Documentof The World Bank Report No.: 39930 PROJECT PERFORMANCEASSESSMENT REPORT INDIA ECODEVELOPMENTPROJECT (CREDIT 2916-IN) June 26,2007 Sector, Thematic and Global Evaluation Division Independent Evaluation Group Currency Equivalents(annual averages) Currency Unit =Indian Rupees (INR) 2003 (Feb) US$l.oo Rs.45.5 2006 (Feb) US$l.oo Rs.44.0 Abbreviations and Acronyms ADB AsianDevelopmentBank CAS CountryAssistance Strategy (CAS) CBD ConventiononBiologicalDiversity CDF communitydevelopment fund CDF CommunityDevelopmentFunds EDC EcodevelopmentCommittee FREEP ForestryResearchandEducationProject GO government orders GO1 Government ofIndia ICR ImplementationCompletionReport IEDP IndiaEcodevelopmentProject IEG IndependentEvaluationGroup IEGWB IndependentEvaluationGroup (WorldBank) JFM Joint ForestManagement MOEF MinistryofEnvironmentandForests MPFP MadhyaPradeshForestryProject MTR Mid-TermReview PA protectedareas PF PeriyarFoundation PPAR ProjectPerformanceAssessment Report PTO ProjectTiger Office PTR PeriyarTiger Reserve RTR RanthamboreTiger Reserve SHG Self-Help Groups FiscalYear Government: April 1-March31 Director-General, Evaluation : Mr.VinodThomas Director, Independent Evaluation Group (World Bank) : Mr.Ajay Chhibber Manager, Sector, Thematic, and Global EvaluationDivision : Mr.AlainBarbu Task Manager : Mr.JohnRedwood 1 IEGWBMission: Enhancingdevelopmenteffectivenessthrough excellence and independence in evaluation. About this Report The IndependentEvaluationGroup assesses the programsand activities of the World Bank for two purposes: first,to ensure the integrityof the Bank'sself-evaluationprocessand to verifythat the Bank's work is producingthe expected results, and second, to helpdevelopimproved directions, policies, and proceduresthroughthe disseminationof lessonsdrawnfrom experience.As part of this work, IEGWBannuallyassesses about 25 percent of the Bank's lendingoperations. Inselectingoperationsfor assessment, preferenceis given to thosethat are innovative, large, or complex; those that are relevant to upcomingstudies or country evaluations;those for which ExecutiveDirectors or Bank managementhave requestedassessments; andthose that are likelyto generate importantlessons.The projects,topics, and analytical approachesselected for assessment support larger evaluation studies. A Project PerformanceAssessment Report (PPAR) is based on a review of the Implementation Completion Report (a self-evaluation by the responsible Bank department) and fieldwork conducted by IEGWB. To prepare PPARs, IEGWBstaff examine project files and other documents, interview operational staff, and in most cases visit the borrowingcountry for onsite discussions with project staff and beneficiaries. The PPAR thereby seeks to validate and augment the information provided in the ICR, as well as examine issues of special interest to broader IEGWB studies. Each PPAR is subject to a peer review process and IEGWB managementapproval. Once cleared internally, the PPAR is reviewed by the responsible Bank department and amended as necessary. The completed PPAR is then sent to the borrowerfor review; the borrowers' comments are attached to the document that is sent to the Bank's Board of Executive Directors. After an assessment report has been sent to the Board, it is disclosed to the public. About the IEGWB RatingSystem The time-tested evaluation methods used by IEGWB are suited to the broad range of the World Bank's work. The methods offer both rigor and a necessary level of flexibility to adapt to lending instrument, project design, or sectoral approach. IEGWB evaluators all apply the same basic method to arrive at their project ratings. Following is the definition and rating scale used for each evaluation criterion (more information is available on the IEGWB website: http://worldbank.org/oed/eta-mainpage.htm1). Relevanceof Objectives: The extent to which the project's objectives are consistent with the country's current development priorities and with current Bank country and sectoral assistance strategies and corporate goals (expressed in Poverty ReductionStrategy Papers, Country Assistance Strategies, Sector Strategy Papers, Operational Policies). Possibleratings: High, Substantial, Modest, Negligible. Efficacy: The extent to which the project's objectives were achieved, or expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance. Possibleratings: High, Substantial, Modest, Negligible. Efficiency: The extent to which the project achieved, or is expectedto achieve, a return higher than the opportunity cost of capital and benefits at least cost compared to alternatives. Possible ratings: High, Substantial, Modest, Negligible.This rating is not generally applied to adjustment operations. Sustainability: The resilience to risk of net benefits flows over time. Possibleratings: Highly Likely, Likely, Unlikely, Highly Unlikely, Not Evaluable. lnstitutionalDevelopmentImpact: The extent to which a project improves the ability of a country or region to make more efficient, equitable and sustainable use of its human, financial, and natural resources through: (a) better definition, stability, transparency, enforceability, and predictability of institutional arrangements andlor (b) better alignment of the mission and capacity of an organization with its mandate, which derives from these institutional arrangements. InstitutionalDevelopment Impact includes both intended and unintended effects of a project. Possible ratings: High, Substantial, Modest, Negligible. Outcome: The extent to which the project's major relevant objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, efficiently. Possibleratings: Highly Satisfactory, Satisfactory, Moderately Satisfactory, Moderately Unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory,Highly Unsatisfactory. BankPerformance: The extent to which services provided by the Bank ensured quality at entry and supported implementation through appropriate supervision (including ensuring adequate transition arrangements for regular operation of the project). Possibleratings: Highly Satisfactory, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory, Highly Unsatisfactory. BorrowerPerformance: The extent to which the borrower assumed ownership and responsibility to ensure quality of preparation and implementation, and complied with covenants and agreements, towards the achievement of development objectives and sustainability. Possible ratings: Highly Satisfactory, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory, Highly Unsatisfactory. ... 111 Contents PrincipalRatings ................................................................................................................ v Key StaffResponsible ........................................................................................................ v Preface .............................................................................................................................. .. vi1 Summary ........................................................................................................................... ix 1 Background . .................................................................................................................. 1 2. ProjectDesignandImplementation ........................................................................... 1 Objectives. Components and ImplementationArrangements ..................... 1 ProjectDesign.............................................................................................. 3 Project Implementation................................................................................ 4 3 EvaluationFindings . ..................................................................................................... 5 Relevance o f objectives ............................................................................... 5 Efficacy and Efficiency................................................................................ 6 4 Ratings . ........................................................................................................................ 11 Outcome..................................................................................................... 11 Sustainability.,............................................................................................ . . 12 InstitutionalDevelopment Impact.............................................................. 12 Monitoring andEvaluation: Design, Implementationand Utilization.......12 Bank Performance...................................................................................... 13 Borrower Performance............................................................................... 13 5 LessonsLearned . ......................................................................................................... 14 Annex A BasicDataSheet . .............................................................................................. 17 Annex B IndiaReserveProfiles . .................................................................................... 21 This reportwas preparedbyColinRees. Consultant. who assessedthe projectinApril 2006 Soon-Won Pakprovidedadmimstrative support . . V PrincipalRatings ICR* ES* PPAR Outcome Satisfactory Moderatelysatisfactory Moderately satisfactory Sustainability Likely Non-evaluable Likely Institutional Substantial Substantial Substantial Development Impact Bank Performance Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Borrower Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Performance * The Implementation Completion Report (ICR) is a self-evaluation by the responsible operational division of the Bank. The Evaluation Summary (ES) is an intermediate IEGWB product that seeks to independently verify the findings of the ICR. Key Staff Responsible Project Task ManagedLeader Division Chief/ Country Director Sector Director Appraisal Jessica Mott Shawki Barghouti Heinz Vergin Completion K. Mackinnonl Adolfo Brizzi Michael F. Carter R. R. Mohan vii Preface This is the ProjectPerformance Assessment Report (PPAR) for the India Ecodevelopment Project (IEDP). The project was financed through IDA Credit No. 2916 inthe amount ofUS$28.0 millionequivalent (19.5 millionSDR) anda GEFTrustFund Grant (TF-28479) o fU S $20.0 million (13.9 million SDR) with contributions from project beneficiaries (US$4.50 million) and state and central governments (US$ 14.42 million). The credit was approved on September 5, 1996, became effective on December 9,1996 and was closed onJune 30,2004, two years behindthe scheduled closing date of June 30 2002. Restructuringtook place inJune 2002 with the total cancellation of US$ 5.6 million from the credit andUS$2.2 million from the Grant. Theremaining credit was 96.4 percent disbursed. The findings o f this assessment are based on an Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) missionto IndiainApril/May o f2006 andreviewofproject documents. The missionmet inDelhiwith staff from the Government (GOI), NGOs andthe Asian Development Bank and other donor agency staff. Site visits were paid to Ranthanbore and Periyar Tiger Reserves (two o f the seven sites includedinthe IEDP)to meet with Reserve staff, local NGOs and villagers, includingtribal people. This report draws heavily upon the technicalreports and inputs o f team members inWashington D C and in Delhiandgovernment staff, the donor community andNGOs inIndia.Key documentary sources consulted include: (a) World Bankand other project files; (b) project-related reporting and evaluation; and, (c) and conservation studies and evaluation reports generated inIndia. This PPAR is also intended as an input into an on-going IEGevaluation o fthe development effectiveness o f the World Bank's assistanceto the environment and to biodiversity conservation at nationaland global levels. The IEGteam gratefully acknowledges all those who made time for interviews and provided documents and information. Following standard IEGprocedures, copies o f the draft PPAR were sent to the Borrowers (GOI, ICICI and IDBI) for comments, but nonewere received. ix Summary The overall aim o fthe IndiaEcodevelopment Project, approved in 1996, was to conserve biological diversity inseven globally significant protectedareas (PAS)by implementing an ecodevelopment strategy (prepared bythe GOI). The strategy embraced a community-based approach encouraging durab1e partnerships betweenForest Department staffandlocal communities for access to and responsible use o f forest resources. The main project objectives were to: (i) improve the capacity of PA management to conserve biodiversity, increase collaborationof localpeople inconservation efforts, and increase opportunities for localparticipationinPA management activities and decisions; (ii) reduce negative impacts o f localpeople on biodiversity and o fPASon localpeople; (iii) develop more extensive support for ecodevelopment; (iv) ensure effective management o fthe project; and, (v) preparefuture biodiversityprojects. Its components corresponded to these objectives and comprised: (a) improvedPA management; (b) Village Ecodevelopment; (c) education and awareness and project impact monitoring andresearch; (d) overall project management; and (e) preparationo f future biodiversityprojects. The relevance ofproject objectives i s assessed as high as they were fully consistent with the Bank's Country Assistance Strategy and GO1priorities andsupportedthe global aim o f conserving biodiversity inseven critical areas ina mega-diversity country. The project's efficacy is assessedas modest. The capacity ofPAmanagement was improvedwith increased participation of local communities inconservation efforts and management plans were produced for the seven PAS.However, some o fthese plans suffered inquality as baseline data andresearchdidnot always addressneededplanningrequirements andcorrective actions occurred late inthe planningprocess. Useo fRegionalPlanning Committees established to promote conservation inthe wider landscape was also uneven. The objective o fpreparingfuture biodiversity conservation projects was dropped. EfJiciency i s also assessed as modest. Participatorymonitoring recorded a reduced dependence o f communities on P A resources and control o fpoaching and intrusionpressures on PAShas resultedinhabitat regeneration and increased wildlife populations. Visible gains were also made interms o f galvanizing local communities to form Ecodevelopment Committees for conservation inand around PAS,some 580 EDCs beingformed involving 75,000 households. However, it appearsthat only one PA was able to abide substantively by the micro-planningprocess andits provisions, while the lack o f competent professional experience impaired rigorous assessmento fPA threats andthe selection o f funded activities byEDCs and other groups. Equally, theproject time frame o ffive years pressuredthe micro- planningcomponent andthe effectivebuildingo fpartnerships.A major benefitofthe project was improvements to people-park relationships, and the project generated significant awareness and support for conservation and ecodevelopment around the majority o fthe PAS. Based upon the evidence o f efJicacy and efJiciency, theproject's outcome i s rated moderately satisfactory. Sustainability i s ratedlikely. The project achieved more efficient, equitable and sustainable use o f its human, financial and naturalhiological resources by the time it ended. An increased contribution by the GO1and sustained local contributions underpinnedthe accomplishment o fproject objectives. This i s continuing at most o f the seven sites andwould be further encouraged inthe proposed follow-on Biodiversity Conservation andRural Livelihoods ImprovementProject, Conservation responsibilitiesare now sharedwith local communities andthe long-term survival o fPAs appears more assured. However, several challenges for the further development and sustainability o f project activities remain, especially strengthening key institutional arrangements; improved management planning, andbettertargeted site-specific micro planningby EDCs. Institutional development impact i s ratedsubstantial. Ina climate o f inexperience andrisks regardingparticipationandtrust, limited implementationcapacity andquestionable management support, the project introduced many innovations such as transparent accounting and involvement o f local communities. The latter often meant painful negotiation withstate and localagencies and communities. Manymanagement innovations arenow part o f forest development operations at national and state levels andthe Project Tiger Office now has a dedicated budget for ecodevelopment activities. Critical modifications were adopted duringthe Mid-termReview (MTR) and subsequentBank Missions stepped the up the quality and frequency o f supervision though this should have been done earlier. Overall, Bankperformance is rated satisfactory. More intensive supervisiono f institutional capacity inthe early stages o fproject implementationshould have been undertakenand earlier interventionswould have helpedfoster ownership andmanagement planning and sustain the momentum o f the ecodevelopment approach. Borrower performance was unsatisfactory duringthe early phases o fproject implementationbut is rated satisfactory overall. The extensive scope and complex demands o fproject design and dependency upon local institutions was a constraint early on, and only after concerted efforts duringandafter the MTRdidall parties recognize the opportunityto chart anew approach to biodiversity conservation through improved parWpeople relationships and strengthened institutional arrangements to improve the livelihoods o f local communities. Key lessons includethe needsto: enhance EDC capacity to better link ProtectedArea management with village development and livelihood needs; move conservationpractices into the wider landscape by integrating Protected Area activities with those affecting the adjacent rural/agriculture sector more generally, as,for example, by taking an ecosystem sewices approach; better target research and monitoring, including that on changes in vegetative cover andpopulations of key species and their interface with the wider landscape, to serve the managementpriorities of ProtectedAreas; improve monitoring and evaluation indicators - including the quality of baseline data -- and their application to help gauge the benefits of conservation interventions; and, use recent legislation, including the Freedom of Information Act, to assist local communities to realize thefull benefits of conservation and sustainable development through more directparticipation in decision-making. Vinod Thomas Director-General Evaluation 1 1. Background 1.1 Support for ecodevelopment byNGOs and the GO1emerged early inthe 1990's when itwas acceptedthat the "protectiodexclusion system" o fwildlife management had not worked. An ecodevelopment strategy was developed by the GO1inthe early 90s with the aim o f accommodating the welfare andbehavior o flocalpeople and integrating these concerns into management o f Protected areas (PAS).It also sought to buildprivate sector stakeholder support for conservation among NGOs, nature tour operators andthe general public. The strategy built upon the gains initiated inthe 70s under Joint Forest Management Forest Management wherein decision-making authority andresponsibility for control over forestlands and their products are sharedbetween forest department and local usedgroups. Helpedby the National Wildlife Action Plan (1983), the EnvironmentalAction Plan(1993) and, as signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity (1993), the GO1increasinglybroadened efforts to enhance community participation (ifinitially top down). The EighthFive-Year Plan(1992-1997) incorporated the ecodevelopment approach and it has since become central to promoting wildlife management throughout India. 1.2 The Bank-fundedFREEP and IEDP Projects covered ninePA sites innine states and the MadhyaPradeshForestry Project (MPFP), included a substantial biodiversity component through which 24 priority PASinthe state received financial support. Together, these provided direction and mutually supportive lessons for implementationo fthis project and shaped future interventions at the state level. The lessonspoint to the need from the onset for sound PA leadership, substantive participation o f all parties, andteam capacity and buildingand sustaining social capital andcohesion incommunities inandaround the PAS. 1.3 For the purpose o f this review, site visits were made to two o f the seven PAS supported by the IEDP-Ranthambore Tiger Reserve inRajasthan andPeriyar Tiger Reserve inKerala. The two sites were selected becauseo f the extremes offered, Ranthambore TR being considered by all parties to have attained the least successful outcomes andPeriyar the most successful. Extensive interviews were conduced with GO1 staff andNGOs inDelhi andwith Reserve staff and local villagers andtribal people and NGOs. 2. Project DesignandImplementation Objectives,Components andImplementationArrangements 2.1 Theproject was financed by an IDA Credit (US$28 million) and a GEF Trust FundGrant (USS20 million) to India. It was approved inSeptember 1996 andbecame effective inDecember o f the same year as planned. Over a six-year period, the project set the ambitious agenda o f conservingbiodiversity through implementingthe ecodevelopment strategy o f the GO1inand around sevenprotected areas -chosen because o f their global significance to conserving biodiversity. The Project Tiger Office (PTO) inthe Forest Department o fthe Ministryo f Environment andForests (MOEF) was responsible for overall management o f the IEDP and, state governments (through their 2 P A authorities) undertook for field-level project execution usingexistinginter-agency staff and community organizational structures. 2.2 The objectives were: 1) Improvedcapacity for protected area (PA) management to conserve biodiversity andincrease opportunities for localparticipationinP A management activities and decision-making; 2) Reducednegative impacts o f local people onbiodiversity, reduced negative impacts on localpeople, and increased collaboration o f localpeople in conservation efforts; 3) More effective and extensive support for conservation and ecodevelopment 4) Effective management o f the project; and, 5) Preparation o f fbture biodiversity projects. 2.3 Theproject comprised the following components: a) ImprovedPA management (estimated costs US$ 15.3m; 23% o ftotal costs; actual expenditures US$ 15.5m; 25% o ftotal costs) to strengthen park protection andmanagement inseven PASthrough: (i) improvedP A planning processes andbuildingcapacity o f P A staff;@) incorporating P A concerns into regional planningandregulation; (iii) protecting andmanaging ecosystems and habitats within the PA; and, (iv) upgradingPA amenities for field staff. b) Villageecodevelopment (US$36. lm; 54% oftotal costs; actual expenditures US$32.8m; 54% o f total costs) designed to reduce negative impacts o f local people on biodiversity andincrease collaborationo f localpeople in conservation by: (i) conductingparticipatory micro planningandproviding implementation support for micro plans inecodevelopment villages (ii) implementingreciprocal commitments that foster alternative livelihoods and resource uses, to be financed by a village ecodevelopment program, with specific measurable actions by localpeople to improve conservation (iii) special programs for additionaljoint forest management, voluntary relocation, and supplemental investmentsfor special needs. c) Education and awareness and impact monitoring and research (US$5.2m; 8.7% o f total costs; actual expenditures $2.8m; 4.5% o f total costs) involved developingmore effective andextensive support for PA ecodevelopment, including: (i) promoting public support for conservation through environmental education and awareness campaigns; and, (ii) impact monitoring andresearch to improve understanding o f issues and solutions relevant to PA management andinteractions between PASandpeople. d) Overallproject management (US5.8m; 9% oftotal costs; actual expenditures US$ 9.3; 15% o ftotal costs) supported the management organizationand activities covering: direct PA management, implementationstrategy and guidelines, multi-statelearningand dissemination, implementationreview; national-level policy studies; and national-level administration e) Preparation of future biodiversityprojects (US$2.6m; 3.9% o f total costs; actual expenditure US$0.61; 1.O % o ftotal costs) covering: (i) Second Ecodevelopment project (ii) Biodiversity Information project and (iii) Ex-situ conservation project. This component was dropped at MTR. 2.4 Additionally, the project includedReimbursement o f Project Preparation Facility (US$2m or 3% o ftotal costs; actual expenditure US$ 0.005m; 0.1% o ftotal costs). 2.5 A t appraisal, the project cost was estimated at US$ 67 million, o f which the IDA sharewas US$28 million, GEF's US$20 million, the national and state government's US$ 14.42 million, and local communities (US$4.5 million). It was approved in September 1996 and became effective inDecember of the same year. Revisions to the project took place inMay 2000 and cost allocations were restructured inJune 2002 after canceling US$ 7.8 million from the credit (US$5.6) and from the Grant (US$2.2 million). The project closed inJune 2002, two years behind schedule, the two one-year extensions for some PASbeingjustified on the grounds that more time was needed to create new institutions and buildcapacity; restructuringinvolved reducing the scope of some targets and dropping the component on the preparationo f future biodiversity projects. Actual project costs were US$61 millionofwhich the IDA share was US$ 18.6 million, GEFUS$ 16 million, national and state government US$ 21.4 million, and local communities US$4.97 million. Project Design 2.6 Projectpreparation recognizedthe uniquechallenges posed by the adoption o f the ecodevelopment approach, institutional complexity and demand and the need for clear commitment and support for implementationby state governments andNGOs, the uncertainties o f devolvingpower between the central and state governments and the application o fthe voluntary relocation concept. All parties were aware o f ambitious tasks before them, particularly inpiloting a participatory approach for PA management and ecodevelopment aimed at fundamental changes inthe relationships between forestry staff and communities livinginand around PAS.Strengths o f design are clear: effective balancing o f conservation and community needs and aspirations through achieving significant support for ecodevelopment; substantive social assessment and participation o f communities at most sites and the application o f voluntary resettlement; and, the provision o f a Community Development Fund(CDF) to sustain local level Ecodevelopment Committees (EDCs). PA management staff capacity was effectively enhanced and communitiesmobilized against poachers and encroachers and habitat restorationandincreases inwildlife populations are evident. Weaknesses have emerged with respect to: estimates o fthe number o fEDCs to be established; timely flow o ffunds and management costs; and institutional capacity. The latter would have benefited from more attention to: better definedcapacitybuildingmeasures and, inrecognition o f devolving authority between central and state governments, clearer definition o f authority and procedures for budget flows and arrangements for contracting. The use o fresearch grants suffered becauseo f delays inthe prior needfor establishing PA management plans and consequent insufficient time for implementation. Inaddition, the scope o f the 4 research should have been more focused onpriorities and assessingproject impacts. Lastly, linkage with the ruraVagriculture sector and wideningengagement with the landscape via RegionalPlanningCommittees was a neglected feature o fthe IEDP.Local communities and government agencies around PASprovide unique opportunities to mainstream conservation and sustainable use activities intheir respective development activities - a feature incorporated inthe succeeding biodiversity conservationproject. 2.7 More attention mighthave been givento the project's demandingplanning processes and institutional and financial arrangements andthe absence o f skills inGO1 and state staff and communities. Detailed organizational structures and responsibilities, staffing needs andcontracting arrangements were agreed duringpreparationbut foundered at some sites duringthe early phase o f the project because of failure to build sufficient capacity and generate ownership at state and community levels. ProjectImplementation 2.8 The project suffered from a number o f design shortcomings contributing to unsatisfactory progress inthe first four years of its implementation. The ambitious scale o fthe project, demanding processes andprocedures, complexity o f institutional arrangements and a five-year timeframe imposedtoo great a burdenon state staff and at some sites raised unrealistic expectations with local communities. The limitations o f technical expertise and experience were under appreciated, inpart because weaknesses were generalized duringpreparationrather than being addressed specifically at each site; similarly, financial andbudget arrangements were insufficiently detailed, particularly in the face o fputative institutional experience. The role o fthe PTO and PA management in outreach and disseminating lessons learned proveddisappointing, especially inthe early stages o f the project and may have compromised ownership and understandingo fthe project. Nonetheless, the promotion o f resettlement ina PA context andthe deployment o f social assessment and participationplanning, established a durable precedence inthe accommodation o f conservation and community needs andtheir reconciliation. Some sites benefited from a community contribution o f 25%; more particularly, the creation o f a CommunityDevelopment Fund(CDF) at many sites provided for the maintenance o f Ecodevelopment Committees (EDCs) beyondthe life o f the project. 2.9 Delayedprocessing by the GO1meant that funds went unused untilOctober 1997 (some 10 months after effectiveness) and the Bank's Task Team leadership changed several times denying continuity and focus andaction on pressingissues. The Nagarhole National Park site drew an inquiryby the Bank's InspectionPanel over aprevailing (pre- project) conflict betweenthe Forest Department andthe divergent perspectives o f conservationists andpro-tribalNGOs over resource use inthe Park. A Bank Board meetingon the issue in 10December 1998, rejected the need for a full investigationand askedBankManagement to work with the GO1inaddressing the concerns o f the InspectionPanel (inconsultationwith local communities), particularly inreorganizing implementationto: ascertain the willingness for relocation; assess the economic status o f relocatingfamilies; implement measures to improve the livelihood o frelocated families; andprepare and implementmicro plans within the Park. This the GO1and the Bank completed and though there was a consequent delay inimplementation at Nagarhole, it 5 provided an opportunity for re-evaluation inintroducing actions at other sites demonstrating voluntary relocation as a viable mechanismto resolvingpressures on PAS. 2.10 A Mid-TermReview(MTR) inMay/June 2000 revisedtargets o fEDCmicroplan coverage and droppingthe component on the preparationo f future biodiversity projects largely because o fthe project's weak performance and the needto devote priorities to strengthening capacity at the central level, to disseminate lessons learned and develop more resilient sustainability strategies for ecodevelopment activities at specific sites. Prioritieswere focused upon: strengtheningcapacity at the central level; taking stock of lessons learned and their dissemination; anddeveloping more resilient sustainability strategies for ecodevelopment activities at specific sites. Other revisions at MTRreflected the need to buildcapacity among forestry staff and villagers andreduce the number o f Ecodevelopment Committee microplans and some originally targetedvillages. A two- year extension o f scheduledproject closure (June 2002) allowed ecodeveloment project sites to absorb these systemic actions anddevelop institutional arrangements at the local level commensurate with the many challenges faced inmainstreamingbiodiversity conservation. Progress thereafter was usedto justify extensions o f the credit/grant closing date to achieve agreedperformance criteria. 2.11 The dropping o f the component on the preparationo f future biodiversity projects i s felt by some inthe conservation community to have compromisedthe momentumbuilt up under ecodevelopment activities at the PAS.However, while the missionconcurs that the inclusiono f some additional sites might have beentimely towards the end o f the project, the allocation o f saved finance at the M T R to other project components suffering problems was justified. A secondphase follow-on designed to support the management o fprotectedareas and other sensitive areaswithin selected landscapes i s currently under preparation. This has allowed experience gained under IEDP to shape better-targeted interventions as well as enhance ownership at all levels. 3. Evaluation Findings Relevance of objectives 3.1 The relevance o f the projects' objectives is rated high overall. The IEDPwas fully consistent with the Bank's CountryAssistance Strategy andGO1priorities and attained enhanced relevance following revisions and restructuring. The global objective o f conservingbiodiversity inseven critical areas in a mega-diversity country was in compliance with guidance from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and GEF Counsel deliberations. The project supported funding o f seven globalpriority sites using a pilot approach for eventual extension to other protected area sites inIndia. The relevance o fproject management i s rated negligible, as this shouldbe considered as a normal instrument o f implementation. Though dropped duringMTR, the objective o f preparingo f future biodiversity conservation projectsi s ratedhigh. 6 Efficacy and Efficiency 3.2 Eficacy and efficiency are rated modest. Table 1provides ratings o f the project objectives andthe following paragraphs evaluate project achievements andbenefits by the five objectives. Table 1: Project Objectives and Rating Relevance EfJicacy Efficiency Outcomes 1. Improved PA Objective High Substantial Substantial Satisfactory managementlopportunities for local participation 2. Reduced negative High Substantial Modest Moderately impacts of local people on satisfactory biodiversity, reduced negative impacts on local people, and increased collaboration of local people in conservation efforts. 3. More effective and High Modest Modest Moderately extensive support for satisfactory conservation and ecodevelopment 4. Effective management Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible of the project 5. Preparation of Future High Negligible Negligible Negligible biodiversity projects Overall rating Modest Modest Moderately satisfactory Objective 1:Improved capacityfor protected area (PA) management to conserve biodiversity and increase opportunitiesfor localparticipation in PA management activities and decision-making. 3.3 There i s compelling evidence o f improvedPA management capacity (both Forest staff andvolunteers) at most sites andbenefits accruingto local communities are tangible, e.g., improvedwater supplies and reduced tiger attacks. After a shaky start, mechanisms for stakeholder participationwere established and PA staff found them particularly helpfulinimplementing improvements to community livelihoods and welfare. Insufficient staffing and experience at some PASimposed some constraints though champions often negotiated them through sheer dedication andprofessionalism. Villagers provedtheir worth at a number o f sites whenthey overcame leadership monopoly or elite capture (PRT may be cited as good practice); indeed, the active participationo f local communities grew during implementation and, save for Nagarhole, may be considered a significant contribution to helping resolve tensions around the selected Reserves and indesigningmutually supportive approaches to biodiversity conservation at the local level. A disappointment has been the working o fthe Regional PlanningCommittees established ineach State; at some sites, such committees have not been active inpromoting conservation inthe wider landscape through the mediation o f 7 bothprivate andpublic sectors. On occasion, this constrained the expansiono f gains within and beyondthe buffer zone 3.4 Visits to two sites, RTRandPTR, and a literature review of evaluations o fother sites confirmedthat the project has attained goodresults at the field level. Careful selection ofPA officers to maintain focus, consistency and continuity proved essential to P A management. Less satisfactory outcomes are apparent at the Project Tiger Office in the MOEFwhere it is clear that staffwere frequently overwhelmedby administrative duties at the expense o f sustaining national level studies supporting the implementation and monitoringo fthe project's disparate activities; this persists. The role o fthe MOEF continues to be limited inengaging the agriculture sector, the lack o f a mandate covering review and clearance o f agricultural andrural development projects and inexperience o f P A management with the wider productive landscape beingcontributing factors. 3.5. Management plans were producedfor all sites, though the timing o f their completionand quality as baseline data andresearch did not always address needed planningrequirements andcorrective actions came late intheplanningprocess. Although attention to buffer zones andbeyond and consequent reconciliation of forest department andcommunity needswas uneven, habitatprotectionwas improvedat most sites with the effective applicationo f offset activities such as securing sustained water supplies for surrounding communities. Nonetheless, some o f the communities around Ranthambore TR demonstrated the fragility o f this gain where lack o f financial support for continuatiodexpansion o f ecodevelopment activities threatens a reversionto the use o f Reserve resources. Objective2: Reduced negative impacts of localpeople on biodiversity, reduced negative impacts on localpeople, and increased collaboration of localpeople in conservation efforts. 3.6 Although baseline studies andresearch suffered delays because of the prior need for establishing P A management plans, participatory monitoring recorded a reduced dependenceo f communities upon PA resources (such as firewood and enhancement o f their livelihoods). This was confirmedby IEGfield observations where control o f poaching and intrusion pressures on PAShas resulted inhabitat regeneration along with increasedwildlife populations o fkey species. At bothRanthambore andPeriyar Tiger Reserves, local communities undertake patrols to control poaching and encroachment uponthe Reserves andwork closely with P A staff insustaining conservation objectives. 3.7 The IEGMission found improvementsto habitat protectionmostly following a shift inthe attitudes o f surroundingcommunitiesto the PAS(especially RTR), with mutual gains beingrealized through livelihood security, particularlyvia sustained water supplies. The mission corroborated reports indicating reduced tiger attacks and, insome instances, better managed access; field visits observed the substantive involvement o f localpeople inconservation activities -- facilitatedbydevelopment o fcommunity infrastructure (school buildings, roads, irrigation andwater supply), compensation payments for resolving community-wildlife conflicts and construction o fwildlife proof walls/fences. Such involvement took the form o f voluntary patrols, alerting PA staff to poachers and buildingawareness of the benefits o f conservation. 8 3.8 The S A R target o festablishing andmaintaining 806 Ecodevelopment Committees (EDCs) covering 71,000 households was revised at MTRwith a target o f 569 to better reflect local realities; at project completion, some 580 were inplace, covering 75,000 households. Sizeable community development funds have been generated by the EDCs at some sites, especially Periyar TR; incontrast, Ranthambore TR continues to experience tense relationships between some villages around the Reserve andthe panchayats; this threatens accomplishments andthe initiation o f further activities. 3.9 OnlyPTRwas able to abide substantivelybythe micro-planningprocess andits provisions (invoking equity, gender and socio-economic conservation considerations) stipulated inthe SAR. Generally, the lack o f competent professional experience impaired rigorous assessment o fPA threats, selection o f funded activities by EDCs (andother groups) and attention to preventingelite capture. This was sometimes exacerbated bythe mandatory25% financial contributions to assess ecodevelopment benefits -- only partially offset by involving Self-Help Groups (SHGs) not requiring such contributions. Infuture, it is recommended that specialist expertisebedrawnfrom experienced government staff and consultancies so that capacity buildingo f local staff may assure delivery o fmicro-planning outputs. Equally, the project time frame o f five years pressuredthe micro-planningcomponent and the effective buildingo fpartnerships; this underminedthe rational selection o fvillages impacting on the PASand ledto charges o f discriminationor diminishedcommitment to conservation. Though intendedunder the project, more durable mechanisms needto be developed to target villages with poorer populations andwhich have the greatest impact on PA viability. 3.10 Visible gains were made ingalvanizing local communities to form EDCs for conservation inand around the PAS. Though initially, financial administration endured a rocky ride, many EDCs established Community Development Funds (CDFs) as revolving funds for use beyondthe project. Regularaudits ensuringtransparency and accountability were conducted according to prescribedguidelines andprocedures at most sites and these continue beyondproject completion. A quite remarkable model in assuring social sustainability has beenestablished at PTRwhere investment insocial cohesion and capital has empowered the poorer sections o f the community including tribals. Further,tractable measures have been adopted insustaining ecologicalbenefits - water resources management, habitat restoration, reduction o f threats, especially poaching, clearance o f invasive species, etc. Zoning for visitor/wildlife management has beenincorporatedinPA Management Plans and expansiono fbufferzones andcontiguity o fPAs (through wildlife corridors) i s under considerationat a few sites, notably PTR. The challenge remains to capitalize on these and other achievements through expanding the work o f EDCs and includingvillages impactingPASnot included inecodevelopment activities under the project. This i s especially the case at RTRwhere the Mission heard complaints from local communities about their exclusion. The missionconcurs with the view expressed inmanyreports that the nationalinstitutions component hasbeen handicapped by the absence o f an ecodevelopment wing at the PTO and a lack o f empowerment o fthe Ecodevelopment Project Steering Board and an independent panel to report to the chair person o f the Board. At some sites, the ability to engage the wider landscape went largely unsupported possibly because o fthe absence or delayed formation of effective Regional Committees; these could have beena valuable bridgeto allocating funds outside ofthe PASand gainingbroader support for conservation. This deficiency 9 hasbeen recognizedby all parties and is to be addressedinthe follow-on project that will involve other sites. Incontrast, village institutionshave proventheir worth at a number o f sites, especially when they overcame leadership monopoly or elite capture (PRT may becitedas goodpractice). Likewise, expert facilitationbya forest department officer at manysites providedcritical mediationinbalancingconservation andlivelihood requirements and Self-Help Groups (SHGs) organizedwomen inthe use o fmicro-credit funds. However, only a few o fthe sites have been allocated support to continue SHG project activities beyondthe life o fthe project. Accordingly, it i s suggestedthat more specific arrangements shouldhave beendefined on capacity building, administration and other procedures (including delegation o f authority), budget allocations and flows and contracting. 3.11 Another aspect requiringattentioninvolves promoting effective working relations between the EDCs and the panchayats, especially the latter's capacity to provide funds for village ecodevelopment activities. The Mission's visit to RTRwas particularly instructive inthis regard. The Government o fRajasthan has yet to establish an ecodevelopment surcharge for the Reserve, imperilinggains in sustaining/widening the benefits o fwater security, grazing and other "offset strategies" and conservation based activities inbuffer zones andmilitating against continuance or initiation o f other needed work. Incontrast, the PTR has mobilizedconsiderable funding for sustaining ECD and other organizations including creation and runningo f the Periyar Foundation(PF) which benefits from PA visitor fees. 3.12 After a shaky start, when understanding andownership of IEDPbythe GO1and local governments were indoubt, the project recovered following state government orders (GOs) clarifying and approving actions for all seven sites following substantive intervention by the Bank. This appears to have provided administrative organization and empowered project staff to implementguidelines and strategies insupport o f ecodevelopment activities inand around PAS.Under the project, impressivegains were made with promoting conservation awareness at most sites -nature camps, education centers, and eco-clubs inEDC villages, local language guides, etc. -- though scaling up to engage the public and private sectors inthe larger landscape remains a constant challenge. Here the deployment o f RegionalPlanningCommittees would have proven instrumental. 3.13 The stricture onbufferzone demarcation some two kilometers from the PA boundary was clearly inappropriate at some sites and ledto tensions that persist. A disappointment has been the absence o f NGOs at most sites, especially inlater stages o f the project, for their contributionwould have assisted transparency and accountability in transactions at the local level as well as strengthening community capacity. Though the client sought their involvement andthough supportive o f the project, it appears that most NGOshadother priorities, especially intackling urbanpoverty Objective 3: More effective and extensivesupportfor conservation and ecodevelopment 3.14 Ingeneral, theproject generated significant awareness andsupport for conservation and the ecodevelopment model. All states housing the seven PASpassed government orders institutionalizingthe model and strategies have beendeveloped 10 around individual sites to sustain and expand ecodevelopment activities. Further achievements includedenhanced pubic awareness, running educational and media campaigns, teacher training and establishment o f education centers, nature camps and workshops for schoolchildren and Eco-clubs inEDC villages. Newsletters were publishedand informationwas disseminated onthe economic value o fthe PASto local communities. 3.15 Baseline data to monitor reduction o f adverse impacts o f localpeople on biodiversity andreducing adverse impacts o f PAs on localpeople were completed at most sites andimpact monitoringplans were integrated into P A management plans. However, progress on research andmonitoringhas beenmixed. Some PASundertook and are continuing valuable conservation and socioeconomic analysis and more a more effective tracking tool for large mammals (mainly the tiger) has been implemented. Other PASexperienced delays indefining a relevant adaptable research program or not effectivelydisseminating the findings at state and local levels. The PTOmight havebeen more active inaddressing this issue by helpingspeed up the completion o f PA management plans andthereby allowing more time for neededresearch; as it is, project fbndingfor researchandmonitoringwas utilized only 50%. Incontrast, - anda small grants program institutedat the Midterm Review facilitated exchanges betweenPASand local academic institutions and a pilot project was implemented inPTR for sustainable access to funds for research and development. Objective4: Effective management of theproject 3.16 The ICR (dated October 04) treats the achievement o fthis objective very briefly and rates it satisfactory. However, this review questions the inclusion o f this objective as it differs little from normal support givento management organization and activities. Thus, althoughstudies andtheir dissemination have been completed and lessons learned circulated to other parks, NGOs and other stakeholders (prompted at the MTR) this review rates the relevance o f this objective as negligible Objective 5: Preparation of future biodiversityprojects 3.17 The component supportingthe preparation of future biodiversityprojects was dropped at MTR largely becauseo f slow progress o f the overall project. The M T R concluded that there was prior needto concentrate upon: strengthening capacity at the central level; taking stock o f lessons learned and their dissemination; and developing more resilient sustainability strategies for ecodevelopment activities at specific sites. While this loss impairedmultiplyingthe benefits to other PASduringproject implementation, the Bank i s preparing a follow-on project designed to support the management o fprotectedareas andother sensitive areas within selected landscapes ina more favorable context and climate for ecodevelopment, especially at the local level FinancialAnalysWManagement 3.18 No financial analysis was conducted for any o f the project's activities because o f the nature ofinterventions (biodiversity conservation, improving the enabling environment, etc.) andthe difficulty o f quantifying economic rates o f return. However, 11 questions may beraised about project costs. Total project costs at the end o fthe project stood at US$ 63.30 million against an estimated US$ 67.00 at appraisal. Revisedtargets set at MTRincluded dropping the preparation o f future biodiversityprojects and reallocating substantial portions to the project management component (increased from US$ 5.83 millionto U S $ 9.4 million. Disbursement shows substantial increase incivil works and equipment costs mostly due to additional eco-restoration activities (which included employment generation) thanpredicted at appraisal. Government funds increased from US$ 14.40 millionto US$21.40 million following needed for management requirements during the two-year extensiono f the project. 3.19 Supervision costs amounted to US$ 918,000.00, a substantial departure from normal coefficients andreflect the need to compensate for adequacies o f design. The rapid turnover o f Task Team Leaders (four inthe first three years o f implementation), may also explainthis highcost along with revisions at MTR; staff led later supervision missions from the resident mission inDelhi. 3.20 TheBank ICR (October 04) statesthat there was limited financial management inputduringproject preparation with the consequence that the ProjectTiger Office (PTO) didnot have sufficient control of finance andtraining ofproject staffinBankpolicies and procedures was absent. Instances o fmis-classification o f expenditure, ineligible expenditure claims and significant errors inpreparationclaims resultedleading at times to temporary suspension SOE reimbursement. 4. Ratings Outcome 4.1 Basedupon the evidence o frelevance, efficacy and efficiency, IEGfinds the project's outcome to be moderatelysatisfactory.Though the project's relevance i s rated highefJicacy is ratedmodest. The capacity ofPA management was improvedwith increased participationo f local communities inconservation efforts and management plansbeingproducedfor the seven PAS;however, some sufferedinquality as baseline data and research didnot always addressneededplanningrequirementsand corrective actions came late inthe planningprocess. There was also unevenuse o fRegional PlanningCommittees established for promotingconservation inthe wider landscape. The objective o fpreparingfuture biodiversity conservation projectswas dropped. EfJiciency i s also rated modest. Participatorymonitoring recordeda reduced dependence o f communities uponPA resources and control o fpoaching and intrusion pressures on PAS has resultedinhabitat regeneration along with increasedwildlife populations. Visible gains were made ingalvanizing local communities to form EDCs for conservation inand around the PAS.Some 580 Ecodevelopment Committees (EDCs) were formed covering 75,000 households. However, it appearsthat only PTRwas able to abide substantivelyby the micro-planning process and its provisions and the lack o f competent professional experience impairedrigorous assessment o f PA threats, selection o f funded activities by EDCs (and other groups). Equally, the project time frame o f five years pressuredthe micro-planning component and the effective buildingo f partnerships. A major benefit o f 12 the project was improvementsto people-park relationshipsandthe project generated significant awareness and support for conservation and ecodevelopment . Sustainability 4.2 Sustainability, the resilience to risk o fnet benefits flows over time, i s rated likelythough only moderatelyso for there are some troublingareasthat continue following project completion. The project aimed at enhancing the viability of PASby enabling forest departments to integrate and share their responsibilities with local communities. Deft design o f administration arrangements andmaintaining the ecodevelopment approach was considered central to sustainability, especially by increasing public support for PAS,the continuation o f benefits supported by the project and dedication o f financinghevenues for longer-term activities. Many o fthese aims have beenmet: close interactions betweenPA staff and localcommunities at many sites ledto a sharing o fpatrolling and site-specific micro-planning underpinned by the development o fmutual trust; a new participatory and community-basedstrategy for conservationin and around PASwas established and successfully implemented; and, as a commitment andexpression o f ownership to local communities raised some US$4millionin community funds. 4.3 A number of actions needto becontinuedinthepost-project periodto assure sustainability: villages crucial to helpingstabilize the boundaries andbuffer zones around the PASexcluded inthe project need to be accommodated; community commitment should receive the attention o fPA staff and local government; and, some community organizations shouldprepare suitably scaled actionplans.Fieldvisits suggested this was underway at PTR but threatened to be inthe breachat RTR. The succeeding Biodiversity Conservation andRural Livelihoods Improvement Project should helpbolster these efforts. . InstitutionalDevelopmentImpact 4.4 Institutionaldevelopment impact i s rated substantial. Ina climate o f general inexperience and risks regarding participation and trust by local communities, limited implementation capacity and questionable management support, the project pursued innovations that often meant painful negotiationwith state and local agencies and communities. Nevertheless, many innovations are now part o f forest development operations at national and state levels and the PTOprovides a dedicated budget for ecodevelopment activities. To keep matters on track substantial modifications were adopted at the MTR infavor o freallocation o f finances to address emergingproblems and subsequent BankMissions steppedup the quality and frequency o f supervision though, as observed elsewhere inthis report, this shouldhave been done earlier. Monitoringand Evaluation:Design, Implementationand Utilization 4.5 This activity is under-reported inthe Bank's ICRs andis rated modest.The development objective o f improvingPA management and improving opportunities for local participationwas usedas an indicator throughout implementation; progress on 13 mechanisms for regional planningand regulations are less well reported andthe Mission learned that Regional Development Committees have yet to be established. Incontrast, participatorymonitoring was able to demonstrate reduced dependence o f communities on PA resources and enhancement o ftheir livelihoods; equally, the establishment and deployment o f a Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for PASproved very effective. Bank Performance 4.6 Considerable resources were dedicated at project preparation and appraisal, its beingrecognized by the Task Team that a multi-disciplinary team was needed to develop an innovative and demanding approach to the challenge o f conservationo f PASinIndia and to provide detailed guidance for its successful implementation. Inevitably, the efficiency ofthe many institutions involvedproved disappointingbothwith respect to the suitability of GOIs administrativeprocedures and capacity, support from the Center and the involvement o fline ministries at the locallevel; the few NGOspresent around PAS address conventionalrural development needs and do not consider conservation a priority as was observed by the Mission duringvisits to Ranthambore Tiger Reserve (RTR) and Periyar Tiger Reserve (PTR). Despitehaving the experience o f Joint Forest Management and FREEP at hand (where a clear lesson was the needfor intensive supervision), the Bank's performance up to themid-point implementationis considered unsatisfactory and satisfactory thereafter. A continuingchange o fTTLs (four duringthe first three years o f implementation), meant timely actions were not taken, e.g. facilitating GO1 procedures, strengtheningthe capacity o fthe PTO, helpingdedicate staff, especially at the local level andovercomingconstraints andbottlenecks such as the simplificationo f targets to be attained by the EDCs and empowering stakeholders. 4.7 The review o f the project to the InspectionPanel appeared to concentrate efforts by all parties andledto somebreakthroughs, but it was not untilthe MTRthat substantive actions were taken to overcome major bottlenecks -dropping one o fthe components (preparation o f future biodiversity projects), strengthening management and revisingandrefocusing o ftargets to reflect realities on the ground, especially EDC coverage -andthat full participation o f all stakeholders was fully realized. Thereafter, Banksupervision appearsto haveplayeda criticalrole inhelpingmeet specific objectives, empowering government institutions and communities and disseminating goodpractice through strengthening PTO operations. As the Mission learned during visits to PTR andRTR, the stepped-up involvement o fBank staff specialists (ledbythe Resident MissioninDelhi) sustained commitment, helpedresolve difficult issues and provided technical insight. Bringinginexperience from around the world was especially appreciated, particularly inhelpingsolve systemic problems. PA staff assisting the Mission also acknowledged the value o f sharing knowledge and experience gained by Bankstafffrom visits to other sites inIndiaandother countries inthe sub-continent. Borrower Performance 4.8 Borrower performance i s rated satisfactory overall, but unsatisfactory during the earlyphases o fimplementationandsatisfactory thereafter. Duringits earlyphasethe project had to overcome constraints and impedimentsto effective management; these 14 rangedfromproblemswith institutionalefficiency (establishing fundingmechanisms, EDCs, etc.) to delays with funding andtechnical studies and agreeing an effective communications strategy. Not surprisingly, management costs increased as steps were taken at MTRto rectify systemic problems at all levels. 4.9 The extensive scope andcomplex demands o f design told early on and only following concerted efforts duringandafter MTR was high-levelinterest, ownership and responsibility by GO1and state officials obtained. At times during implementation, the follow up andtimely interventiono f the PTO inthe MOEFwas inadequate (and remains so today), inpartbecauseo funder staffing. Although there i s evidence o fgoodworking arrangements betweenthe PTO andthe states duringproject preparation, (all parties recognizing the opportunity for charting a new approach to biodiversity conservation through improvedparldpeople relationships and instrumentsto improve the livelihoods of local communities), this faltered duringthe first stages o f implementation insustaining priorities and tackling institutionalbottlenecks. Equally, givensuch innovationand demands, the national and state governments shouldhave beenmore candid about their constraints, including overall institutionalcapacity, slow procedures for appointment and availability o f technically qualified staff andthe ability o f state bureaucracy to process funds andwillingnessto empower civil society. These constraints severely hampered implementation duringthe first few years and it i s a single failure o f the GO1and the Bank not to have intervenedbefore M T R andtaken necessary actions. 4.10 At the field level, the Missionobserved a markedcontrast betweenmanagement o f RTR andPTR, the latter having aggressively exerted its authority and influence at all levels o f state and local arms o f government and local communities. InRTR, management continues to needdirection and a more effective dialogue with the state to assure commitment to sustaining the Reserve; equally, there is a continuing lack o f revenue from hotel tourism andinfavor o f ecodevelopment and conservation and entry fees are not flowing back to the PA. Such resources are critical where no revolving budgeti s available to those villages continuingto adversely impact the Reserve. 4.11 The Project Tiger Office (PTO) inthe MOEFplayed aninstrumentalrole in disseminating information, staffing workshops and deriving lessons learned for state and local application at all sites. However, the demands o f the PTO compromisedattention to management and administrationissues across a range o f activities including financial management and support to technical aspects. (The Mission observed that inadequate staffing continues the Director andhis staffbeing clearly overburdened). Therewas also slippage at the state level at selecting andmanaging consultants providing essential technical assistance. 5. Lessons Learned 5.1 The experience o f IEDP offers a number o f seminal lessons for future Bank supported statewide interventions inconserving biodiversity through PASand support to local communities inIndia and elsewhere. The lessons point for substantiveparticipation o f all parties (especially inthe early stages), andteam capacity andbuildingand sustaining social capital andcohesion incommunities inand around the PASand sound PA leadership: 15 Enhancing the capabilities of Ecodevelopment Committees (EDCs) to better link the management ofprotected areas with village development and livelihood needs. This component proved a powerful agent at some sites insustaining commitment o f local communities to P A management. Funds enabled the poorest to overcome the grip o fmoneylenders andtheir dependency on poaching and other destructive practices. To enhance the use o f EDCs infuture projects, it is recommended that: the dependency o fhouseholds uponPA resources be recognized, especially intheir often limitedability to provide a 25% contribution to micro-planning and community funding; GO1staff (PA field staff inparticular) should be dedicated andtrained inthe concept o f ECD operations to develop both appreciation o f its power and facilitation inbringingall parties together and enabling interfacingwith other government programs and reducing conflicts between PA and community needs. The tendency insome sites for EDCs to operate under a monopoly o f leadership and under represent threats to PASshould be monitoredclosely; they should also guard against a `treadmill' approach to micro-planning and assure greater integrationwith the efforts o f the SHGs. Moving conservation practices into the wider landscape by integratingprotected area activities with the rural/agriculture sector. This element o f the IEDP was neglected, but i s a core feature o fthe succeeding project. Local communities and government agencies aroundPASprovide uniqueopportunitiesto mainstream conservation and sustainable use activities intheir respective development activities. For example, resource use strategies can help strengthen moving forest based local economies to sustainable use management. Such an "ecosystem services" approach could mobilize the experience o fthe JFT alternative livelihoods initiative (alternative energy, livestock rearing, etc.) so that income generation i s not wholly dependent upon forest resources. The landscape approach may also be used to widen PA boundaries through the creation o f biological corridors or BiosphereReserves (with multiple use zoning); it i s also a usefultool inintegratingbiodiversity conservation (including wild races o f such plants as bananas) with policy and development decision-making at the macro level. Equally, PA management plans shouldbetter reflect regionalplanning concerns and bebetter championedby the Ecodevelopment Project Steering Committee at the national and District Collectors (as chairpersons o f regional committees at the PNregional level. The EDCs could also play a supportive role. Better targeting of research and monitoring to serve the management priorities ofprotected areas. This component remained a challenge and few dividends were secured at most sites ininfluencingthe formulation o f indicatorsmeasuring changes invegetation cover andpopulations o fkey species, including interface with thewider landscape. These gaps shouldbe addressedwith urgencyinthe follow on project. Improving monitoring and evaluation indicators and their application to ensure benefits of conservation interventions. Insome cases, baseline data were incomplete frustrating effective monitoring o f changes andtrends to demonstrate project benefits. Infuture projects, more attention shouldbe given to measuring 16 ecological and socio-economic benefits and derived from conservationand rural livelihood activities usingo fbiological resources andmanagement capacity, particularly at the local level. Using recent legislation infavor of sustainability to assist local communities realize thefull benejh of sustainable development through more direct participation decision-making. The recent Freedom o f Information Act and other legislationprovide civil society with opportunities to better engage indecision- making at both national and local levels inIndia. Such opportunities shouldbe exploredto help empower local communities andNGOs intheir bid to articulate their contributionsto sustainable development and conservation. A pro-active communications strategy at the time o fproject preparationwould assist local communitiesmobilize the opportunities indeveloping the goals o f ecodevelopment and other conservation projects. 17 Annex A Annex A. Basic Data Sheet INDIA ECODEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 2916-IN)> Key ProjectData(amounts in US$million) Appraisal Actual or Actual as % of estimate current estimate appraisal estimate Total project costs 67.0 61.O 91 Credit amount 28.0 18.6 66 GEF Grant 20.0 16.0 80 Cancellation -- 8.0 -- CumulativeEstimatedandActualDisbursements FY97 FY98 FY99 W O O f f O 1 Fy02 Fy03 FY04 ffO5 Appraisal estimate 0.6 3.1 8.3 16.4 23.0 27.8 27.8 27.8 27.8 (US$M) Actual (US$M) 1.5 3.2 4.2 6.4 10.2 12.8 15.6 18.6 18.6 Actual as % of 250 103 51 39 44 46 56 66 66 appraisal Date of final disbursement: 12/28/2004 ProjectDates Original Actual PCD -- 01/22/92 Appraisal 05/07/95 Board approval __-- 09/05/96 Effectiveness 12/09/96 12/29/96 Closing date 06/30/02 06/30/04 StaffInputs(staff weeks) Stage of Project Cycle ActuaVLatest Estimate No. Staff weeks US$ (`000) IdentificationIPreparation 119 360 AppraisallNegotiation 110 298 Supervision 427 918 ICR 20 40 Total 676 2016 Figures above include Bank and GEF funds; Staff weeks for pre-1999period might include consultant time; Figures derived from Cost Accounting system for pre-1999data and from SAP for remaining years 18 Annex A MissionData Performance rating Date (month/year) No. of Specializations represented Implementation Development Persons Prowess Objective IdentificationlPreparation 0311611993 2 FORESTRY(1); ENVIRONMENT(1) 11/ I1/I 994 11 TEAM LEADER(1); ENVIRONMENTAL SPEC. (2);ENVIRONMENT CONSULTANT(1);ANTHROPOLOGISl (1); CONSULTANTANTHROPOLOGY (2); CONSULTANTINSTITUTIONAL(3): INFORMATIONSPEC.(I) AppraisallNegotiation 0211511996 8 TEAM LEADER(1); ECONOMIST (1); ECOLOGISTS (2); BOTANIST (1); FORESTERS (2) Supervision 02/28/1997 8 ECONOMIST(1); MISSION LEADER (1); FORESTER(1); SOCIALSCIENTIST (3); ECOLOGIST(1); PARK MANAGEMENTSPEC. (1) 05/16/1997 5 TEAM LEADER(1); PROCUREMENT SPEC. (1); ENVIRONMENTALSPEC. (1); FINANCIALSPEC. (1); SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT(1) 12/03/1997 7 MISSIONLEADER(1); SOCIAL SCIENTIST(1); ECOLOGIST(1); ECONOMIST(1); FINANCIAL SPECIALIST(1); FORESTER(2) 04/29/1998 2 MISS. LEADERlECOLOGlST(1); S S FORESTER(1) 0811611998 4 MISS. LEADERlAG.ECON (1); U U COMlSSlON LEAD.SOClOL (1); LEGAL (1); SOCIOLOGIST(1) 03/08/1999 5 PRINCIPALECONOMIST(1); NATURALRESOURCESSPEC (1); SOCIOLOGIST(2); PA MANAGEMENT SPEC. (1) 08/06/1999 2 MISSIONLEADER(1); SOCIAL S S DEVELOPMENTSPECIALIST(1) 0211012000 4 SOCIALSCIENTIST (1); SOCIAL U U DEVELOPMENT(1); NATURAL RESOURCESSPEC (1); FINANCEAND DISBURSEMT (1) 0511912000 10 MISSIONLEADER(1); FORESTRY U U SPECIALISTS(2);NRM SPECIALISTS(3);GEF COORDINATOR(1);ECONOMIST(1); PROCUREMENTSPECIALIST(1); FINANCIALMANAGEMENT(1) 11/29/2000 8 TEAM LEADER, SOCIAL DE (1); S S CONSERVATION(2); GENDER (1); SOCIAL DEV. (1); PROCUREMENT(1); FINANCIALMANAGEMENT(1); 19 Annex A Performance rating Date (monthlyear) No. of Specializationsrepresented Implementation Development persons Progress Objective FORESTRY, COST TABLES (1) 05/03/2001 7 MISSION LEADER (1); SOCIAL DEV SPECIALIST (2);CONSULTANT (1); DISBURSEMANTSPEC. (1); PROCUREMENTSPECIALIST (1); TEAM LEADER (1) 10/13/2001 9 TEAM LEADER (1); SR SOCIAL DEV SPEC (2); SOCIAL DEV SPEC (1); SR BIODIVERSITYSPEC (1); FINANCIAL MAN. SPEC (1); PRINCIPAL ECONOMIST (1); SR PROCUREMENT ENGIN. (1); CONSULTANT (1) 05/20/2002 a MISSION LEADER (1); PARK MANAGEMENT & BlOD (1); GENDER ISSUES (1); SOCIAL DEV ISSUES (4); FORESTRYCONSULTANT (1) 11/01/2002 11 MISSION LEADER (1); ENVIRONMENT SPECIALIST (1); SOCIAL DEV SPECIALIST (3); NATURAL RES SPECIALIST (1); FORESTRY SPECIALIST (1); FINANCIAL SPECIALIST (1); PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST (1); CONSULTANT FORESTRY (1); SOCIAL DEV (1) 05/06/2003 a MISSION LEADER (1); SOCIAL DEV SPECIALIST (4); BIODIVERSITY SPEC. (1); CONSULTANT FORESTRY (1); SOCIAL DEV (1) 12/26/2003 10 MISSION LEADER (1); SOCIAL DEV SPECIALISTS (3); BIODIVERSITY SPECIALIST (1); FORESTRY SPECIALIST (1); FORESTRY CONSULTANT (1); FINANCIAL MANAGEMENTSPECIALIST (1); FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT (1);PROGRAM SUPPORT (1) 06/30/2004 9 MISSION LEADER (1); SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTSPECIALISTS (2); BIODIVERSITYSPECIALISTS (1); FORESTRYSPECIALIST (1); FORESTRYCONSULTANT (1); FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST (1); FINANCIAL MANAGEMENTCONSULTANT (1); PROGRAMSUPPORT (1). ICR 2 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIALISTS 06/30/2004 (1);BIODIVERSITYSPECIALISTS (I);, 20 Annex A Other ProjectData Borrower/ExecutingAgency: FOLLOW-ON OPERATIONS Operation Credit no. Amount Board date (US$ million) None 21 Annex B Annex B. India Reserve Profiles Ranthambore Tiger Reserve Ranthambore Tiger Reserve (RTR), notifiedas a National Park in 1980, is located on the lefibank o fthe ChambalRiver inthe state o f Rajasthan. It supports rich biodiversity, linking a chaino fwildlife sanctuaries, andis a watershed for many reservoirs and other impoundments- a lifeline for localpeople; it i s also o f scenic, geological, archeological and cultural significance. However, the Reserve is an "ecological island" subject to heavy pressures from the neighboring332 villages o f some 200,000 people and 100,000 cattle. Poachinghas beenmarkedly reduced duringthe last few years and domestic livestock grazing and fuel wood extractioni s beingprogressivelycontrolled alongportions o f the Reserve boundary largely through construction o f a highwall. The susceptibility o f ' domestic cattle to diseaseposes a risk to Reserve mammals as it does to the productivity o f herders. UnderIEDP,the Reserve's management saw improvement to infrastructure (headquarters facilities, silvipastural plantations, boundary demarcation and training o f staff) after initial delay. Village ecodevelopment activities have included construction of water harvestingfacilities, crop protectionwalls and roads, andprovision o f LPG. Micro planning through ecodevelopment committees (EDCs) and other arrangementshave produced substantivegains at some locations leadingto risingwater tables for wells andmoisteningo f agricultural land andreduced demand for fuel wood. Environmentalawareness and education for the RTR committees and ecodevelopment sites was initiatedbut the momentum has not beensustained -partly because o f competingpriorities o fPA staff and the marginal involvement o fthe few localNGOs. Monitoring o f faunal populations i s beingconducted withinthe Reserve though somewhat piecemeal inthe absenceofa strategic plan. A census o fkey mammals is undertaken regularlybut a comprehensive approach to accurately assessing trends remains elusive; meantime, poor infrastructureand field restrictions impair basic conservation research. Nothing o f the income from hotels goes to the Reserve nor are entrance fees (Rs 2 per person from 100,000 visitors per year) ploughedback for Reserve management despite provisions o f some 10 years standingby the GoR. The Mission found improvements to habitat protectionmostly following a shift inthe attitudes o f surrounding communities to the Reserve, with mutual gains beingrealized through livelihood security, particularly via sustained water supplies. However, given lack o f funding for continuatiodexpansiono f ecodevelopment activities following completion of the project, there i s a real danger that the communities will revert to usingReserve resources, especially inlight o f the highrate o f unemployment (80% insome villages visited) and vulnerability o f the area to drought. On the latter, it is recognized that the development of a water resources management planfor the Reserve and adjoining landscape could help mobilize needed financial andhumanresources to offset insufficiencies inecodevelopment support. 1.Criticizedby somebecause ofits constraints onthe gene flow betweentiger populations. 22 Annex B I t is perhaps inthe areas o f institutionaland financial sustainability that one finds RTRat its weakest. Micro planningsought to protectReserve resources throughinvestments in62 ofthe 100targeted EDCs; however, only 50% oftheseEDCsremain active andsome o f the excluded villages and others holda grudge against Reserve Management and continue to exploit Reserve resources. The current relationshipbetweenthe Reserve and the panchayats engenders tensions over such matters as use o f drinking water and the dedication o f EDC funds for protectiono f the Reserve inrelation to wider landscape development needs. The requirement o f a 25% contribution by local communities for ecodevelopment investments remains another source o f tension -- the villagers feeling it to be an unreasonable burdenon the poorest, the GoR claimingthe villages shouldbemoreproactive. [Incontrast, the villagers at Periyar and possibly other sites under the project havebeen bothproactive and creative inthe use o f such resources]. No explicit guidelines are available and the missionheard that some 33 villages have been unable to use these resources for some two years. There have also been problems with Village Development Funds(VDFs) using resources as revolving funds for Self-Help Groups (SHGs) and integrating EDC activities in line departments and the panchayats. Empowerment o fwomen's groups remains partial and there i s needto help mainstream them more effectively inReserve management. With the exception o f some women's organizations and the Tiger Foundation, there are no NGOs directly involved inReserve conservation. Perhaps the most vexing issue concerns tourism inside andoutside the Reserve. Management o ftourism inthe Reserve bythe Tourism Departmenthasbeen chargedwith corruption, nepotism anddestructive impactson the Reserve's fauna, particularly tigers. Over 300 hotels inRanthambore are considered to derive substantial benefits from the Reserve (estimated at Rs21to 50 crore) yet do not provide any financial support for its operations or the livelihood o f the neighboringvillages (especially when draining their critical ground water supplies). Equally, few attempts are beingmade bythe hotels to finance the development o fcrafts or employ local people or use localresources, e.g., food supplies. Finally, the illegal occupancy o fhotels inthe Reserve's bufferzone -often on grazingland-invokedintense anger o f localpeople andresultedin the recent destruction o f 26 hotelsby local authorities following the applicationregulations (90 B Revenue Law) regardingthe buildingo ftourist infrastructure in and around PAS;this issue i s expected to be revisitedinmany other PA locations inthe near future). Clearly under IEDPsome benefits accrued to the Reserve and local communities - control o f illegal grazing, decline inpoaching, reductioninillegal use o f trees for fuel wood and other resources and encroachment on the Reserve and assured sustainability o fwater resources. EDC have villages benefitedfrom infrastructureimprovements (roads, drinking water facilities, buildings, etc.) along with the constructiono f crop protectionwalls and enhancedrecharge o f ground water. However, several matters threaten these accomplishments: inadequate staffing levels and insufficiently definedresponsibilities, training and the slow development o fresearch and monitoring and environmental education awareness activities. Lastly, relocationo f villages has provenproblematic; to date 61 families have been resettled, but 36 await the allocation o f "good land"; some families have been relocated on degraded forestland as no revenue land i s available. 23 Annex B For the immediate future, a number o fmajor problems requireresolution following completion of the IEDP. Principal among these is: the ability to sustain the financial and institutional stability of the EDCs (and inclusion o f remaining villages targeted under the project), the uncertain resource base o fthe Reserve (no entrance fees or tourism revenue beingtapped for Reserve use), the tense relationships betweensome villages around the Reserve andthe panchayats andthe absenceo fplanningarrangements for water and other resources inthe Reserve andthe wider landscape. The Bank and other parties have been encouraging the GoR to formulate and enact a law allowing a 2-5% ecotax on tourism and use part of the revenue for Reserve management and community development but there are no signs o f action. Equally, the GoR has been slow inestablishing vocational programsto enhance eco-friendly activities insuch areas as fisheries, poultry and dairy farming in consultationwith Reserve authorities and local communities. Periyar Tiger Reserve This Reserve, established in 1978 inthe state Kerala, i s located inthe southern WesternGats andis notable for its scenic beauty, religion-cultural heritage and arich biological diversity being one o f India's `hot spots' supportingrare, endangeredand endemic species o ftropical rainforest flora and fauna. It also generates considerable tourist revenue, i s a major provider o fwater for irrigation, domestic needs and power generation inTamil Nadu and is the source o fthe Periyar, Pamba andAzhutha Rivers. Five tribal groups live within and inthe peripheryo fthe Reserve. The Reserve is beingconsidered for elevationo f a National Park andthe effectiveness o f its management i s widely recognizedas a model for adoption inother parts o f India andthe world. A numbero fthreats continue to disturb the Reserve: some poaching inthe interior areas; the pressures o f 50 lakhpilgrims visitingthe Sabarimala shrine within a two month period andthe increasing visitors; and stress on PTR's biological resources from fringe villages and tea estates along the Tamil Naduborder. Other threats involve sandalwood smugglingand cattle grazing; unemployment inmany o fthe surroundingvillages remains at 60%. Underthe IEDP, the Government ofKerala (GOK) moved substantively early on to establish flexible institutionalmechanisms through formation o f ecodeveloment committees (EDCs), focused Self- Help Groups (SHGs) andprovision o frevolving funds and their auditing through the General Body o f EDCs. A state level coordination committee and a PA implementationcommittee were empowered to coordinate efforts, take informed decisions andproactive actions; further, the selection andposting ofqualifiedleadofficers for extended periods and their support by contract staff provideddurable underpinningsto the project. Staff training, patrolling camps, upgraded trek paths has contributedto enhanced PA management and environmental education and awareness campaigns and research and monitoringhave seenmajor improvements. Convertingpoachers and other trespassers into eco-tourism guides has reduced poaching and ecodeveloment has involved communityhdividual activities intribal settlements andmarginal, backward and fringe area 24 Annex B communities; inaddition, conservation oriented activities have involvedjoint patrolling (in some cases by women volunteers), soil conservation andreduced crop loss, fuel wood use, cattle grazing and destruction o f indigenous fish and other fauna. Some EDC activities have been linkedto developmental initiatives supported by the panchayats and, to a limited extent, by NGOs. There has also beena deliberate effort to promote "homestead tourism" inthe landscape around the Reserve. The above efforts have addressedpressures andthreats from the Reserve's fringes, especially inKeralaby extendingmanagement zoning for inclusion o fhabitats outside the Reserve's boundaries andproscribingmanagement requirements for pilgrimages and tourism. Nonetheless, such an extension remains somewhat uncertain, given no control by PA management; equally, negative impacts from tea estate workers inTamil Nadupose threats as long as the proposed declaration o fthe Megahamalai area as a sanctuary remains outstanding. A clear strengthofthe IEDPinPTRwas effective transparency and equity inEDC functioning and allied capacity building. Conservationvalues were mainstreamed and a strategy guided ecodevelopment activities throughout implementation. The Periyar Foundationwas formed to sustain ecodevelopment as a counter to the inefficiency of the PA budget and appears to be fbnctioning well. Progress awaits recognition o f the EDCs as institutions under the Kerala Forest Rules and linkage o f EDC activities with local government. Of some concern is the danger that the Foundation and the PA authorities may not maintaintransparency and sufficient dialogue with women's groups, tribals and other communities. The inclusiono fthepoor andwomen from the outset andtargeted income generating activities (including tourism and farming for tribals) supported by short term credits gave credence to the objectives of the IEDPand fostered productive and transparent relationships between the PA and concerned village communities. A major challenge has beento sustain these gains following the project's completion two years ago. Financehas beenmade available to the EDCs as CDFs with the Periyar Foundation (PF) providing long-term sustainability. It i s this resource mobilization arrangement that has attracted national attention for possible applications inother PAS.' The PCR and anindependent study noted the successes and failures o f the PTR component. Principal successes includedimproved P A planning andprotection, a transformed tourism policy, habitat recovery, development o f social capital amongthe very poor and enhanced awareness o f PA values and the creation o f the EDC program. The Mission supports this view and i s impressed by the investment insocial capital and the attainment o f social cohesion and enhanced socio-economic conditions; nonetheless a number o f areas require improvement ifthese gains are to be sustained over the longer term. These include: involvement o f additional villages inEDC activities, especially on the Tamil Naduboundary o f the Reserve where there are sizeable estates; fundingmechanisms to offset 2. Park fees are currently allocated as follows: OfRs 300 charged to foreigners Rs 200 goes to the GO1and Rs 100 to the Periyar Foundation; o f Rs 25 charged to residents Rs 15 goes to the GO1and Rs 10to the Periyar Foundation. 25 Annex B fluctuating prices o f agriculturalproducts farmed by the EDCs (andthe re-emergence of moneylenders andconsequent increasedpressures onthe Reserve and areawide natural resources); streamlining the accounting system for EDCs; and assuredtransparency in working arrangements betweenhired local staffEDCs andPA andPeriyar Foundationstaff. The Foundationrecognizes the need for such actions and has incorporatedmany infuture work plans.It also accepts the core challenge o fmaintaining social gains for the protectiono f the Reservewhile ensuring that revenues are balancedbetween conservationand area development needs andnot subject to elite capture.