Environmental review of activities and investments under the GEF India Ecodevelopment Project (IEP) was the specific component of the consultancy assignment for the project “Protected Area Management Guidelines and Training including Regional Planning and Regulation” awarded to WII.

The following are the specific tasks that were required to be accomplished under the consultancy assignment for this component:

• Examine the activities and investments proposed for implementation under India Ecodevelopment Project in all seven sites and conduct evaluation of their likely environmental impacts.
• Develop criteria for conducting environmental assessment for activities proposed within the project.
• Develop capacities of site managers for conducting environmental assessment during the implementation phase of the IEP.
• Assist in the conduct of training for MPO and other team members.
• Submit inception, interim, draft final and final site report as per agreed time schedule.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF ACTIVITIES AND INVESTMENTS UNDER THE GEF ECODEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Task Background

As is evident from the stated objectives of IEP, this project would promote activities that would be generally desirable in the wider environmental context and would therefore have no major environmental implications. It is on the same premise that IEP has been classified as a ‘B’ category project according to the Bank’s Operational Directive 4.01 (Environmental Assessment). These projects include small scale infrastructure improvement and development projects and investment proposals. The environmental impacts of such projects are generally considered less significant, not as sensitive, numerous, major or diverse as those of projects included in category ‘A’ that include major infrastructure and investment projects that are likely to have significant irreversible impacts.

The Bank’s environmental policy, considers the environmental assessment as a major operational tool for incorporating sustainability in the Bank funded projects. Considering the size, location and sensitivity of issues, the Operational Directives for environmental assessment recommend application of differential scales of EIA for projects in different categories. While a full EIA is recommended for all ‘A’ category projects, ‘B’ category projects are only subjected to environmental reviews. Accordingly the environmental review of the activities and investments proposed under IEP in all the seven sites (Buxa Tiger Reserve, Gir National Park and Sanctuary, Palamau Tiger Reserve, Pench Tiger Reserve, Periyar Tiger Reserve, Rajiv Gandhi (Nagarhole) National Park and Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve) was conducted under this consultancy assignment.

Methodological Approach

Based on an extensive review of current methodologies (Kessler, 2000; Khadka, et al., 2000; Partidario and Clark 2000) available for conducting environmental reviews and based on the personal experience of conducting environmental review of the activities proposed in the Project Preparatory Facility (PPF) phase of the IEP in three sites, (Rajvanshi, 2001), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) emerged out as a most appropriate planning tool for application in environmental review of the IEP. The strengths of this approach are that it refines the scope of project level assessment, rejects the most damaging alternative, ‘funnels’ EIA to less damaging alternatives and recommends the need for full EIA when necessary. A still more convincing reason for adopting SEA as an assessment tool is that it has been well tested as a review tool at the earlier stages of planning actions (policies, plans and programmes) in donor funded rural development schemes, integrated environmental conservation projects, resource conservation planning initiatives and biodiversity conservation projects in several countries like Indonesia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal in the region (ADB 1997, ADB 1998, Khadka et al., 2000).

Process overview

The primary step in site-specific environmental review of IEP was the acquisition and synthesis of relevant information about the activities, policies and programmes proposed under IEP for both habitat improvement and management and for village ecodevelopment in each site and the environmental, ecological and biodiversity profile of the site. The compilation of the above information for all the Protected Areas (PA) designated as IEP sites was accomplished through: (i) Referencing of the documented information available for each site. The documents that were of particular reference to this task were the PA Management Plans both old and recent and those available as draft plans awaiting approval, micro plans prepared by the state forest departments for the identification of village ecodevelopment activities, research publications, technical reports prepared by PA ecologists in some sites, status papers on implementation of IEP in different sites, biodiversity status reports and proceedings of the national level workshops on regional planning and conservation of PA under IEP organized during the period of project implementation (ii) Consultation with officials of the state forest departments, resource managers and other PA staff, researchers and PA ecologists appointed under the Project in different sites, (iii) Participation in formal and informal discussions and workshops involving PA managers and other staff, NGOs, village communities, elected members of village communities, project beneficiaries and site consultants under the project team of WII (iv) Personal observations made during visits to some Project sites both in the PPF phase and during the currency of this assignment.

It could be established from the above information sources that most activities proposed for improved PA management are largely for improvement and restoration of degraded habitats, development of soil and water conservation measures, up-gradation of roads and other PA infrastructure, refinement in protection measures and enhancement in conservation awareness among the people. The strategies proposed for village ecodevelopment are largely for promoting biomass substitution, watershed management, improved productivity of pastureland and fodder plots and alternative income generating opportunities.

The subsequent steps in SEA involved the scrutiny of the proposed plans and programmes to screen activities that may have evident direct or indirect environmental impacts. A set of key indicators (Fig.1) was used to define the environmental (physical, biological and social) dimensions of proposed activities. These key indicators are consistent with the World Bank’s categories of indicators for ecosystem responses to habitat changes and biotic pressures; evaluation of biodiversity resource status, socio economic features and the implications of PA management (World Bank, 1996 & 1999). These indicators could be related to predetermined benchmarks and be applied to different PAs.

The SEA process captured the significance of each activity and programme in promoting the PA and local benefits that would ultimately aid in the conservation of PA values. The difficulties, assumptions and the social and philosophical traditions underlying the implementation of certain activities were also considered in the assessment of the project. The results of the environmental review of the proposed investments and activities under the IEP are presented below for each site.