Integrated Safeguards Data
Sheet (Initial)
Section I - Basic Information
Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 02/13/2002
A. Basic Project Data (from PDS)
I.A.1. Project Statistics
Country: INDIA Project
ID: P073094
Project: ANDHRA PRADESH COMMUNITY
FOREST MANAGEMENT Task Team Leader: Irshad A. Khan
Authorized to Appraise Date: February 7, 2002 IBRD Amount ($m):
Bank Approval: May 16, 2002 IDA Amount ($m): 106.32
Managing Unit: SASRD
Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan (SIL)
Status: Lending
Sector: AT - Forestry
Theme: Personal and property rights (P); Social risk reduction (P); Civic engagement, participation and community
driv (S); Rural services
and infrastructure (S); Biodiversity
(P)
I.A.2. Project
Objectives (From PDS):
Project Development Objectives. The project development objective is to
reduce rural poverty through
improved forest management with community
participation. A
specific outcome of this objective would
be for
the poor and primarily
tribal forest-dependent communities to assume
full responsibility for the
development and maintenance of forest areas
formally placed under their stewardship.
As communities
assume management
responsibility under the
system of Community
Forest Management
(CFM)
supported by this project, they will receive
legal entitlement to incomes generated from both non-timber
and timber forest products.
I.A.3. Project Description (From PDS):
The project
will be implemented
in 14 districts (Adilabad, Nizamabad, Mahbubnagar, Medak,
Khammam, Warangal, Karimnagar, East Godavari,
Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram, Srikakulam, Chittoor,
Cuddapah
and Nellore). with high poverty
incidence distributed
in the forested northern, coastal and
southern belts with a total of 3.86 m ha
of forest land (50 percent of which is open forest or scrub). The
three main components to be financed
by the project
include (a) enabling
environment for CFM, (b)
forest management, and (c) community development.
(a) Enabling
environment for CFM.
(US $ 22.13
Million). The project
would support policy
and institutional
changes and capacity
building both of
the government, community
organizations and NGOs. The existing
institutional framework
for the joint forest
management would be reviewed and modified to make it
more conducive to implementing
community
based forest management (CFM). The
Government Order dated
December 6,
1996 and other related Government Orders
and guidelines will be reviewed
and replaced by
a new comprehensive Government Order providing
rules, procedure and process for CFM. A
draft institutional reform matrix has been discussed with GOAP which would be
one of the
main bases
for creating an
enabling environment. The project would support
project
management, monitoring and evaluation, studies
and consultancies, Project Monitoring Unit,
staff amenities, communication facilities
etc.
(b) Forest
Management. (US
$ 79.42 Million) This component
would focus on improving
2
ISDS
productivity of designated forest lands through
improved planning and silvicultural practices,
introduction of Non-Timber Forest Products
(NTFP) using multiple
use shrub and
tree
species
including medicinal plants, agroforestry,
common land afforestation,
fodder and
pasture development. The project would also support adaptive forestry
research, inventory,
an environmental
and pest management
plan, and development
of forest management
information system that would support project
management.
(c) Community
development. (US
$ 24.13 Million) The focus
of this component would be to
help the
communities in improving
their village infrastructure and livelihood
opportunities
through forest as well as non-forest based
income generation activities. The project support
would be
available for limited
community infrastructure development in the Vana
Samrakshana Samithis (VSS) villages, where no other agency is
extending such assistance,
with a view to foster a sense of unity within
the village. A tribal
development plan would
be
an integral
subcomponent aiming at
improving the livelihood
of the tribal
communities. A
resettlement action plan would include mitigation
measures for adverse impacts,
if any, due
to the
project on the
livelihoods of the
local people. The
Project will also finance
NGO
support, women community volunteers and preparation of micro plans.
I.A.4. Project Location: (Geographic location,
information about the key environmental and social
characteristics of the area and population
likely to be affected, and proximity to any protected areas, or
sites
or critical natural habitats, or any other
culturally or socially sensitive areas.)
The project is located in the State of Andhra
Pradesh in south-eastern India.
Andhra Pradesh is the fifth
largest State in terms of geographical area
as well as forest area in the Country
The forest resources in
the State, as elsewhere in the Country, are put to excessive
use and exploitation
and, therefore,
suffer
from degradation and denudation, resulting
in poor socio-economic conditions and quality of life. Nearly
43% of the state area with 30% of the total
population, is drought-prone.
Nearly 70% of the cultivated area is rain-fed.
Erratic rainfall and low water table are the limiting factors
for intensive
agriculture. The marginal returns and low yields
have induced farmers
to expand their
agricultural holdings into areas of very
poor potential, aggravating the problem of soil erosion. Most of
the rural people are under-employed and,
hence, the low per capita income and consequent poverty.
The project seeks to empower forest dependent
communities to undertake the management and protection
of forests in 14 districts and covering 3.86
million ha. of forest land in Andhra Pradesh. Majority of the
beneficiaries of the project belong to
tribal communities living in
fringes of the forest
areas. While no
physical displacement is envisaged under
the project, some of the families dependent on forest land for
their livelihood may be affected due to project
activities.
No culturally or socially sensitive areas
are included in the project area.
B. Check Environmental Classification: B (Partial Assessment)
Comments: The proposed project activities are expected
to generally have positive environmental and social
impacts and no major adverse environmental
or social impacts are anticipated.
Any potential environmental
impact is expected to be small, localized
and easily manageable within existing environmental codes or
practices. The project is classified as B and a combined Environmental and
Social Assessment has been
conducted to develop various management options.
C. Safeguard Policies Triggered (from PDS)
3
ISDS
(click on
for a detailed desciption or click on the
policy number for a brief description)
Policy Applicability
Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01,
GP 4.01) Yes
Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04)
No
Forestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36)
Yes
Pest Management (OP 4.09) Yes
Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) No
Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) Yes
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
Yes
Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37) No
Projects in International Waters (OP 7.50,
BP 7.50, GP 7.50) No
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60,
GP 7.60)* No
Section II - Key Safeguard Issues and Their
Management
D. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues. Please fill in all relevant questions. If
information is not available,
describe steps to be taken to obtain necessary
data.
II.D.1a. Describe any safeguard issues and
impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and
describe any potential large scale, significant
and/or irreversible impacts.
The key social and environmental concerns
in the forest sector identified
were: (i) shifting cultivation in
forest areas;
(ii) forest encroachment;
(iii) unsustainable exploitation of fuelwood;
and (iv) grazing of
domestic
livestock. In terms of the
proposed project interventions,
the SEA argues that environmental
impacts
from the proposed forest
management operations
and community development
are
overwhelmingly positive and any negative impacts
are likely to
be very insignificant, site-specific and
easily managed by proper surveillance, design
and monitoring of project investments.
Specific measures
are identified
in the SEA for
enhancing the potential positive benefits and mitigation
any risks arising
from project
interventions. No irreversible
adverse impacts are
anticipated. Since the
project is
community driven, most of the safeguard issues
are expected to be resolved through discussions within
the community during the microplanning process.
II.D.1b. Describe any potential cumulative
impacts due to application of more than one safeguard policy or
due to multiple project component.
Given the nature of the project design, in
that planning and implementation of project activities will be
done at
a site-specific level, no significant
cumulative adverse
environmental and social impacts
are
expected. To ensure potential
benefits are achieved,
special attention will be
focused in the
microplanning and monitoring processes to
capture such benefits.
II.D.1c Describe any potential long term impacts
due to anticipated future activities in the project area.
No potential
significant long-term adverse impacts are anticipated in
the project area. Potential positive
impacts
of the project may include
sustainable forest resource management,
improvement in village
amenities and better inter-departmental linkages.
II.D.2. In light of 1, describe the proposed
treatment of alternatives (if required)
The key project alternative approaches (from
various perspectives) as well as a brief analysis of the with
and without project scenarios is presented
below:
4
ISDS
|
Alternatives
|
Strengths / potential benefits
|
Shortcomings/ potential risks
|
|
Traditional forestry
|
Primary objective was management of timber
resources
|
Environmental and social oncerns
did not receive attention. Biotic interference continued to degrade
the forests
|
|
Social forestry
|
Pressure on state owned forests for meeting
requirement of pulp for forest based industries, small timber
and firewood for general public likely to be eased. Optimum
utilization of waste lands. Small and marginal farmers targeted.
|
Pressure on forests by local communities
for their domestic and livelihood
not addressed. Activities too scattered to have impact. No holistic approach to management of forests. Activities were
planned and managed with little sustainability considerations
|
|
Joint Forest
Management
|
Improvement in forest density
and quality. Community
participation leading to better
appreciation of forestry issues
and better management of
forests. Targeted to forest
dependent and vulnerable
groups
|
Forest management driven more by
economic considerations. May not
be sustainable in long run.
Productivity issues inadequately
addressed. Community ownership
concerns. Initiatives not fully
instutionalized and dependent
heavily on local leadership.
|
|
Community Forest
Management
|
Holistic development of all
natural resources. Improved
environmental management.
Increased forest productivity.
Sustainable management of
forest and other natural
resources. Environmental and
social management plans
integrated into planning at the
village level.
|
Potential conflicts in big and
heterogeneous VSS. Still
untested
|
|
Without Project
Scenario
|
|
Continued degradation of forests,
acceleration in run off, and increase
in soil erosion; limited recharge of
ground water; Inadequate fuel wood
and fodder supply; limited
availability of NTFP;
Greater biodiversity loses; Less
sustainable forest management;
Poverty among the forest dependent
communities not likely to be
addressed; Limited community
empowerment; Limited women's
empowerment; Increase in
incidence of conflicts
|
II.D.3. Describe arrangement for the borrower
to address safeguard issues
To assess the environmental impacts, APFD
has prepared a Social and Environmental Assessment (SEA)
for the project which is consistent with
O.P. 4.01 and the GOI’s environmental assessment policies. An
5
ISDS
environmental management plan, pest
management plan, R&R
policy and plan
and tribal development
plan were prepared as part of the SEA.
In terms of the forestry OD, the project will promote community
management of forests and improved environmental
protection. GOAP state-wide
forest strategy is
aimed at
sustainable management
of forests. Policies and
institutional capacity will
be further
strengthened to promote, manage, monitor
and implement the strategy. In terms of the natural habitats
OD, the project will not support any significant
conversion or degradation of natural habitats. Specific
screening
mechanisms would be adopted
during project implementation
to assess and
avoid any
potential adverse impact on natural habitats
as part of the microplanning process at the VSS level and for
mitigation any impacts.
In terms of pest management, the project
will not finance purchase of pesticides. The use of pesticides
in
forestry
practices in Andhra Pradesh is
currently limited to
forest nurseries
(where they are used
in a
limited way for treating leaf defoliators)
and in areas infested with termites.
However, pest and pesticide
management issues relevant to the project were addressed in the SEA and a pest management plan has
been developed as part of the SEA to ensure
that project supported activities in forestry and agriculture
are consistent with the state’s own ongoing
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan. Recommendations
on Integrated
Pest Managment
generated by the Indian
Council of Forestry
Recearchand Education
(ICFRE) will also be incorporated. The pest management plan identifies
activities to be implemented
under the project, including training, capacity-building
and demonstrations in IPM.
Resettlement: The most
important safeguard
issue to be addressed
under the project
relates to
involuntary resettlement. Although
the project does
not involve physical
displacement, or new
land
acquisition, encroachment of forest area
is a major issue. During planning and implementation of Micro
plan at
VSS level, efforts will be
made to minimize
negative effects of
the project on the local
population, including encroachers,
dependent on forest
lands for their
livelihood. Given the history
of
encroachment in the state and
the experiences
of the previous project, the present
project does not
envisage
that all encroachers will surrender their encroached
land. However, efforts under the
project
would be
to persuade, through educating
them on the ill
effects of forest
lands encroached,
and
encourage them to surrender such lands and
arrange for their alternate livelihood. However, there will be
no forcible taking over of land for project
activities. Guidelines to document the process of surrendering
encroached forest lands have been
developed. Where people
are not willing
to surrender encroached
forest land,
they will be arranged
to take up
agroforestry in such
lands with agreement
on sharing of
benefits with the VSS. Based on the findings
of the Social and Environmental Assessment (SEA) carried
out for
a sample of VSS areas,
GOAP has prepared
a Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy and
Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for
the project as
envisaged under OD
4.30. The RAP
contains
mitigation measures to ensure
that those affected are assisted, at least, in
restoring their livelihoods
to
existing levels. A model RAP has also been
prepared for one VSS area and such RAPs will be prepared
for each of the VSS covered under the project
and involve resettlement.
Indigenous (Tribal) people: The indigenous peoples policy
applies in this project.
The percentage of
‘indigenous peoples’ referred as tribals
is approximately 8% in the fourteen project districts with sizable
difference between districts. Nearly half
of the VSS proposed to be covered under the project have more
than 50% population as tribals. The main
objectives of the project in relation to tribal population are
to
help ensure that potential benefits of the project are accessible to tribal communities in VSS areas and
that fresh
sources of social
and economic imbalances
are prevented. Based on the SEA
and the
consultations conducted, GOAP has prepared
a Tribal Development
Plan (TDP). The
plan identifies
issues related
to tribals under the project and the strategies
to address these issues.
Broadly, the TDP
under the
project will help
that indigenous
peoples are (i) effectively
represented in project-related
decision-making; (ii) provided wage employment
on priority basis (iii)
assisted to improve
their skill
6
ISDS
base for
income generation
activities and (iv) able
to access local
markets, institutional credit and
services
and on-going Government
schemes for their socio-economic
development. GOAP has
also
prepared a model TDP which will serve as
a base for the local VSS communities to prepare VSS level
TDP.
These plans
would be mainstreamed into the
development of the
detailed VSS level Micro
plan that
would be developed by each VSS with the facilitation
of the forest
department, NGOs, VSS Advisory
Council and others. These microplans, that would be agreed with
the APFD, would be implemented by
the VSS.
They would identify
specific activities that should be implemented
for improving
the
socio-environment condition
in the village and avoiding associated
risks and indicate
specific
responsibilities for their implementation and monitoring. In addition,
during project implementation,
environmental screening of proposed investments
will be carried
out at the
microplanning level
facilitated by NGO/CO and APFD field-level
staff to develop customized
mitigation or enhancement
strategies as part of the plan.
A detailed
monitoring and evaluation
framework and indicators
have been developed
to enable
mainstreaming of environmental and social
objectives and safeguards into project decision-making. The
monitoring framework envisages both internal
and external monitoring of the
project, including
social
and environmental
aspects. A four
stage participatory M&E system is
proposed: (i) input
and output
monitoring (physical and financial);
(ii) process monitoring;
(iii) performance monitoring;
and (iv)
impact assessment/evaluation.
Environmental indicators include such
aspects as impact
on water
sources, ground water, soil and moisture
regimes, soil and nutrient components, run-off, changes in land
cover and use, species richness and diversity,
etc. In terms on the impact
on forest resources, changes in
fuelwood dependency, control of grazing and
changes in population of domestic livestock, encroachment,
village
hygiene conditions, common property
resource conditions,
etc. would be monitored.
Social
indicators include livelihood status
of forest dependent families, village infrastructure, involvement
of
vulnerable groups, etc. Appropriate institutional
arrangements have also been made to adequately address
these issues. Capacity-building and study/M&E activities have also been incorporated
to strengthen and
facilitate this process and build
a better information
base for management. The use of GIS, remote
sensing, photography and effective surveys
as tools have been stressed - their use for environmental and
social development management will be mainstreamed
into the proposed Forest Management Information
System.
The Project Monitoring Unit will be overall
responsible for the monitoring. The PMU will be supported
by a Conservator of Forests (Monitoring)
and support staff, for overseeing the monitoring aspects of the
project. Computerized monitoring
packages will be
developed covering all
project components
and
activities and will be installed at different levels (in the
field and through to
head-office). Monitoring
would be undertaken at different levels,
such as (i) at the VSS level, monitoring would be undertaken by
the VSS management committee, NGO/Community Organization (CO), WCO
and APFD field-level
staff. ;
(ii) at the Divisional level monitoring will be undertaken by
the DFO, FRO (focusing on social
issues) and Divisional level Forest Committee;
(iii) at the District level monitoring would be through the
DFO, FRO and District level Forest Committee;
and (iv) at the State level through
the PMU and State
level Forest Committee. In addition, an external agency will be engaged
to monitor and evaluate project
activities.
II.D.4. Identify the key stakeholders and
describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on
safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially
affected people.
The key project stakeholders are the members
of the VSS that have already been created under a previous
project.
The more progressive of these VSS have been identified
for this follow-on activity to give them
7
ISDS
more forest
management rights and
responsibilities. Another key stakeholder is the Forest Department,
which this
project seeks to
further reform, modernize and make even more client-oriented.
In addition,
there are a number of other stakeholders
including NGOs, private sector, academia and other government
agencies that have been consulted as part
of the project preparation. A
strong mechanism for consultation
has also been developed in the project as
part of initial awareness and PRA activities.
The SEA
was undertaken
through a stratified
random sampling approach and
conducted through a
participatory process involving various community
stakeholder groups, including
forest dependents,
encroachers, (VSS) and local level
NGOs, wherever they
were present.
A number of participatory
techniques were employed, including Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), Focus
Group Discussions,
individual interviews and interactions, joint
walks in forest with villagers.
Data was also collected from
local governmental
and district officials
and academics. The interim report was
discussed at two
state-level workshops and three regional
consultation meetings with stakeholders,
including NGOs and
civil society. All these consultations contributed toward project design. It is anticipated that APFD will
continue
to work and consolidate
its relationship with NGOs
and civil society
that were so
actively
engaged
in the previous project. These organizations
will be involved
in facilitating local community
participation in the proposed project at
the VSS level.
Although a number of consultations have been
held on various aspects of the project with many
stakeholders, the consultations on environmental
and social aspects are as follows:
The first
consultation on Social
and Environmental Assessment
report held on a.
September
06, 2001 at Dullapally.
The participants in the Workshop include
Forest Department officials, NGOs, World
Bank representatives.
The second consultation on Social and Environmental
Assessment report held on b.
September 12, 2001 at Tirupathi. The focus
of the Workshop was on the content
and coverage of and presentation style of
the report from regional
setting point
of view (NIRD). The Workshop was attended
by 46 officials and executives of
Forest Department, NGOs and VSS.
The third one-day consultation on Social
and Environmental Assessment report
c.
held on
October 19, 2001 at
Mancherial. The Workshop was attended
by 60
delegates consisting of Forest Officers,
NGOs and VSSs closely associated with
management of forest.
The fourth one-day consultation on Social
and Environmental Assessment report
d.
held on
October 22, 2001 at Rajahmundry.
The Workshop was attended by
60
delegates consisting of Forest Officers,
NGOs and VSSs closely associated with
management of forest.
The final
consultation Workshop held at
APFA Dullapally, on November
02, e.
2001. In
this Workshop, 35 delegates consisting of Forest Officers,
NGOs and
VSSs closely associated with management of
forest.
After the field study of VSS is over in each
district a meeting was held with the
f.
Forest Department,
NGOs, VSS members
and line departments
and financial
institutions. The districts covered for
the study were: Khammam, Srikakulam,
Visakhapatnam, Medak and Chittoor as follows:
E. Safeguards Classification (select in SAP). Category is determined by the highest impact
in any policy.
Or on basis of cumulative impacts from multiple
safeguards. Whenever an individual safeguard policy is
triggered the provisions of that policy apply.
8
ISDS
[ ] S1. – Significant, cumulative and/or irreversible impacts; or significant
technical and institutional risks
in management of one or more safeguard areas
[X] S2. – One or more safeguard policies are triggered, but effects are
limited in their impact and are
technically and institutionally manageable
[ ] S3. – No safeguard issues
[ ] SF. – Financial intermediary projects, social development funds, community
driven development or
similar projects which require a safeguard
framework or programmatic approach to address
safeguard issues.
F. Disclosure Requirements
Environmental Assessment/Analysis/Management
Plan: Expected Actual
Date of receipt by the Bank 1/21/2002
Date of “in-country” disclosure 2/7/2002
Date of submission to InfoShop 2/8/2002
Date of distributing the Exec. Summary of
the EA to the Executive
Directors (For category A projects)
Resettlement Action Plan/Framework: Expected
Actual
Date of receipt by the Bank 1/21/2002
Date of “in-country” disclosure 2/7/2002
Date of submission to InfoShop 2/8/2002
Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework:
Expected Actual
Date of receipt by the Bank 1/21/2002
Date of “in-country” disclosure 2/7/2002
Date of submission to InfoShop 2/8/2002
Pest Management Plan: Expected Actual
Date of receipt by the Bank 1/21/2002
Date of “in-country” disclosure 2/7/2002
Date of submission to InfoShop 2/8/2002
Dam Safety Management Plan: Expected Actual
Date of receipt by the Bank
Date of “in-country” disclosure
Date of submission to InfoShop
If in-country disclosure of any of the above
documents is not expected, please explain why.
Signed and submitted by Name Date
Task Team Leader: Irshad A. Khan 02/07/2002
Project Safeguards Specialists 1: Mohammed Hasan
Project Safeguards Specialists 2: Malcolm Jansen
Project Safeguards Specialists 3: Nagaraja Rao Harshadeep
Approved by: Name Date
Regional Safeguards Coordinator: L. Paneer Selvam 02/13/2002
Sector Manager Jeeva A. Perumalpillai-Essex 02/13/2002
9
ISDS
Comments
Jeeva A. Perumalpillai-Essex signed in her
capacity as Acting Sector Director
Peter Jipp signed in his capacity as Co-TTL
on behalf of Irshad Khan