projects reviewed did a significant sectoral or regional impacts, the Bank satisfactory job of preparing adequate mitigation supports sectoral or regional environmental measures and conservation plans to prevent, assessments. Such assessments must “indicate minimize, or compensate for significant adverse the present location of natural habitats in the direct impacts on natural habitats or protected region or sector involved, analyze the ecological species (including tigers). Nine projects functions and relative importance of such natural attempted to address indirect threats to habitats, and describe the associated manage- protected species and habitats (including tigers ment issues.”4 The Bank’s operational policies and tiger ranges). One-third did not include any also require it to “take into account the actions in their mitigation plans, even when they borrower’s ability to implement the appropriate were identified in project appraisal documents conservation and mitigation measures. If there and environmental assessments as among the are potential institutional capacity problems, the most serious threats, for example, poaching. project includes components that develop the These decisions were made because, in many capacity of national and local institutions for cases, the threats were viewed as beyond the effective environmental planning and manage- scope and resources of the project to realistically ment.”5 Finally, the policies require projects to address. ensure that adequate financial resources are included in project budgets to implement From a review of ex post documents and follow-up planned conservation measures and environ- interviews with former project staff members, mental management programs. client commitment to address these threats was also quite low, often in spite of strong pressure Thus, the second thematic set includes five from civil society organizations to take stronger questions responding to these requirements of mitigation measures. Many staff members the Bank’s environmental safeguard policies, interviewed stated that they did not act on the encompassing the following issues: (a) adequate findings of environmental assessments to address design of conservation programs and mitigation indirect threats because many clients considered measures to address significant project-related such action as going beyond the scope and direct threats and impacts to protected species mandate of the project and a misallocation of and habitats; (b) the degree to which conserva- project resources. Although addressing the root tion and mitigation activities had fully complied causes or drivers of impact would clearly be with the Bank’s environmental safeguard policies beyond the intended requirement of OP 4.04, to also address broader indirect threats; (c) use Bank safeguard policies require projects to address of “upstream” diagnostic tools, such as strategic, indirect threats affecting the project within their 3. OP 4.04, Natural Habitats, June 2001, paragraph 5, p. 1. 4. BP 4.04, Natural Habitats, June 2001, paragraph 7, p. 2. 5. OP 4.04, Natural Habitats, June 2001, paragraph 6, p. 1. 11 E V A L U AT I O N B R I E F 1 2 area of influence. Therefore, a distinction was Illustrating both of these issues (that is, the use made in the analysis between indirect impacts that and value added of upstream assessments and would potentially affect the project area and local capacity-building efforts) is the case of the systemic drivers or root causes of impacts. Using first and second road maintenance projects in Lao this rule, it was found that one-third of the projects PDR. These two projects provide an example of did not adequately address indirect/induced Bank staff learning from experience and improv- impacts in the project’s area of influence. ing implementation through better project design and supervision in the follow-on project. For example, the Environmental Assessment for In the first Lao PDR Road Maintenance Project the Indonesia Integrated Swamps Development (RMP1), no environmental assessment was Project predicted that a significant increase in prepared, and the Bank’s project staff relied on illegal poaching and wildlife trafficking activities very generic national environmental guidelines would occur in the project area of influence. It to supervise implementation of the project noted the presence of tigers at some project sites (mentioned in the “Identification” section). and concluded that the only way to stop the trade in tigers was to attack the problem at the Annex 11 (Safeguard Policies, Social and Environ- dealer level and close black market opportuni- mental Issues) of the staff appraisal document for ties. No actions were taken because this was RMP1 stated, “Better maintained roads could lead perceived to be a law enforcement issue beyond to increased accessibility in remote areas thus the scope of the project to effectively address. increasing the potential for uncontrolled resource However, the fact that the drivers of impact were extraction and land conversion along the road. of a regional nature did not obviate the require- Concern over such issues is heightened in areas ment of the project to implement mitigation where roads pass through protected areas and measures to prevent, minimize, or compensate other sites of a sensitive ecological nature.” the impacts on protected species and natural However, in apparent contradiction to this analysis, habitats experienced in the project’s area of the appraisal document concluded: “Environmen- influence, and to monitor their effectiveness tal issues associated with the project are temporary over time as part of the project’s monitoring and and localized in nature....” Therefore, no environ- evaluation system. mental assessment was prepared, and no public consultations were held for RMP1. All but four of the projects conducted upstream assessments, such as regional or sectoral In contrast, the Summary of the Safeguard Policy environmental assessments. However, although Issues in Annex 10 of the Project Appraisal they may have conducted such studies, it was not Document for the second Lao PDR Road Mainte- clear in many cases from project documents nance Project (RMP2) stated: “Main concerns are whether they made effective use of the assess- related to management of borrow pits, potential ments as inputs to reaching agreements with impacts on natural habitats and other sensitive borrowers to implement the Bank’s safeguard areas, compliance performance of contractors, policies or to inform implementation decisions and capacity of the [Department of Roads] that project managers made. environmental and social safeguard staff and field engineers to supervise and monitor the The majority of projects reviewed included safeguards.” As a result of these concerns, a capacity-building elements for local counterparts Strategic Environmental Assessment was in project activities. However, these project conducted during the preparation of RMP2 with components or elements were often measured the following justification: as inputs or outputs (for example, the number of local counterparts trained or knowledge Based on the lessons learned from RMP1, products disseminated) rather than as outcomes the mitigation activities are designed to: (a) achieved as a result of their implementation. prevent or mitigate the adverse social and 12 I E G R E V I E W O F 2 0 WO R L D BA N K – F U N D E D P R O J E C T S I N T I G E R L A N D S C A P E S environmental impacts of project works, make that assessment in eight cases (40 percent) including ensuring adequate disclosure because of poor or inaccessible project reporting and consultation; (b) facilitate mainstream- documents. Table 4 shows the rating results for ing of safeguard procedures and the five “mitigation” evaluation questions. guidelines; (c) enhance capacity of the Environmental and Social Division of Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures to MCTPC; and (d) identify priority programs Address Threats to improve [Department of Roads’] capacity to address the safeguard issues. Little information was available that doc- Funding for the activities has been umented the effectiveness of mitigation provided under the Project. Effective measures in achieving better environmental execution of the mitigation plan will ensure outcomes. Consequently, it could only be that the Project meets with the require- established that a few projects had successfully ments of the Bank’s safeguard policies and mitigated either direct or indirect threats to will also significantly increase ... capacity to protected species or natural habitats. This was address the environment and social issues particularly true for indirect impacts induced related to road development. by Bank supported projects in the area. Most projects did not have the information required Finally, with respect to whether adequate human to report on the results achieved or to provide and financial resources had been provided to useful lessons from past experience to apply to implement mitigation measures and monitoring ongoing and future projects, policies, and programs, 12 projects did appear to be adequate, decisions. and none was unsatisfactory in this regard as far as could be determined by a review of project Both OP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment) and documentation. However, it was not possible to OP 4.04 (Natural Habitats) and their predecessors Table 4: Mitigation of Potential Impacts Evaluative questions Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Not evaluable To what extent were adequate mitigation plans/programs prepared to address direct impacts on natural habitats and protected species (including tigers)? 15 3 2 To what extent did mitigation programs include measures to address indirect threats within the project’s area of influence? 9 7 4 To what extent were appropriate assessment methods (for example, sectoral or regional environmental assessment) and mitigation programs (for example, environmental management systems or Endangered Species Action Plans) prepared to address direct and/or indirect threats? 16 3 1 To what extent were World Bank project activities designed to help strengthen the capacity of local stakeholders to protect natural habitats and protected species? 14 3 3 To what extent were adequate resources included in the project budget to implement conservation and mitigation measures, and monitoring and evaluation programs? 12 0 8 Average mitigation ratings (%) 66 16 18 Source: IEG. Note: A six-point rating scale was used: 1 = highly satisfactory, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = moderately satisfactory, 4 = moderately unsatisfactory, 5 = unsatisfactory, 6 = highly unsatisfactory. Ratings from 1 to 3 were grouped into a “satisfactory” category; ratings from 4 to 6 were grouped into an “unsatisfactory” category. “Not evaluable” means insufficient information was available to answer the evaluation questions. 13 E V A L U AT I O N B R I E F 1 2 require the Bank to supervise the client or protected species and natural habitats (in particu- borrower’s implementation of all projects to lar wild tigers and their habitats). ensure compliance with the Bank’s applicable safeguard policies. Both these safeguard policies The primary data sources of information used to require that direct and indirect threats within the determine the effectiveness of mitigation project’s area of influence be identified and measures were Implementation Supervision addressed in environmental management plans, Reports (ISRs) and ICRs prepared by Bank project mitigated to the extent practicable, and staff, and ICR Reviews prepared by IEG staff to monitored regularly throughout the project validate project performance and outcomes implementation process. The Natural Habitats supplemented by any additional information policy explicitly states that appropriate corrective available in project files. ISRs require that a rating actions should be taken when warranted by be given of the borrower’s compliance with monitoring data that provide feedback on conser- applicable safeguard policies, but these are vation outcomes.6 frequently not substantiated with any narrative and are usually done by nonspecialist project Therefore, a third set of questions was used to staff. The Bank’s operational policies require that measure the effectiveness of mitigation mea- the ICR evaluate environmental impacts and the sures across all 20 projects to determine the effectiveness of any mitigation measures, includ- adequacy of Bank supervision in ensuring ing natural habitat conservation, although they compliance with relevant safeguard policies and do not require ratings for safeguards compli- the effectiveness of mitigation measures and ance.7 Acceptable indicators of environmental programs in addressing both direct and indirect performance were only mentioned in a few of the or cumulative impacts. Also, issues such as projects evaluated, and were not integrated into whether corrective actions had been taken when the results frameworks of the majority of projects warranted by monitoring data, and whether any (aside from the three Integrated Conservation monitoring data had been systematically and Development Projects [ICDP]). collected and evaluated in terms of the project’s effect on natural habitats or protected species in One of the most salient results of the evaluation general, or more specifically, if any changes or was how little information was available to trends in key indicator species populations or determine the extent to which planned mitiga- habitats (such as tigers) had occurred in the tion measures were actually implemented to project’s area of influence over the life of the protect natural habitats and protected species, project were also assessed. and how little information was provided by which to evaluate their effectiveness. Follow-up The last two questions sought to determine interviews with project staff did not provide whether data on key indicators of biodiversity significant information to fill gaps of understand- health and natural habitat conditions had been ing about environmental outcomes achieved. monitored, and if so, to what extent that informa- Interviews also revealed largely incomplete tion indicated an upward or downward trend in project files that were difficult to access, making key species’ populations and habitats within the it difficult to assess whether documents had project’s area of influence, and whether that could been prepared. be attributed to project activities. This question was intended to measure the ultimate indicator of The high number of “not evaluable” ratings in interest for the purposes of this study: positive the effectiveness set of questions (see Table 5) and negative effects of Bank-financed projects on was six times higher than it was for the set of 6. OP 4.04, Annex A – Definitions, June 2001, para. 1(e). 7. BP. 4.01, paragraph 29, and BP 4.04, paragraph 6. 14 I E G R E V I E W O F 2 0 WO R L D BA N K – F U N D E D P R O J E C T S I N T I G E R L A N D S C A P E S questions regarding the identification of threats they had satisfactorily supervised the client’s or impacts and three times higher than it was for implementation of applicable safeguard policy questions about the preparation of mitigation requirements. A few projects that were well plans. This demonstrates a lack of transparency supervised by Bank staff in terms of complying and accountability in many of the projects’ with environmental safeguards did not result in monitoring, reporting, and verification systems. successful outcomes because of poor implemen- For example, it could only be determined for one tation of mitigation measures and project project whether protected species and habitats management systems by clients. (including tiger populations or habitats) had increased or decreased in the vicinity of the An example of this was provided by the Grand project. For the other 19 projects, that informa- Trunk Road Improvement Project in India. Bank tion was not available or a judgment could not be staff thoroughly reviewed the assessment of made by the evaluators, even though almost all potential risks and threats to natural habitats and (17) had identified protected species or natural protected species and prepared a comprehen- habitats within the project’s area of influence in sive mitigation program along the entire length project preparation documents. of upgraded trunk highways in the Golden Triangle region. However, weak institutional Similarly, there was insufficient information in capabilities resulted in “recurring implementa- available project documents to determine if tion problems and inadequate monitoring” of mitigation measures had been effective in environmental conditions or impacts. Similar addressing the most serious indirect threats to issues of not regularly monitoring compliance protected species and habitats—habitat frag- with safeguard requirements that were noted in mentation and degradation or loss—in 14 of the the ICR also applied to the road information 20 projects evaluated. In terms of whether reporting system of road paving and safety corrective actions had been taken to remedy conditions that jeopardized the enormous perceived or actual adverse impacts, 12 projects government investment in this project. The were lacking information to allow a determina- Environmental and Social Management System tion to be made on that question (see Table 5). developed in 2001 to guide the National These findings raise questions about whether Highways Authority of India had still not been documents for Bank-supervised projects (such adopted when the ex post ICR was written. as ISRs and ICRs) are reporting useful informa- tion about the effectiveness of mitigation Only the three ICDPs in the sample were able to measures or the environmental outcomes demonstrate successful mitigation of direct achieved by the project. These findings are in project-related threats or impacts on natural line with those from a broader IEG evaluation of habitats and protected species. For eight other Bank Group safeguards and sustainability projects, inadequate attention was paid to civil policies (IEG 2010b), which found that Bank works activities or project management to projects often lack adequate monitoring and ensure mitigation of direct project impacts with evaluation of safeguards performance results. the potential to cause significant impacts to natural habitats or protected species. In the Nine projects had adequately supervised and remaining nine projects of the sample there was reported on the implementation of mitigation insufficient information in project documents to measures to protect biodiversity and natural determine whether direct threats or impacts had areas and nine did not. However, of those that been satisfactorily addressed by the mitigation had demonstrated satisfactory supervision of the measures or environmental management sys- client’s implementation of mitigation measures, tems. These results reflected the generally poor most had done so in the form of inputs or quality of data collection, analysis, and reporting outputs, not outcomes. For the remaining two of results-based information throughout the projects, it could not be determined whether sample of projects evaluated. 15 E V A L U AT I O N B R I E F 1 2 The lack of information on the implementation, buildings” (World Bank 2003, p. 14). The ICR performance, or outcome of mitigation measures concluded that the project had made a “signifi- was even more pronounced in the case of indirect cant impact in protecting the national park and threats or impacts. In nearly three-fourths of the preventing forest loss” (World Bank 2003, pp. projects, it was not possible to make an assess- 6–7), by stopping several proposed road projects ment because of poor documentation. Several and shutting down a third of the illegal sawmills projects attempted to address indirect threats to located in the park and buffer zones. natural habitats and protected species within the project’s area of influence, but where information Among the 20 projects reviewed, only the India about implementation and results is available, it Ecodevelopment Project could demonstrate that points to limited success and the challenges it mitigated indirect threats to protected species facing those attempting to address indirect and natural habitats, such as tigers and their threats at the project level. habitat. But this project was overwhelmed by indirect impacts in some of its seven project Despite diligent Bank supervision, the Kerinci areas, stretching its capacity and financial Seblat ICDP was instructive for its unsuccessful resources to mitigate potential impacts to effort to mitigate indirect threats and impacts to protected natural habitats and species it the project site. The difficulty of trying to impose encompassed. Despite preparation of Environ- conservation values on existing social systems or mental Assessments and mitigation programs, resistant economic interests by external parties satisfactory monitoring and evaluation systems, (for example, the Bank and conservation NGOs) and extensive input and participation from was clearly stated in the ICR for the Kerinci Seblat affected communities, the project’s efforts to ICDP: “Changing the behavior of societies is control poaching and natural resource extraction complex and slow, and understanding the within national parks and reserves were incentives for certain types of behavior is of key unsuccessful in several sites. The failure of the importance...conservation cannot work in a state government to return a portion of the eco- situation where there is no effective governance” tax charged to visitors of the Ranthambore Tiger (World Bank 2003). The central development Reserve, or of local hotels deriving benefits from hypothesis of the project “incorrectly assumed tourism to the Reserve to return a portion of the that village-level poverty and the lack of alternative revenues generated by the reserve, undermined livelihoods were the driving forces behind illegal the commitment and incentive of local natural resource extraction (for example, agricul- communities to support the project. tural encroachment, poaching, and logging).” The ICR for the Vietnam Forest Protection and Therefore, it was assumed that interventions to Rural Development Project stated that close promote alternative livelihoods would reduce supervision of the applicable safeguard policies such behaviors and improve management of was maintained throughout the project, and the nearby protected areas. However, several of the reduction in the number and severity of forest targeted villages around Kerinci Seblat National violations and crimes was confirmed by the ICR Park were among the wealthiest in Sumatra, and Review. However, there was no corroborating many of those responsible for such activities evidence presented to substantiate if mitigation were individuals acting with immunity from efforts had in fact staunched poaching activities prosecution. The ICR stated, “Very few individu- in the project area of influence. als responsible for financially backing the illegal sawmills and logging networks operating in the As evidenced by this review, there are many area were ever prosecuted due to corruption and instances where adequately addressing the root intimidation of the judicial system, and no one causes of indirect impacts on natural habitats and has ever been prosecuted for attacks on park protected species requires measures beyond the patrols or for burning down park administrative scope of what project-level safeguards measures 16 I E G R E V I E W O F 2 0 WO R L D BA N K – F U N D E D P R O J E C T S I N T I G E R L A N D S C A P E S and implementing agencies can address. They expert mentioned that such surveys had also require concerted and focused action at the been conducted regularly on another one of the policy level, which is generally beyond the ICDPs (Kerinci Seblat), but the IEG evaluation mandate and purview of implementing agencies team was not successful in locating documenta- in charge of specific development projects. tion to validate this assertion. No information was available or provided of any upward or Six projects were able to demonstrate that downward trends in protected species or natural corrective actions had been taken during their habitats (including tiger populations or habitats) implementation in response to unexpected attributable to the project for any of the other 18 threats or because of the unanticipated degree projects sampled. or nature of impacts experienced. In most cases, this was a direct result of good project manage- The three ICDPs (Kerinci Seblat in Indonesia, ment and supervision. An example of corrective Forest Protection and Rural Development in actions taken was provided by the Kerinci Seblat Vietnam, and Ecodevelopment in India) were ICDP that underwent a “radical redesign” follow- special cases in the study sample because their ing the midterm review, but was ultimately rated primary objective was to balance the need for as having been unsatisfactory because of the long local economic development with that of delay in the project management’s response to conserving biodiversity through a mixture of obvious indications that the development theory regulatory mechanisms and financial incentives of the project was seriously flawed and compro- to decrease unsustainable or illegal natural mising the project’s achievement of its develop- resource extraction practices. This balancing act ment objectives. proved very difficult to achieve in practice, demonstrating the inseparable link between However, in one case (the Cambodia Forest good governance and biodiversity conservation. Concession and Management Project), correc- The recent experience of two ongoing projects tive actions were taken in response to the Bank’s suggests that effective engagement at the Inspection Panel finding that the project had not community level is essential to arresting complied with Bank safeguard policies for encroachment and settlement of protected Environmental Assessment, Natural Habitats, natural and poaching of protected species, as and Physical Cultural Property by supporting described in Box 1. forest concessionaires engaged in illegal and uncontrolled logging without adequate supervi- The three ICDPs demonstrated stronger sion and monitoring (World Bank 2009, pp. monitoring and evaluation systems than the rest 81–2). The Bank Management Response and of the projects evaluated. Two of them were Action Plan included a new Natural Resources supported by Global Environment Facility financ- Management Framework to address the immedi- ing. NGOs played an instrumental role through- ate concerns of illegal logging, continued forest out the implementation of these projects in loss and degradation, and uncontrolled en- addressing indirect and cumulative impacts of croachment and poaching. In the majority of threats to natural habitats and protected species. projects reviewed (14), there was no evidence Last, all three projects point to the issue of provided in project documents, from interviews, sustained coordination with relevant parties, or in response to requests for information that especially when there were regional master land- any corrective actions were taken. use plans covering areas within the projects’ areas of influence. Among the 20 projects reviewed, only the Ecodevelopment Project in India provided Ironically, unlike the rest of the projects in the evidence that it had conducted tiger population sample, much of what is known about the surveys and defined tiger habitats at several of its shortcomings of ICDPs would not have been project sites. A senior-level Bank biodiversity appreciated were it not for their comprehensive 17 E V A L U AT I O N B R I E F 1 2 Box 1: Two Examples of Protecting Tiger Populations Two projects that were not evaluated as part of this assessment A second example of tiger conservation efforts is the ongo- have shown promising results for slowing tiger poaching and ing program of the Wildlife Conservation Society in the Russian encroachment into core tiger habitats. The Terai Arc Land- Far East. This program has taken a similar approach of strength- scape project in Nepal has initiated joint forestry programs ening the “property rights” of local communities and local or- with local communities and granted local people stewardship ganized groups of hunters responsible for managing hunting, responsibilities of critical core areas and migratory corridors. controlling poaching, and monitoring wildlife populations of Amur The goal is to maintain genetically viable pools of breeding (Siberian) tiger populations. In exchange for meeting these con- tigers with adequate prey populations and protection from ditions, these groups are given exclusive leases to hunt in these poaching. This has been shown to be an effective conservation large intact natural areas. As a result of this program and other mechanism if a large enough share of the benefits gained from combined efforts in the region by governments, local communi- managing natural resources sustainably is directed back to ties, and local and international NGOs, tiger populations in this re- the communities. gion have reversed their decline and begun to recover. Source: Smithsonian National Zoological Park and World Bank 2008, pp. 19–21. documentation and reporting of implementation project environmental management system. This activities and environmental outcomes. Staff trend has been promoted by Bank operational working on these projects collected and management initiatives in recent years. analyzed environmental monitoring data on changes and trends in vegetative cover and The results of the final set of evaluation species populations from baseline conditions to questions regarding the “effectiveness” of mitiga- inform project management decisions based on tion measures and programs are presented in results-based information within an adaptive Table 5. Table 5: Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures and Programs Evaluative questions Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Not evaluable Was there adequate supervision and reporting on the implementation of mitigation measures, monitoring and evaluation systems, and institutional support? 9 9 2 To what extent were project mitigation measures successful in protecting natural habitats and protected species from direct impacts (including tiger populations and habitats)? 3 8 9 To what extent were project mitigation measures successful in protecting natural habitats and protected species from indirect impacts (including tiger populations and habitats)? 0 6 14 To what extent were corrective actions taken to remedy perceived or actual adverse impacts natural habitats and protected species (including tiger populations and habitats)? 6 2 12 Did protected species and/or natural habitats (including tiger populations and habitats) increase or decrease in the area of influence of World Bank projects, and was this attributable to the project? 1 0 19 Average effectiveness ratings (%) 19 25 56 Source: IEG. Note: A six-point rating scale was used: 1 = highly satisfactory, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = moderately satisfactory, 4 = moderately unsatisfactory, 5 = unsatisfactory, 6 = highly unsatisfactory. Ratings from 1 to 3 were grouped into a “satisfactory” category; ratings from 4 to 6 were grouped into an “unsatisfactory” category. “Not evaluable” means insufficient information was available to answer the evaluation questions. 18 4. Conclusions and Outstanding Issues F igure 1 summarizes the average percentage ratings across the three main evaluation themes. The average share of satisfactory ratings for the questions involving identification and mitigation were 78 and 66 percent, respectively, but then dropped off markedly for effectiveness (19 percent), prin- cipally because of lack of evidence about the performance of mitigation meas- ures. Unsatisfactory ratings (center bars in Figure 1) remained relatively low throughout the three areas of investigation (ranging from 13 to 25 percent), and the share of “not evaluable” ratings rose modestly from identification to mitigation (from 9 to 18 percent) and increased sharply for the set of effec- tiveness questions (56 percent). The lessons from the main findings are similar to strategic assessment tools, such as sectoral and those of IEG’s recent evaluation of the Bank regional environmental assessments. The fact Group’s social and environmental safeguard that such assessment tools are being used policies and performance standards (IEG indicates that Bank projects are taking a step in 2010b). In general, the sampled projects the right direction because sound environmental instituted rigorous due diligence practices, assessment is a necessary precondition for resulting in high-quality environmental and subsequent positive outcomes. However, it is not social assessments being conducted during the necessarily a sufficient prerequisite if not fully preparation and appraisal phase of projects. implemented or linked to adaptive and self- However, in most projects evaluated, clients did not provide adequate monitoring and evaluation Figure 1: Average Evaluation Ratings Summarized by data about the effectiveness of activities Thematic Area undertaken or of the results achieved during implementation. This made it difficult for them Summary Chart of Ratings Results (and for the Bank in its supervisory function) to 100 identify conditions warranting corrective actions, 78 to document actions taken and results achieved, 80 66 or to apply lessons learned to other projects. In 56 60 Percent response to IEG’s evaluation of the Bank Group’s safeguards policies and performance standards, 40 World Bank management has committed to 25 16 18 19 undertake actions to strengthen supervision and 20 13 9 monitoring of the application and results of safeguards policies (IEG 2010b, pp. xxxiv–xlii).. 0 Identification Mitigation Effectiveness Percent Percent Percent not An important finding of this review is the satisfactory unsatisfactory evaluable frequent but not always effectual use of upstream 19 E V A L U AT I O N B R I E F 1 2 adjusting project management systems. One- did so under the Natural Habitat policy. A substan- third of the 20 case studies did not integrate tial number of projects took into account the actions detailed in environmental assessments special requirements posed by natural habitats into project design to address clearly identified and protected species under the Bank’s umbrella indirect threats to protected natural habitats and environmental assessment policy. However, the species. It was also apparent that ecological data efficacy of this approach was limited, with five of were not collected, analyzed, or evaluated as part the eleven projects that took this approach failing of environmental management systems and to do so satisfactorily. The Natural Habitats policy appropriately integrated into overall project is very clear about the situations in which it implementation and management systems, should be triggered; it is far less clear about the decisions, or actions. additional analysis or actions required to comply with its mandate of taking a precautionary The paucity of data on direct and indirect approach. This suggests a gap in the consistency impacts on nearby protected species and of its application and in the prescriptive guidance habitats (including tiger populations and provided about what actions should be taken habitats) at project conclusion even when when OP 4.04 is applicable. environmental assessments identified significant potential negative project impacts was striking. In addition to using GIS-supported decision The fact that essentially no project could support systems to interpret landscape-scale demonstrate that it had successfully mitigated earth observation imaging platforms or higher indirect impacts on protected species’ popula- resolution aerial surveys (for example, LIDAR), a tions and habitats within the project’s area of number of other approaches are being influence—although several made serious promoted and used by the Bank and other attempts to do so—and that only one actually multilateral donors, such as putting more measured upward or downward trends in such emphasis on addressing indirect impacts, populations or habitats makes it clear that better making greater use of payment for environmen- application of existing monitoring tools is tal services, ensuring more direct and transpar- needed. ent benefit flows to local communities, clarifying property rights of common-access natural It was not surprising to find that only one project resources, and promoting global standards of (Kerinci Seblat ICDP) had used remote sensing environmental governance. These approaches and imagery tools to conduct threat assessments were not evaluated in this review, but they have and to deploy vehicle and foot patrols to been applied in a number of Bank-financed encroachment hot spots, because many of the projects with biodiversity impacts and might be projects evaluated were designed well over a considered in defining future guidance about decade ago. However, there have been rapid what specific actions should be undertaken technological advances in recent years in when OP 4.04 is applied. landscape-scale spatial assessment platforms and real-time field-based monitoring systems; these In many cases, indirect threats of poaching and can provide cost-effective, reliable and timely encroachment were clearly identified in project data about rapidly changing conditions in the environmental assessments, but mitigation field that pose imminent threats to species and measures were not implemented by more than habitats of concern. one-third of the projects evaluated. From interviews, it became apparent that the reason There was inconsistent application of the Natural for this is that the threats were perceived as Habitats policy among the 20 projects evaluated, transcending the resources, capabilities, and with little apparent difference between projects mandates of the projects as well as the role of the that addressed natural habitat issues under the Bank as a lender. This raises the fundamental Environmental Assessment policy and those that question of how realistic it is to expect individual 20 I E G R E V I E W O F 2 0 WO R L D BA N K – F U N D E D P R O J E C T S I N T I G E R L A N D S C A P E S development projects to address systemic 2007). In the face of such threats, the Bank has threats to wild tiger populations, such as the begun to apply its global experience and conven- ongoing “poaching crisis” occurring in tiger ing power, its financial leadership and ability to range countries and the more gradual but equally leverage large, innovative capital flows, and its destructive process of habitat loss, fragmenta- high-level dialogue with governments to engage tion, degradation, and decreased connectivity of clients and regional partners in civil society to large, intact tracts of tiger habitats. Effectively strategically address these types of systemic addressing these broader issues is vital but threats through a variety of different forums, usually calls for actions that go beyond the scope partnerships, and initiatives. of what such projects can address with safeguards measures. In taking a leading role with several new and ongoing initiatives, such as the Global Tiger These impacts require dedicated national or Initiative (GTI), the Save Our Species (SOS) transnational policies and programs well beyond microgrant financing program, and the Critical the scope of individual projects to effectively Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), the Bank address. Several projects assessed here were has launched a series of coordinated joint actions heavily criticized by NGOs for impacts and and strategic partnerships with other donors, outcomes that could have reasonably been governments, the private sector, and civil society considered beyond the projects’ ability or means to address the global challenge of biodiversity to mitigate and that go beyond the legal require- loss. For example, the SOS program is being ments of the Bank’s safeguard policy framework. prepared for Bank Board approval to address the Other projects attempting to implement novel funding gap for biodiversity conservation by approaches to integrate the basic needs of mobilizing grant financing and private sector development with biodiversity conservation engagement in partnership with the World were also criticized. In several cases, the projects Conservation Union. were trying to inculcate new attitudes and behaviors among local populations in the face of The GTI has spearheaded the Bank’s efforts to powerful economic interests and established develop an effective international framework to social practices. Whether some projects might help curb illegal networks trafficking in wildlife, have gone further to address these threats is such as tiger parts, and has supported the debatable, but all projects must monitor the recently formed International Consortium on environmental impacts of both direct and Combating Wildlife Crime to strengthen regional indirect threats and document the environmen- cooperation, improve wildlife crime reporting, tal outcomes achieved by the project. establish a clearinghouse of tiger trade tracking data, and enhance international law enforcement Safeguards are an essential part in the Bank’s efforts at the recent Convention on International toolbox as a means to achieve sustainable Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and development, but it is clear that safeguards by Flora (CITES). It also aims to help to raise politi- themselves are not sufficient to address broader cal awareness and financial support for the cause systemic threats to biodiversity conservation. It of biodiversity conservation, in fora such as the cannot be assumed that by simply remedying the 2010 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, which current deficiencies in implementation support brought together policy makers from key donors and uneven supervision on a project-by-project and the 13 tiger range countries. The GTI is also basis the remaining wild tiger populations will be working with partners on developing potentially saved. As a recent joint United Nations Develop- innovative funding schemes, such as a wildlife ment Programme–World Bank Global Environ- premium piggy-backing on the Reduced ment Facility report states, “The scale of Emissions from Deforestation and Degrada- interventions is usually much smaller than the tion+ carbon market and the Global Tiger scale of the threat” (UNDP and World Bank Recovery Program. Finally, the CEPF has awarded 21 E V A L U AT I O N B R I E F 1 2 over $100 million to more than 1,500 NGOs and tion of development projects. Complementary private sector organizations in the world’s to promoting biodiversity conservation through biodiversity hotspots. targeted efforts are steps to anticipate and mitigate biodiversity losses associated with In parallel with these valuable biodiversity development projects in areas such as rural conservation efforts and initiatives, this review transport, watershed management, or integrated has shown that the Bank, countries, and partners rural development. should continue efforts to integrate biodiversity considerations into the design and implementa- 22 Appendix A: List of Evaluated Projects Concept Board Name Region Sector note review approval date Closing date Bhutan: Rural Road Access Project (Category B) SAR TR February 1999 December 1999 June 2006 Cambodia Forest Concessions (Category B) EAP ARD May 1999 June 2000 December 2005 India: AP State Highway (Category B) SAR TR June 1995 June 1997 January 2003 India: Grand Trunk Road (Category A) SAR TR January 2001 June 2001 June 2008 India: Karnataka State Highway (Category A) SAR TR August 2000 May 2001 December 2006 India: Tamil Nadu Road Sector (Category A) SAR TR March 1999 June 2003 March 2009* India: Integrated Watersheds Development (Hill 2) Project (Category A) SAR ARD July 1998 June 1999 September 2005 India: Eco-development Project (Category B) SAR ARD January 1992 September 1996 June 2004 Indonesia: Bengkulu Regional Development (Category B) EAP TR October 1995 March 1998 December 2005 Indonesia: Integrated Swamps Development (Category A) EAP ARD March 1988 June 1994 September 2000 Indonesia: Sumatra Regional Roads (Category A) EAP TR May 1996 March 1998 December 2005 Indonesia: Kerinci Seblat ICDP (Category A) EAP ARD November 1991 April 1996 September 2002 Lao PDR: Road Maintenance Project I (Category B) EAP TR February 2000 March 2001 December 2004 Lao PDR: Road Maintenance Project II (Category B) EAP TR February 2004 June 2004 June 2010 Lao PDR: Agricultural Development Project (Category B) EAP ARD April 2000 May 2001 June 2008 Nepal: Rd. Maintenance & Rehabilitation (Category B) EAP TR January 1992 March 1994 June 1999 Nepal: Road Maintenance & Development II Project (Category A) SAR TR November 1997 November 1999 June 2007 Vietnam: Rural Transport (Category B) EAP TR April 1995 December 1996 December 2001 Vietnam: Northern Mountains Poverty (Category B) EAP ARD November 1999 October 2001 December 2007 Vietnam: Forest Protection & Rural Development Project (Category B) EAP ARD September 1995 October 1997 June 2006 Source: IEG. Note: Category A = projects likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that may affect an area broader than the sites or facilities subject to physical works; Category B = projects with potential adverse environmental impacts on human populations or environmentally important areas—including wetlands, forests, grasslands, and other natural habitats— that are less adverse than those of Category A projects. These impacts are site specific; few if any are irreversible, and in most cases mitigatory measures can be designed more readily than for Category A projects. Regions: EAP = East Asia and Pacific; SAR = South Asia. Sectors: ARD = Agriculture and Rural Development; TR = Transport. * signifies still active project with closing date subsequently extended beyond that given in project document. 23 Appendix B: Rating Scale for Assessing Impacts of World Bank–Funded Projects on Wild Tigers Rating Definition 1 Highly satisfactory Exemplary identification/analysis of potential impacts on wild tiger populations and habitats and other species/habitats of concern. Creative approaches to mitigation measures and their management. Highly effective implementation of the mitigation measures and other protective activities. Innovations and opportunities taken to design and implement protection measures for species or habitats per se and provide stepped up supervision of their implementation. 2 Satisfactory Satisfactory identification/analysis of potential impacts on wild tiger populations and habitats and other rare and endangered species/habitats. Adoption of appropriate mitigation measures and their management. Satisfactory implementation of the mitigation measures and other protective activities. Satisfactory supervision of their implementation. No innovations and opportunities taken to design and implement protection measures for species or habitats per se or to provide close supervision of their implementation. 3 Moderately satisfactory Moderate lapses in identification/analysis of potential impacts on wild tiger populations and habitats and other rare and endangered species/habitats. Moderate lapses in adoption of appropriate mitigation measures and their management or in implementation of the mitigation measures and other protective activities and supervision of their implementation, but not considered to put implementation of protective measures at risk. 4 Moderately unsatisfactory Significant lapses in identification/analysis of potential impacts on wild tiger populations and habitats and other species or habitats of concern, adoption of appropriate mitigation measures, management and implementation of mitigation measures and other protective activities, supervision of their implementation. Considered to put implementation of protective measures at risk. Opportunities exist to rectify oversights not taken. 5 Unsatisfactory Very significant lapses in identification/analysis of potential impacts on wild tiger populations and habitats and other species/habitats of concern, adoption of appropriate mitigation measures, management and implementation of the mitigation measures and other protective activities, supervision of their implementation. Considered to put implementation of protective measures at risk. Few, if any, opportunities to rectify oversights or issues. 6 Highly unsatisfactory No recognition of potential impacts on wild tiger populations and habitats, no formulation of mitigation measures and their management, no implementation of the mitigation measures and other protective activities. No opportunities taken to design and implement protection measures for species or habitats per se. Source: IEG. 24 Bibliography IEG Evaluations UNDP and World Bank. 2007. Reducing Threats to 2002a. “Benin: Natural Resources Management Protected Areas: Lessons from the Field. Project.” Project Performance Assessment Report WWF (World Wildlife Fund), UN Environment No. 24352. Washington, DC: World Bank. Programme–World Conservation Monitoring 2002b. “Bolivia: Biodiversity Conservation Project.” Centre, and MDA Federal. 2010. An Assessment of Project Performance Assessment Report No. Management and Threats in Tiger Conservation 24604. Washington, DC: World Bank. Landscapes. 2003. “Mali: Natural Resources Management Project.” Project Performance Assessment Report No. 27493. Washington, DC: World Bank. GTI Thematic and Working Paper Series 2006. “Bangladesh: Forest Resources Management No date a. At a Glance: Mainstreaming Conserva- Project.” Project Performance Assessment Report tion in Development. No. 36295. Washington, DC: World Bank. No date b. Smart Green Infrastructure in Tiger 2008. Environmental Sustainability: An Evaluation Range Countries: A Multi-Level Approach. of World Bank Group Support. Washington, DC: 2010a. Avoiding the Unthinkable: What will it Cost to World Bank. Prevent Tigers Becoming Extinct in the Wild. 2010a. “Burkina Faso: Partnership for Natural Ecosys- 2010b. Competing Demands: Understanding and tem Management Project.” Project Performance Addressing the Socio-economic Forces that Work Assessment Report No. 55443. Washington, DC: for and against Tiger Conservation. World Bank. 2010c. Creating Local Constituencies for Tiger 2010b. Safeguards and Sustainability Policies in a Conservation through Community Incentives Changing World: An Independent Evaluation of and Alternative Livelihoods. World Bank Experience. Washington, DC: World 2010d. Innovative Finance for Tiger Conservation. Bank. 2010e. Landscape-scale, Ecology-based Management of Wild Tiger Populations. World Bank Publications Other Smithsonian National Zoological Park and World Butchart, Stuart H. M., M. Walpole, B. Collen, A. van Bank. 2008. A Future for Wild Tigers. Washington, Strien, J. P.W . Scharlemann, R. E. A. Almond, J. E. DC: World Bank. M. Baillie, et al. 2010. “Global Biodiversity: Indica- World Bank. 1991. “Environmental Assessment tors of Recent Declines.” Science 328 (5982): Sourcebook: Policies, Procedures, and Cross- 1164–68. Sectoral Issues.” World Bank Technical Paper Dinerstein, E., C. Loucks, E. Wikramanayake, J. #139, Washington, DC. Ginsberg, et al. 2007. “The Fate of Wild Tigers.” ———. 2003. “Implementation Completion Report Bioscience 57 (6): 508–14. for the Kerinci Seblat Integrated Conservation and ECG (evaluation Cooperation Group of the Interna- Development Project.” Report No. 25753, World tional Financing Institutions). 2010. “Ensuring Bank, Washington, DC. Biodiversity in a Sustainable Future: Lessons from ———. 2007. Mainstreaming Conservation in Evaluation.” Convention on Biological Diversity, Infrastructure Projects: Case Studies from Latin Nagoya, Japan, October 13. America. Washington, DC: World Bank. Sanderson, E. J. Forrest, C. Loucks, J. Ginsberg, E. ———. 2009. The Inspection Panel at 15 Years. Dinerstein, et al. 2006. Setting Priorities for the Washington, DC: World Bank. Conservation and Recovery of Wild Tigers: 25 E V A L U AT I O N B R I E F 1 2 2005–2015. The Technical Assessment. Washing- Assessment: Setting Priorities for the Conservation ton, DC, and New York: World Conservation and Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005–2010. Society, World Wildlife Fund, Smithsonian, and WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society), WWF (World NFWF-STF. Wildlife Fund), Wildlife and Conservation Center WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society), WWF (World of SNZP, and Save the Tiger Fund. 2006. A User’s Wildlife Fund), Wildlife and Conservation Center Guide: Setting Priorities for the Conservation and of SNZP , and Save the Tiger Fund. 2006. Technical Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005–2010. 26