Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 13698 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA NATIONAL SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT (CREDIT 1611-IN) NOVEMBER 10, 1994 Agriculture Operations Division India Department South Asia Regional Office This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA NATIONAL SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT (Cr.1611-IN) CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS Name of currency (abbreviation) = Indian Rupee (Rs.) Currency Exchange Rate: Appraisal Year Average (1984/85): US$ 1.00 = Rs. 11.89 Intervening Year Average (1985 to 92): US$1.00 = Rs.15.94 Completion Year Average (1992/93): US$1.00 = Rs.26.41 FISCAL YEAR GOI and all States: April I to March 31 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Metric System ABBREVIATIONS CSO Central Support Office ERR Economic Rate of Return FAO/CP Food Agriculture Organization/Cooperative Program FD Forestry Department FRR Financial Rate of Return GOI Government of India IDA International Development Association M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MOEF Ministry of Environment and Forestry MTR Mid-Term Review NGO Non-Government Organization NSFP National Social Forestry Project NWDB National Wasteland Development Board SAR Staff Appraisal Report T&V Training and Visit USAID United States Agency for International Development WB World Bank THE WORLD BANK FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Washington, D.C. 20433 U.S.A. Offic of Dirctoi'-Germwal Operatons Evakuto November 10, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT Subject: Project Completion Report on India National Social Forestry (Credit 1611-IN! Attached is the Project Completion Report on India: National Social Forestry Project (Credit 1611-IN). Parts I and III were prepared by the South Asia Regional Office and Part II by the four participating Borrower states. The project was the seventh Bank-assisted social forestry project in India, providing assistance to the Government of India and four states: Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh. The project aimed to increase production of fuelwood, small timber, poles, and fodder; increase rural employment, farmers' incomes, and economic opportunities for landless people; afforest degraded areas and wastelands, and reduce soil erosion; and strengthen forestry institutions. A majority of project targets were met or exceeded during implementation. Farm forestry has been highly satisfactory, becoming a popular movement in parts of Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, which had benefitted earlier from Bank support for social forestry. Despite poor coordination of nursery and plantation operations, planting on private, community, and government wastelands made substantial progress, and interest in tree planting was raised. But the project made little contribution to fuelwood or fodder production, and project components aimed at the poor and landless were unsatisfactory. Innovations designed to increase participation by the poor and enhance equity, were stymied by vested interests. Commercially viable components have succeeded, although a degree of market saturation has taken place which may undermine sustainability. Continued financial support for public project components is uncertain. Monitoring and evaluation followed agreed guidelines, but lack of commitment and frequent staff changes reduced its effectiveness. The value of training and technical assistance provided was questionable. The quality of the PCR is satisfactory. In Part II, the four participating states provide individual accounts of implementation experience of variable quality, but consistent overall with Parts I and III. For Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, only summaries are included but the full Part II reports are available in OED's files. Because of the success of farm forestry and tree planting on wastelands, the outcome of the project is rated as satisfactory. But institutional development has been modest, and sustainability is uncertain. An audit is planned. Attachment This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents mey not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA NATIONAL SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT (Cr.1611-IN) TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ...................................................................... i EVALUATION SUMMARY ..................................................................... iii PART I PROJECT REVIEW FROM BANK'S PERSPECTIVE ...................................... 1 1. Project Identity .......................................................... 1 2. Project Background and Objectives ......................................................... 1 3. Project Design Aspects ......................................................... 1 4. Project Implementation ......................................................... 2 5. Project Results ......................................................... 10 6. Project Sustainability ......................................................... 13 7. Bank Performance ........................................................................... . 14 8. Borrower's Performance ................ 14 9. Lessons Learned ................ 14 PART II PROJECT REVIEW FROM BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE ........................... 16 PART m STATISTICAL INFORMATION ................................................... 38 1. Related Bank Loans and/or Credits ....................................... 38 2. Project Timetable ................................................ 38 3. Credit Disbursements .......................................................... 39 4. Project Implementation ......................................................... 40 A. Physical Targets and Achievements ....................................................... 40 B. Staffing, Civil Works and Vehicles - Physical Targets and Achievements ...... ..... 41 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. 5. Project Cost and Financing ................. 42 A. Project Cost ................. 42 B. Project Financing ................. 43 6. Project Results ................. 44 A. Direct Benefits .................. 44 B. Economic Impact ................. 45 C. Financial Impact .................. 45 D. Studies .................. 46 7. Status of Covenants ................. 48 8. Use of Bank Resources ................. 52 A. Staff Inputs ................................................. 52 B. Missions .................................................... 52 TABLES 1. Exchange Rate and Inflation Factors ................................................. 53 2. Sensitivity Analysis ................................................... 54 ANNEX 1 Financial and Economic Re-evaluation. 55 Table IA Rajasthan - Farm Forestry ................ ................................. 61 Table 1B Rajasthan - Community Woodlots .................................................. 62 Table 1C Rajasthan - Rehabilitation of Degraded Forests ........................................... 63 Table ID Rajasthan - Strip Plantations ................................................... 64 Table 1E Rajasthan - Economic Analysis - Total Project ........................................... 65 Table 1F Rajasthan - Investment Costs in Financial and Economic Terms ......... .............. 67 Table IG Rajasthan - Physical Phasing of Plantations ............................................... 68 Table 2A Uttar Pradesh - Farm Forestry ....................... .......................... 69 Table 2B Uttar Pradesh - Community Woodlots ................................................. 70 Table 2C Uttar Pradesh - Rehabilitation of Degraded Forests ................... .................. 71 Table 2D Uttar Pradesh - Strip Plantations ........................... ...................... 72 Table 2E Uttar Pradesh - Economic Analysis - Total Project ....................... ................ 73 Table 2F Uttar Pradesh - Investment Costs in Financial and Economic Terms ................... 75 Table 2G Uttar Pradesh - Physical Phasing of Plantations ........................... .............. 76 Table 3A Himachal Pradesh - Farm Forestry ................................................. 77 Table 3B Himachal Pradesh - Community Woodlots ............................................... 78 Table 3C Himachal Pradesh - Rehabilitation of Degraded Forests .............. ................... 80 Table 3D Himachal Pradesh - Economic Analysis - Total Project .............. ................... 8 1 Table 3E Himachal Pradesh - Investment Costs in Financial and Economic Terms ....... ...... 83 Table 3F Himachal Pradesh - Physical Phasing of Plantations ..................................... 84 Table 4A Gujarat - Farm Forestry ................................................. 85 Table 4B Gujarat - Community Woodlots ................................................... 86 Table 4C Gujarat - Rehabilitation of Degraded Forests ............................................. 87 Table 4D Gujarat - Strip Plantations ................................................. 88 Table 4E Gujarat - Economic Analysis - Total Project ............................................... 89 Table 4F Gujarat - Investment Costs in Financial and Economic Terms .......... ............... 91 Table 4G Gujarat - Physical Phasing of Plantations ............. ..................... 92 Table 5 Financial Prices .................................. 93 Table 6 Economic Analysis - Total Project .9..................................4 Table 7 Sensitivity Analysis ................................... 96 Table 8 Per Ha Yield Estimates for Major Species Planted under the Project .97 i PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA NATIONAL SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT (Credit 1611-IN) PREFACE This is the Project Completion Report (PCR) for the National Social Forestry Project (NSFP) for which an IDA Credit of SDR166.4 million (Credit 1611-IN) (US$165 million equivalent) was approved on June 18, 1985. SDR11.O million was cancelled on December 1991 as part of the funds redeployment exercise. The Credit closed on March 31, 1993, 27 months behind schedule. Final disbursement from the Credit was made on April 6, 1993, and the revised credit amount of SDR155.4 was fully disbursed. The Preface, Evaluation Summary, Part I and Part Im of this report were prepared by an FAO/World Bank Cooperative Program mission which visited India in September/October 1993. Part II was prepared by Governments of participating states. The report was based, inter alia, on a review of the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR), the legal documents, supervision reports, correspondence between the Bank and the Borrower, internal Bank memoranda and reports, field visits, and discussions with the officials of Government of India (GOI), and the State Govemments of Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh as well as the World Bank (WB) staff in New Dehli and Washington who had been associated with the project. iii PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA NATIONAL SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT (Credit 1611-IN) EVALUATION SUMMARY 1. Objectives 1.1 The project aimed at increasing production of fuelwood, small timber, poles, fodder and other minor forest products; rural employment and incomes and opportunities for participation of landless persons; afforestation of degraded areas and wasteland; and strengthening forestry institutions through provision for additional staff, training, research and equipment. It was designed to provide continuing assistance for two of the four states, viz. Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, to expand and improve social forestry activities started under earlier Bank-assisted projects, and to initiate investments in two other states, viz. Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. 2. Implementation Experience 2.1 Project activities commenced in 1986. There were start-up delays but at project completion most targets set at its appraisal, Mid-Term Review and extension were exceeded. Farm forestry, community land and government wasteland plantings registered remarkable achievements. Tree tenure plantations (for poor and landless), however, have fallen short of projected targets. All the four project states supported decentralized private nurseries; but progress in Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh was poor. Coordination of nursery and plantation operations in all participating states was inadequate; seed demand could not be met from the limited number of mature seed producing stands and much of the seed procurement was from uncertified private sources; and seedling grading standards also received little attention. As a result, many seedlings of poor quality were planted, adversely influencing survival and output. No uniform policy was pursued in the project states for pricing and distribution of seedlings. In general, the prices at which seedlings were sold to farmers were lower than costs of production. There has been a progressive increase in selling prices and that all planters are now charged for seedlings distributed, even if full cost recovery is not attained. 2.2 In Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, which account for 90 percent of achievements under farm forestry, farmers' preference were for timber and pole producing species. Although plantation targets in community wasteland plantations were exceeded, there was little consultation and participation of the local communities in the planning, establishment or management of these plantations, which in the majority of cases have been done by the Forest Department. Further, the appraisal expectation that benefit-sharing arrangements, for both intermediate and final yields, would be formulated prior to plantation establishment has not been realized. In most states, community plantations are still with Forestry Department. In areas where the decision has been taken to transfer protection and management responsibilities to local communities/panchayats, there are concerns about sustained protection and management of these plantations. The vegetational composition and structure of the established stands in government wasteland plantations are as anticipated at appraisal and area targets have been exceeded. The expectations that the project would contribute to improved technical efficiency of plantation operations have not been fully met. 2.3 Project states followed GOI/WB monitoring and evaluation guidelines. Frequent changes in staff, limited feedback into planning, and inadequate staffing and Monitoring and iv Evaluation (M&E) training constrained the effectiveness of M&E operations. While overseas training provided for high-level officers enabled them to acquaint themselves with management aspects of social forestry, little practical use was made of the expertise gained. Greater emphasis should have been placed on in-country training and exchange of social forestry experiences between the mid- and field-level officials of the states. Training offered to farmers, representatives of panchayats, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and nursery operators covered tree planting and nursery techniques. Collaboration between Forestry and Agricultural Departments for extension in the project states was nominal. This was mainly due to lack of: (a) identified nodal authority to ensure joint work program; and (b) appropriate extension messages for farm forestry development and improved post-plantation management. In all the four states, research programming was weak and the involvement of Forestry Department officials to review the research progress in the light of social forestry requirements was minimal. The component to establish a Central Support Office to assist the State Governments in project formulation, M&E and provide a forum for cross-fertilization of experiences did not take off and could not contribute to improving the states' capabilities as expected. At project completion, project costs amounted to Rs. 6,762 million, 17 percent higher than appraisal estimate. 3. Results 3.1 Overall, the project has achieved its main objectives. Estimated aggregate wood production level is expected to match the appraisal estimates, despite lower than expected survival and productivity rates and changes in stand composition and production mix. In contrast to SAR expectations, farm forestry will not substantially contribute to fuelwood and fodder production, since most participating farmers' preference has been for commercial species for cash incomes rather than the species for meeting specifically the subsistence needs for fuelwood and fodder. On the other hand, plantations in public lands generate the highest increases in fuelwood and fodder production. The estimates of economic rate of return (ERRs) for the project as a whole is 22 percent, and for each of the four sub-projects are 12 percent (Rajasthan), 28 percent (Uttar Pradesh), 13 percent (Himachal Pradesh) and 23 percent (Gujarat), as compared with the appraisal estimates of 27 percent, 17 percent, 25 percent, 34 percent and 26 percent respectively. 3.2 The project also has resulted in several other positive developments. It has evoked and widened the interest of the rural population in tree planting and served as a vehicle to bring about some policy changes including removal of restrictions which discourage expansion of farm forestry and introducing rules to enhance community participation and benefit-sharing. The project investments provided substantial employment opportunities to the rural poor. Plantations in degraded areas have helped to conserve soil and water as well as to take the pressure off the national forest resources. 4. Sustainability 4.1 Farm forestry, as popularized by the project, has now become a movement in several parts of Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat. Its favorable impact on incomes has contributed to positive changes in the attitude of farmers towards tree planting. Market saturation for some of the products could impede expanded planting of certain species. In Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, farm forestry is not yet well established. Without continued support and resolution of technical issues which affect productivity, sustainability of activities initiated through the project in these states is uncertain. Sustained management of plantations on public lands is not likely unless some radical steps are taken to involve the communities to have larger measure of responsibility to protect and maintain the established plantations. In the absence of continued government financing or follow-up projects, institutional facilities and incremental staff brought in by the project will remain seriously underudlized. v S. Lessons Learnt 5.1 The key lessons learnt in the implementation of this project include the following: (a) The much stronger performance of the project in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh (which had already benefited from earlier projects) than in the other two states, suggests that a prolonged commitment (exceeding the conventional project period of five years) is necessary to develop the capacity to manage large-scale social forestry projects. (b) Even resource poor farmers are prepared to commit land and labor to planting slow maturing species of forest trees on a significant scale inspite of the lack of immediate benefits. Plantings for fuelwood production, while possibly of interest to the landless, has little appeal to landholders who can meet their fuel needs from lops and tops or from other on-farm sources. (c) Vested departmental interests and traditional modes of operation are the biggest obstacles to promoting genuine community participation in woodlot management and to encourage the emergence of private-sector run nurseries. The preferred structure for the latter is a pricing policy for seedlings which makes nursery operations pay. (d) Investment in training, especially overseas training, are only warranted if linked to staffing plans which enable those who have been trained to apply their newly-acquired skills. (e) The project would have benefited from highly targeted short-term technical assistance aimed at introducing improved plantation techniques for arid areas and at developing a greater integration between farm forestry and livestock- based farming system. 1 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA NATIONAL SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT (Credit 1611-IN) PART I. PROJECT REVIEW FROM BANK'S PERSPECTIVE 1. Project Identity Project Name : National Social Forestry Project Credit No. : 1611-IN RVP Unit : South Asia Region Country : India Sector : Forestry 2. Project Background and Objectives 2.1 The National Social Forestry Project (NSFP) is the seventh Bank-assisted project aimed at supporting social forestry development in India. It originated from the proposals prepared in 1984 by four states (Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh) with the assistance of the office of the Inspector General of Forests and the World Bank (WB) Resident Mission in New Delhi. The project was jointly appraised by WB and USAID in 1985, and became effective in February 1986. With an estimated total cost of about US$328 million (Rs. 3,933 million), including an Interntional Development Association (IDA) credit of US$165 million and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) financing of US$80 million, this five-year project aimed at: (a) increasing production of fuelwood, small timber, poles and fodder, (b) increasing rural employment, farmers' incomes and opportunities for participation of landless persons; (c) afforestation of degraded areas and wasteland and reducing soil erosion; and (iv) strengthening forestry institutions. The main components of the project included: (a) plantation activities including the development of agro-forestry, tree ownership schemes for the poor and landless, community and government wasteland plantations; and (b) institutional and infrastructure support, providing for incremental forestry staff, housing, offices, equipment, planning, training, extension, research, studies, fuel-saving devices and monitoring and evaluation. Provision was also made under the project to establish a Social Forestry Support Office in the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. This office was intended to play a coordinating, support and policy guidance role in the development of social forestry throughout India. 3. Project Design Aspects 3.1 The project, built on the experiences gained from the earlier Bank-financed and other social forestry projects in India, included several new features: emphasis on planting on private lands; an increased role for decentralized private nurseries; the imposition of limits on free seedling 2 distribution and the introduction of a pricing policy aimed at increasing cost recovery; plantations on common and government-owned wastelands devoted to meeting fuelwood needs of the poor, formation of tree ownership schemes for the landless; enhanced community participation and formulation of written agreements with village panchayats for benefit-sharing and early transfer of responsibilities to the participating communities for protection, maintenance and replantation of community (panchayat) plantations. It also called for increased involvement of existing agricultural extension services in social forestry; and improved operational efficiency through reducing costs and strengthening institutions. 3.2 The project was designed to provide continuing assistance for two of the four states, viz. Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, to expand and improve social forestry activities started under earlier Bank-assisted projects (Credit 925-IN and Credit 961-IN) and to initiate investments in Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. To meet the overall project objectives and to suit the differing requirements of the participating states, flexibility was allowed in plantation models and implementation arrangements. The scope and scale, particularly of the physical component targets, generally corresponded to project requirements. In retrospect, however, the design would have benefited from more emphasis on defining the technological aspects of project operations (e.g. seed collection, processing, nursery and seedling standards and post-establishment plantation management) and elaboration of the modalities of community participation. Some of the more innovative proposals, (e.g. for tree tenure for the landless, and benefit sharing arrangements in public plantations) were based on unduly optimistic expectations over the rate at which fundamentally new concepts would be taken up, as evidenced by reductions in scale adopted during project implementation. Over-emphasis on establishing special units exclusively for social forestry has contributed to recurrent budgetary problems in the post-project period and raised questions over the institutional sustainability of the project. 4. Project Implementation 4.1 Project activities started in 1986. Following the Mid-Term Review (MTR) in 1988, several adjustments were made in the targets, which were further revised in 1990, when the project closing date was extended until 31 March 1993. The USAID financing was utilized only up to the end of the original closing date of the project, and the IDA credit savings arising from the devaluation of the Rupee were utilized to finance project operations during the extended period. Modifications introduced during 1990 revision emphasized aspects relating to seedling pricing, benefit-sharing in public plantations and village level micro-planning, for total land resource development. 4.2 Plantation activities. Total area planted under the project (1,857,012 ha) surpassed the targets set at appraisal, MTR and project extension (708,983 ha, 765,560 ha and 1,474,380 ha respectively) but the additional area was achieved by prolonging the disbursement period. As can be noted from Table 4A in Part III, farm forestry, community land and government wasteland plantings registered spectacular achievements, substantially exceeding the targets projected in the SAR. Tree tenure plantations (for poor and landless), however, have fallen short of the relatively modest expectations set for them. Progress, however, was not uniform in all the project states. The following paragraphs review these aspects. 4.3 Nursery development and production. Provision was made for the produc- tion of 700 million seedlings through project-financed nurseries. It was expected that all four participating states would support the development of large numbers of family operated/private sector nurseries. This expectation materialized in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, where 35 percent to 40 percent of total seedlings production was from the private sector, but there was much less progress in promoting private sector nurseries in the other two states where only 15-20 percent of seedlings were produced privately. This is partly explained by the fact that Gujarat and Uttar 3 Pradesh were in the second phase of Bank-funded social forestry operations and farm forestry was already an established and expanding activity in these states. 4.4 Coordination of nursery and plantation operations was inadequate. Although nursery stock composition, in general, corresponded well with the needs of the plantation program, the lack of information about demand for specific species led to their over-production. In some cases, the mission observed that up to 60 percent of the seedling stock was not lifted from the nurseries. Additionally, nursery seedling production data and mission observations indicated that containerized/polypot seedling production rates in some private nurseries were as low as 50 to 60 seedlings/M2, which are below the expected standard production rates of 150 to 200 seedlings/M2. 4.5 The project provided individual families, non-governmental institutions and schools with seeds, polythene bags, fertilizers, training and technical advice. However, because of the scale of the private planting program and increased number of non-departmental and public nurseries, technical supervision (in this case by officials of the rank of foresters and deputy foresters) was not as desired. Among private nursery operators, 'kissan' or farmer and 'Mahilla Mandal' (Women's Group) nurseries performed better than some of the other institutional nurseries. Moreover, public nurseries did not become effective extension centers. Forestry Department nurseries, which could have served as demonstrations on technology improvement and management efficiency did not meet these expectations, partly due to the project management's primary concern for meeting seedling production targets for large-scale plantation programs rather than quality seedling production. 4.6 Nursery technology improvement. Seedling quality improvement initiatives included identification of 'plus trees' for seed production and collection but there was little management of the candidate plus trees. In all four states, however, seed demand could not be met from these limited number of seed production stands. Further, since many of the tree species raised for the project plantations were newly introduced, the number of mature seed producing stands, inside or outside traditional forest areas of these states, was limited. In general, much of the seed procurement for plantations continued to be from uncertified private sources and with only limited quality control. Establishment of seedling grading standards received little attention, partly due to the scale of the seedling production operations. As a result, many seedlings of poor quality appear to have been planted, adversely affecting survival and output. 4.7 Project nursery and plantation development were generally perceived and organized as separate and mutually exclusive activities. There was no effort to integrate the management of the two operations or to take account of plantation site conditions in deciding upon the nursery management regimes. For example, planting stock for moisture-stressed areas such as semi-arid sites in Rajasthan, or for degraded forest areas, would have benefited from the introduction of high root/shoot ratios to improve their survival probability. Thus, nurseries raising stock for agro- ecological zones or plantation components where moisture stress was the main constraint on plant survival and growth, received identical treatment (watering and fertilization) to those raising stock for other less stressed agro-ecological zones. Site-specific nursery management for raising drought-tolerant planting stock would involve manipulation of seedbed seedling density, polypot size, fertilizer composition and frequency, and applying appropriate root-pruning techniques. In addition, the holding of polypots in the nursery for longer than the desirable period, inadequate shifting in the nursery beds, and the lack of root-pruning, resulted in root-curling, which adversely affected the seedling quality. 4.8 Private plantations. Limited numbers of fuelwood, fodder, small timber and fruit producing species were distributed free of cost for private planting on farm boundaries and homesteads. However, in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, which represent 90 percent of the achievements under the farm forestry component, farmers' preferences were for timber and pole 4 producing species which account for 77 percent and 72 percent of the growing stock respectively. As a consequence, the phasing of output and product mix does not correspond with appraisal expectations which called for emphasis on fast-growing fuelwood species. On the other hand, stand composition in Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan, where fuel is in tighter supply, by and large corresponds to SAR expectations. 4.9 An unexpectedly high proportion (about 60 percent) of the farm forestry plantations in Gujarat was established in blocks, owned by bigger landlords. Surveys undertaken in the State by the Forestry Department indicate that about 18 percent of the farm forestry beneficiaries have raised block plantations accounting for about 60 percent of the planting stock. In the other three states, 80 percent to 85 percent of planting has been done on farm boundaries and in homesteads. 4.10 The survival rates for Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat are estimated at 31 percent, 75 percent, 54 percent and 18 percent respectively. On the average, the planting densities range from 1,800 to 2,500 plants/ha as against 1,500/ha recommended in the SAR. Inspite of the Bank mission's recommendations, the stand densities were not adjusted to the site factors, in particular, to rainfall. This might have contributed to high plant mortality and reduced growth due to increased inter-plant competition for limited water resources available in high moisture stressed areas. 4.11 Private plantations were also to be established on ecologically vulnerable private lands belonging to economically disadvantaged farmers. However, a review of the selected sites and discussions with beneficiaries indicated that these ecological and socio-economic criteria (i.e. beneficiaries who were poor/belonging to socially-disadvantaged sections of society) were not adequately adhered to. The sites selected neither showed any extraordinary signs of soil erosion or land degradation. 4.12 In Uttar Pradesh, which accounted for the largest share of farm forestry under the project, implementation impact was uneven between the Western and Eastern parts of the state. The slower progress in the Eastern part is largely attributable to its smaller size of land holdings, higher tenancy, relatively less-developed marketing opportunities and greater degree of landlessness. Additionally, social forestry investments in the past were directed to the western part, mainly due to favorable conditions (e.g. relatively well-developed infrastructure and commercial orientation of farmers). The State Government has taken increasingly active role to enlarge and speed up the program in the eastern part through deployment of additional staff, vehicles and equipment and construction of office buildings, all financed under the project. The impact of these investments is expected to be realized well beyond the completion of the project. 4.13 Community wasteland and woodlot plantations. Community wasteland plantations were to be established in collaboration with village panchayats. These plantations were intended to augment the supply of fuelwood, fruits and other edible products for the use of the participating communities and the plantation targets were exceeded. However, in the majority of cases, the community involvement was limited to obtaining formal approval of the panchayat for providing community land for plantation establishment by the Forestry Department. There was little consultation or participation of the community in the planning, establishment, or management of these plantations which was done by the Forest Department. The micro-planning surveys conducted in the four states were often carried out after plantations were established. Further, the appraisal expectation that benefit-sharing arrangements, for both intermediate and final yields, would be forrnulated prior to plantation establishment was not realized. As a result, many of the participating communities still perceive these plantations as a government department activity rather than a cooperative effort by them and Forestry Department, and their future is in doubt. Following GOI's decision to adopt a joint forest management approach for public forestry plantations, steps were taken by the participating states to frame regulations and form management units towards the 5 later phase of the project. It is too early to assess the operational efficacy and impact of these, since the experiences gained so far are limited. 4.14 In most of the community woodlot plantations, the species mix and planting densities match the SAR expectations. However, the stand structure lacks the expected emphasis on production of fruits, edible flowers and tassar silk. The Arjun (Terminalia sps.) plantations established on a small-scale for tassar silk production in Uttar Pradesh initially generated additional employment and income for the communities and individuals involved. However, due to discontinuity in the support provided by the state silk board and inadequate stand management by the project, this activity was abandoned and failed to reach its full potential. 4.15 In Gujarat, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, grass fodder production (along with tree crop production) in these plantations was targeted toward meeting the fodder needs of the village communities, who enthusiastically welcomed it. However, the full potential of this activity was not realised due to the factors discussed in para 4.22. 4.16 Tree survival rates under this component in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat are 64 percent, 63 percent, 51 percent and 61 percent respectively, as against the SAR estimate of 80 percent. The adoption of soil and moisture conservation and harvesting techniques involving contour planting in "V" ditches was encouraged by the Bank missions to improve plant survival and growth. Further, plantations on several sites established towards the latter part of the project emphasized multi-storeyed stand structures to improve site utilisation, soil conservation and to diversify production. 4.17 Government wasteland plantations. The project activities aimed at the rehabilitation of government wastelands included establishment of plantations on government forest lands and along roadsides, railway lines and canal banks. These plantations were expected to produce fuelwood, small timber, poles and fodder. The vegetational composition and structure of the established stands are as anticipated at appraisal and area targets have been exceeded. Soil and moisture conservation and harvesting techniques involving contour "V" ditch planting were extensively used. In Rajasthan, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, cattle proof trenching has been used as a protection measure against grazing damage by cattle. As against an 80 percent SAR plant survival estimate, the survival rates for Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat are 56 percent, 58 percent, 51 percent and 55 percent respectively. 4.18 Strip plantations have been established in linear and block forms along roadsides, canal banks and railway strips. In Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, multi-row strip plantations of fuelwood and ornamental species have been established. However, fruit and edible flower producing species are not well represented in the stand composition. The plant survival rates for Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat are 52 percent, 62 percent, and 54 percent respectively. The stand densities average about 1,800/ha as against the SAR expectation of 1,300-2,000. Plantation Management and Technology 4.19 Plantation management activities like weeding, irrigation and fertilization are generally carried out by farmers for eucalyptus, teak and poplar in block plantations in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat. Such management activities are uncommon in boundary plantations. 4.20 Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, broadleaved species like Acacias, Ulmus, Ailanthus, etc. have been planted primarily for fuelwood and fodder. The project has done little to guide farmers in managing these plantations to maximize fuelwood and fodder production. The planting density adopted for these stands was not consistent with the goal of maximizing fuelwood and fodder production. 6 4.21 All four states have passed orders to facilitate felling and transportation by owners of the most commonly planted social forestry species, but some valuable species (teak and conifers) are still on the restricted list. This could become a major constraint in the future as teak planting is showing an upward trend both in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, and continued restrictions on tree felling in Himachal Pradesh could adversely affect the benefits realized from private and community land conifer plantations. 4.22 The project envisaged that established community plantations would be handed over to the villages for management. However, as discussed earlier (para. 4.12), this process has not made much progress and in most states these plantations are still with Forestry Department. In the absence of a well-defined responsibility and benefit-sharing arrangement between Forestry Department and the local communities, post-establishment management in many cases is restricted to protection and in a few cases to harvest scheduling. Lack of silvicultural operations like pruning, topping and thinning has resulted in loss of intermediate benefits of fuelwood and leaf- fodder yields. In areas where decision has been taken to transfer protection and management responsibilities to local panchayats, without adequately consulting and preparing the local communities, there are concerns regarding sustained protection and management of these plantations. 4.23 In contrast, the project has made good use of customary arrangements of fodder- sharing from protected forest and community lands (locally called 'Ghasnis') in Himachal Pradesh. In other states, however, grass fodder management is still determined by administrative regulations rather than technical concerns. For example, fodder grass harvesting in Rajasthan from both community wastelands and degraded forest areas follows the administrative auctioning calendar (i.e. first week of October) rather than the timings of actual fodder availability. Consequently, grass harvesting is restricted to a single harvest, resulting in substantial loss of production. These inadequate efforts to optimize the use of fodder production fail to recognize that the community lands on which these plantations are established were often the only fodder source for the cattle belonging to the village poor, and thus may have contributed to greater social inequity. Moreover, little attention has been paid to promoting the use of tree leaf-fodder, fruit and other non-tree crop production. 4.24 Management of degraded forest areas and strip plantations has been restricted to their protection. The arrangements for sharing intermediary products (twigs, branchwood, leaf-fodder, grass) from these plantations were not worked out prior to their establishment. This apart, regulations governing these forest lands restrict local community access to reserve forest area plantations. Although, in some areas strip plantations serve as an important source of fuel for the rural poor, very little effort has been made to intensify fuelwood production from these plantations. Technological Issues 4.25 The expectations that the project would contribute to improved technical efficiency of plantation operations have not been fully met. Low plantation survival rates and lower than expected productivity estimates are indicative of this. Except in Uttar Pradesh, where plant survival rates show a marginal upward trend as project implementation progressed, such trends are not evident in the other states. As discussed previously, (para. 4.6, seedling quality), inferior seedling quality is a contributing factor to poor plant survival and growth. The project has not succeeded in promoting the adoption of mulching and early weeding to increase survival rates in arid and semi-arid areas, and the continued practice of advance pit-digging (while fitting in with the availability of labor during the dry season) negatively affects survival rates in moisture-stressed sites. Moreover, there has been no attempt to integrate forestry in these areas with the pastoral- based farming systems; thus, for instance, the low pollarding of Ailanthus and other fodder trees, 7 and the use of improved pruning tools, has not been introduced in Rajasthan where it would have been appropriate. 4.26 Because of administrative and operational constraints, clear-felling and harvesting of stemwood for use as fuelwood has not been possible from the strip plantations. However, harvesting of twigs and branchwood from these plantations does not face such constraints. Therefore, it would be advisable to manage these stands to maximize production of branchwood rather than, as at present, of stemwood by increasing inter-row and inter-plant spacing. Similarly, fruit production (including from Emblica fruit trees in community and strip plantations in Gujarat) would be enhanced if adequate attention was given to tree density and pruning of these trees for better fruit setting and maturing. 4.27 The project contributed positively to the introduction of stratified mixed stands in community woodlot and degraded forest area plantations. However, inadequate attention to the location of various species in different strata of the stand, (for instance, underplanting of strong light-demanders without appropriate canopy or stand manipulation) has resulted in unduly high plant mortality. The Bank correctly encouraged planting of grasses, shrubs, trees in a multi-tier stand structure. However, their spatial arrangement at the planting site and management often failed to take full advantage of such stand composition, as each element of the system has been treated independently and in isolation from the other, thereby losing the intended efficacy. 4.28 In addition, management would have to pay greater attention to monitoring soil- nutrient levels, particularly of nitrogen and phosphorous, to ensure stable and sustainable biomass production from government and community wasteland plantations. Institutional Aspects 4.29 Training and Extension. The project placed emphasis on in-service training for Forestry Department staff in all the participating states. In general, it was assumed that the project states would use existing training institutions. Hence, funds were provided primarily for the improvement and utilization of the existing training facilities. 4.30 Provision was made for short-term training courses and workshops and study tours and fellowships within and outside the country. A total of 9,600 forestry personnel -- as against the appraisal target of 6,777 -- received project-funded in-service training in seed collection, nursery operations, extension methodology and preparation of micro-plans. The project also financed participation of 321 Forestry Department staff (mostly from Rajasthan and Gujarat), in various social forestry workshops and study tours organized within the country. Sixty-two forestry officers - as compared to 82 foreseen at appraisal - from the four states attended overseas training/seminars in such fields as social forestry project management and agro-forestry techniques. While this enabled high-level officers to acquaint themselves with latest technological and management aspects of social forestry, little practical use was made of their expertise for improving project implementation. It would have been useful to have given greater emphasis to in- country training particularly for mid and field-level officials. 4.31 In addition, a large number of farmers, panchayat representatives, members of NGOs including women's groups, students and nursery operators (totalling over 1.7 million persons in the project states) were provided with project-funded short-term (1 to 6 days) training in tree planting and nursery techniques. Training courses offered, however, did not place adequate emphasis on technical aspects of project plantation operations. In general, the courses offered reflected social forestry program priorities in the concerned states. Overall, project assistance for training has been well utilized, significantly contributing to improving the existing human resources for an enlarged social forestry operation. 8 4.32 The project design intended that there should be collaborative efforts between the Forestry and Agricultural Departments for providing extension support for farm forestry operations. Range Officers were expected to serve as Forestry Subject Matter Specialists with the Training and Visit (T&V) agricultural extension system. In some states (e.g. Uttar Pradesh) attempts were made to involve the T&V extension workers for farm forestry operations but with limited success. Overall, the collaboration between Forestry and Agricultural Departments in the project states was nominal and well below expectations. This was due to lack of: (a) an identified nodal authority to ensure development of a joint-work program; (b) prescribed institutional arrangements for field-level coordination between the project staff and extension workers; and (c) appropriate extension messages for farm forestry development. The project extension activities were limited to mass media publicity, publication of pamphlets on planting techniques and organizing farmers' camps and seminars. Although these activities promoted farm forestry, they do not appear to have contributed much to improving post- plantation performance. Moreover, social forestry workers (e.g. forest guards) who were to be the primary extension agents, were taken up with the departmental activities for seedling production, distribution, and plantation protection, leaving little time for extension. In retrospect, for this program to be successful, it would have been beneficial to draw, in advance, an action plan mutually agreeable to the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture and monitor its implementation to see whether any adjustment or exclusive attention by one agency to extension work would be necessary. 4.33 Research and Studies. There were a number of deficiencies in the imple- mentation of this component. In all the project states, research programming was weak; research priorities and the institutions/researchers who would be responsible for their execution were not identified on time; there were delays in the release of funds to the contracted institutions; and the involvement of Forestry Department officials to review the research progress in the light of social forestry requirements was minimal. Despite these shortcomings, the project made a useful contribution in supporting several basic investigations. These included wood balance studies, soil and moisture conservation technology and multi-tier plantation trials, evaluation of silvo-pasture models suitable for saline/alkaline areas, and provenance and vegetative propagation trials for social forestry species. Most of the project-supported research work was carried out on a contractual basis by the local universities/research institutions within the states. It may also be claimed that, as a result of the importance given under the project for these and other related areas of study, social forestry has now become a priority area in the forestry research program of the participating states. 4.34 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E). M&E units established in the project states followed GOUWB M&E guidelines for their monitoring activities. In addition to perforning routine but somewhat restricted physical and financial monitoring, these units also undertook and organized a number of studies. These included surveys on farmn forestry, community land plantations, degraded forest areas, and strip plantations. In some states, these units also undertook preparation of forest product price bulletins. 4.35 The main constraints which limited the effectiveness of M&E operations in project states included: (a) frequent changes in senior staff; (b) limited feedback into planning; (c) lack of M&E training for staff; and (d) inadequate staffing of these units. 4.36 Seedling Pricing and Distribution Policies. No uniform policy was pursued in the project states for the pricing and distribution of seedlings. In general, the prices at which seedlings were sold to farmers were lower than cost of production, which in all cases were very much lower in private nurseries than Forest Department nurseries. Increased subsidies were available to members of selected castes and tribes. 9 4.37 A positive feature of the pricing policy in all the four states is that there has been a progressive increase in selling prices and that all planters are now charged for seedlings distributed, even if fuU cost recovery is not attained. This promotes better species selection, care of plants, and less wastage, while providing opportunities for private nurseries to market their seedlings and continue their seedling production activities. 4.38 Tree tenure schemes under the project constituted an important means to benefit the poorer sections of the population. The implementation experience of this component indicates that it was unsuccessful. The main reasons for this include: (a) the long gestation period to obtain benefits from tree plantations; (b) allocation of worst available land, land subject to claims by local elite; and (c) delays in issuance of pattas due to lack of coordination between Forest Department and Revenue Department. 4.39 It may be worth noting in this context, that the equity issues and the implementation arrangements for other minor components, e.g. woodsaving devices, received peripheral importance in the project and consequently their implementation was below expectations. Part of the problem was that Forestry Department, preoccupied with its forestry activities, was ill- equipped to fully handle equity and other social issues and the involvement of other agencies was also minimal. v 4.40 Central Support Office. A sum of US$5 million was provided under the project to establish a Central Support Office (CSO) within the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MOEF). This office was to assist the state governments in formulation of projects, monitoring and evaluation of the program, provide a forum for cross-fertilization of ideas and experiences, conduct problem-specific studies relevant to afforestation, and play a coordinating and policy guidance role in the development of social forestry throughout India. The National Wasteland Development Board (NWDB) of MOEF initially took over all the tasks assigned to CSO. 4.41 This component did not result in the anticipated benefits. First of all, there is little evidence that the Office helped to improve capability of the participating states to formulate and evaluate projects. Many of the state-level senior staff responsible for project implementation were unaware of the unit's existence. 4.42 CSO engaged seven regional institutions to carry out monitoring, training, and studies on such subjects as role of women and peoples' participation in social forestry. These regional centers were carrying out these tasks in isolation and no attempt was made to feed the results of their investigations into the policy-making mechanism of the states. As a result, they did not contribute to improve the states' capabilities for effective project implementation. CSO continues to suffer from an identity crisis and many of the MOEF posts established to implement the component have now been reassigned to another department (Rural Development Ministry). 4.43 Cost Control. The project has envisaged several ways of reducing the cost of social forestry plantation. These included reducing costly barbed wire fencing, earlier handover of management of community woodlots to beneficiaries and decentralised seedling production and distribution. There has been some progress on each of these themes, although degree of success varied between states. Another source of cost reduction was the emphasis given to farm forestry which provided the lowest cost model as set out below: ?taaaaaic Co pcr Iliccmia n 107z/Y rPna RhawA UtLar Pn,h I limachaA Pndml| G -_ [ ha _ r,ar fomeiry 6.67 4*,631 7.1U5 Communsy -Dootot 11.000 14.911 5.967 23.613 Rehab. of dcgadtc amas J000 13BCd 6.023 1 .07 S9np pbianhaIo 15.900 11.276 - 10 4.44 At credit closing date, the farm forestry model has remained dominant in all states. It is noteworthy that the involvement of 'kissan' nurseries has helped keep the cost of seedling production close to levels predicted at appraisal. Project Cost 4.45 At appraisal, the project was estimated to cost Rs. 3,933 million (US$328 million) or Rs. 5,547/ha over a planting area of 708,983 ha. The actual cost of implementing the project over 1,857,000 ha of planted area was Rs. 6,762 million (US$384.5 million) or Rs. 3,641/ha, representing expenditure per ha equivalent to 72 percent of the original estimate in rupee terms. A combination of the extension in planted areas, the lower unit costs and the depreciation of the rupee against the US dollar led to a cost overrun of only 17 percent. Among the states, Himachal Pradesh recorded the highest increase in expenditure of 113 percent, followed by Rajasthan (111 percent), Uttar Pradesh (78 percent) and Gujarat (29 percent) - see Part IIUSA. These cost increases in Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan are largely attributable to a lower proportion of farm forestry (the lowest cost model) in the total planted area - 31 percent and 56 percent, compared to appraisal targets of 47 percent and 66 percent respectively and to the continued heavy dependence on the departmental production of seedlings. 4.46 As expected, about 66 percent of total costs (compared to 64 percent at appraisal) were absorbed by plantation activities. The organization and management component absorbed 27 percent and the remaining 7 percent were distributed among research, extension, training, planning, monitoring and evaluation, and central support office. Project costs at appraisal and completion are given in Part IV/SA. The project cost increase (in Rupees) was caused by extended plantation targets, escalating prices and costs, especially labor costs, and quantities higher than appraisal estimates. Appraisal estimates of local price and physical contingencies proved to be underestimates. 5. Project Results 5.1 Overall, the project has achieved its main objectives. However, there have been some deficiencies in project performance. As discussed in paras. 4.6, 4.10, 4.13 and 4.22, these deficiencies mainly relate to nursery technology, adjustment of plant densities to site factors, community participation in the planning, establishment and management of public plantations, and transfer of such plantations to local communities. Although there had been shortfalls in survival rates and productivity, as well as changes in stand composition, estimated aggregate production level is expected to match the appraisal estimate. This output level is possible because of: (a) the increase (17 percent) in the effective production area from 550,512 at appraisal to 642,414 ha at completion, comprising farm forestry (5 percent), community woodlot (2.4 percent) and government wastelands (86 percent); and (b) higher than recommended initial planting densities in the farm forestry component. 5.2 Production mix. The project objectives emphasized increasing of fuelwood and fodder production: as shown in the following table, it was estimated that at full production 89 percent of tree biomass production would be in the form of fuelwood, and 11 percent in the forrn of poles, small timber and stemwood. 11 Project Product Distribution Product SAR Estimate ai PCR Estimate b/ Fuelwood 89 38 Timbers/ a1 1162 'I Based on SAR production estimates at full production. bW Based on full 32-year production cycle. 'I This includes poles, small timber and stemwood. In contrast, the PCR estimates show that about 38 percent of biomass production would eventually be in the form of fuelwood, and 62 percent would be in poles and stemwood. 5.3 In contrast to SAR expectations, farm forestry will not substantially contribute to fuelwood and fodder production. In states like Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, which account for 90 percent of the total project area covered under farm forestry, the production is primarily in the form of timber and poles, as the farmers' priority was for cash/incomes rather than for meeting the subsistence needs of fuelwood and fodder. Production Distribution (%) LI i awhr UJW AuaIJt 0 H maaa FraeWl Guam l~~~~Fo I"; ;A Fucs T nmeer I La Fua*w I Timeer |A 14/ .~ F &nw X " | tFe _ 1 Foeadd - I Ffc _I 1 F e Faorm fwstry 44 22 24 1s 73 9 52 4* 2 12 71 2 COmMur'ty 6U 6 13 36 33 30 63 l 21 37 33 la Sm5Kand v~Anmm A.fao.0 ofe 9rade4 90 * 9t 40 51 9 24 70 6 64 26 9 Sl"¶ 5 antr1vons 5' ** 7 51 4a 9 . 47 33 19 Ba/r2s.c on, tee cyc a clornass Cc; c:con aoer a 3 !-,ea cycle Th.S ,MCI.CCS S eto CO5. The table above shows production distribution in different states by different plantation components. It indicates that production of fuelwood ranges from 12 percent in Gujarat to 52 percent in Himachal Pradesh. Leaf-fodder production ranges from 2 percent to 24 percent between states. On the other hand, plantations on the government public lands, generate the higher proportions of fuelwood and fodder. This suggests that any substantial increase in fuelwood and fodder production would have to come from public lands, in particular the traditional forest lands. 5.4 The project, over a production cycle of 32 years, is expected to generate about 34.5 million mt fuelwood, 1,178 million poles and 25.6 million m3 stemwood. Farm forestry yields are based on hectare equivalent, i.e. the total number of seedlings issued to farmers divided by the average number of plants recommended for planting per hectare. 5.5 Financial returns. The cash flows for various plantation models over a 32-year production period indicate that the farm forestry model is financially the most attractive component, followed by degraded forest lands and community woodlots. Strip plantation models provide, on average, lowest financial rates of return due to their high investment costs. The details are shown in Tables 1A-D to 4A-D, and the results are summarized below: 12 Plantation Type Rajasthun Uttar Pradeshj Himachal Gujarat Pr2desh . ............................ .(FRR-*%) . Farm forestry 18 41 26 31 Community woodlot 14 14 21 9 Rehab. of degraded areas 16 14 15 20 Strip plantation 7 10 . 9 Costs are calculated per ha and 1992/93 prices are used for both costs and returns. Farmers' labor inputs and products accruing to rural households have been valued at imputed prices equal to market wage rate and output prices at stump. Returns are sensitive to the market wage per person- day which is taken at Rs. 40 (Rajasthan), Rs. 25 (Uttar Pradesh), Rs. 30 (Himachal Pradesh) and Rs.32 (Gujarat). Output prices are summarized in Annex 1, Table 5. Opportunity cost of land has been estimated both for agricultural fields (Rs.1,000/ha/yr) and for grass in government wastelands (Rs. 100/ha/yr). 5.6 Economnic Returns. An economic re-evaluation has been carried out for the project as a whole and for each of the four state sub-projects. No benefits have been included for production from minor components (tree fodder plantations in Gujarat, silvo-pastoral plantations in Himachal Pradesh and household farm forestry) which together accounted for less than 1 percent of the total planted area. 5.7 The analysis has been carried out in 1992/93 prices, with past expenditures adjusted using wholesale price indices. Phased investment costs in financial and economic values are shown in Annex 1, Table 1-4F. The details of planted area are presented in Annex 1, Tables 1- 4G. The cost of labor has been adjusted by a factor of 0.7 to reflect its real value. Local costs, including labor, have been converted to border prices by applying a standard conversion factor of 0.8. 5.8 A cost of Rs.1,000/ha/yr has been included for farm forestry to impute foregone income from crops on land displaced by block planting. Departmental plantations, which are generally on 'wasteland', are also expected to have opportunity cost for grass on lands subject to grazing and a value of Rs.100/ha/yr has been included in the analysis.l A 40-year period of analysis has been used for the purpose of estimating economic rate of returns (ERRs). 5.9 The estimates of ERRs for the project as a whole is 22 percent, and for each of the four sub-projects are 12 percent (Rajasthan), 28 percent (Uttar Pradesh), 13 percent (Himachal Pradesh) and 23 percent (Gujarat), as compared with the appraisal estimates of 27 percent for the project as a whole and, 17 percent, 25 percent, 34 percent and 26 percent respectively. The special factors responsible for lower ERRs for Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh are the higher cost increases (partly in response to higher labor costs) of 111 percent and 113 percent compared to other states which had cost increases of 78 percent (Uttar Pradesh) and 29 percent (Gujarat). The other principal factors which have contributed to the lower ERRs, as compared with appraisal estimates, are the following: 1 The 'without' project situations have been considered for aU planting activities (see Annex 1). 13 (i) lower yield expectations due to lower than expected plantation survival rates; (ii) changes in species mix and rotation length; (iii) overly optimistic MAI estimates at appraisal, in particular in Rajasthan and Gujarat. Increased planted area and the higher value of the product mix were not strong enough to fully offset these negative influences. 5.10 Sensitivity analysis was carried out for the project as a whole. The results show that a reduction in benefits by 20 percent or 50 percent would lower ERR to 18 percent or 12 percent respectively; while an increase in cost by 20 percent or 50 percent would lower the ERR to 19 percent or 16 percent respectively. The project is thus not particularly sensitive to variations in either costs or revenue. The results are presented in Table 7. 5.11 Despite some of its shortcomings, the project has therefore remained economically viable and resulted in several positive developments. It has evoked and widened the interest of the rural population in tree planting. This is reflected in enhanced private interest in farm forestry and nursery operations as well as increasing demand for seedlings. Further, the project has served as a vehicle to bring about some policy changes, e.g. removal of restrictions on felling and transportation of certain species by private growers, thus encouraging them to expand farn forestry operations; and changes in forestry rules to enhance local peoples' participation and introduce benefit-sharing arrangements. The project investments, among other benefits, provided massive employment opportunities (260 million labor days) to the rural poor. Plantations established in degraded areas have helped to conserve soil and water, as well as to take the pressure off the natural forest resources. 6. Project Sustainability 6.1 Farm forestry, as popularized by the project, has now become a movement in several parts of Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat. Its favorable impact on farm incomes has contributed to noticeable changes in the attitudes of farmers towards tree planting. Their demand for seedlings, especially of species which have commercial value, remains strong. Termination of subsidized seedling distribution has hardly affected demand. The increase in incomes and capital build-up as a result of project investments, including the subsidized distribution of seedlings in the initial stages, have provided farmers with a means to continue and expand their farm forestry. Market saturation for some of the species/products, however, could become a major impediment to the sustainability of these operations. In most parts of Rajasthan (semi-arid areas) and Himachal Pradesh (hilly regions), however, farrn forestry is not yet well established. Without continued support and attention to technical issues which affect productivity, sustainability of the farm forestry activities initiated through the project in these states is uncertain. 6.2 Many of the community plantations established with project support continue to be under the control and management of the Forestry Department. Except in some parts of Gujarat, the process of transferring the management responsibilities to the communities has been very slow. For many plantations, benefit-sharing arrangements have not yet been worked out and the communities themselves are unaware of their usufruct rights. Sustained management of these plantations is not likely unless some radical steps are taken to involve the communities to have a larger measure of responsibility to protect and maintain the established plantations. Furthermore, in Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh where farm forestry has made little progress, private nurseries supported under the project are not expected to continue their operations for lack of demand for 14 seedlings in the post-project period. Moreover, in the absence of follow-up projects, or continued government funding, institutional facilities and incremental staff brought in by the project will remain seriously underutilised. 7. Bank Performance 7.1 Recognizing the fact that the first phase project intervention was short and limited in relation to the large scope for expanded social forestry operations in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, the Bank agreed to a follow-on project for these states. This helped to expand and intensify their tree planting operations and set a stage for continuing large scale farm forestry operations in these states. Similarly, the decision to support social forestry programs in Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh was also timely and has helped these states to develop an organizational framework and expertise for implementing large-scale social forestry projects. Bank supervision missions were adequately staffed in terms of expertise required. There was staff continuity and supervision frequency was satisfactory. The project has benefited from the technical advice given and flexibility applied by these missions. This was manifested in the adoption of both vegetative and physical/engineering measures aimed at soil and moisture conservation and changes in the component targets, restructuring of the tree tenure component activities, and adjustments in disbursement percentages. 8. Borrower's Performance 8.1 The project was executed largely as planned. Most of the implementation arrangements proved appropriate. The overall success of the project has demonstrated the organizational capacity of the participating state governments and managerial ability of the forestry personnel to promote large-scale tree planting activities in lands outside the traditional forest areas. 9. Lessons Learned (a) The much stronger performance of the project in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh (which had already benefited from earlier projects) than in the other two states, suggests that a prolonged commitment (exceeding the conventional project period of five years) is necessary to develop the capacity to manage large-scale social forestry projects. (b) Even resource poor farmers are prepared to commit land and labor to planting slow maturing species of forest trees on a significant scale in spite of the lack of immediate benefits. Plantings for fuelwood production, while possibly of interest to the landless, has little appeal to landholders who can meet their fuel needs from other on-farm sources. (c) Project objectives to benefit the poor could seldom be achieved through farm forestry, which is, as evidenced by the project experience, predominantly influenced by market forces. Plantations in community/public lands offer most promising opportunities to realizing these objectives. (d) Vested departmental interests (and traditional modes of operation) are the biggest obstacles to promoting genuine community participation in woodlot management and to encourage the emergence of private-sector run nurseries. The best structure for the latter is a pricing policy for seedlings which makes nursery management pay. 15 (e) Investment in training, especially overseas training, are only warranted if linked to staffing plans which enable those who have been trained to apply their newly acquired skills. (f) In a well decentralized country such as India, investment in the development of specialized central institutions without hierarchial links with the state-level organizations for project management are probably not warranted. (g) The project would have benefited from highly targeted short-term technical assistance aimed at introducing improved plantation techniques for arid areas and at developing a greater integration between farm forestry and livestock- based farming system. (h) Ideally, projects of this nature should have been preceded by a forestry sector study. It would have helped to incorporate critical policy changes including institutional reforns. In this project, the changes in the Govern- ment policies on timber transit, transfer of woodlot and strip plantation to the local people, price of seedlings, etc. came when the project was well near its completion. The project therefore did not benefit from the changes it could have, if the changes were made in advance. 16 PART II. PROJECT REVIEW FROM BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE GUJARAT 1. EVALUATION OF BANK'S PERFORMANCE AND LESSONS LEARNT Bank's personnel are generally recognized as highly qualified professional experts in their respective fields. Their visits to the project have always been very informative, objective and rewarding. On their suggestions, new technolgoical upgradations and concepts such as use of V-ditches and vegetative contour technology for Soil & Moisture Conservations, microplan approach for planning at the village level were introduced. Studies like impact assemnement, Marketing of social forestry produce were initiated and linkages with Agriculture Department for Forestry Extension and with State Agriculture Universities for Agro-forestry Research were sought to be established. We were greately benefitted by discussions and suggestions on issues such as Tree improvement and use of better cultivars for raising seedlings, providing extension training to staff, encouragement to Women Nurseries and Wobmen's overall involvement; Participatory Management, greater interaction between terriorital and community forestry staff, and about Monitoring and Evaluation of the project. The Bank also took keen interest in having a new strategy for pricing of seedlings evolved and involvement of panchayats by preparation of harvesting plan of plantations and sharing the benefits with them. With a view to maintain consistency of opinion of the team members visiting the state, it was good that there was one member, who continued to accompany almost all the Bank 17 Missions to the project. This has helped maintain uninterrupted continuity in the process of evolution of dialogue and discussions and therefore there were not many issues with divergent views or disagreements. The project started in 1985 and was scheduled to complete in the year 1990. However at the end of 1990, considerable amount of SDR was still unutilised particularly due to less allocation of funds by the State Government in view of severe drought conditions in the state and because of devaluation of the rupee. The Bank was very sympathetic and considerate in giving extension to the project by three years i.e. upto March 1993. Thus the SAR targets which could not be achieved within the period orginally prescribed, were not only achieved but exoeeded at the end of the extended period. 2. EVALUATION OF BORROWER'S OWN PERFORMANCE AND LESSONS LEARNT The project started in the year 1985 and came to a close in March 1993. Originally the project was scheduled to last 5 years i.e. from 1985 to 1990 at an estimated cost of Rs. 1296.4 Million. However due to less allocations to forestry sector particularly due to severe drought conditions in Gujarat during the years 1986, 1987 and 1988, the expenditure on project till the end of March 1990 was only Rs. 722 M. In terms of US$, against the original allocation of US$ 92.34 M, the expenditure was US$ 38.34 M and there was an undisbursed balance of US$ 54 M as on 31- 3-1990. Devaluation of the rupee also partially contributed to the undisbursed credit. The bank approved our proposals to extend the project till March 1993. During this period efforts were made to utilise the available credit by boosting up the plantation targets. With further devaluation of rupee it was not possible to utilise the entire credit in terms of US$. In terms of 18 rupees, total expenditure on social forestry project is 2206 Million out of which expenditure on project is Rs. 1673 M out of which reimbursement claims for the project have processed for Rs. 1624 M. The major activity of the project is the plantation prograrmne under various components. A bird's eye view of the targets and achievements during the full period of the project is as under Category. Targets (ha.) Actual Actual Actual -------------------- Achie- Ext.% SAR%. SAR MTR Extn. vement. Strip 15000 9116 17800 21010 118 140 VF (Irr.) 5000 3287 6050 6888 114 138 VF (RF) 20000 12235 31000 31057 100 155 R.D.A. 30400 23544 63850 63961 100 213 Fodder 10000 300 2500 1278 51 13 Fuelwood 25C0 835 850 835 98 33 plantation Environmental - - - 411 - - planting R.D.F.L. 30500 16541 42060 44088 105 145 Seedling 200000 265128 730800 1040196 142 520 distribution Total : 313400 330986 894910 1209724 135 386 It can be seen from the above table that the achievement during the project has been substantially larger than the SAR targets proposed in the project, barring an exception for the component of Fodder Plantation. For all the plantation models put together the achievement is 135% of 19 the project extension target. The progress in terms of distribution of seedlings has been a runaway success. This is commendable and is the result of the untiring efforts of the field personnel engaged in implementing this progranme and also the result of the cooperation of the people of the State. Credit goes to the farmers of Gujarat who have readily accepted the tree planting programme. The farmers of Gujarat are known to accept innovations and respond favourably to the extension programmes. Qualitatively, the results are very satisfactory. The state looks much greener now than it used to look before the start of the project. The forest department has endeavoured to maintain high quality of plantations through a system of self corrective procedures. For this purpose particularly during the years towards the end of the project, the monitoring and evaluation activities had been accelerated and the results threw open certain questions which were deliberated amongst the implementing officers to have the shortcomings, whatsoever, corrected within the organisation. Evaluation has also been got done through external agencies such as the Indian Institute of Public Opinion, VIKSAT. Their reports also have shown excelltnt performance by the Gujarat Forest Department. By and large the quality of the plantations have been very satisfactory. The performance of the borrower in respective components and lessons learnt componentwise are indicated in the following paragraphs. STRIP PLANTATIONS This is one of the models which is most visible to general public and as such goes a long way to build up the image of the Social Forestry Programme of the State. Gujarat has been the pioneering state in starting strip plantations as early as the 1970 even before the World Bank stepped in the Social Forestry Programme. In fact this is the component which was first started under social forestry in the state. 20 Looking to the success along the roadsides plantings, the irrigation department and the railways came forward to spare the land for strip planting in the state in a big way. It is heartening 'to note that against the project extension targets the achievement has been 118%. Apart from aesthetic value of the trees, providing shade and comfort particularly during the scorching heat of summer months in Gujarat to the travellers along roads and rails, the farmers of Gujarat particularly have liked the strip plantations primarily due to the shelterEelt effect on their agricultural crops, thus protecting their crops against hot dessicating winds, though there has not been very active involvement of theirs in protecting the plantations. The Indian Institute of Public opinion have shown 70% success under this component. Internal evaluation of one to eight years old plantations under this model has indicated that the survival gradually reduces from 68% for one year old plantation downwards upto eight year old plantation indicating removal of trees due to varied reasons such as widening of roads, drought, unauthorised removal etc, but even then the existence of trees along the strip has been appreciated by one and all -within the state and outside. The technical quality of plantations and the species mix of the plantations to suit the people, has generally been excellent. Farmers whose lands lie close to the strip plantations have not involved themselves much in protecting the strip plantations. The endeavour of the department in planting grafted bor plants (Zizyphus mauritiana) along the roads has been greately liked by the local people. Grass collection, though free has not been a major incentive for protection. It is true that harvesting of the strip 21 plantations and sharing the produce with the local people would have gone to ensure better involvement of people both in terms of better protection and better use of the plantations. We hope that with our starting of harvesting of the strip plantations now and eventually benefit sharing with the Taluka Panchayats (Body of the people), much better public involvement will be ensured. People in Gujarat have known that during the scarcity years, leaf fodder from the trees along strip plan.tations and from other plantations have helped the cattle tide over the most difficult periods of availability of fodder. Now since the harvesting of the strip plantations has already started and benefit distribution to people is to follow shortly, better involvement of public is anticipated. VILLAGE WOODLOTS (IRRIGATED & RAINFED) The physical achievement under village woodlot (Irr.) is 114% of the project extension targets and that under village woodlot rainfed is 100% of the project extension Target. The programnme has been liked by the panchayats very much. Though 4 ha. limit of afforestation in a village has been a bottleneck, it has not seriously affected the performance. There is a general awake ing amongst the panchayats regarding flow of benefits at the time of harvesting of these plantations. During the last couple of years, a substantial number of village panchayats have received their share of the inccne and material from village woodlots. However barring the option of harvesting of the crop, by and large Panchayats have preferred that the Forest Department should manage the woodlots in consultation with them rather than Panchayats themselves managing the woodlots. Having received the benefits frccn the harvested village woodlots, the Panchayats are now more keen to participate in raising, and managing the village w.oodlots. Insisting on some particular species and participating in the decision making both in inputs and the 22 overall after care of the plantations which is an indicator of the level of awakening about the village woodlots. It is heartening to see that some village panchayats have arranged on their own to manage the woodlots on sustained basis (by selling twigs to be used as tooth- brushes etc.) and also that some village panchavats have planted up village woodlots on their own and harvested and used the benefits on their own without much of intervention by the forest department except for the technical guidance and plants from the forest department. The experience of raising woodlot by the forest department is quite old. The first rainfed village woodlots were raised in Gujarat during the year 1974 with the involvement of Panchayat. The initial attempts were so pleasing to Panchayats that some Panchayats not only promised to allocate more land for this purpose but also offerred to extend all help to forest department not only for the purpose of the plantations such as providing water supply for watering the plantations but also for allocating land for the construction of residential houses for the staff free of charge. On the technical front, the species combination and technical quality of plantation has generally been very good. In irrigated plantation, the species choice which used to rest on Eucalyptus largely in the beginning of the project, has now become more varied and many species such as Neem (Azadirachta indica), Teak (Tectona grandis), Desibaval (Acacia nilotica) and other miscellaneous species and fruit species have now been preferred by the Panchayats. To match the species requirement to the space required by a plant in irrigated plantations, the plant population per hectare of area was reviewed and was reduced. 23 REFORESTATION OF DEGRADED (FOREST) AREAS (RDA) RDA plantations have largely been taken up in Forest lands. These lands have been degraded due to excessive exploitation and grazing. The component was initially designed for essentially three districts in Gujarat namely Panchamahals, Sabarkantha and Surat. The component has been given a fair trial in other areas under social forestry progranmne and it is doing equally well else where also. The physical achievement under this model has been 63961 ha which is 100% of the project extension targets. On technological front, there has been a technological upgradation in the soil and moisture conservation technique under this model. A variety of techniques such as V- ditches, vegetative contours, gradonies contour trenches Sapar technique (Square mound) have been tried out. Almost all models did well but largely contour trenches or a combination of V-ditches and vegetative contour is currently being followed. Multicanopy approach so as to optimise the land utilisation, has been adopted in a large number of cases and the results are very satisfactory. Participatory forest management involving village protection committees in protecting the plantations and ultimately sharing the benefits from these plantations has been tried out in Gujarat in over 257 villages covering an area of 55000 hectars with good success. Government of Gujarat has already come out with the policy resolution involving village forest committees in protecting the plantations. The concept of participatory forest management has picked up very well particularly in those areas having good root stock so that with some protection. There is good natural regeneration coming up in the area but the concept does not seem to go equally well in other areas which are totally devoid of root stock. However the 24 concept has been found to be very effective in protecting and managing degraded forest areas. The efforts to involve village protection committees in protecting and managing these areas have to continue, albeit with a little change here and there. Assessment of the plantation under this component have shown that success from one year to 8 year old plantations tapers off from 69 to 22 percent. Looking to the factors which were responsible for the degradation of the land where such plantations are taken up, the performance is really good. The species combinations to suit local needs and the technical quality of the plantation generally has been of a good order. For RDA plantation, the Forest department had an innovative scheme of social security through forest plantation wherein local people were employed permanently to take care of the plantations in 1.5 ha area, instead of employing people on daily wages. In addition there is a sharing mechanism with these people permanently employed on the plantation works. Th;s ideology has continued during the present project also. However with the new resolution on participatory forest management, the social security scheme is not being expanded. FODDER PLANTATION Fodder is a free demonetized commodity in most of the rural areas in the state except during scarcity years when there is generally a high demand of fodder. Grass starts growing up naturally due to protection provided to the area planted up under any component. People collect fodder from these areas free. Leaf fodder is also collected by people free of cost. Accordingly there is not much of felt need among panchayats to spare village grazing lands for the purpose of raising fodder plantations. Achievement under this 25 model has therefore fallen short of the SAR targets. Efforts are called for to improve the performance by making necessary changes. FUELWOOD PLANTATIONS The plantations under this model were being carried out in the Panam Command area. The scheme was reviewed during the MTR and it was decided that the scheme being highly capital intensive, should be discontinued from the project. As such no plantation under this model after the MTR have been taken up. The scheme stands transferred to Gujarat State Forest Development Co. Ltd. FARM FORESTRY Under this programme, seedlings are distributed to people for planting in their farm lands. This programme is a grand success in the state. Against the SAR target of distribution of 2,00,000 ha. based on a notional planting of 1500 plants per hectare the actual distribution has gone far beyond the expectations to a level of equivalent area 10,40,196 ha. following the same standard of 1500 seedlings. This is also much higher than the targets fixed (area 7,30,800 ha.) for the extended project period. The total seedling distribution is 1560 M. This very cost effective component has caught up the imagination of millions of farmers in the rural areas. In addition to its big utility to farmers, the programme has proved to be extremely useful to the rural masses in meeting their requirements of fuel, fodder and fruits. Crux of the scheme has been that it has helped bringing about the marginally productive lands under more productive land use system and created assets worth crores of rupees. As essential yardstick to measure the success of the 26 progranmme is number of seedlings distributed. Though this cannot be the only yardstick, there is ample evidence to show that the programme has been accepted by the people in -bE a very desirable manner. It is not only the farmers who are participating in the programme but also a number of industrial units, educational institutes, Government and Semi- Government departments, religious bodies etc. who have taken to planting of trees. Not only that, people having no land have also planted up trees on backyards of their homesteads. In the state 127 Tree Growers Cooperative Societies have been set up who promote tree planting by their members. Internal evaluation of the farm forestry programme (covering the period 1980 to 1988) has shown that the major section of the beneficiaries are the small and marginal farmers. This is the desired target group. Out of the total participants in the programme, small and marginal farmers contributed 74% of the participant group whereas 20% were big farmers and remaining 6% though had no land participated in the programme by planting on their homesteads etc. Of the total participants 7% were scheduled castes and 20% were scheduled tribes. The figures being close to the population percentages shows an even acceptance of the programme by people. 73% of the farmers planted 58% of total number of seedlings on peripheral bunds or as row planting along water channels etc. Homestead plantings, which is important for meeting the needs of fuel, fodder and fruit at the doorsteps has been resorted to by 10% of the marginal farmers 4% of small farmers and 2% of the big farmers apart from almost all persons who do not own farmlands. There has been a wide range of demand of tree species for supplying to people. Planting of Eucalyptus, which during early eightees, was as high as 84% came down to only 26% by 27 1988. Many more species such as Neem (Azadirachta indica), Desibaval (Acacia nilotica), Teak (Tectona grandis), Jambu, Sevan (Maligna arborea) are in great demand and the department made endeavours to supply whatever is the most preferred species by the people. Fruit trees are also in very great demand. Survival rate has been 18.5% covering a period 1980 to 1988. The performance is satisfactory. The performance is to be viewed in eight of the fact that there were three major scarcity years during 1986, 1987 and 1988 and also that 60% of the quantity of seedlings have been planted on peripheral bunds, water channels, on fallow lands and homesteads by majority of the farmers. The department adopted an approach that people should plant trees on land not used for agriculture. The success of the extension approach can be seen in light that 89% of the farmers planted over 68% of the total seedlings on land either previously fallow or along bunds, boundaries or homesteads. Decentralisation of nurseries has been an innovation of the forest department of Gujarat State. As early as 1976-77, the forest department started two decentralised nurseries first at Sandhana in Kheda district and the other in Panchmahal district. The programme of decentralisation increased so fast that in the next year itself the number increased almost 33 folds. Since then, the number of decentralised nurseries has been on the increase steadily. By the year 1991-92, there were 6448 decentralised nurseries raised by Kissan and Schools in addition to only 869 nurseries managed by the forest department. While the department raised 94.3 Million seedlings for distribution the Kissan and school nurseries raised 94.0 M seedlings. Thus at least half of, the total number of seedlings were being raised by the decentralised nurseries. The 28 decentralised nurseries are smaller in size the average size of a Kissan nursery or a School nursery is about 15000 plants. With smaller nurseries, the de.partment has endeavoured to reach the remotest parts of the state and also has succeeded in cutting down the distance of transport to only 6 Km. A number of small depots (trading centres for wood) have come up during recent years in the state. Though the organised marketing system on proper lines is yet to develop within the state, the department does disseminate information on prevailing market price in the state. A study given to Operations Research Group - a leading marketing research organisation on marketing of forest produce is likely to be completed shortly and will address the issues of marketing of forest produce in a detailed manner. After which corrective measures as required will be taken in this direction. With a view to improve the quality of plants for supply to people, the department has followed a three pronged strategy. One, the gradual reduction of number of seedlings that could be provided free to people (From a number of 5000 seedlings before 1985-86, the free seedlings number was gradaually brought down to 200) Secondly, the price of seedlings kept on going up. In 1992-93 the free supply of seedlings to public was totally stopped, with some relaxations in certain cases; and thirdly, improving the seed quality being used in raising the seedlings by establishing over 278 seedstands in the state. Linkages with the agriculture department regarding using their T & V network for forestry extension has not developed very satisfactorily but the attempts are on and now there is a better interaction between the agriculture and the forest department. We hope that this will develope well in future Linkages with Agricultural Universities 29 particularly for agro-forestry research is in the stage of infancy. REHABILITATION OF DEGRADED FARMLANDS This is in true sense one of the most significant models of the social forestry aimed at involving the society in forestry sector and the proper model for bringing degraded farmlands to proper land use system. Since the productive potential of the land for producing agricultural crop is much less, putting such lands to forestry use is the right approach. The scheme is limited to the degraded farmlands of small and marginal farmers who are generally very poor and as such cannot be expected to invest in relatively long term forestry crop. Payment of compensation therefore, is essential. In terms of the quantitative achievement of targets, the performance has been 105% of the project extension targets. However since the land put to use are generally highly degraded, qualitative performance in terms of survival and growth of plants are generally not good. In the initial years, the survival and growth of plants is of good order but due to grazing or other pressures and lack of care by the participating farmers, the survival and growth of plants dwindles sharply. Forest department has decided to take up farmers in a more concentrated manner. The preliminary results have shown that in mocroplanning villages where larger number of farmers have been included in the same village, the performance is fairly good. Efforts are on to train more farmers and take many more villages under the microplanning approach. FUEL SAVING DEVICES The department of Non-Conventional Energy had initiated a large programme of popularising smokeless stoves in Gujarat 30 State. To avoid the duplication of initiatives, given the limited state budget, the programe was dropped from the project. Regarding improved crematoria, the achievement in terms of number of crematoria installed is 30%. There is a constraint of procurement of such crematoria because forest department is the only purchaser and there are not many manufacturers of such crematoria. The result is that the supply against the purchase order of the forest department is often delayed considerably. However, an evaluation survey of crematoria conducted for the earlier phase of the social forestry project have shown that such crematoria are being used very efficiently. A general feedback from Panchayats is that they are very keen in getting crematoria installed in their villages. 31 HEMACHAL PRADESH (a)&(b): Part I and Part II wnich was to be written by Bank has not been received so far, therefOre, no comments can be offered on this. (c) Evaluation of the 3ank's performance by the borrower:- The National Socia1 Forestry Project was started in Himachal Pradesh in 1985-86 with the objective of increasing production of forest products like fuel wood, goles, small tifber and fodder, besides increasing the farmers income and opportunities of -garticip'ation of female and weaker sections. It also sougnt to strengthen the forestry institutions for facilitating implementation and irLDrovinq support activities includinq research, training, extension, in:nitorisigj&evaluation. The project has been in oporation in the .tate for over seven years. Its Original closing date was December 3, 1990, which was extended upto March 31, 1993. In order to achieve these objectives several project components were envisaged v4jh are mainly as under:- 1. 4gro-Forestry(a) Farm Forestry, (b) Private ..aste land planting, 2. Tree Tennure for poor and landless GrOup Farm Forestry on Govt. land. 3. Community plantation: (a) Community wocd lots-self help (b) Community wood lots- Rainfed. 4. Departmental plantation : Rehabilitations of degraded forests. 5. Establishment of Nurseries :Kisan and Govt. 6. Institutional Support. Out of the above components the farm forestrv component was being reviewed and discussed very widely. !-imachal bbing a hilly state, the average land holding are very small i.e. 1.30 ha. The population of small and marginal farmers i.e. holdings upto 2 ha. is 82.18% and areas under these holdings is only 43.17% which indicates that holding are predominantely of small size. Trees are r;:ised by farv ers on the marginal land only i..?. _r.3:;s-lad, a:re-2 1i:n_ - l_ 1 - ra,s3ed on borders and paths of the fields. From the very begining of the project this component remained controversial and targets had to be revised. PeopleAparticipation in plantinq on their marginal land could not piick-up so well, because average land hodlings are very 32 small in this state. This component in the project always was a great strain on the forest department, since people's participation was ncteasily forthcoming. The second rnost important objective was to ensure large saale people's participation in the project. But this important objective only remained suppressed under another objective of achieving physical and financial targets. For achieving people's participation under this programme a tremendous effort was required to being about attitudinal changes in forest department field functionaries. But a department which had a policing role since last century, it was difficult to bring about this change in a short span of time. Himachal being a hilly state extension acbivities are not very simple due to poor accessibility of the areas. Impact evaluation study has revealed that about 40-45 % of the sampled respo7ndent either knew the project or participated in the project. But this data is based upon a small sample *.IvCkk sontwt. Aa; .zx size. If the optimum sam2ling intensity in adopted, the figures will be entirely different. Similarly people's participation could not be achieved to the satisfactory level during project period. Bank was always insisting on phasing out Govt. sponsored subsidies on supply of seedlings to the farmers. But in reality if objectives of the project were to reach small and marginal farmers, this appears to be conflicting. Since the per capita income of the small farmers are very low, if the trees were to be sup-lied to them on cost, this could have been a major disiricentive to the farmers. First midterm review of the project was done in February, 1988 and the mid course changes in the project implementation was discussed between the mission and the State. The important mid term changes agr-ed upon weres- i) Under the component private waste land planting Alternative I was to be phased out during the year,1988 plantinq season and only Alternative II used thereafter. ii) To prepare note on legal status procedure and costs on the component tree tenure. iii) To develop low cost models for silvopastoral subcomponent. iv) Study on establishment of Gosadan. Later, the component of tree tenure for poor and landless was discontinued as it violated the Forest Conservation Act, 33 I was discuntinued. During the extendeo perioa of tne project from 1990-9i, the component of silvopastoral treatment of land was incorporated. And the establishment of Gosadans were also incorporated in the project from 1991-92. The silvipastoral models were highly appreciated by the Bank due to its wide success. (d) Evaludation of borrowers performance. Social Forestry was a totally new experience to the Forest Department. Tha objectives, although, were very simple but the components through which these objectives were to be achieved were large, unexplicit, and were not Vransperent, lesser the number of components, more is the clarity for implementing agencies of the project. The-oratically they were conceived well. The Borrower could do very little when it really came to understand these majpr problem issue, No Daseline survey was carried in the the start of the project. It would have been proper if the project components were tested on pilot scale and later on picked up and modified accordingto the actual field experience. HP Forest Department had not undertaken any massive extension forestry activities before this project was launched. Although village Development Co:munities were constituted during the initiol stages of the project but in reality nothing concrete could be achieved from them on the subject of the involvement of local people. Since the targets under departmental planting were larce enough, the extension activities therefore, got neglected. Although the people in hills are fully aware of the advantages of Farm Forestry but as stated in Section (e) of the report, Farm Forestry activities could not be brought in the Crbp Land and it remained in marginal lands only. Closures of the plantation areas were done in many cases withovt people's consent and this has resulted in damage of the plantation areas by indiscriminate grazing. Therefore, IRMPs should have been prepared in the begining of the project for the involvement of the people. During the extended period of the Project it was felt by the borrower that people's participation in the programm was not forthcoming upto the desired level. After great eelibratiorl a totally iY-3xCs-Xt innovative scheme'Van Lagao Rozi Kamaol 34 was initiated during 1990-91, the scheme picked up its momentum during subsequent two yeers. The aenk in its Oct, 1992 review mission report conveyed many valid apprehensions about the efficacy of the scheme & its future repercussions. Since the Project has already culminated on 31st Ilarch, 1993, time will tell about the repercussions of tha Scheme as ap,§rehended by the Bank. Himachal being a hilly state, the staffing requirements for extension activities is more than the normal terrain. ,ctivities, like; extension, training, publicity and rcsearch etc. although were being given priorities during i.nplementation of the project, the success rate is a question rnark. Departmental plantation on wasteland were acheived with good survival rates but the sup-orting activities required more inputs. The Bank was reviewino prog-ress of the project periouicelly and valuable suggestions wc-re given by the various Missions. Serious efforts were tiede by the Departinent to strictly adhere to the guidelines 9iven by t-ie 3ank from time to time. (e) The relationship of the bank and the department was extrerr,ely cordial and there were no major hastles during the inplementation of the Project. (f) USAID Particupated as co-financer upto 1990 and they provided very useful financial and technical help during that period. al i~ Conservator of Forests, Himrachal Pradesh, Shimla-1. 35 RAJASTHAN Summary and Conclusions 1. It is essential to evaluate the impact of various project activities carried out since the starting of the project. Most important is the effect of motivation on departmental personnel and the community at large for Joint Forest Management (JFM). The effect of additional production of fodder and fuel on the economy is also assessed. 2. The project was designed to grow fuelwood and fodder to meet the needs of the rural population. Fodder supplies increased substantially. Grasses and leaf fodder was distributed to poor sections of society free of cost. Waterponds were dug in silvipastoral plantations to harvest and store water for drinking by animals and improve moisture regime for plants. 3. In 1990-91, Government issued suitable instructions regarding people's participation, constitution of VFPMCs (village forestry protection committees), sharing of forest produce, relaxation in rules governing cutting of trees on private lands and their transit to the market centers, pricing of seedlings to be distributed as a part of farm forestry, etc. As a result of all these measures a climate has been created in the state where individuals, communities, voluntary agencies, etc., are coming forward in raising the plantations in consultation/collaboration with the Forest Department. 4. The project objectives were highly oriented towards environmental improvement, ecological stabilization and conservation of important natural resource base. The plantation activity itself has generated three hundred lac mandays for the rural poor, improving their income. Particular attention has been paid to the needs of the women and other disadvantaged groups. While sharing the forest produce from the plantation areas, the weaker sections of the society are given a preferential treatment. 5 . The afforestation activity under the project has created beneficial effect on agricultural production by releasing more cowdung for farm yard manure, improving moisture regimes and sub-soil water table, reducing soil erosion and effect of desiccating winds. The increase in agricultural production together with increase in forest produce raised on farrnlands has enhanced the income of the farmers and community at large which in turn has led to the economic growth of the rural areas. 6. The activities like strip plantations, rehabilitation of degraded forests and development of wastelands have proved to be an attempt to bridge the gap between supply and demand of the forest produce. Bulk of the population in the rural areas are poor farmers who do not purchase firewood and other forest produce. Most of the fuelwood, lops and tops and fodder would be consumed by the tree-growing households, substituting part of the supplies of firewood and fodder, otherwise collected from the forests. 7. The intangible benefits to the society in terms of better environment and improved health could not be quantified. The value of benefits such as improvement in agricultural production and other secondary benefits are expected to be much greater than those revealed by the project. 8. Rajasthan has definitely moved ahead of other states in participatory forest management in the project. Institutional reforms have included the removal of restrictions on felling and transit of the major social forestry tree species, institutionalizing procedures for people's share in forestry produce and their participation in the management of afforested area, and drawing up concrete 36 propoals for the carrying out of micro-planning exercise. 9. The result of a study funded under the project revealed that while social forestry provided employment and income opportunities for women in the traditional areas of nursery raising, tree planting, watering, etc., these opportunities could be enhanced by widening women's participation in other social forestry activities like fruit collection, seed/tendu leaves, etc. The study recommended that women should be represented in traditional decision-making bodies like the village panchayats; women's groups, like women's cooperative societies, should be given priority in allotment of revenues from forest and wastelands developed for social forestry; and women should have the right to own land. 10. The voluntary agencies and non-governmental organizations have been observed to play an effective role as catalysts for involving people to participate actively in the development process of promoting social forestry. However, their performance was far from satisfactory for the following reasons: (a) One of the major problems faced by the NGOs is not one of participatory development but more of participatory management. It is generally observed that it is easy to involve people in community action for programs like wastelands development and afforestation, but it is an extremely difficult task to organize them in community resource management. This results in the plantation not being adequately protected from cattle grazing and other such hazards. (b) The controversy of agriculture versus forestry is another impediment affecting successful promotion of afforestation programs. The question whether agriculture is economically viable or forestry has better economic advantages, affects NGOs efforts in making people adopt forestry as a profitable proposition. People are not convinced about the sustainability of the forestry sector vis-a-vis agriculture. (c) It is paradoxical to note that number of NGOs working mainly for rural development are found to be urban based. Many have their head offices in the district or state capital headquarters. There are others whose headquarters are even located in Delhi. Such organizations have a great scope to procure a lion's share of the government grants which are spent on non-field activities items like maintenance of office, vehicles and arranging meetings. (d) Most NGOs have no definite mechanism for monitoring and evaluation of the work through some independent agency. (e) Barring few, there are no organizations which are truly engaged in meaningful micro-planning activity. They have neither the infrastructure nor technically competent persons to design micro-plans scientifically and they have no proper mechanism for successful implementation. 11. An analysis to assess the financial viability of the project as a whole was carried out and revealed that project cash flow for individual project components was quite positive and the internal rate of return for the project cash flow was 12.92%. The project cash flow includes costs incurred by and return accruing to project authority and other participants. It also takes into consideration value of all forest produce. Based on these assumptions the National Social Forestry Project has been viable. 12. In addition to this, benefit/cost ratio has been calculated by discounting the total costs and benefit of the project life (32 years) at 12%. The benefit/cost ratio for the project is 1.1 1. 37 UTTAR PRADESH Inferences, Conclusions and Summary 1. The program has been a mixture of success and failures. Social Forestry Program has proved to be a dynamic phenomenon gaining momentum in a number of directions which was not anticipated originally. 2. On the positive aspects the project has resulted in successful plantations in large area in private farms, community and public lands. The flexibility built into project design and its implementation facilitated refocussing of policies and targets which were in consonance with emerging trends manifested in the increased emphasis on farm forestry, the creation of linkages between Forestry and Agriculture Extension and establishment of decentralized nurseries. The Social Forestry Department has undergone transformation and have definitely become more responsive to the needs of the farmers. An ongoing detailed scrutiny of current strategies is also gradually enabling the corrective measures to be taken. 3 . On the other hand, the failure can be narrated as the absence of concrete ways for local participation. In absence of concrete package in the project for generating the local participation, the participation did not materialize in the beginning of the project. Secondly, technical recommendations were not adequately developed to meet the emerging requirements of planting under varied conditions which was the special needs for the small farmers. It further did not generate models for sustained production in the long run. Again benefits could not be distributed equitably amongst different segments of the population with the result that fuelwood and other needs of the poor could not be projected or met to the extent anticipated. Further, the environmental aspects were neither emphasized nor addressed adequately resulting in abject failure on this score. Support activities in shape of Research and Training have proved to be a great laggard hampering the quality of extension. 4. The most important inference which has been learnt is the need for regular monitoring of emerging trends and existing objectives and aims. Newness of the experiences and unexpected emerging directions highlighted these aspects. However meticulous planning may be done at project design, new trends shall have to be considered as the project advances as has occured in this phase, unprecedented demand of farm forestry, and then the sudden decline in the demand of Eucalyptus seedlings. Corrective measures were initiated and implemented in the shape of tree tenure schemes, involvement of NGOs microplanning etc., but these are not sure solutions and require an ongoing systematic search for answers and regular reassessment in the future. For the present probably the solution may be found partly in restructuring of the department. The new role of the Forest Corporation will have to include a new thrust on research areas encompassing forest genetics, tissue culture, embryo genes, nursery technology, cloning technology, etc. issue of biodiversity, and the use of video technology for imparting training and proper communication for motivation of the target group. People's behaviour is a key to success for such programs and it has to be changed through regular reassessment of trends and sustained efforts, villages as eco- development unit for treatment, and myriads of other things interlinked with success of the project. The issues raised can be answered only through sustained commitment and intensive efforts by the Bank, Government and the Forestry Department in general. Short cuts do not exist. .36 PART III. STATISTICAL INFORMATION 1. Related Bank Loans and/or Credits Crdit Title Purposc Year ofd App .,J Uttar Pradesh Social Forestry To increase the supply of fuclwood in rural areas, to 197S Completed Projcct (Cr9'5-lN) provide poles. bamboo, small timber, fodder grass and minor forestry products and strengthen the social forstry organization to cJrry out project works. Gujarat Social Forstry Project * 1979 Completed (Cr.961-IN) West Bengpl Social Forestry 1982 Completed Project (Cr.l1'lN) Jammu and Kashmir and * 1982 Completed Haryana Social Forestry Project (Cr 128lIN) Kamataka Social Forstry To augment fuel-ood supplies in priority rural areas 1953 Completed Project (Cr.1432-IN) and semi-uroan areas and to provide small timber, fodder and other related forest products. Kerana Social Forestry Project To increase the supply of fuclwood in rural areas, to 1984 Completed (Cr. 151441N) provide poles, bamboo, small timber, fodder grss and minor forestry products and strengthen the social forestry organization to carry out project works. Nlaharashira Forestry Project To support restructuring and rationalization of the 1992 On-going (Cr.2328-IN) States forestry department and its investment programmes. and to roster a grmter role in forestry and developmcnt for village communities. non- goenritment insttutions. cooperatives and the pnrvate scctor. Wcst 1cnpal Forestry Project To support Goserrmcnt of Wcst Bcngal Forestry 1992 On-going (Cr.2341-IN) Deselopmcnt Programme through installation of a sustainable protcction systcm in all regions of the State. enhancement of forest productivity and conscrvaton of biod,versmti 2. Project Timetable Item Dale Planned Date Revised Dalc Actual Preriation 1984 Appraiul Oct/Nov. 1984 Ncgotiion -May 6-16 19l5 WIsard Approval J- une 18 1985 Crudit Signature - Scpt. 24 1985 Credit Crffeciveness b- Feb 24 1986 Ci,ng DI)ate II IMC. l'YJO I Dcc. 1991 March 31 19)1 31 M;trrh 1992 39 3. Credit Disbursements Cumulative in SDR million IDA Fiscal Year Appraisal Actual Actual as a % of Estimate Appraisal Estimate 1985 1986 2.7 10.7 47 1987 56.9 24.7 49 1988 84.7 43.1 51 1989 123.1 63.3 51 1990 153.1 79.8 52 1991 166.4 106.3 64 1992 166.4 140.7 85 1993 166.4 155.4 93 1/ As part of the funds redeployment exercise in December 1991, SDR1 1.0 million was cancelled. The cedit closed on March 31, 1993. Fmal disbursement from the credit was made on April 6, 1993 utilizing the full revised amount of the credit of SDR155.4 million. 4. Project Implementalion A. Physical Targets and Achievemen(s R&sAmm Unn, Pfd.sh t&dW Ftd tl Taw APvuMt ,MTn"I 11U r ACk, './ Apjs,, MMfi E 1awan AiW A44imlsod MM E.SmoIcn A t A0k M8A M1I3 ht E.,J4ml Ac8t ApWWIW Tmt Exuriml At A. Ft3AtTA1IN ACMTY5V Oma) 1. &7-rsty i.,- cresey 13.0.3 62.635 75.700 a3.303 134,000 191.667 21 305( 236.7130 53.3313 37.000 46,300 50,401 200r00 2)5.128 730,.00 1.040.196 467.000 556.433 1.072.850 1.410.657 ,6o6 ) I55 3) 455 i( td! 71) 47 4) (/O 9) (4/ o0 (31.5) 43317) (63.61) (63.6) (366) (65.9) (72.8) (76,0) 6-.:141 Wlksl- . . - 1-(163 13.000 16.000 13.297 30.500 16.541 42.060 44,068 43,500 29.541 58,060 57.385 a Pv P'IONA) (104) (B.1) (9.7) j4.7) (3.6) (6.1) (3.9) (3.1) 3, Dr.s. (wahd) l .3.*000 4.000 4.500 3.570 . . . 4,0 41.w 4.500 3.510 (3;3) (33) (24) (0.6) (0.3) (0.2) 2. C-.ro" Was63tte6 FPMiw C A3-'.T7 5.(63 6.924 16.600 19.477 14.000 10.117 l3,900 27.294 41.030 49.000 58.400 7a.946 20,000 12.235 31.000 31.468 t0.000 78.276 124,900 157.185 vi=ts I'l(lol(e0 (41) (12.1) (13.0) (a6) (6.5) (62) (ii 3) (3t.3) (481) (6.4) 3.5) (26) (11.3) (85) (8.I C_tit7 - - - - - - - - 1.300 5.000 3.287 6,050 6.888 5.000 3,267 8.050 .1 in (0.6) (1.6) (0.7) 40.6) (0.2) (0.4) P41 T-.. F00w - - - - - - - - . 10.000 300 2.500 1.278 10.OO 300 2.5w . 1.270 P xJ,im (3 2) (0.3) (0.I2) (1.4) (0.2) 0.07,) 3 G.-uwit W4stdw6 )9Wai t A.An ofo) 20.000 16.653 37,150 39'414 20.000 35,700 44.522 5.0S, 9,0(0 12.785 13.710 30.400 23.544 63.850 63.96f 55.400 69.197 149.485 161.607 07&2;9I '- sts t16 6) (27.2) (26 4) (12 4) (13 3) (4 5) (6 3) (6.3) (9 7) (7.1) (5.3) (7.8) (10.1) (6.7) SvxPPaioocn 4.30 2.122 2.000 2.478 740 4.370 9.800 24.414 15.000 9.116 17.600 21.010 20.040 15,608 29.6W 47.902 (36) (1.5) (7 (0.5) (3 4) (7.3) (4.63) O 0) (1.7) (2 8) (20) (2.6) F,e~.ood * - - - - - 2.500 635 850 835 2.500 635 650 835 P>tL¢> (0,) (0.1) (006) (0.3) 40.05) 40.04) 4.O00 7.565 5900 - - - 4.000 7565 5901 (4.9) (3.6) (0.5) (0.3) 4. Tom Tao.* - 1ot r >Lan s svr, Pjrt9 . . . 1.210 ) , 1.210 (O6) ) (0.2) rSWXAt &oL, 7.500 950 850 !46 11.000 1,500 6,670 935 633 633 10.500 716 19,333 3.283 10.020 2.497 Fvn.r 3iatstr (62) (06) 1 6) tii B) t2 3) (03) (0 7) (6.6) (0.4) (2.7) (3.2) (.1) 1)3M0b. . P .xr - - - uO ) - 1,000 4 to6) ) (O 1) T," Am Killed 1im.a33 94.0b7 136,830 149.145 161.111, 221,3.64 261.1;0 333.,3b 112,813 112.b31 153,550 164.2A1 3133.410 3X)0(" 054.9 10 1.20t3724 7303.9b3 765,560 1,474l,f 1.57,012 (1333) (1(t3) ((3o.) (3lo)) (3IOU) (3il3) (3393) (IOU) (313) HAI 33) (""")) (II33) (13 (100) (3( IL FUEL SAIANG tOXFS (Na) - e:C,,rena.Jj 160 - 179 162 - 25 35b 169 1.000 1.550 560 _71.t.1 15.311 10.701 10,000 105W= 116.488 . . T.Ts- e.i t '.'TF,l, te .O!CCI *41 33 o3(s. .3e1 ,j n F.D-_, I .--t :.'C 3t7 S .:3 11 n._rrrae,rtCecemcs, 1-O n fl.., j:t r.e. .: _r. r:-s.r; 3,3e.g c. n 31, 33. lut. ItAl Ac rt.-...'xl JI tej5 bUACA cni secd .pg. .urh --U. M4h at 4dted by ,vreommended seedrg pe3 f ha B. Staffiitg, Citil WVorks and Velicles - Plkysical Targets and Achievements Rapasthar Ular PIradesh ihknchl Pradesh Gula Ahppsa Sandion Aclual A4s Sandion Aduc Appal Sandwt Acual Appaisil Sudm Acal EstWnie EstMte Esinule Estimte 1. bag(o ) Chief Conservatorof Forest I 1 1 - - - - Add Chid Conservalor o Forest - 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 t ConsrvatordoForest 1 1 1 9 6 6 1 1 1 2 - Deputy Consvator ol Foresl 10 18 18 28 19 19 5 3 3 14 1 Asst Conservaloro Forest 6 6 6 88 54 54 41 38 t 38 9 - Range Forest Oticer 60 63 63 712 444 444 84 74 74 37 37 10 DeputyRange 22 13 13 343 152 152 79 20 20 - - - Forestar 137 145 145 1,329 494 494 - 22 32 15 SocialFornstryWorles(guwrd 657 486 486 1,013 540 540 364 213 213 78 129 128 Ohwrs (Accountants,etc.) - - l- - - 6 61 i TOTAL e94 733 733 3.524 1,711 1,711 575 350 350 163 261 213 2. CM Waft (no.) No-Anesidential Bukfngs 39 31 984 806 29 27 113 73 Residmtr al9u5dgs 198 141 1,000 945 582 BOM 716 488 3. Vdie n. Cal 2 3 6 13 6 5 6 4 Jeep 27 29 51 85 34 26 26 14 Tnuck 20 14 11 7 2 2 Bus/aVa 2 2 6 21 25 11 3 1 Tractor 52 37 1 13 157 - 2 2 Puty Van 2 2 Motorcyde 92 92 260 - 191 132 15 Bicyde 800 800 - - S. Project Cost and Financing A. Project Cost (Rp million) Rajasthan (Jitm Pfadeh Wonc desh AlGuj A Foa Stdes Appaisai1/ Actual?' Apprais Actual?' Appraisiy Ac.WZ/ Appasa ActuJ Appisay AtuWil 1. Organization & Management 89.5 155.7 641.2 1,201.5 158.5 356.6 119.9 111.4 1,009.1 1.8252 (174) (187) (225) (95) (181) 2. PhysicalTagets 266 3 609 6 753 8 1,547.9 365.8 826.1 1,151.0 1,504.5 2,538.9 4,488.1 (229) (205) (226) (131) (177) 3 Research 2.8 8.9 8 1 27.5 7.1 3.3 5.1 7.4 23.1 47.1 (318) (340) (46) (145) (204) 4. Ejoension 12.1 19.3 80.1 16.6 5.6 11.8 3.6 ' 31.5 101.4 792 (160) (21) (211) (875) (78) 5 Trining 9.4 10.2 116.3 41.2 15.4 5.8 8.9 8.9 150.0 66.1 (119) (35) (38) (100) (44) 6. fiing - 4 2 7.5 - - 2.0 2.5 6.2 10.0 (178) (125) (161) 7. Monitoring& Evaluation 11.8 22.0 7.9 21.3 20.5 15.2 6.0 7.4 48.2 65.9 (186) (270) (74) . (123) (143) AJ Four States 391.9 825.7 1.611.6 2,863.5 572.9 1,218.8 L,296.5 1,673.6 3,872.9 8,581A (211) (178) (213) (129) (170) 8. Central Suppol Otfice 60.3 180.3 (29q9) TolFPmoj.dCosts 391.9 825.7 1,611.6 2.863.5 572.9 1,218.8 1,296.5 1,673.6 3,9332 8,761. (211) (178) (213) (129) (172) Note: Figwes wlhin brackets kikate actual cost as a percentage of appraisal esbnate. 2: hckidn physcal and pnce contingenaes. AcUa cost as on Match 31. 1993. 43 B. Project Financing Planned Actual (Credit Agreement) SDR million (%) SDR million (TO) IDA 166.1 SO 155.4 USAID 80.5 24 n.a. Domestic Funds 83.6 26 n.a. Total 3302 100 ./ Contributed by GOT and State Governments of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradcsh, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat. 2/ Figures not available at time of PCR preparation. Souce Planned Revised Allomtion Final Fienal (Credit Asemernt) December 5, 1991 Amount Percentage ...................SDROOC..................... xpenditure/Categon MA Credit Field activities 119.900 118,900 120,S67 73 Incremental staff salaries 13500 13,700 12.361 7 Travel allowances 5.400 3500 3.255 2 Gvil works 12,300 10.000 9.679 6 Vchicics, equipment and furniture 2.000 3,500 3.309 2 *Vchicle operating cost 2.200 2.300 2.625 1 Cunsultanz services, training 3.0(0 3500 2.953 2 Unallocated 8.100 - Difrerence due to cross exchange rates 351 02 on special account disbursements ToLal Di6bursementa 155.400 93 Cinccllafion (December 5 1991) 11.000 11 000 7 TOrAL cRniDrr AmoLotr 166,400 166,400 1.6,400 100 6. Project Results A. Direct Blenetits " unit Rajasthan uttar Prm*csh iliwchal Predesh Cujarat Total AAppraisal PPi AAfcaisal PCX Appraisal PCa Appraizat pci AFpraisal PCl Estimate Estimute lstimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estim_te Estimate Estimte Estimte fuetwood Et 491,000 5,340,000 740,000 8,770,000 - 3,900,000 13,950,000 5,131,000 28,060,000 * Conifer et 26,200 760,000 - 26,200 760,000 - Iroaditaf at - * - 2,700,000 5,650,000 - :. - 2,700,000 5,650,000 Poles no. 6,700,000 61,000,000 14,8OO,000 578,450,000 - 35,350,000 22,000,000 503,000,000 43,500,000 1,177,800,000 small tieber a3 38,300 89,000 - - - - - 127,300 3aaboo no. - - - 6,800,000 ,541,360,000 6,800,000 541,360,000 Crass Mt 8,110 2,420,000 67,000 4,170,000 loO,OOO 4,800,000 82,000,000 1,900,000 82,255,110 13,290,000 Leaf fodder Mt 800 1,106,000 - 2,941,000 2,900,000 2,660,000 860,000 1,860,000 3,760,800 8,567,000 Dry fodier at - - - * 50,000 * 50,000 - Steswood * - 407,600 - 15,390,000 520,000 5,800,000 - 4,050,000 520,000 25,647,600 Edible fltower t - 8,000 8,000 Fruit (inrl. betr) Mt 12,000 305,300 5,600 1,740,000 - 13,350 2,620,000 30,950 4,665,300 :ee seeds at - - - - - 2,250 2,250 Ridi leaves at - - - - 304 304 Seed pods at 59,000 474,600 - - - - 59,000 474,600 fallen wood/tope at 8,200 - - - - 8,200 oilseeds Mt 5,000 - 5,000 Cocoos '000 40,000 - 60,000 - - - - 100,000 - Other tree by-products Mt 40,000 - - - - - . 40,000 - N of beneficiaries 6 - 8 10 (ailtion) Emptowent geerated - Ir plantation an-days 100 miLlion 142 million - In forest departments jobs 5,156 3,007 PCR prcoduction estimates are based on full 32-year production cycle. however, no regeneration or replanting is assumed. Production estimtes at appraisal are not based on full production cycle and therefore not directly coaparable with PCR estimates. B. Economic Impact Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh Himachat Pradrsh Guierat Total Appraisal PcR Appraisal PCR Appraisal PCI Appreisal PCI Appraisat Po Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimte Estimate Estimte Estimte Estimate Estimte Estimte Eecaic Rate of ltetun tS) 17 12 25 26 34 13 26 23 27 22 Assumpt ions: Project life (years) 30 40 30 40 30 40 30 40 30 40 Steadard econersion factor 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Conversion factor for uaskilled 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 labor C. Financial Impact finewias late of letum of Nlode (I) 1. Fars forestry 23.5 18.4 58.0 41.3 33.8 25.7 31.6 31.1 2. Conmmity Woodlot - Rainfed t2.8 14.0 19.2 13.8 35.3 20.9 20.1 ) 3. ComiuIty Woodlat - Irrigated . . - - 34.8 9.2 4. lehabilitation of Degraded 31.4 15.7 13.9 22.4 14.9 15.7 19.9 forest Areas 5. Strip plantations 37 - 23.1 6.6 10 10.9 10.2 - - 5.9 1.7 46 D. Studies Monitoring and Evaluation Studies 1. Gujarat (The M&E unit has carried out the following studies:) 1. Survey of Strip plantations (1980-87) 2. Survcy of village woodlots (1985-90 Irrigated and 1980-87 Rainfed) 3. Survey of Rehabilitation for Degraded Forests (1980-87) 4. Survey of 1983/S9 Plantations 5. Preparation of volume table of Casuarina equisatifolia 6. Survey of Farm Foresz; (1980-8S8 7. Review of Plantation Registry (1980-81) 8. Survey of Rehabilitation of Degraded Farmlands (1985-90) 9. Price Bulletins of SF Products (1990-92) I*. Himachal Pradesh (Mf&,E unit undertook the following investigations/studies:) 1. Farm Forestry Surveys 2. Community Woodlot Surveys 3. Strip and Govcrnment Land Plantation Surveys 4. Institutional Forcstrv Survey (1991) 5. Semi-annual Price Collections 6. Evaluative Studies on: (a) Fuelwood Saving Devices (1988) (b) Extension and Publicity (1991) (c) Kissan Nurser' (1988) (d) Seedling Pricing (1990) (c) 'van Lagao Rozi Kawas (1992) ([ Silvi-Pasturc (1992) 7. Wood Balincc S(uds hy thc Univcrsity of Himachal Pradesh 8. Impact Evaluation Studv Ill. Studies Contracted/Undertaken by UP SFW under WB Project Funds 1. Women's Role in Forcstry (Institute of Social Sciences, Allahabad), 1990 2. Cost of Seedling Production by Species Group (by D.C. Pande), 1990 3. Impact of Social For -,try on Rural Population (by Association for Rural Devclopment. Energy and Environment, Lucknow, July 1l>0 4. Kh.adar/Usar Land PlAntation - Consultant Group of Foresters - 1990 Additionally, with USAII) support, the following studics were contracted/undertaken in UP: 1. Marketing of Social Forcstry Products - Operations Rcscarch Group, Bandu, 1990 2. Cout Bcncfit Analysis of Agro-Forestry, 1990 By CN()/NWDF1/(;0l: 1. Survival or Agro-Forcetry Scedlings - by Agricultural Finance Consultants, Bombay, 31 Decembcr I 99() 47 IV. Studies Contructed/Undertaken by Rajasthan Government Studies by GOR: 1. Seedling Pricing Study (1990) 2. Household (Tree Tenure Study to determine procedures for allocating state lands to individuals for tree planting) 1990. Studies by USAID: 1. Marketing of Social Forestry Products (1990) 2. Women's Role in Force'ry (1990)' CSO Studies 1. Role of Voluntary Agencies in Social Forestry - Agricultural Finance Consultants, 1990 2. Study on Farm Forestry and Its Effcct on Crop Production, AFC, 1990. 7. Slatus of Corenants f OS aS r ttwo ofd O_ LOW "tsr"" ttOV CninpSNm CD. " ' p l AGR MM GOIP Utaidd *ie ai carge ktw seecns Io 15 pts by 19F7 and 20 Paist by ORG 1 UtJp_d towlsd It 1M2. 190. D 3.O1C.OCA Oono_er ta MOM svdbla oAd of proc ld CO Crdtt acn ntA *kAei to ORG 1 SOA 24.5t0,0l0 lo le. hP 3 Ct DCA GO Pa keres IDA proposed siructwe of Ctrial Forestcy Olganization. ORG 1 06/30 04P6W t AP (kwaefl NWOS) l respons An AdM Secrelery hes VteW rgulai le 304 OtCA GO t stfifon by 4.3CM a" 60 by 10.31 Si. Ue poscin of Head Of Ute Cenlri MAN I 04/l0* Social Foresly orgarazeL nP 3 Of OCA GC1 shal maktiah lheseaket poston cg Hed CE Ot Cenral Socida Fofestry MAN 2 1/31,a6 DIGF (Morortj rat wesnot Ck pgaRGaon AM those CE Cnl Plojea Ecoe.ontul Jnd fepwy GfIMonimg. IoC IhC proje m? 4 O1A2 DCA GOCP st caus Ns dePms an Other agencies responaie kl Parn A of the fFIN 2 03/31)92 1 12131/91 Oevtdua k0 199142. proaelo to ke 4e VO ea lar When raw fnuts aiws each FY cented copes dE itaew accowLs and Ioncw stateawes. hP 4 0152DCA GOP sha cr N5 deulmeds And elW agencIes to knqlh IDA immedalely ADT 2 03/31)92 1/31191 OGedue ic 199142. t.pon k.auaor report an eudned accouis " laania swerenis. eP 5H_2.CIAPA GOP sha khlor iom n on prtgee wasitnd Planting schemes. tree lease ORG 2 12/31M5 scrAmos. corneidl anaged woos am tre lOOe pintruons to cove proce&aes lor selecig paiipants. pertcpans uigris and responsrbeties. etc. nP SK2 02.PA AMW SOw yoer d pirMg bit ne lter rnsn 3.31.80. G00P noeakes to carty a OFG I 03/3119 cia ret*ew oC as sub-project _h brower ard 10k fP 542 03 PA Cnre a you. HP eA .~ IDA tes.As toe MIS E d ks ub-project. ORG 2 A comtt a report In 119- 90 has bean pubated HP SH2 04.PA At tau very hwo yers. GOHP wl etlselupd.sii us wood balance study. STO 2 0b/30f92 11/3010 One y done nd _pAtie nP Sn.2.05 PA lr 12.1.5S. G0HP sa miake artgaem ns to ens. eat thra Deponmen oa ORG 2 . 12/31)05 Orders hate been b4u th0u Forests and fepartmnt CE Agitciahr.a Eaenson Servces coopeate to prosoe coordintion is Warabig. etaws,on sewce to rmn. "? Sn.2 OSAPA GONP sea Ht VW a single St CE ad.tastrate comand lfcd eld staff is MAN 1 01/11191 amsdaanJ hom cicle conservatrY down. hW Sn2 0016PA GOP sa re tat Sueerng Commttee head by Ule Stale fofest Secretary 01t 1 - metets q"nrty to dOus ac assign wwr pirC4,as La hkW s1C. ra; Srb2 0OPA GOlP sh mintain coordion cometntees " socl otrestry sctibes. OflG 2 nP Set2.10.PA Sy 3.31.1. GlHP ta carry ow. a study Co ut organtbonal issues hisld toxest ST0 I 063* 031/TUG See IHP S82.2OWPA. oeparmnents. nP Sn.711.PA GOlP sa carrY oi a cost recovery sudy regditg socia kmesty scedings SID 1 03/31191 03V31AS C c.is tor Tye cE Covetant: 2 Codes Irx Lmef oC Coaniatce AZT - Au: t OAG - Ougawalonl 1 * Fudy Conmpbed ZFY - C:st Recovery RPT - on. 2 Pimlthy Coe;*&d - not aiectstg Mnpetrieiltt Fr. - F.nsjt STD - Sawes M4AI.* - ,sa;emet & StsUikt TCN - Tezhvscai Section5 Sunmny DOecr t Type of Leve Rceised Olinal Remarks C'1T9d o 2 Compliance Comphance ComPLasce / Dale Dale GJJ 10 AGR t.N GDG to mEt adequate provisbon tor wevSdes anJ Iravel allowances to aglow l,id ORG 2 stiat to etftefihly carry oul thea enension responso.llres C,.J 10AGR MN GOG snouia seduce kee dlstributon ol seeohngs Isom 2.500 pef tamgy to 1l000 by ORG I 1965. a0 boy 198%6.00 by 1967. 400 by1li8. Ana 00 by 1989. Ihe chage ot seeaigs Sd be ncInreased to 10 p6lls by 1961 7rd 20 pais.t by 1969 GJJ 2 02 Ana tr id yeta of planhg but not Later than 3.31/8. eact Sl ae uriertjkes to Catty 01IG 1 03/1/08 A JLI reovew At ItS Sub-propJCt ,ith bOrrowerf IDA. GUJ 2.03 Oce a yeat each Slate wu k.erlsh IOA results of the M&E of Its sub-prolect. ORG 2 GUJ 2.04 Al least every two years each Slate il revise/upadle ts wood baLance study. ORG 2 GW] 3 1C Bonfower shal male Iviabl out of proceeds ot Cred. an amount equlvalent to ORG 1 SDR 62.33.000 to GOG. GUi 3 0AA GO uIsa Lrmsh IDA proposed structure of Central Foresity Organ,zalon. ORG 1 06130109 ;4 04/30t6 NAEB (lormrmy NW13j Is respon sible lor Uth Central Foressrp Orgaatzafor. whkh Is headed by an Additonal Secetey. GUJ 3 0453 GO sre sanclade by 4.30.66 and ta by 10.31 86 the position of Head o0 the Central MAN 1 - 04/30/08 SocQI Forestry Cr°tni-ior. GUJ 3 048(i) GO snal maan thet afteg posatlon of Heaa ol the Central Socil Forestry MAN 2 10/31/86 Sao above, but V. aXGF (MoIr- Ogarution an Vioe ol Cret Projecl Economist and Deputy GF/MonIlo,ng. toeing) is not woduing kw e 0 projetcL' GW 401A2 Bonowr sr casa ks detments and other agencies responsibe for Part A of FIN 1 we project to krtIsh IDA not latr utan rne motIns after each FY. ceetdea copies of trt accouts *i nKanciAl satemnnts. GW 4Dtet Soroww rt cause Its departments n other agencies to uttnish tIDA Immediately ADT 1 LesK fiIezation, repon on udted accoseits anr tinancia sltfements. Gtl SH.201A GOG to tunish idomarton on prvat wasteland paneg schemes, Uee tenLre ORG 2 12/31/85 schemies. community manage woodlots an ee ltodder planlarlons wic shtl cover procedues fo seectng parlcp s n. partcipalts rlgns laid reponsatbtses. etc. GW SL2.09 GOG shal mantais codtnalton commheas toe sOct twrestry actitvties. ORG 2 GJ. Set211 By 3.31.ee GOO to cary out a cost recovery stuOy regafrdng social toresuy STO 1 03/31/90 03131/08 Done by USAID conract seeedngs casurtutrtln and knpItement as Indngs. ;AA 10 AGR lJiN GOR shaMe make adequate peosslIon for veltctes and travel alloances to aIow ORG 1 Ueld sWtt to eletivy cliiy ouL theb etensain responsataes. FAt 10 AGfR SUN GOR shot' ma liee dsirbdlon of seedangs peg lamy to 1.00 by 1907. anO 500 ORG by Is3 aa hAoutd chagt S p.r5 pet Sect*eg by 1t90. 10 paiSa by 19%. aod 15 peisa by 1939. FWJ lOiC Barromw shas es a*abte out do ploceeds o Ccdt. n anmmtl eq.valett to DOW( I SOB 16.7?.00 to Rejasiaw PAt 10A GOt stah t"rtrsh KDA propop structUe of Centalt Forestay Osgamzation. ORG 1 06/30169 04/30186 NAE (tfoItWdy NWt ) Is rspbn sibk. An Additonal Secretary I te tkad. Flk 3 t;B GO sOat sawce by 4.3046 an td by 10.31.86. itt posmon of Head of tne CertOal MAN 1 06/389 04/0f Scici Forestry tCganizaloit. PA 3.4. GOt aia " a"Aas Uteakone poadlon o Head 1 Ise Cenral Socalt Forestry MAN 2 0W39 10131168 OIGF (Monorbing) is rot wokng Can,zaton nd alot, of Ctaef Proect Economist and Deputy IGF/tontilorlg. for Utle proecL O. - ce 0aeaf Type CI Lewd Adied oRned AMaa Cot coe2/ 0M ° 2/ PAJ 4 OA2 GOCR eart Is deCrmas and ode agencics responsible t Pan A of me FN 1I 03/31,08 &A Inordritlet, dlayed tr 1190- proect to krersh IDA nt4 wet then nt momhs iter each FY. cetulid copes d 01. wthe accounts amd kwdic statemes. RU 40182 GOAR cause as depwtmeas am ote agencis to furdsh IDA immediately AOT I 03/3118 Same as above. .pon fiaatike. reor on audted accourts and t.hhclW state ments. PAl SK2.01A GOII sha kitsh Wotmado on private steland plemki schemnes. lee itterse ORG 1 04/30)8 12/31,15 schemes. Cominity manad woodots and tee todder planiutons lo cover Proce,aes km selecaCl Porbicipats. ightS and responSabtles of parttclpOts. etc. PAl Sri 2.02 Ae teed year dC parng Di nIt latu thn 3.31.88. GOR urndertalhes to carry a ORG I 03/31/8 03/31i8 13'M iet" I is wub-pojet r bDrtfotC And ICA. AAJ Sn 2 03 OnCc a year. GOR mU lurdsh iDA results el ma m&E of ds subrprogect. ORG 2 07/31*9 PAd Sm 2 4 Ai least esery two years. GOR mm eviseApdsate rts wood balance study 5ST 1 11/30/90 iRA 5".2 CU By 12 3185.5 GOARVW sanction the posron ol Consevatof of Forests oie tarvnnrg. ORG 1 12/31)5 WIlL PAJ SN2 ; GOCR sitalls mulin coodnakUon comaunr es tor socta loresut, actlvdes. ORG 2 FW1 54n2.10 By 3.31.8. OR G e carry osA a study of the organriadolu is&uts tn State Foist sTD 1 12/3190 - 03/31*N Depanmems. RAJ Sn-2.11 by 3.31.88. GOR Se crry oLA a cost recovery study regadig socrat lorestry STO 1 09/0/0 03/3118 8 seOngs istroubo and impemer a s InOngs. 0 UP 10 AGR UN GOUP snoudl make adeate provAion lot vehicies nW travel aowanes to slow ORG 1 Lat sue to eaecv*y carry out thee eension respons es. LP 10 AGA MUN G0UP Uhrtais cherge per seetg to 25 pase by 1987 nd 30 paisa by 1988 ORG I LP 3 01C Borrower snl make ava3e 0 ofd proceeas of CredC. an mnrmt etuivaent ro OFIG 1 SOR 61,500.00 to UP. LP 3 irA GO Mug lsmilsn IDA proposed suctlue of Cenual Forestry Organizationf ORG 1 0OT39 0430186 NAEP (loemry WO) Is respow- sDle. An Additional Seretary i VW Hed. UP 3v0ar 00 seasnsancon by 4.30.88 nd Gmtby 10.31e4. tw posdion of Head ol ihe Cenutal MAN 1 -04/3018 Socual Foresty Cgardzal UP 3 048aim GOt sna ltadt n tn tweab poskion c Head of The Central Socal Forestry MAN 2 10/31186 DIGf (moarionrrig) is nd wmhg OrCaruton thos g o Clee Ptoject Economest and Oeputky lGFJM%tOIMe. lot me poject. UP A CIA2 GOUP shea caue ks depanmerts and othet agenes responsible tor Pan A ad ma FIR 1 03/318 protect to kersh IDA tr4 ls than nm months ante eacn FY. ceoumbed copies o0 thee accounts and Irrncil statemenis. ,P 4 0132 GOUP shet cAse Is deprmets an othw rgencles to kar4sh IDA Immediately AOT 1 03/31,18 upon eahzioat. ceport on ansuted accounts am nc4t sutasrrenLs. LaP SM. 2 CIA GOUP sn kersh idotion on privle wastland plantg schemes, tree tenrsc ORG I 12/31/15 Schems. commity mnge wo totus ana utr lodder plntarbons to cos%r proceosFes lot selecting prl nts . ights and responsibities oi i.iS Partrricpants. etc. LP SR 202 Alke Owed yeruf ptarhg bu hott Useti mtn 3 31.88. GOI undertakes to carir a ORG I 03/3118 jint renew of as luti-procecl v.ed borocv ahd IDA. UPSn 203 Osce*Aear. tOUP WE ttse£snCttA ress of Me MAE of As sub-project. o0G 2 Some pcemea plartation strwy repit£s have been prepietd ; S. 2 04 A lteasit ery two yers. GOU>P wint reseupolte 5s woOd balance study. ST0 2 12/31/0 Study carried cr4 once has not been updated. i,ll'. 111ff ; I a- .4 i gr a -f 15 ~ ~ ~ S 1 8. Use of Bank Resources A Staff tqiAs (stff wecks) To" f- FYb4 FY85 FY86 FYB7 FY88 FY89 FY9) FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 ToaW FY LENP - 22.4 47.0 - - -69.4 USIA - - 115- - - - - - 115.8 LINN 2. - - 4 * - 26.4 SaN 06 36 9 11 5 24 3 9.3 16.4 18 5 76 3.5 - 26.0 xa - - - - - 0.3 - - - - 25.7 130.6 Ta - 22.4 1N8 36.9 11.5 24.6 9.3 18.4 18.5 7.6 35 257 3882 tS FP - AcAUes tyIx to Aptyalsal. *lv Azt.-::ies uthtal to Aptyamiat Lt- A ti2fltIaaoni;us. 5PN - S*ern son time. Ca - Pc;tTpeaonabme. n. Missions Ty ed t ssit Dee St By No. di Pasoos Man-diys in Fkid Spcdzdon Perkwmae Ratlg Traid Type d F otcE/U FPepwaton Apan 05,15 W8 10 S 1r,wwS.oft 1t10t5 W8.USAtO 2 a Eel 2 1 Veuvh,oen 2 7)56 VIB * USAID 2 12 e * E 1 1 5 _owvt 3 3,18 Yv 8 USAI0 S4,W,,*W,A 4 109 W9 b . USAID 3 2 'oasubonl5 869 W* 1 22 F 2 M t I 5' c%tson 6 1//39 we 3 27 F 2 1 e M 54eras I 6,90 W8O USAIO 2 23 F 2 1 teM Spesmuwnl I ij9 We 5 20 F En *tnst. 2 T I + M SOerms,on 9 6f91 Ws 3 21 F * Ag 2 1 T 5.p-ersown 10 10,91 W8 4 17 F * Ag 2 1 M s,omn.wlII 6fl2 Wd 2 20 F 2 1 c M S;10 11-14 15 16 17-19 20-23 24 25-31 32 Costs Establish. 3 maint. costs_ 5.415 1.020 0.750 - - - - - - Land opportunity cost 2/ 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 Total costs 6.015 1.620 1.350 0.600 0.600 0 600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0 Benef i ts Fuetwood - - - 0.165 0.165 0.165 3.705 - - 2.700 3.457 - - 2.070 - Poles - - - - - 30.450 - - - 24.300 * 19.440 Sterm.ood - - - - - 2.400 2.808 - 3.560 - 6.040 Barboo - - - 0.336 0.888 0.336 0.336 0.336 6.048 0.336 0.336 6.048 0.336 6.048 Leaf fodder - - - 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 - - - - Grass - - 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 fruit - - - - 2.400 2.400 2.400 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 - - - Total benefits * - 0.090 0.255 0.280 3.016 37.558 2.851 1.951 7.051 38.203 1.926 0.426 31.208 0.426 12.178 Net benefits -6.015 -1.620 -1.260 -0.345 -0.320 2.416 36.958 2.251 1.351 6.451 37.603 1.326 -0.174 30.608 -0.174 11.578 …. .............. .........................----- --------------- ---------------------------------------- - ---------------------..--.-...-----.-.--..--.--.- Switching Values at 12.0X Appraisal Switching Percentage Stream Value Value Change .. ... ... . ..... .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Blot 33.233 11.049 -66.754% CFlOT 11.049 33.233 200.788S fRR = 31 1% ...... - ................................---------------- 31.11. W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~et Presenit Value at 0CC 12.0X1 22.2 I/ Costs in 1992/93 constant price for a typical hectare estisuted at Rs1,125 (seedlings INternal Rate of Return 312O.X1 2,500 a RsO.45 to RsO.5 per ieedling3; Ri400 (tranmp)/t); Rts,375 (pit digging); Rs625 Coupon Equivalent Rate of Return = 37.5X (pit planting); Rs600 (weeding and soil working); RsS40 (watering); Rs/50 (fertilizer application) for Year 1; Rs1,020 for one weeding anid water ing in Year 2 and Rs750 for one watering and weeding in Year 3. -/ 60X of the area in btock planting .) Rsl,000/ha. INDIA: National Social forestry Project tCr.161111N) Arnex 1: financial and Economic Re-evaluation Project Corpletlon Report Table 48. Gujarat: Coanu ,ity WoodLot (Rainled and Irrigated) - financial Costs wv Returns per Nectare (Rs 000) ...................... ........................ .. ... ................. ............................. ........ .. ............... ......................... .................................... ............................ ........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1Z 13 14 15 16 ….............................. ................................................................................................. ... .. ... .. ... ... .-... .. .-. .- Costs Establish. A saint. costs!'..827 10.647 4.559 3.157 2.080 0.343 - - Opportunity cost of land 2/0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0,100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 Total costs 4.927 10.747 4.659 3.257 2.180 0.443 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 Benefits ue OO - , , - 0.675 0.675 1.147 0.675 12.900 - - - - 1.875 0.997 Poles . - - - - - 1.200 - - - - - s t eiood - - - - . 2.400 Bantboo - - 4.176 - - - 4.176 . Leaf focdder * , - 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 co a' Grass - 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 - - 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 - 0.090 fruit - - 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.920 0.920 0.920 0.920 0.920 0.920 0.920 0.920 O.J00 lotal benefits - 0.090 0.090 0.270 0.270 5.031 0.855 3.327 1.745 13.970 1.070 5.246 1.070 0.980 5.255 2.907 met benefits -4.927 -10.657 -4.569 -2.987 -1.910 4.588 0.755 3.227 1.645 13.870 0.970 5.146 0.970 0.8M0 5.155 2.807 ,..... ...... ............. ....................... ........................................... ...... ........ .. .. ....... . ......... ........... .... ..... ...... ......... .. . 17 18 19 20 21-23 24 25 26 27-29 30 31-32 Costs Establish. & uaiant. costs . - - - - - - - opportunity cost of lard 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 Totat costs 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 Benefits fueltood o.472 0.472 0.472 10.320 - 0.405 - - - 1.115 Poles - - - - 0. 750 - . St ood - - * - - 160 - Raatoo - 4.176 - - - 4.176 - - Leaf fodder 0.060 0.060 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 - - - Grass 0,090 0.090 - - 0.090 - fruit 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.800 - . - - - - Total benefits 1.422 5.598 1.292 1l.140 0.110 5.351 0.020 1.680 - 1.125 met benefits 1.322 5.498 1.192 11.040 0.010 5.251 -0.00 1.580 .0.100 1.025 -0.100 ,... ............................... ............................................. ...... ............. .. .. ......... ............... .. ...... ....... .. .... fRR - 9.2S. I/ Irrigated planted area is about 22X of raigifed planited area and cost is weighted average per hectare; costs provided by fuorstry Departoiwnt for a typical hectare, updated to 1992/93 prices using wPi. - Es;imated at Rs1OO/ha/year on non-farm forestry land. INDIA: National Social Forestry Project (Cr.1611-IN) Annex 1: Financial and Economic Re-evaluation Project Completion Report Table 4C. Gujarat: Rehabilitation of Degraded forestry - Financial Costs and Returns per tiectare (Rs '000) ............................. ........... ....................... .... ....... .. ..... ........... .. ............... ...... ......... ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 costs Establish. & maint. costs 1/3.213 5.187 1.621 0.772 0.142 0.142 - - - - - opportunity cost ofi land -1/0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 Total costs 3.313 5.257 1.721 0.872 0.242 0.242 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 %4.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 Benef its fuetwood - - - - 0.607 0.607 1.027 0.607 11.557 - -- - 1.650 0.892 Poles - - - - - - 0.600 - - - * - - 0.600 Stujajood - . . - - - - - - . . - 2.160 - 5wboo ~ ~ 2 80 -. - - - 2.880 -2 SW* - - OD Leaf fodder 0 .050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 Grass - 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135 - - - 0.180 0.180 0.180 0.180 0.180 - - 0.090 Total benefits - 0.135 0.185 0.185 0.185 3.537 0.657 1.677 0.837 11.787 0.230 3.110 0.230 0.050 3.860 1.632 Net benefits -3313 -5.152 -1.536 -0.687 -0.057 3.295 0.557 1.577 0.737 11.687 0.130 3.010 0.130 -0 .050 3.760 1.532 :............ -........ -- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - 17 18 19 20 21 22-23 24 25 26 27-29 30 31-32 Costs Establish. maint. costs - - - - . - - Opportunity cost of land 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0_100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 Total costs 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 Benefits Fuelwood 0.427 0.427 0.427 9.285 - - 0.367 - - - 1.012 - Poles - - - - - - 0.480 - - - Steasood - - 1.440 - - - Samboo - 2.880 - - - - 2.880 Leaf fodder 0.050 0.050 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 - Grass 0.090 0.090 0.090 - - 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 Total benefits 0.567 3.447 0.527 9.295 0.010 0.100 3.827 0.090 1.530 0.090 1.102 0.090 lMet benrfits 0.467 3.347 0.427 9.195 -0.090 -0.000 3.727 -0.010 1.430 -0.010 1.002 *0.010 .--.-----.-.------.-----.-....- ...-.----------.... .--------......----------..----...-..--.---.---.. -- .... ...--.--..... FRR * 13.98X. Costs, as provided by the Forestry Department for a typical hectare. updated to 1992/93 prices terms. See l ble 46. INDIA: National Social forestry Project (Cr.1611-IN) Aninex I: ; inaincial and Economuic Re-evaluation Project Coe;d(et ion Report Tabte 40. Gujatat: Strip Plantatiore - finavcial Costs andi Returns per Hectare (Rs '000) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l-'13 14 15 16 17-19 20 Costs Establish. I maint. costsl /8.231 16.634 4.511 1.754 0.596 0.596- - - -- 0pp-artunity cost of land 2 /0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 M.OO 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 Total costs 8.331 16.734 4.611 1.854 0.696 0.696 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100*.h.0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 Sene fits fuetwood - - 0.720 0.720 1.140 0.720 13.8.67 1.950 1.065 0.510 11.137 Poles - - - - - - 0.600 - . - - stecbwood - - - - - 2.560 Leaf fodder -- 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0 Grass - 0.162 0.162 0.162 - - - 0.216 0.216 0.216 - . 0.108 0.108 c Total benefits 0.162 0.222 0.222 0.780 0.780 1.800 0.996 14.143 0.256 0.040 4.580 1.213 0O.658 11.137 wet benefIts -8.331 -16.734 -4449 1.1632 -0.474 0.084 0.680 1.700 0.896 14.043 0.156 -0.060 4.480 1.113 '0.558 11.037 21-25 26 27-29 30 31-32 Costs Estabtish. mialint. costs opportunsity cost of tand 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 Total costs 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 Benefits Fueihjood - - - 1.215 Poles - - - Steffwood - 1.728 - Leaf foder 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 Grass 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.J17 0.117 Total berefits 0.127 1.855 0.127 1.342 0.127 Net benefits 0.027 1.755 0.027 1.242 0.027 FRR s 1.7%. 1/ Costs, based on figures provided by forest Departmient for- a typiCal hectare, updated to 21 1992/93 prices. V See table 48. INDIA: Natioaial Social forestry Project (Cr.1611-lIl) Annex 1: financial aud Ecorioic Re-evaluation Project Coqpletion Report lable 4E. Cujarat: Econwic Analysis - Total Project (Rs million) (Page 1) . ..---...--.------.----.-......-..--.........--..-.---.--..--------..---.. -.. . ---.--..----....---.-..-.-...... .....--...---------...----.-....-------.--.- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 -.. . . ... ... ... ....--...--..... ...--..-.-..... --------.. --.-.... ------.. . ......--.----.-. .-. .---. Costs Establish. cost Farm for. 1 /64.600 78.200 72.900 1I4.300 126.800 135.200 140.200 116.400 35.700 13.200 Opportunity cost of iand 21 10.400 20.300 28.000 44.100 58.500 73.700 90.100 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 Other investment costs 3 A37.630 130.460 170.480 174.300 195.780 2Z2.150 265.040 256.310 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 Total costs 212.630 228.960 271.380 342.700 381.080 431.050 495.340 476.210 152.310 i29.810 116.610 116.610 116.610 enef its farm forestry - - 1.355 5.159 8.933 54.422 100.740 656.644 712.409 644.904 1141.303 1126.394 1165.316 Rehab. of Degraded forest * 0.627 1.357 2.171 3.157 19.523 19.672 31.141 38.340 88.266 89.315 124.549 141.494 Private vastetand * * * 0.831 1.739 2.991 5.270 33.545 38.631 39.222 74.234 42.835 71.297 Camunnity Woodlot * 0.348 0.606 1.549 2.394 21.576 20.148 31.868 39.859 90.799 87.432 109.481 122.309 CD Total benefits - 0.974 3.318 9.710 16.223 98.512 145.831 753.197 829.239 863.190 1392.283 1403.259 1500.417 Met benefits -212.630 -227.986 -268.062 -332.990 -364.857 -332.538 -349.509 276.987 676.929 733.380 1275.673 1286.649 1383.807 , .... ........ . ...... ........... . ....- - -- -,. --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.-----------..... . --------------------------------------------.-----.-----.... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Costs Estabilsh. cost Farm For. . . - - Opportunity cost of land 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 Other investment costs 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.10 13.110 13.110 13.110 Total costs 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 Senefits farm Forestry 1189.629 1039.427 949.858 894.966 806.946 1267.283 1178.919 1167.836 1172.827 833.023 622.205 577.193 424.810 Rehab. of Degraded forest 92.984 148.184 167.958 186.366 83.721 79.962 100.957 110.084 124.841 103.493 100.208 125.792 128.071 Private Wastelasn 72.3K4 95.202 52.912 53.677 68.997 77.496 65.727 87.785 92.689 64.179 29.484 31.100 33.769 Cwmunity Woodlot 99.697 131.893 134.136 133.494 92.423 89.054 108.959 104.549 101.911 90.827 99.337 97.368 85.387 lotal benefits 1454.693 1414.707 1304.864 1268.503 1052.087 1513.794 1454.562 1470.254 1492.268 1091.522 851.233 831.453 672.037 Ret benefits 1338.083 1298.097 1188.254 1151.893 935.477 1397.184 1337.952 1353.644 1375.658 974.912 734.623 714.843 555.427 f ERR * 23.1X. Based on cost Rs4,290 (Year 1), RsI,020 (Year 2) ard Rs7SO (Year 3), adjusted by SCF of 0.8 on farm forestry area at 18X of arnual national area (see lable 4G). Cost of seedling elcluded to avoid double counting. 21 Rsl,000/ha/yr on 60X of farm forestry represented by block planting adjusted by SCf of 0.8. See Tabtle 4f. maintenance cost fi TOA Year 1993/94 at Rs90/ha/yr on non-faim forestry plantations, IX of total civil works and 10% of staff salaries, vehicle operating expenses and office expenses of 1992/93 to continue. INDIA: National Social Forestry Project (Cr.1611-i1) AnneA 1: Financial and Economic Re-evaluation Project Completion Report Table 4E. Gujarat: Econoic Analysis - Total Project (as million) (Page 2) 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3. 37 38 39 40 Costs Establish. cost farm for. - - - - . - . . Opportunity cost of land 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500, 103.500 103.500 103.500 103.500 Other investlent costs 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 13.110 lotal costs 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 enef I ts Farm Forestry 797.259 741.408 744.954 788.984 607.838 240.710 229.785 178.850 326.536 295.063 287.040 294.423 215.229 Rtbab. of Degraded forest 134.912 24.990 39.182 53.484 61.061 24.161 26.239 7.759 10.568 13.366 14.120 1.953 1.025 Private Wasteland 54.673 31.718 54.457 56.616 66.191 21.602 30.364 12.1U 18.500 17.646 19.120 1.767 0.946 Carmn i ty Woodlot 82.386 23.945 29.305 37.583 37.471 11.693 12.637 3.716 4.629 5.686 5.724 - Total benefits 1069.228 822.061 867.898 936.667 T72.561 298.166 299.025 202.490 360.233 331.762 326.003 298.143 217.200 Met benefits 952.618 705.451 751.288 820.057 655.951 181.556 182.415 85.880 243.623 215.152 209.393 181.533 100.590 -116.610 ............-.------...--.-.....-.....---.-..-...-.-..-.......-..-.-..-.--..-..--.-------.------.---..--.---.----...-------. . . ................--...- . . .. .........-.... INDIA: National Social Forestry Project (Cr.1611-1N) Annex 1: Financial and Economic Re-evaluation Project Completion Report Table 4F. Cujarat - Investmcent Costs in finacial aid Ecrmic Terms iRs million) 195-86 19R-81 1987-88 198-89 0 1969-90 - 199-91 | 1991-921 1992-93 Field Activities 95.44 97.41 114.08 149.92 172.24 UL 34 313.67 337.23 CF 0.70 66.81 68.19 79.86 104.94 120.57 159.14 219.57 236.06 Staff Salaries 1.21 1.42 1.38 1.77 2.17 2.26 2.94 4.92 Staff Travellirng Allovances 2.66 0.20 1..40 4.01 5.95 2.83 0.12 0.15 Civil wiorks, 81dg. A Iaint. 0.58 1.12 5.73 3.21 8.87 7. 14.54 4.79 CF * 0.66 0.38 0.74 3.78 2.12 S.85 5.05 9.60 3.16 Vehicles, Furniture A Equip. 0.37 0.55 0.09 1M 1.41 2.09 0.52 0.37 CF * 0.66 0.24 0.36 0.06 0.12 0.93 1.38 0.34 0.24 %0 Vehicle Operating 4 Maint. 4.82 5.05 4.85 4.57 5.42 5.75 6.53 7.40 1 Cf * 0.80 3.86 4.04 3.88 3.66 4.34 4.60 5.22 5.92 Consultancy Services, Studies, 0.45 0.93 1.46 1.19 2.12 2.54 3.26 4.36 Training 4 Research CF * 0.97 0.46 0.90 1.42 1.15 2.06 2.46 3.16 4.23 Office ard Other Expenses - 18.38 - - CF * 0.84 15.4 - Totel firnaial Cost 105.56 106.38 147.27 164.85 198.18 250.47 341.58 359.22 lotal Ecrnic Cost 75.62 75.85 107.22 117.77 141.87 177.72 240.95 254.68 WPI 1.82 1.72 1.59 1.48 1.38 1.25 1.10 1.00 Ecol ic Cost in 1992-93 137.63 130.46 170.48 174.30 195.78 222.15 265.04 254.68 Prices INDIA: National Social Forestry Project (Cr.1611-I1) Arnnex 1: financial and Economic Re-evaluation Project Conpletion Report Table 46. rujarat - Physical Phasing of Plantations (ha) 1985-86 1986-87 1987-M 1988-89 1989-90 1990-911 1991-92 1992-93 | Total Farm Forestry 104,533 101,866 75,466 165,466 152,866 153,666 t-?163,600 122,733 1,040,196 Private Wasteland 3,405 3,721 3,525 7,585 3,523 6,992 7,129 8,208 44,088 C srunity woodlots 3,839 2,932 2,504 3,665 3,262 4,380 5,337 5,549 31,468 Rainfed Corm.anity woodiots 989 659 940 879 867 763 981 811 6,888 Irrigated Tree Fodder - * 130 80 474 285 309 1,278 CovenrrIt wastetlw Plantation - RDF S,804 4,615 5,825 6,973 4,820 8,805 12,880 14,239 63,961 - Others: roadside, 3,243 1,978 2,530 2,769 2,453 2,523 3,186 3,163 21,845 canal, etc. Total Area Planted 121,812 115,771 90,790 187,467 167,871 177,603 193,396 155,012 1,209,724 93 INDEA. National Socal Forestty Project (Cr.1611.IN) Annex 1: Financial and Economic Re-Evaluation Project Completion Report Table 5. Financial Prices (Rs) '/ Unit Rajasthan Uttar Himachal Gujarat I . Pradesh Pradesh Fuelwood: 750 700 - 750 -Conifer mt - - 360 - - Broadleaf mt - - 520 - Stemwood m3 1,125 1,250 800 800 Poles no. 30 35 30 30 Grass mt 200 300 400 450 Leaf fodder mt 850 100 210 - Bamboo pole no. - - - 12 Fruit mt 2,000 2,500 200 2,000 Wage rate person/day 40 25 30 32 Prices represent unit vatues which growers would receive at stuLi; economic price Is derived by tiking 8OX of financial price, using SCF of 0.5. INOIA: Hational Sociat forestry Project (Cr.1611-IN) Annex 1: financial and Econoiic Re-evaluation Project Cotrpletion Report Table 6. Economic Analysis - lotal Project (Rs million) (Page 1) t 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 . ..... ..... ..... .. ...... -- - - --- - - ........ ............. .... .. ....... .......... ..... ....... ... Costs hirrilat Pradosh 77.780 11.7.890 I3 18.950 183.7130 ?04.350 190.2Z0 196.780 213.280 15.790 15.790 'GuJaral 212-630 228.960 271. SiOO 342./01J 31iJ.080 431.050 495.3140 476.210 152.310 129.810 Utt radesi 7B.40u 2it7.900 26I.100 351.900 431.000 497.600 563.800 433.000 398.400 70.100 Rajiahstan 41.7YO 14.1.100 151.100 137.060 1t1.320 224.640 219.810 202.600 34.950 31.830 Total Costs 410.600 806.550 843.130 995.439 1177.740 1343.500 1475.780 1325.080 601.430 24753q \ Benefits '. Himchat Pradesh 0.427 4.135 9.772 16.427 22.936 29.505 120.809 146.495 181.101 Gujarat 0.974 3.318 9.Z10 16.223 98.512 145.831 753.191 829.239 863.190 Uttar Pradesh 0.576 5.147 14.408 22.233 35.348 50.399 1523.380 886.578 994.868 Rajashstaf - 0.010 1.820 12.380 23.530 40.600 53.800 73.470 226.710 lotal Benefits 1.977 12.610 35.710 67.263 180.326 266.335 2451.180 1935.780 2266.460 tlet Benefits -410.600 -804.573 -830.520 -959.729 -1110.480 -1163.180 -1209.450 1126.090 1334.350 2018.930 .................... ------------------------------------------------...... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 15.790 I5 790 15/VO 15.790 15.790 15.790 15.790 15.790 15.790 15.790 llt.t610 116.610 I(.f 10t 116.t.10 116,610 116.610 116.610 116.i'10 116.t.\0 11i .610 tC t(I 5YN901 57.901 5/.vuO 5K.900 51.900 51.900 57.900 51.900 57.900 29.Iit, 29.7I 1 ./30 9 ?9. 730 Z9.7S0 29.7$0 29.730 29.130 29.730 29.730 226.130 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 18e..?60 ??S.954 ?tMl.4w4 271S308 22?.187 234.091 285.071 348.216 343.492 493.945 1 1)'..') u).0i ", It l00.I.Itn 1'..4.6 00 1414.luo 1504.860 1268.500 1052.0110 1513.790 1454.560 14'2. "-. 191t6. 1.1 1942.6YO 1524.940 1//2.700 2265.810 1648.800 1530.050 2071.340 1859.700 u' .250 IW'.250 i331.081) 318.1110 S57.400 28 S.900 34t.790 279.540 340.28iO 175.940 3235.330 3735.560 3984.590 3311.810 3784.990 4093.670 3549.170 3209.900 4268.910 3984.120 EiP P 21.9%. 3609.200 3515.530 3764.560 3091.780 356t.960 3873.640 3329.140 2989.870 4048.880 3764.090 INDIA: National Social forestry Project lCr.1611-IN) Annex 1: financial and Economic Re-evaluation Project Conpletion Report Table 6. Econcic Analysis - Total Project (RS million) ( * Page 2) ....- - . . - - . . . . . . ... - - - - - . .. - . . . .. - . - - . . - . . - - - . . - - - - - - . -. - . - . - - - - . - . . .. - . - - . - - -. - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Costs a Himchal Pradesh 15.790 15.790 15.790 15.790 15.790 15.700 15.790 15.790 15.790 15.790 15.790 15.790 Guiarat 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.6%10 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 416.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 Uttar Pradesh 57.900 57.900 57.900 57.900 51.900 597.9tH 57.900 51.900 /.900 S7.900 JJ61.900 57.900 Rajahstani 29.730 29.J30 29.130 29.7$0 29.730 29.130 29.130 29.730 29.730 29.730 29.730 .29 140 Total Costs 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 t.n Benef its Nimchal Pradesh 452.884 443.638 417.032 367.776 368.231 428.648 415.054 238.910 205.307 225.347 224.414 238.063 Gujarat 1470.250 1492.260 1091.520 851.233 831.453 672.037 1069.220 822.061 867.898 936.667 772.561 298.166 Uttar Pradesh 1I85.080 1260.900 1092.770 1838.640 1175.830 1152.980 1380.440 1300.970 1421.040 907.594 911.531 954.869 Rajashstan 173.560 167.800 232.680 221.250 318.620 273.210 328.500 255.710 260.090 178.720 209.570 160.280 Total Benefits 3981.780 3364.600 2834.000 3278.900 2694.140 2526.880 3193.220 2617.650 2754.330 2248.320 2118.070 1651.370 Net Benefits 3761.750 3144.570 2613.970 3058.870 2474.110 2306.850 2973.190 2397.620 2534.300 2028.290 1898.040 1431.340 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... ... ... .... . ... ... ... .... ........ ... . . . . .. . ... ... -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - 15.790 15.790 15.790 15.790 15.790 15.790 15.790 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 116.610 57.900 57.900 57.900 57.900 57.900 57.900 57.900 29.730 29.730 29.730 29.730 29.730 29.730 29.730 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.030 220.130 220.030 220.030 220.528 276.608 234.575 255.211 250.731 274.813 lh.504 299.025 202.490 360.233 331.?62 326.003 298.143 217.200 702.483 677.424 9J3.242 981.021 937.210 601.319 475.911 18o.110 155.160 209.80 155.110 2?6.330 145.250 103.300 146S.140 1312.380 1707.730 1723.100 1740.270 1319.520 969.915 1248.110 1092.350 1487.690 1503.070 1520.240 1099.490 749.885 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - -.....- - - - - - - - - - - -...... .. . .. INOIA: National Social forestry Project (Cr.1611-IN) Annex 1: linancial and Economic Re-evaluation Project Conpietion Report Table 7. Sensitivity Analysis PRFSFNl VALUES OF NEI SIREAMS Al A OISCOUNI RAIE Of 12X aT uP 10% UP 20% uP 5OX DOWN IOX DOWN 20X DOWN 5OX LAG 1 YEAR LAG 2 YEARS LAG 3 YEARS CTOT 5809.7 6,956.7 8,10317 11.544.8 4,662.7 3,515.7 74.6 4, 580. -' 3,483.5 2,503.8 up IOX 5,243.6 6,3-20.7 7,537?. 10,978.8 4,096.6 2,949.6 -491.6 4,014.7 2,917.4 1,937.7 up 20% 4,677.6 5,824.6 6,971.6 10 412.7 3,530.6 2,383.5 -1,057.6 3,448.6 2,351.4 1.371.6 uP 50% 2,979.4 4'126.4 5'275.4 8,714.5 1'832.4 685.3 -2,755.8 1,750.4 653.2 -326.7 DOON 10% 6,375.8 7,522.8 8,669.8 12,110.9 5,228.7 4,081.7 640.6 5,146.8 * 4,049.5 3,069.8 DOWN 20% 6,941.8 8,088.9 9,235.9 12,677.0 5,794.8 4,647.8 1,206.7 5 712.9 4,615.6 3,635.9 DOWN 50% 8,640.0 9,787.0 10,934.1 14,375.1 7,493.0 6,345.9 2,904.9 7,411.0 6, 313:8\ 5,334.0 LAG 1 YEAR - - - 5,187.2 4,090.0 3,110.2 LAG 2 YEARS - - - 4,631.5 3,651.8 LAG 3 YEARS - - * - 4, 135.2 INIERNAL RATES Of RETURN OF NET STREAMS SlOT UP 10% UP 20% tiP 5OX DOWN 10% DOW\II 20% DOWN 50% LAG I YEAR LAG 2 YEARS LAG 3 YEARS C70T 21.843 23.350 24.767 28.588 20.230 18.492 12.164 19.187 17.157 15.546 Up 10% 20.382 21.841 23.21? 26.923 18.8118 17.133 10.984 17.955 16.089 14.600 UP 20X 19.087 20.507 21.843 25.446 17.567 15.928 9.931 16.858 15.133 13.751 UP 50% 15.928 17.249 18.492 21.843 14.511 12.981 7.319 14.156 12.763 11.634 DOWN 10% 23.512 25.071 26.538 3u.488 21.84.3 20.044 13.505 20.586 18.366 16.613 DOWII 20% 25.446 27.066 28.588 32.686 23.712 21.843 15.055 22.197 19.752 17.831 DOUN SO% 33.925 35.799 37.557 42.275 31.915 29.744 21.843 29.156 25.666 22.985 LAG I YEAR - - . - - - 21.843 19.187 17.157 LAG 2 YEARS - - - - - - - - 21.843 19.187 LAG 3 YEARS - . 21.843 Internal Rates of Return of Net Streams NltTOT 21.85% SwITCHING VALUES AT 12% APPRAISAL SWITCHING PERCENtAGE StREA1 VALUE VALUE CIIAIIGE 8S0T 11,470.20 5,660.59 -50.65% C1OT 5,660.59 11,470.20 102.64% ... .. .... ..... ............................................. Net Present Valuc at OCC 12% = 5,809.7 Internal Rate of Return 21.9% ^r ---r,n F e i. -I - - - .; I , . * '" INDIA: National Social Forestry Project (Cr.1611.IN) Annex 1: Financial and Economic Re-Evaluation Project Completion Report Table 8. Per Hectare Yield Estimates of Major Species Planted Under the Project Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh Himachal Pradesh GuJarat MAI Rotation MAI Rotation HAI Rotation HAI Rotation l______________________ (mt) (years) (mt) (years) (mt) (years) (mt) (years) 1. Species Ailanthus sps. 4.5 15 - - Casuarina sps. - - - - 5.5 10-15 Conifers: - - - 1.3 80-120 - - P. roxburghii P. wallichiana C. deodara Dalbergia sissoo 2.5 15 5 15 1.9 15 3.2 12-15 Eucalyptus sps. 4.5 8-10 6 8 3.5 10 6.3 8 Fuelwood and fodder 2 10-15 5 10-12 3.2 10-15 3.5 10-12 Poplar sps. - - 6 8 3.5 10 - - Teak (Tectona grandis) - - 6.6 40-80 - - 6.0 40-80 I. Other Products Bamboo. 2 culms per clump per year from Year 6. Branchwood - % to 3 kg/tree/yr (Ber - fruit) - 2 to 6 kg/tree/yr Fruit (general) - 2 to 5 kg/tree/yr Grass - 1 to 3 mt/ha/yr Leaf fodder - 5 to 2 kg/tree/yr Seed pods - S to 3 kg/tree/yr I These include: Acacias. Albizzia. Bauhinia. Melia. Prosopis. etc. Note: In general. SAR plantation model felling and harvest schedules have been adhered to. Pole - 0.044 m3/pole. 1 m3 - 0.63 mt.