India - Ecodevelopment Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. P6953IN MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT ACTING AS IMPLEMENTING AGENCY OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS ON A PROPOSED IDA CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 19.5 MILLION AND GEF TRUST FUND GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 13.9 MILLION TO INDIA FOR THE ECODEVELOPMENT PROJECT August 3, 1996 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 he disclosed without World Bank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS Currency Unit = Rupees (Rs.) US$1.00 = Rs.35.1 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES The metric system is used throughout this report. ABBREVIATIONS DEA Department of Economic Affairs CAS Country Assistance Strategy EDC Ecodevelopment Committee GEF Global Environment Facility GOI Government of India GOS State Government ICB International Competitive Bidding IDA International Development Association JFM Joint Forest Management MOEF Ministry of Environment and Forestry NCB National Competitive Bidding NGO Non-Governmental Organization NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product PA Protected Area PPF Project Preparation Facility PTO Project Tiger Office PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal SFD State Forest Department TOR Terms of Reference UNDP United National Development Program GOVERNMENT FISCAL YEAR April 1 to March 31 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY India: Ecodevelopment Project Credit and Project Summary Borrower: India, Acting by its President Implementing Agencies: GOI Ministry of Environment and Forestry and State Forest Departments of Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and West Bengal Beneficiaries: Globally important protected area ecosystems and people in and around these areas Credit Amount: IDA Credit of SDR 19.5 million (US$28 million equivalent) Terms: Standard, with 35 years maturity Financing Plan See table in Schedule A Fund Advance Terms: From GOT to state governments as part of central assistance to the states through MOEF for development assistance on standard terms and conditions applicable at the time Grant Amount: Global Environment Facility (GEF) Grant of SDR 13.9 million (US$20 million equivalent) Terms: Grant Financing Plan See table in Schedule A Poverty Category: Program of Targeted Interventions The project's human beneficiaries, tribal peoples, and forest fringe villagers, belong to the poorest sections of society. About 39 percent of the beneficiaries are tribal. Tribal development concerns are integrated under the rubric of social impact, participation, and equity, rather than as a subsidiary tribal development plan or component. The project also incorporates specific measures to safeguard the interests of the landless and women Environment Category: Program of Targeted Interventions - globally significant biodiversity Economic Rate of Return Cannot be quantified 14914-TIN StaffAppraisal Report Report No. 14914 BIN Project ID Number NPA36062; I NGE9584 Vice President: D. Joseph Wood Director: S Heinz Vergin Division Chief: Shawki Barghouti Task Manager: Jessica Mott This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official dudses. Its contents may not oherise be disclosed wiLhout World Bank authorization.  MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION AND OF THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT ACTING AS IMPLEMENTING AGENCY OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS ON A PROPOSED IDA CREDIT AND GEF TRUST FUND GRANT TO INDIA FOR THE ECODEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1. I submit for your approval this memorandum and recommendation on a proposed IDA Credit for SDR 19.5 m (US$28 million equivalent) and a GEF Trust Fund Grant to India for SDR 13.5 m (US$20 million equivalent) to help finance the Ecodevelopment Project. 2. The Chief Executive Officer of the GEF has endorsed the project pursuant to paragraph 30 of the Instrument for the Establishment of the Restructured Global Environment Facility. 3. The proceeds of the Credit would be advanced to the seven states participating in the project, under standard arrangements for developmental assistance for centrally sponsored schemes in India. Under current policies and regulations of Government of India (GOI), fund advances take the form of 100% grant. GOI would assume the foreign exchange risk. 4. The proposed project would conserve biodiversity in seven globally significant protected areas (PAs) using ecodevelopment. This is a strategy to increase collaboration between local people and government managers of PAs, as well as to otherwise improve PA management. The project would also include support for preparing future biodiversity projects. Background 5. Biological Significance. India's biodiversity is rich, often unique and increasingly endangered. India is one of the twelve megadiversity countries in the world, that collectively account for 60-70 percent of the world's biodiversity. Its ten biogeographic zones represent a broad range of ecosystems. 6. Economic Importance. India's biological resources are economically important, both globally and nationally. Many species of crop plants found worldwide and their wild relatives originate on the subcontinent. Plants are an important source of medicines. Medicinal plants and other non-timber forest products are particularly important as a source of income and subsistence for tribal populations. Closed primary forests, which cover six percent of the total land area, have been an important source of timber and fuelwood. Natural ecosystems strongly influence natural resource development and also affect water resource management. 7. Protected Areas. India has 75 parks and 421 sanctuaries, covering some 14 million hectares (i.e., 4.3 percent of the total land area). Some protected areas have few or no human inhabitants, while others have small communities with significant human populations in the aggregate. Village economies on the peripheries of these protected areas are based on long- established sedentary agricultural systems. 8. Pressures. The biodiversity in India's forest, grassland, wetland and marine ecosystems faces many pressures. These include grazing cattle, cutting of trees for fuel and timber, and gathering non-timber forest products, hunting, uncontrolled fires and conversion for and spillover from agricultural, infrastructure, industrial, and commercial development (e.g., pollution, siltation, and weed infestation). India's high levels of human population density and growth, high incidence of poverty, and large numbers of livestock speed the degradation. Local people, when traditional 2 rights and access are limited by the establishment of PAs, often have little incentive to use natural resources in a sustainable way. Government Strategy 9. Biodiversity Conservation. India's strategy for biodiversity conservation reflects extensive analysis and significant, continuing commitment. The Government of India ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1993; recent government policy and program initiatives correspond to the aims of the Convention. India's Environmental Action Plan, published in 1993, lists "conservation of and sustainable utilization of biodiversity in selected ecosystems" as one of the top seven priorities for future action, and specifically cites ecodevelopment. The National Wildlife Action Plan (1983) identified the following broad goals: (a) to extend the existing network of protected areas; (b) to develop appropriate management systems for protected areas, with due regard for the needs of local people and ensure their support and involvement; (c) to protect biodiversity within multiple-use areas; and (d) to extend conservation efforts beyond protected areas. 10. Interaction Between Protected Areas and Local People. During the past twenty years, state governments, with national assistance, have developed an extensive protected area network backed with strong forest department enforcement. During this period, governments' approach to local people has sometimes been confrontational and has had significant impacts, mostly negative, on the tribal populations resident within PAs and the sustainability of the PA program. 11. Community Participation in Forest Management. Now the government is recognizing the historic, current and potential role of local communities. The initial government effort to increase community participation was focused on joint forest management of forests officially designated for local or commercial harvest. 12. Ecodevelopment and Protected Areas. Using the ecodevelopment strategy to foster participatory management, the government is now beginning to address the special threats to biodiversity in protected areas. Ecodevelopment aims to conserve biodiversity by addressing both the impact of local people on the protected areas and the impact of the protected areas on local people. Ecodevelopment thus has two main thrusts: improvement of PA management and involvement of local people. 13. Existing Ecodevelopment Programs. To date, programs for supporting PA/local community linkages have been limited and small scale. Using domestic financing, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MOEF) has initiated a centrally sponsored scheme with an annual average value of about US$1 million in recent years, which is distributed to dozens of PAs. In these programs, the linkage between village ecodevelopment investments and conservation actions has generally been implicit rather than through explicit reciprocal commitments. Government initiatives have usually employed traditional top-down approaches to project planning and implementation, even when the programs have embraced the principle of a more participatory approach. Detailed guidance on participatory processes has been lacking until now. The Bank has financed five forestry projects that have biodiversity conservation components and include village ecodevelopment investments associated with protected areas. Implementation of these ecodevelopment programs is only beginning. 14. Institutional Capacity. Funding for PA management has been limited but more adequate than in most developing countries and government at both the state and national levels takes its 3 responsibilities seriously. PA management plans exist but need updating and PA management activities need to be better integrated into the broader ecological, sociological, and regional sphere. Project Preparation 15. Lessons Learned from Past Projects. The above and other projects dealing with conservation, forestry, and rural/urban development have all highlighted the following priorities: (a) the importance of: linkage between economic investments and conservation; (b) maintaining project size within realistic, achievable limits; (c) involving disadvantaged groups in participatory resource management; (d) using contractual agreements between government entities and local communities; (e) assessing incentives for beneficiaries; (f) avoiding numerical physical output targets and top-down planning; (g) using participatory rural appraisal (PRA) exercises and cost sharing arrangements to increase ownership, appropriateness, and sustainability of investments; (h) using existing organizational structures and skilled specialists; (i) developing transparent and verifiable monitoring to ensure accountability; (j) disbursing funds to states in response to past performance and work plans that meet clear criteria; (k) specifying a clear identity and mandate, designated full-time staff, and adequately delegated financial and administrative powers for the central coordinating unit. The design of the Ecodevelopment Project proposed here has already built on the conceptualization and participatory planning of the earlier programs. The specialized attention that preparation of the Ecodevelopment Project has received has already produced detailed written guidelines that are being applied to programs already in progress. 16. Project Preparation. Preparation for the proposed project has emphasized client ownership, local participation, and public consultation. MOEF prepared the project with the assistance of professional institutes, NGOs and state forestry departments, and financing from the UJNDP/GEF Preinvestment Facility. Bank staff and foreign consultants provided limited periodic comments and advice. The preparation team applied rural appraisal techniques and indicative planning based on a sampling of local people's views on biodiversity issues. 17. Project Preparation Facility Advance. In January, 1995, in response to a request from GOI, the Bank provided a US$2 million Project Preparation Facility (PPF) Advance. The Department of Economic Affairs countersigned the PPF agreement letter in March, 1995, but the flow of funds began only in December 1995. In order to meet the condition of appraisal by May, 1995, government agencies, NGOs, and other organizations that prepared essential reports spent their own resources in anticipation of eventual reimbursement by the PPF. In addition to providing funds for completing project design prior to project appraisal, the advance is expected to finance village ecodevelopment activities, consultancies needed to develop detailed guidelines and arrangements, office equipment, training and workshops in preparation for project startup expected in October 1996. A portion of the IDA credit would be used to refinance the advance. The initiation of negotiation of the Ecodevelopment Project is contingent on many conditions associated with the PPF including guarantees that GOI and state governments have begun to implement the activities required for a timely and full-scale startup to the project and have demonstrated their capacity to meet project administration requirements. Project Objectives and Description 18. Overall Objectives. The proposed project would conserve biodiversity by implementing the ecodevelopment strategy in and around seven PAs. It would also include support for preparing future biodiversity projects. 4 19. Specific Objectives and Project Content. The proposed US$67 million project would be implemented over a five-year period from January 1997 through December 2001 and would comprise the following components: (a) Improved PA management (US$14 mln. - 22 percent of the base costs). Specialist advice, studies, workshops (with associated travel costs), training, and staff would achieve the following: (i) enhanced capacity to improve PA management plans and incorporate PA concerns into regional planning and regulation; (ii) protected ecosystems and habitats within the PA by restoring of ecosystems and habitats; controlling fire, poaching, and animals; and managing enterprise and visitor enclaves; (iii) upgraded PA amenities for field staff (b) Village ecodevelopment (US$34 mln. - 55 percent of the base costs) These resources would reduce the negative impact of local people on biodiversity and increases their collaboration in conservation through (i) participatory microplanning and implementation support; (ii) reciprocal commitments that foster alternative livelihoods and resource uses to be financed by a village ecodevelopment program; (iii) special programs to support additional joint forest management in reserve forests in the immediate vicinity, develop the voluntary relocation option for people in the PAs, and provide other supplemental investments through a discretionary reserve for PA managers to allocate to areas with special needs (c) Education & cavareness and impact monitoring & research (US$5 mln. - 8 percent of the base costs). To develop more effective and extensive support for PA ecodevelopment, the project would (i) promote public support for conservation through environmental education and awareness campaigns, improved visitor managment, and ecotourism; (ii) use impact monitoring and research to improve understanding of issues and solutions relevant to PA management and interactions between PAs and people (d) Overall project management (US$- 5 mln. 9 percent of the base costs) (e) Preparation offuture biodiversity projects (US$2 mln. - 4 percent of the base costs). These comprise the Second Ecodevelopment Project, Biodiversity Information Project, and Genetic and Ex-situ Conservation Project () Reimbursement of the Project Preparation Facility (US$2 mln. - 3 percent of the base costs.) Implementation Arrangements 20. Participatory Microplanning. Concurrently with its implementation, the project would use a dynamic, ongoing, micro-level planning process to define village ecodevelopment commitments. Teams consisting of PA staff and local NGO staff (and including women) would meet with communities in and around the PAs to assess and resolve negative impacts of community and PA interactions. These teams would use specially focused participatory rural appraisal techniques to facilitate detailed village-level planning of a village ecodevelopment program. These teams would take special care to ensure that women, tribal groups, and other disadvantaged people participate in the planning process and benefit from the agreed program. PA-level ecologists, social scientists, and other specialists would provide advice and review the 5 proposed microplans to ensure that they met eligibility criteria. National-level specialists would also review proposals presenting new or difficult issues. 21. Reciprocal Commitments. Reciprocity between PA management and local people would reside in the mutual quid pro quo of (a) investments that foster alternative livelihoods and resource uses and (b) specific measurable actions by local people to improve conservation. PRA surveys in sample communities in and around the PAs have enabled the project preparation teams to identify an indicative list of possible ecodevelopment investments and actions to improve conservation. 22. Organizational Responsibilities. Project management would use and build upon existing forest department, inter-agency, NGO, and community organizational structures, modifying them where necessary to ensure autonomy, flexibility, and accountability. The project would use a budget constraint mechanism and a contribution requirement to ensure local community ownership of the alternative livelihood investment. State governments, through their PA authorities, would be responsible for field level project execution. At the national level, the project would need strong coordinating support to provide overall project integration. 23. Staffing. The staffing plans generally rely on increasing the productivity of existing staff already based in the PAs. However, in some cases the state governments propose to redeploy a limited number of departmental staff who currently are based outside the PAs and not now working in the wildlife sections of the forest departments, and to create new contractual positions. 24. Financial Arrangements. Project plans include arrangements for: (a) provision of IDA and GEF funds as an additionality, (b) timely and reliable transfer of funds to the project areas, (c) annual review of work plans and budget adjustment, (d) provision of adequate and timely counterpart budgets, (e) delegated authority for expenditures and. (f) studies of possible new revenue sources (e.g., tourism earnings, trust fund, other donor support). Project Costs and Financing 25. Costs and Financing. Costs are currently estimated at US$67 million (Rs.2888 million). An IDA credit would provide US$28 million (Rs. 1196 million), a Global Environment Facility grant would cover US$20 million (Rs.863 million), the national and state governments would finance US$14 million (Rs.625 million), and the local people would finance a notional US$5 million (Rs.205 million), mainly through labor contributions. The IDA and GEF financing would be allocated on a pro-rata basis to all components except for the preparation of future biodiversity projects (and the reimbursement of the US$2 million IDA Project Preparation Facility), which would be financed solely by IDA. Expenditures for project activities not already eligible for PPF financing, incurred after December 31, 1995, would be eligible for financing up to up to a maximum of SDR 1.4 million (US $2 million equivalent) from IDA and SDR 1.4 million (US$ 2 millioin equivalent) from GEF. See Schedule A (Cost and Financing) and Schedule B (Procurement Methods and Disbursement). Rationale for GEF and IDA Funding 26. Rationale for GEF Involvement and Incremental Costs. The proposed project is fully consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the GEF Council guidance. The GOI has identified ecodevelopment as a national priority in the biodiversity action plans and policy statements (see paragraph 5). The project would address urgent global biodiversity conservation needs and in this megadiversity country, would conserve biodiversity in seven critical areas,. One 6 of the seven areas, Gir, has the world's only population of Asian lions. The other six project sites support vital populations of tigers, one of the world's most endangered carnivores. In combination, these sites give good biogeographic and habitat coverage (e.g., dry deciduous open forests, semi-evergreen forests, moist deciduous open forests and wet evergreen forests). The level of threats to biodiversity in the seven sites is high and requires a substantial effort on an urgent basis. The analysis of incremental costs in accordance with GEF guidelines shows baseline costs of US$19 million and incremental costs of US$48 million that would be financed by GEF and IDA. The Government of India realizes that, in view of the scale of external funding required, it cannot expect to receive a GEF grant sufficient to cover the entire incremental cost of the global alternative. However, it is so strongly committed to the objectives of the project that it is willing to borrow up to US$28 million of IDA resources to cover 58 percent of the incremental cost. A GEF grant of US$20 million would cover the remaining 42 percent of the incremental cost. 27. Country Assistance Strategy. The Bank's country assistance strategy (CAS) for India dated May 1995 explicitly encourages Bank and GEF financing of ecodevelopment as an important way for the Bank to support biodiversity conservation. The CAS mentions that such financing would build on the Bank's support for recent forestry projects. The project would also act on CAS concerns by enhancing participation, involving NGOs, and increasing women's role in managing productive resources. The project also would implement the new approaches to conservation outlined in the Bank's 1991 Forest Sector Policy. These approaches incorporate local people into PA management activities, benefit sharing, and planning, and emphasize consideration of the needs and welfare of forest-dwelling people. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Project Performance Review 28. Impact Monitoring and Project Performance Review. The project includes both permanent impact monitoring and limited duration project performance review integral to project management. Both programs would provide feedback and accountability to assist in problem- solving and project adjustment. The performance reviews would incorporate findings from impact monitoring and research component to the extent these are available, but would mostly have to rely on shorter-term "proxy" measures of project inputs, outputs, and processes. Process would be measured by the extent to which the project follows its design specifications. Project Impacts and Justification 29. Sustainability. By enabling forest departments to share conservation responsibilities with local communities, the project would improve the PAs' chances of long-term survival. Successful implementation of project processes and incentives that would ensure this sharing will therefore be crucial. Sustainability would also depend on the design of administrative arrangements, and on maintaining the momentum of the ecodevelopment approach. The use of permanent organizational structures, and the preclusion of external financing for government staff salaries would contribute to sustainability. Efforts to increase public support for PAs, to provide tangible measures of project benefits and to explore the potential of trust fund financing and other revenue, would increase prospects for more adequate long-term financing from a variety of sources. 30. Environmental Aspects. This project would have a highly beneficial environmental impact. The main goal of the project is to conserve critical biodiversity in seven selected PAs. Adverse impacts would be minimal because all infrastructure investments would be small and labor-intensive. In order to measure project success, the project monitoring would include close 7 review of the ecological impact of the project, beginning with carefully designed and reliable baseline studies. 31. Tribal Groups, Women and Disadvantaged People. The project would operate in a setting where the previous establishment of PAs and changes in forest use have already significantly and negatively affected the livelihoods of tribal groups living in and around the protected areas. The establishment of PAs has also negatively affected women (who, for example, harvest most of the non-timber forest products) and poor and landless households in the vicinity of the PAs. The project would facilitate participatory decisionmaking on changes in practice to benefit conservation and to help offset past negative impacts of PAs on people. 32. Tribal Concerns Integral to Project Design. Consistent with the Bank's Operational Directive 4.20, the project would integrate tribal concerns rather than relegate them to a subsidiary tribal development plan or component. Site-specific planning and monitoring would address concerns of legal and usufruct rights and status, traditional economies, cultural use of natural resources, livelihood strategies, ability to adapt to new sites and economies, attitudes toward conservation, and social distribution of proposed project investments and benefits foregone. 33. People in the PAs. All seven PAs have people living within the PA boundaries. Most live in areas where human settlement is allowed. People living in the PAs have already experienced losses and without the project they would face very limited and bleak options. At the same time, population pressures are adversely affecting PA conservation. To address and ameliorate existing conditions, SFDs and some PA residents have started discussions on the possibility of voluntary relocation. These discussions indicate a strong demand for relocation but the number of potential participants is not yet clear. (Initial impressions indicate that it would be between 700 and 4,000 people.) The project would provide support for a participatory process to plan and implement "voluntary relocation". Relocation under the project would be "voluntary" in the sense that it would be driven by the wishes of local people. Planning would take place in the context of options that would not involve relocation. Relocation would be to lands on the periphery of the PAs, rather than to distant, non-forest lands. The forest department would not cause or carry out involuntary relocation in the project areas. All voluntary relocation planning and implementation associated with the project would be consistent with applicable Bank guidelines, and implementation would require prior Bank approval. In addition to providing support for voluntary relocation, the project would include special efforts to identify and provide village ecodevelopment investments (subject to eligibility criteria) for people who do not wish to relocate. Benefits and Risks 34. Benefits. The project would conserve globally significant biodiversity in the seven PAs and develop capacity for increased conservation in the future. The project would slow, halt, or even reverse declines in richness, complexity, diversity, connectivity, and regeneration of ecosystems and species. Specifically, it would: (a) Broaden the focus of PA management planning, restore ecosystems, improve fire and poaching control, and improve staff efficiency and effectiveness (b) Enable communities to meet their needs in an environmentally sustainable manner, reduce unsustainable uses of PA resources, offset negative economic and cultural impacts of PAs on local communities. and resolve conflicts 8 (c) Provide a firmer base of public support for PAs and increase understanding of PA biodiversity, local people, and their interactions; (d) Provide the technical review, administrative and financial services necessary for quality control, accountability, adaptive management, improvement of the long- term framework, dissemination, integration, and overall timeliness of project implementation (e) Produce a portfolio of biodiversity project proposals eligible for GEF, IDA, and other donor consideration. The project planning processes provide for continuing, participatory consideraton of alternative investment options and their comparative costs and benefits throughout the project period. 35. Risks. The project has significant risks. The degree of risk varies according to the extent of innovation in each component. The village ecodevelopment component has the highest level of risk, both because it uses novel planning processes and because there is little hard data on the impact of comparable programs. The environmental education component is the least risky. In spite of the risks, the project should proceed because of the importance of conserving biodiversity, the critical role of local people in conservation, and the potential of this project to provide the foundation for long-term solutions to India's challenging problems. 36. Risk Factors. Significant risk factors include: (a) pressures of population growth, poverty, and commercial interests; (b) dangers of unrealistic expectations; (c) time and commitment required to achieve participation and trust; (d) limitations in implementation capacity (both supply of technical expertise and experience with process-oriented design); (e) inadequate management support. 37. Measures to Address Risk Factors. Although it is not possible to fully address problems of population growth, poverty, and commercial interests, the project includes activities, institutional mechanisms, and a legal covenant designed to address regional issues. To curtail risks of the project being associated with and blamed for negative trends and unmet needs, project objectives clearly emphasize "reduction" not "elimination" of negative impacts, project preparation has included extensive efforts to communicate project objectives, and monitoring assessment criteria would further specify realistic expectations. To encourage government commitment to participation, the project would allocate financing according to a review of work plans and progress reports and avoid a blueprint approach. The detailed specification organizational responsibilities, administrative structures, staffing plans, contracting arrangmements, and continuing planning and adjustment processes would help to ensure adequate management support. Actions Completed Prior to Negotiations and Agreed During Negotiations 38. Actions Completed Prior to Negotiations. Prior to negotiations, the central and state governments: (a) finalized staff plans, (b) established a steering committee and implementation board, (c) drafted government orders for village ecodevelopment. They also (a) provided sufficient staff to handle PPF activities, (b) contracted or were in the process of contracting consultants (including NGOs) required for implementation of PPF activities, and established a time-bound plan for contracting consultants (including NGOs) to be hired during first year of the project, and begun action on that plan, (c) were in the process of contracting works and goods financed by PPF and established a time-bound plan for contracting works and goods required 9 during first year of the project, and begun action on that plan, (d) established channels acceptable to IDA for flow of funds, (e) and submitted a framework for impact monitoring, a format for progress reports, and a list of project performance benchmarks. 39. Other Assurances Agreed at Negotiations. The Bank obtained assurances that the government would: (a) ensure adequate staffing and staff continuity, (b) select NGOs to be contracted in accordance with agreed criteria, (c) comply with Bank procurement guidelines, (d) ensure full use of training, (e) implement PA management activities in accordance with project guidelines, (f) implement village ecodevelopment in accordance with project guidelines and submit first three microplans in each PA for approval by IDA, (g) implement project management activities in accordance with arrangements agreed with IDA, (h) submit work plan, budget proposals, and progress reports in accordance with project guidelines, (i) use performance monitoring indicators agreed with IDA, (j) in pursuing the objectives of the project, not cause or undertake involuntary resettlement in the project PAs, (k) ensure that activities outside the scope of the project would not undermine effective biodiversity conservation within the project PAs and would not undermine the implementation of the ecodevelopment strategy in and around the PAs, (1) implement a program for people living within the PAs, including voluntary relocation, in accordance with project guidelines, and (in) ensure that project activities would not erode the customary tenure rights of tribals living in the project areas. 40. Recommendation. I am satisfied that the proposed Credit would comply with the Articles of Agreement of the Association and the proposed Grant would comply with the provisions of Resolution No. 94-2 of the Executive Directors relating to the restructuring and replenishment of the Global Environment Facility. I recommend that the Executive Directors approve the Credit and the GEF Grant. James D. Wolfensohn President by Gautam Kaji Attachments Washington DC August 3, 1996  Schedule A Page 1 of I India Ecodevelopment Project Estimated Costs (Rs. Lakch) (US$ -000)% % Total Foreign Base Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Exchange Costs A. Improved PA Management Planning Processes 367.2 1.1 368.3 1,046.1 3.2 1,049.3 - 2 Ecosystem Protection and Management 3,644.1 490.5 4,134.6 10,382.2 1,397.4 11,779.5 12 19 Amenities for Field Staff 342.1 38.0 380.1 974.6 108.3 1,082.9 10 2 Subtotal 4,353.4 529.6 4,683.0 12,402.9 1,508.9 13,911.7 11 22 B. Village Ecodevelopment Participatory Micro-Planning and Implementation Support 1,681.7 119.2 1,801.0 4,791.3 339.7 5,131.0 7 8 Investments to Implement Reciprocal Commitments 7,703.7 405.5 8,109.2 21,948.0 1,155.2 23,103.1 5 37 Special Programs 1,868.2 94.4 1,962.6 5,322.5 268.9 5,591.4 5 9 Subtotal 11,253.7 619.1 11,872.7 32,061.7 1,763.8 33,825.5 5 55 C. Develop Effective and Extensive Support for Ecodevelopment Conduct Environmental Education and Awareness Campaigns 316.9 78.0 394.9 902.9 222.1 1,125.1 20 2 Improve Impact Monitoring and Research Systems 1,186.7 72.8 1,259.6 3,380.9 207.5 3,588.5 6 6 Subtotal 1,503.6 150.6 1,654.5 4,283.9 429.6 4,713.5 9 8 D. Project Management 1,784.8 67.4 1,852.2 5,084.8 192.0 5,276.8 4 9 E. Prepare Future Biodiviersity Projects 573.1 245.6 818.8 1,632.8 699.8 2,332.6 30 4 F. Reimbursement of PPF 659.9 42.1 702.0 1,880.0 120.0 2,000.0 6 3 Total BASELINE COSTS 20,128.5 1,654.6 21,783.1 57,346.1 4,714.1 62,060.2 8 100 Physical Contingencies 567.4 57.9 625.3 1,616.5 165.0 1,781.5 9 3 Price Contingencies 5,939.6 530.4 6,470.0 2,774.5 383.8 3,158.3 Total PROJECT COSTS 26,635.5 2,243.0 28,878.5 61,737.1 5,262.9 67,000.0 8 108 Financing Plan (US$ '000) International Development Project State Government of Association GEF Trust Beneficiaries Governments India Total Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount % A. Improved PA Management Planning Processes 562.1 562.1 - 9.0 4.7 1,137.8 1.7 Ecosystem Protection and Management 2,910.2 2,910.2 - 5,709.1 1,409.2 12,938.7 19.3 Amenities for Field Staff 491.8 491.8 9 - 245.9 1,229.5 1.8 Subtotal 3,964.0 3,964.0 - 5,718.1 1,659.8 15,30610 22.8 B. Village Ecodevelopment Participatory Micro-Planning and Implenentation Support 1,701.8 2 ,667.1 - . 050.4 214.9 5,634.3 8.4 Investments to Implement Reciprocal Commitments 10,019.8 7,395.1 4,585.8 - 2,459.1 24,459.8 36.5 SpecialPrograms 3,019.8 2,260.6 - - 711.3 5,991.6 8.9 Subtotal 14,741.4 11,322.7 4,585.8 2,050.4 3,385.3 36,085.7 53.9 C. Develop Effective and Extensive Support for Ecodevelopment Conduct Environmental Education and Awareness Campaigns 501.1 501.1 - 98.5 157.9 1,258.7 1.9 I mprove Impact Monitoring and Research Systems 1,813.9 1,813.9 - 204.5 103.2 3,935.5 59 Subtotal 2,315.0 2,315.0 -8 303.0 261.2 5,194.2 7.8 D. Project Management 2,398.2 2,398.2 - 986.4 50.1 5,832.8 8.7 E. Prepare Future Biodiviersity Projects 2,581.4 - -- - 2,581.4 3.9 F. Reimbursement of PPF 2,000.0 - -,000 3.0 otal Disbursement 28,000.0 20,000.0 4,585.8 9,057.9 5,356.4 678OOO.0 1000  Schedule B Page 1 of 2 India Ecodevelopment Project Amount and Method of Procurement (US$ '000) Procurement Method International Local Competitive Competitive Consulting Bidding Bidding Other Services N.B.F. Total Civil works - 440.9 6,990.7 - - 7,431.5 (176.3) (2,796.3) (2,9726) [176.3] [2,796.3] [2,972.61 Vehicles - - 750.6 - - 750.6 (300.2) (300.2) [300.2] [300.2] Furniture & equipment 329.7 - 1,585.4 - - 1,915.2 (131.9) (634.2) (766.1) [131.9] [634.2] [766.1] Ecodevelopment fund - - 30,471.4 - - 30,471.4 (13,050.7) (13,050.7) [9,632.0] [9,632.0] Consultancies, studies and training - - 9399 11,182.4 - 12,122.3 (469.9) (5,591.2) (6,061.1) [469.9] [5,591.2] [6,061.1] Supervision travel - - 669.9 - - 669.9 (268.0) (268.0) [268.0] [268.0 Recurrent costs - - - - 9,057.9 9,057.9 Project preparation - - 258.1 2,323.2 - 2,581.4 (258.1) (2,323.2) (2,581.4) PPF - - 200.0 1,800.0 - 2,000.0 (200.0) (1,800.0) (2,000.0) Total 329.7 440.9 41,865.9 15,305.6 9,057.9 67,000.0 (131.9) (176.3) (17,977.4) (9,714.4) - (28,000.0) [131.9] [176.3] [14,100.5] [5,591.2] - [20,000.0] Note: Figures in parenthesis are the respective amounts financed by the International Development Association Figures in square brakets are the respective amounts financed by the GEF Trust Schedule B Page 2 of 2 Summary Disbursement Schedule IDA Disbursement Category Amount Percentage of Expenditure (S '000) Civil works for building and roads 2,700 40% Equipment, vehicles, non-motorized transport and materials, except for 1,000 50% of foreign expenditures, 50% of local ex-factory those financed through the village ecodevelopment investment program costs or 40% ofother local costs Small-scale field equipment and associated running costs, materials, 13,000 50% of local costs livestock, and labor financed through the village ecodevelopment investment program in accordance with procedures acceptable to IDA Consultants (including NGOs) services, training, workshops, meetings, 4,000 50% publication contracts and contract staff , excluding the preparation of future biodiversity projects Project management travel 300 40% Consultants (including NGOs) services, training, workshops, meetings, 2,000 100% publication contracts and contract staff for preparation of future biodiversity projects. Project Preparation Facility 2.000 Unallocated 1,300 GEF Disbursement Category Amount Percentage of Expenditure (S million) Civil works for building and roads 2,700 40% Equipment, vehicles, non-motorized transport and materials, except for 1,000 50% of foreign expenditures, 50% of local ex-factor those financed through the village ecodevelopment investment program costs or 40% of other local costs Small-scale field equipment and associated running costs, materials, 9,600 37% of local costs livestock, and labor financed through the village ecodevelopment investment program in accordance with procedures acceptable to IDA Consultants (including NGOs) services, training, workshops, meetings, 5,700 50% publication contracts and contract staffa , excluding the preparation of future biodiversity projects Project management travel 300 40% Unallocated 700 Estimated IDA and GEF Disbursements (US$ millions) FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 Annual IDA 0.6 2.5 5.3 8.1 6.7 4.8 Cumulative IDA 0.6 3.1 8.4 16.5 23.2 28.0 Annual GET 0.0 1.8 4.0 5.2 5.8 3.2 Cumulative GET 0.0 1.8 5.8 11.0 16.8 20.0 Includes payments for travel and subsistence of government staff to workshops and meetings, honoraria for external specialists and facilitators, and contracts with NGOs. cIncludes payments for travel and subsistence of government staff to workshops and meetings, honoraria for external specialists and facilitators, and contracts with NGOs. Schedule C Page 1 of 1 India Ecodevelopment Project Timetable of Key Project Processing Events Time taken to prepare project: 30 months, from 1/92 to 6/94 Prepared by: Government of India with assistance from GEF/UNDP First IDA mission: October/November 1994 Appraisal mission: May 1995 Negotiations: July 15-19, 1996 Planned date of effectiveness: December 31, 1996 Relevant PCRs and PPARs: Not applicable The long delay between appraisal and negoatiations was due to difficulties in PPF fund flow and lack of familiarity with Bank consultant contracting procedures. This report is based on participatory preparation work performed by local people, state and national government officials, NGOs staff, and researchers. It reflects a project that is Indian in conceptualization and design, as appraised by a mission comprised of Jessica Mott (Task Manager), Jose Furtado, Malcolm Jansen, and Ajith Kumar (Environmental Specialists), Gordon Temple (Economist), V.P.S. Verma (Forester), Gabriel Campbell and Nandita Jain (Social Scientists), and M.S.S. Varadan (Institutional Specialist). Chona Cruz (Social Scientist) drafted Annex 4. Theodosia Karmiris, Padma Gopalan, and H. Bhavani provided secretarial support. Jenepher Moseley provided editorial assistance. The peer reviewers were Narpat Jodha (Social and Economic Issues), Gisu Mohadjer (Project Management) and Susan Shen (Environment). The GEF external technical reviewers were Thomas Mathew (WWF-USA) and Amy Vedder (NYZS Wildlife Conservation Society). Shawki Barghouti (Division Chief, SA2AW) and Heinz Vergin (Director, SA2DR) provided managerial oversight.  SCHEDULE D Page 1 of 5 Status of Bank Group Operations in India IBRD Loans and IDA Credits in the Operations Portfolio As of 6/30/96 Original amount in USS millions Difference between expected Project Loan or Fiscal Cancel- Undis- and actual ID Credit No. Year Purpose IBRD IDA lations bursed disbursements' Number of Closed Loans/Credits: 351 Active Loans IN-PA-10361 C21730 1991 ICDS I (ORISSA & AP) 96.00 21.65 34.69 35.75 IN-PA-10369 C22340 1991 MAHARASHTRA RURAL WS 109.90 70.24 61.65 IN-PA-10381 L33640 1991 GAS FLARING REDUCTION 450.00 29.16 29.16 IN-PA-10387 C23000 1992 HEALTH I (MCH) 214.50 25.52 5.48 IN-PA-10390 C23280 1992 MAHARASHTRA FORESTRY 124.00 96.33 29.64 IN-PA-10391 C23410 1992 WEST BENGAL FORESTRY 34.00 13.13 2.82 IN-PA-10393 C23500 1992 AIDS PREVENTION & CONTROL 84.00 54.08 36.67 IN-PA-10400 L34980 1992 MAHARASHTRA POWER 11 350.00 253.95 163.65 IN-PA-10407 C24330 1993 ADP - RAJASTIIAN 106.00 65.03 11.74 IN-PA-10408 C24390 1993 BIHAR PLATEAU 117.00 99.89 40.58 IN-PA-10410 C24490 1993 RENEWABLE RESOURCES 115.00 107.75 178.19 IN-PA-10411 C24500 1993 JHARIA MINE FIRE CONTROL 12.00 8.96 8.44 IN-PA-10416 L35770 1993 PGC POWER SYSTEM 350.00 244.36 123.16 IN-PA-10418 C24830 1993 KARNATAKA WS & ENV/S 92.00 83.38 32.47 IN-PA-10422 L36300 1993 PRIVATE POWER DEVT TA 20.00 19.60 19.60 IN-PA-10423 L36320 1993 NTPC POWER GENERATION 400.00 348.32 308.32 IN-PA-10424 C25280 1993 NATL LEPROSY ELIMINATION 85.00 63.08 24.68 IN-PA-10448 C25720 1994 FORESTRY RESEARCH EDUC. 47.00 39.12 13.09 IN-PA-10449 C25730 1994 ANDHRA PRADESH FORESTRY 77.40 70.22 10.77 IN-PA-10455 C26110 1994 BLINDNESS CONTROL 117.80 111.52 9.15 IN-PA-10457 C26300 1994 POPULATION IX 88.60 85.22 6.77 IN-PA-10461 L39070 1995 MADRAS WATER SUP II 275.80 269.81 9.27 IN-PA-10463 C26450 1995 INDUS POLLUTION PREV 25.00 24.57 21.39 IN-PA-10463 137790 1995 INDUS POLLUTION PREV 93.00 88.00 -5 00 IN-PA-10463 L37806 1995 INDUS POLLUTION PREV 50.00 50.00 IN-PA-10464 C26610 1995 DISTRICT PRIMARY ED 260.30 237.26 17.25 IN-PA-10476 C27450 1995 TAMIL NADU WRCP 282.90 249.82 15.16 IN-PA-10480 C27630 1996 BOMBAY SEWAGE DISPOSAL 25.00 11.67 13.68 IN-PA-10480 L39230 1996 BOMBAY SEWAGE DISPOSAL 167.00 167.00 2.20 IN-PA-10484 L40560 1996 UP RURAL WATER 59.60 59.60 IN-PA-10485 C27740 1996 HYDROLOGY PROJECT 142.00 125.85 -4.00 IN-PA-10489 C26630 1995 AP IST REF. HEALTH S 133.00 128.80 11.31 IN-PA-10503 C26990 1995 AGRIC HUMXN RES DEVT 59.50 54.96 4.86 IN-PA-10506 C27000 1995 MP FORESTRY 58.00 52.24 -0.76 IN-PA-10522 C27330 1995 ASSAM RURAL INFRA 126.00 114.78 IN-PA-10529 C28010 1996 ORISSA WRCP 290.90 266.56 -14.32 IN-PA-10563 L38560 1995 FINANCIAL SECTOR DEV 35000 200.00 -150.00 IN-PA-10563 L38576 1995 FINANCIAL SECTOR DEV 144.00 144.00 IN-PA-10563 L38580 1995 FINANCIAL SECTOR DEV 200.00 200.00 IN-PA-34162 C25940 1994 MAHARASHTRA EARTHQUAKE REHAB. 246.00 178.58 62.15 IN-PA-35170 L40140 1996 ORISSA POWER SECTOR 350.00 350.00 IN-PA-35821 C28760 1996 DISTRICT PRIM EDUC 2 425.20 420.29 IN-PA-35825 C28330 1996 STATE HEALTH SYS II 350.00 33932 5.00 IN-PA-39935 C28380 1996 ILFS-INFRAS FINANCE 5.00 4.90 IN-PA-39935 L39920 1996 ILFS-INFRAS FINANCE 200.00 200.00 IN-PA-43310 C28620 1996 COAL ENV&SOCIAL MIT. 63.00 62.39 IN-PA-9860 C21310 1990 WTRSH PLAINS 55.00 34 25 13.05 SCHEDULE D Page 2 of 5 Original amount in USS millions Difference between expected Project Loan or Fiscal Cancel- Undis- and actual ID Credit No. Year Purpose IBRD IDA lations bursed disbursements' IN-PA-9869 L30240 1989 NATHPAJHAKRI HYDRO 485.00 273.65 236.95 IN-PA-9870 L37530 1994 CONTAINER TRANSPORT 94.00 82.79 26.79 IN-PA-9872 C19230 1988 TAXIIL NADU URBAN 300.20 45.47 57.47 99.85 IN-PA-9877 C22410 1991 DAM SAFETY 130.00 113.12 99.46 IN-PA-9882 C21000 1990 WTRSHED HILLS 75.00 41.59 34.90 IN-PA-9885 L32580 1991 PETROCHEMICALS 12.00 8.80 8.58 IN-PA-9885 L32590 1991 PETROCHEMICALS 233.00 70.30 41.11 -121.59 IN-PA-9888 L34360 1992 POWER UTIL EFFIC IMP 265.00 169.68 111.38 IN-PA-9890 C21150 1990 HYDERABAD W/S 79.90 40.11 24.60 IN-PA-9893 C16210 1986 MAHARASHTRA IRRIG. 1 160.00 31.18 9.71 -17.99 IN-PA-9895 C20640 1990 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPME 55.00 36.25 28.11 IN-PA-9895 L31190 1990 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPME 145.00 10.00 38.59 48.59 IN-PA-9898 C20100 1989 UPPER KRISHNA PHASE II 160.00 16.65 9.19 IN-PA-9898 L30500 1989 UPPER KRISHNA PHASE 11 165.00 120.00 45.00 165.00 IN-PA-9906 C22520 1991 IND POLLUTION CONTROL 31.60 28.44 26.35 IN-PA-9906 L33340 1991 IND POLLUTION CONTROL 124.00 45.29 -3.81 IN-PA-9910 C20570 1989 FAMILY WELFARE TRAINING .- 113.30 40.54 27.77 68.18 IN-PA-9921 C23290 1992 SHRIMP & FISH CULTURE 85.00 81.51 51.77 IN-PA-9925 L28450 1987 TALCHER THERMAL 375.00 79.90 34.31 114.21 IN-PA-9932 C21580 1990 SECOND TN NUTRITION 95.80 28.28 21.44 24.33 IN-PA-9940 C21330 1990 POP. TRAINING (VII) 86.70 22.74 19.46 36.54 IN-PA-9941 L30960 1989 MAHARASHTRA POWER 400.00 46.00 178.34 203.14 IN-PA-9946 C23650 1992 NAT. HIGHWAYS II 153.00 113.02 27.99 IN-PA-9946 L34700 1992 NAT. HIGHWAYS II 153.00 153.00 IN-PA-9955 C25090 1993 UTTAR PRADESH BASIC EDUC. 165.00 115.09 9.99 IN-PA-9956 L30930 1989 ELECTRONICS 8.00 3.68 205.68 IN-PA-9958 C22150 1991 AGR.DEVEL. I (TN) 92.80 35.95 13.69 IN-PA-9958 L33000 1991 AGR.DEVEL. I (TN) 20.00 20.00 1.25 IN-PA-9959 C24090 1993 RUBBER 92.00 83.66 31.11 IN-PA-9961 C25100 1993 UP SODIC LANDS RECLAMATION 54.70 44.53 9.80 IN-PA-9963 C23940 1992 POPULATION VIII 79.00 77.99 37.51 IN-PA-9964 C25920 1994 WATER RES CONSOLID HARYANA 258.00 236.73 30.19 IN-PA-9965 C20760 1990 PLNJAB IRR & DRAINAGE 150.00 4.72 67.99 33.29 IN-PA-9973 L29940 1989 STATE ROADS 1 170.00 55.00 30.10 165.10 IN-PA-9977 C24700 1993 ICDS II (BIHAR & MP) 194.00 187.35 53.24 IN-PA-9981 L31960 1990 CEMENT INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING 300.00 6.82 45.71 52.53 IN-PA-9982 L32370 1990 NORTHERN REGION TRANSMISSION 485.00 354.93 314.53 IN-PA-9988 C22230 1991 TECHNICIAN EDUC II 307.10 51.37 171.39 135.97 IN-PA-9989 C21300 1990 TECH EDUC I 235.00 24.26 101.05 82.54 IN-PA-9990 C20080 1989 VOCATIONAL TRAINING 250.00 86.15 80.21 171.96 IN-PA-9993 L33440 1991 PRIVATE POWER UTIL 1 200.00 23.40 20.90 IN-PA-9996 C20220 1989 NATIONAL SERICULTURE 147.00 21.95 30.34 71.72 TOTAL 7093.40 7617.10 766.34 9345.39 3896.52 Closed Loans Total Total disbursed (IBRD and IDA) 27943.40 32786.50 Of which repaid 7567.42 7748.21 Total now held by IBRD and IDA 20375.98 25038.29 Amount sold 133.77 133.77 Of which repaid 133.77 133.77 Total undisbursed 161.00 9506.39 a. Intended disbursements to date minus actual disbursements to date as projected at appraisal. SCHEDULE D Page 3 of 5 India - Statement of IFC Investments As of 6/30/96 (US$ millions) Original Gross Commitments Held by Fiscal IFC IFC Partici- Held by Partici- Year Obligor Loan Equity pants Totals IFC pants 1959 a/ Kirloskar Oil Engines Limited 0.85 0.85 1959 al Republic Forge Company Limited 1.50 1.50 1960 at Assam Sillimanite, Ltd. 1.37 1.37 1961 at K.S.B. Pumps, Ltd. 0.21 0.21 1963/66 a/ Precision Bearings India. Ltd 0.39 0.38 0.26 1.03 1964 a/ Fort Gloster Industries. Ltd. 0.71 0.35 0.15 1.21 1964 a/ Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. 0.86 0.31 0.14 1.31 1964/75/79/90 Mahindra Ugine Steel Company, Ltd. 11.70 2.62 0.14 14.46 1.47 1967 a/ India Explosives. Ltd. 7.37 2.86 1.23 11.46 1967 a/ Jayshree Chemicals, Ltd. 1.05 0.10 1.15 1969/70 al Zuari Agro Chemicals, Ltd. 11.00 3.71 4.20 18.91 1976/87 at Escorts Limited 15.55 15.55 1978/87/91/93 Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited 46.32 2.10 60.00 108.42 42.29 1980/82/89 Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. 7.50 4.23 11.73 0.25 1981/86/89/93/94 The Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited 82.14 24.49 20.00 126.63 28.72 1981/90/93 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 26.52 6.76 33.28 7.66 4.67 1982 at Ashok Leyland Limited 14.00 14.00 28.00 1982 at Bharat Forge Company Limited 7.90 8.00 15.90 1982 al Nagarjuna Coated Tubes Limited 1.50 0.24 1.74 1982 NSL Limited 2.88 0.24 3.12 0.07 1982 a/ The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Ltd. 13.80 5.00 18.80 1982/86/87/91/93/96 ITW Signode India Limited. 2.99 1.55 4.54 1.55 1982/87 The Indian Rayon Corporation Limited 14.57 14.57 0.33 1984/86 at Grasim Industries Limited 10.84 5.12 15.96 1985 al Bajaj Auto Limited 11.96 11.96 23.92 1985 Modi Cement Limited 13.05 13.05 18.99 1985/91 Bihar Sponge Iron Limited 15.24 0.68 15.92 15.41 1986 at Bajaj Tempo Limited 15.08 15.46 30.54 1986 at Larsen and Toubro Limited 10.96 10.81 21.77 1986/91/95 India Lease Development Limited 8.50 1.09 9.59 2.61 1986/93/94/95 India Equipment Leasing Limited 5.50 0.77 6.27 1.47 1.73 1987 Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. 0.08 1987 City Mills (Private) Limited 0.48 1987 at Gujarat Fusion Glass Limited 7.53 1.70 923 1987 a/ Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Company Ltd. 38.07 38.07 1987 a/ Hero Honda Motors Limited 7.74 7.74 1987 Hindustan Motors Limited 39.14 39.14 10.58 1987 N B Footwear Limited 0.19 1987 Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited 0.30 1987 at Super Tannery (India) Limited 1987 Switching Technologies Guenther Limited 0.50 1987 Tan India Limited 0.07 1987 The Coromandel Engineering Company, Limited. 0.01 1987 The Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited 8.00 3.87 11.87 8.46 1987 at The Gujarat Rural Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. 0.19 0.19 SCHEDULE D Page 4 of 5 Original Gross Commitments Held by Fiscal IFC IFC Partici- Held by Partici- Year Obligor Loan Equity pants Totals IFC pants 1987 a/ Wimco Limited 4.70 4.70 1987 Wires & Fabriks (S.A.) Limited. Jaipur 0.14 1987/89/90/93 Titan Watches Limited 21.95 1.08 23.03 6.93 1987/95 Export-import Bank of India 40.00 40.00 25.00 1988/95 GKN Invel Transmissions Limited 1.40 1.40 1.40 1989 The Ahmedabad Electricity Company, Limited 20.83 20.83 17.02 1989 a/ WTI Advanced Technology 0.20 0.20 1989/90/92 Tata Keltron Ltd. 0.56 0.56 0.56 1989/92 Gujarat State Fertilizers 40.46 40.46 17.33 1990 UCAL Fuel Systems Limited 0.63 0.63 0.63 1990/91/94 Tata Electric Companies 111.88 18.75 130.63 102.09 1990/95 J.M. Share & Stock Brokers Private Limited 1.20 1.21 2.41 1.21 1991 BSES Limited 50.00 18.00 68.00 50.00 1991 Herdillia Oxides and Electronics Limited 0.29 0.29 0.28 1991 Technology Development & Information Co. of India 2.05 2.05 1.94 1991 The Industrial Credit & Investment Corp. of India Ltd. 22.91 22.91 1991/93 CESC Limited 54.75 67.00 121.75 51.37 67.00 1991/93 Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. 1.30 1.30 1.11 1991/93/95 Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. 40.00 4.92 . 44.92 34.17 10.00 1991/95 SPIC Fine Chemicals Ltd. 1.88 1.88 1.88 1991/96 Varun Shipping Company Limited 20.67 1.71 6.00 28.38 15.77 1992 Arvind Mills Limited 9.00 7.81 16.81 6.55 1992 a/ Block KG-OS-IV Petroleum Exploration Program 8.20 8.20 0.02 1992 Indus Venture Capital Fund I 1.01 1.01 1.00 1992 Indus Venture Management Limited 0.01 1992 at Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited 0.66 0.66 1992 Nippon Denro Ispat Limited - (NDIL) 40.00 5.77 45.77 40.05 1992 SKF Bearings India Limited 11.50 11.50 8.62 1992/94 IFGL Refractories Limited 1.06 1.06 1.06 1993 20TH Century Finance Corporation Limited 8.00 8.00 16.00 1.89 7.11 1993 Arvind Mills Limited 13.13 13.13 10.55 1993/94 The Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited 30.00 9.25 11.25 50.50 14.59 9.91 1993/95/96 Creditcapital Venture Fund (India) Ltd. 8.00 9.11 17.11 17.05 1993/96 Nicco-Uco Financial Services Limited. 3.00 0.47 3.47 2.62 1994 20th Century Asset Management Corp. Ltd 0.16 0.16 0.16 1994 Centurion Quantum Growth Scheme 2.39 2.39 2.39 1994 Creditcapital Asset Management Company 0.32 0.32 0.32 1994 DLF Cement Limited 19.40 17.00 36.40 15.42 17.00 1994 Global Trust Bank 3.19 3.19 3.19 1994 Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. 17.57 8.23 25.80 8.23 1994 Information Technology Fund 0.64 0.64 0.64 1994 Taurus The Starshare 7.17 7.17 7.17 1994/96 Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd. 35.00 21.80 56.80 33.28 9.38 1995 Centurion Bank Limited 3.87 3.87 3.87 1995 Chowgule Steamships Ltd. 15.00 4 58 27.00 46.58 19.58 27.00 1995 IL&FS Stockbroking & Investment Co. Ltd. 0.32 0.32 0.32 1995 Nippon Denro ]spat Limited - (NDIL) 30.00 60.00 90.00 30.00 60.00 1995 Prism Cement Limited 15.00 5.02 15.00 35.02 20.02 15.00 1995 SRF Finance Limited 15.00 5.00 20.00 20.00 1996 GVK Industries Ltd 40.00 8.30 52.29 100.59 48.30 1996 India Direct Fund 7.50 7.50 7.50 1996 Indus Venture Investments Limited 5.00 5.00 5.00 1996 Moser Baer India Limited 0.60 0.60 0.60 1996 Rain Calcining Ltd. 19.25 5.40 24.65 24.65 SCHEDULE D Page 5 of 5 Original Gross Commitments Held by Fiscal IFC lFC Partict- Held by Partici- Year Obligor Loan Equity pants Totals IFC pants 1996 South Asian Regional Apex Fund 7.16 7.16 7.16 1996 United Riceland Limited 10.00 10.00 10.00 Grand Total 1218.12 252.59 438.01 1908.72 835.81 234.80 Total gross commitments b/ 1218.12 252.59 438.01 1908.72 Less cancellations, terminations, repayment & sales 563.23 71.67 203.21 838.11 Total commitments now held c/ 654.89 180.92 234.80 1070.61 835.81 234.80 Pending Commitments CESC Limited 37.00 37.00 DEV CREDIT BANK 1.89 1.89 lB VALLEY POWER 50.00 20.00 80.00 150.00 RPG COMMUNICATNS 8.30 8.30 SPIC 0.86 0.86 ST CMS ELECTRIC 30.00 18.00 150.00 198.00 TARUN SHIPPING 0.80 0.80 Total pending commitments 80.00 49.85 267.00 396.85 Total commitments held and pending commitments 734.89 230.77 501.80 1467.46 Total undisbursed commitments 133.75 37.86 126.50 298.11 a/ Investments which have been fully cancelled, terminated, written off, sold, redeemed or repaid. b/ Gross commitments consist of approved and signed projects. c/ Held commitments consist of disbursed and undisbursed investment.  SCHEDULE E India at a glance Page 1 of 2 POVERTY and SOCIAL South Low- India Asia income Development diamond* Population mid-1995 (milhons) 929.4 1,243 3,188 Life expectancy GNP per capita 1995 (US$) 350 350 460 GNP 1995 (billions US$) 325.3 435 1,466 Average annual growth, 1990-96 Population (%) 1.8 1.9 1.8 Labor force (%) 2.1 2.4 1.9 GNP Gross per primary Most recent estimate (latest year available since 1989) capita enrollment Poverty: headcount index (% ofpopulabon) Urban population (% of total populadon) 27 28 28 Life expectancy at birth (years) 62 61 63 Infant mortality (per 1,000 lIve births) 58 73 68 Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) 63 62 38 Access to safe water Access to safe water (% ofpopulation) .. 70 66 Illiteracy (% of population age 15+) 48 51 35 Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population) 102 98 105 -India Male 113 110 112 -Low-income group Female 91 87 98 KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1975 1985 1994 1995 Economic ratios GOP (billions USS) 91,0 214.3 301.2 329.9 Gross domestic investment)GOP 20.8 23.9 23.2 242 Openness of economy Exports of goods and non-factor services/GDP 62. 6.0 11.3 12.4 Gross domestic savings/GDP 20.4 20.8 21.5 223 Gross nabonal savings/GDP 2018 21.1 22.3 22.5 Current account balance/GDP -0.1 -2.8 -0.9 -1.6 Savings Investment Interest payments/GOP 0.3 0.6 1.5 1.4 Total debt/GDP 15i 19.1 32.9 29.2 Total debt service/exports 13.1 22.7 26.9 25.7 Present value of debt/GDP .. .. 23,4 Present value of debtlexports .. .. 176.7 Indebtedness 1976-84 198546 1994 1995 1996-04 average annual growthIndia GDP (factor cost) 4.0 5.1 6.3 8.0 6.0 GNP per capita 1.7 3.1 6.1 4.6 4.6 - Low-income group Exports of goods and nfs 4.0 10.7 41 17.6 8.9 STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY 1975 1985 1994 1995 Growth rates of output and investment (%) (%6 of GDP) Agnculture 40.5 33.0 31.1 30.3 20 Inqustry 23.7 28.1 28.0 28.9 10 Manufacturing 16.7 17.9 17.4 18.4 Services 35.8 38.8 40.9 40.9 0 2 s Private consumption 70.2 68.1 68.2 67.3 General government consumption 9.4 11.1 10.3 10.3 Imports of goods and non-factor services 6.6 9.1 13.0 14.3 -GI -GDP (average annual ginwth) 1975-84 1985-95 1994 1995 Growth rates of exports and imports (%) Agriculture 2.4 3.6 4 9 3.0 30 Industry 5.2 5.9 8.3 10.0 Manufacturing 5.4 5.8 9.0 12.2 Services 4.7 5.7 6.0 5.3 10 Private consumption 4.4 4.7 5.0 4.6 9o si 92 93 9 95 General government consumption 6.2 4.2 3.0 6.5 .10 Gross domestic investment 3.7 5.1 19.8 11.2 -20 1 Imports of goods and non-factor services 9.3 4.7 19.8 13.7 Gross national product 40 5.2 6.5 6.4 Expors 'mpo.ts Note: 1995 data are preliminary estimates. The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will be incomplete SCHEDULE E Page 2 of 2 India PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE 1975_1_85_19S4_199___nfla__n 1975 1985 1994 1995 Inflation (%) Domestic prices is (% change) Consumer prices 5.7 5.5 10.2 10.2 1: Implicit GDP deflator -1.5 7.6 11.1 8.5 Government finance (% of GDP) Current revenue .. 23.5 21.2 21.3 0 o s1 gz 93 so 9s Current budget balance .. 2.2 0.2 -1.2 Overall surplus/deficit .. -10.4 -9.0 -10.3 -GDP der. *CPI TRADE 1975 1985 1994 1995 Export and Import levels (mill. USS) (millions USS) 4o.oo Total exports (fob) .. 9,463 26,763 32.502 Tea .. 511 311 292 Iron .. 473 413 463 30.000 Manufactures .. 5,639 21,088 25,770 Total imports (cif) .. 17,298 31.269 38,256 20.o0 Food .. 1,321 1,464 2,354 Fuel and energy .. 4,054 5,928 6,885 o Capital goods .. 3,503 6,366 7,152 Export price index (1987=100) .. 80 118 121 o .o 90 91 92 93 I as import price index (1987=100) .. 96 121 128 CEps L2Imporm Terms of trade (1987=100) .. 83 98 94 OExportslmports BALANCE of PAYMENTS 1975 1985 1994 1995 current account balance to GDP ratio (%) (millions USS) a Exports of goods and non-factor services 5,650 12,773 34,047 40,971 a so s0 1s 52 Imports of goods and non-factor services 5,990 19,422 39,047 47,207 Li Resource balance -340 -6,649 -5,000 -6,236 .1 Net factor income -191 -1,553 -3,905 -4,677 Net current transfers 470 2,207 6,200 5,499 -2 Current account balance. before official transfers -61 -5,995 -2.705 -5,414 - Financing items (net) 636 6,807 9,563 3,120 t Changes in net reserves -575 -812 -6,858 2:293 Memo: Reserves including gold (mill. USS) 2.064 9,730 24,079 21.930 Conversion rate (localVUSS) 8.7 12.2 31.4 32.4 EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS 1975 1985 1994 1995 Composition of total debt. 1994 (mill. US$) (millions USS) Total debt outstanding and disbursed 13,708 40,971 98,990 .. G A IBRD 436 2.396 11,120 .. 09 11120 IDA 2,809 9,750 17,666 Total debt service 822 3.534 10,516 .. F IBRD 89 313 1,597 27037 B IDA 24 124 315 .1766 Composition of net resource flows Official grants 511 450 612 Official creditors 1,260 1,424 976 Private creditors 83 2,276 149 .. C Foreign direct investment 85 106 620 ..o312 Portfolio equity 0 0 4,729 .. 2699 E World Bank program 31067 Commitments 917 2,882 2,066 .. A - IBRD E - Blateral Disbursements 531 1,375 1,708 .. e- IDA 0 - Other multilateral F - Prvate Principal repayments 63 157 1.021 C - IMF G- Short-term Net flows 467 1.218 687 Interest payments 50 280 892 Net transfers 417 938 -205 SA2CI and International Economics Department 7/19/96 MAP SECTION  -BRD 27842 視 JULY 1996  IBRD 27843 INDIA ECODEVELOPMENT PROJECT .K GIR NATIONAL PARK AND SANCTUARY PaIanpr GUJARAT motnagar L_ Bhuja."I T "GANDHINAGAR Rationn GIR WILDLIFE SANCTUARY BOUNDARY Surandranagar Akmadabad GIR NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY Kla CORE AREA Jamnagar BUFFER AREA ROADS Bharuch RAILROADS Junagoch 0Ainreli Gir National Park Surat ) To TEMPLES I Sanctuary Joigaon NESS Ak SELECTED REVENUE VILLAGES ON G Diu Volsad PERIPHERY OF SANCTUARY S FOREST SETTLEMENT VILLAGES 0 100 200 300 TALUKA HEADQUARTERS KILOMETERSTo Pahbo - - - - DIVISION BOUNDARY Gir National Pork and Sanctuary is located in the Kathiawor Peninsula in Soaurashtra, Gujarat. The entire Protected Area covers, 1,412 km2 of ohich 258 km2 is National Pork ond 1, 154 km2 is Gir Wildlife Sanctuary 0~1 SataTo 0 GADINGR aiNatalia Surandrgsa r Jam a ammnagar VaniKaelii NwiAlaani aniAMRELI DISTRICT 'A L ada KHAVdodar Rannagadh oAmrelieharuc Gr Na4oa Par Suratr %T ®MALIA Mirnvel Doh nd San ah a GUJARA oDi Vaad a d TALASLVASS 0 5 10 15 20100 200 I30 bonaisutr.dniiai.rndayate earaa KILOMTERS ndarseeeKIrLOMuTERnS o 80mhbouye Sorsea TheariJ eLcA o99 JUNAGADHAR DITRC @VISAVADAL *U1- MENDARDAR Pancanhalimlnth ea sau o n erioy,o n S(L MTR A rol O, aripurtor- toneoshbunae @~~JL MAIAMiovl6  IBRD 27844 INDIA KARNATAKA ECODEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND GOA NAGARHOLE/RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL PARK Mp 'r KARNATAKA NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY - CORE AREA PANAJIX4 NON COPE AREA PABQlla TOURISM ZONE bKar-a STATE FOREST BOUNDARIES ROAD, o VILLAGES/VILLAGE ENCLAVE.S' - - - - DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Mango-,reos 5BANGALO - - STATE BOUNDARY t- de andya, Nagarhole National Pa[k in the Kodaa unid Mysoi e distiidts of Kr nacitaka state, NqqrpeN tona covers and area of 643 km wth ri care zone of 92 km' cand tou,sm zone o1 110km' KILOMETERS Aneckaukur Siddapur ~1 * *. / -~ - OChnauram~ ,Hebballa, OSuialogadde MYSORE DISTRICT KODAGU '%. O Navalagadde, DISTRICT Kalhata 0 Motalaki sug an 'Na rhle J, Blaivadi Kalmarra 0 5 10 15 20 Dodabairdnkuppe t'e o' KILOMETERS Theo 'soundar'. e deo rno,nto a nda hu ísao phoon hi mo'- do- t ot E on, ie part of E e Noti!8Bank KERALA¯ n m e sn Orony uLY 1996  IBRD 27845 INDIA BIHAR Ta Bettiolh TO ECODEVELOPMENT PROJECT Luck PALAMAU TIGER RESERVE BIHAR P - PATNA 00,iu i PALAMAU TIGER RESERVE BOUNDARY To Kha CORE AREA VAra BUFFER AREA Gayagalpu P...... ROPOSED BETLA NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY Nu - J TOURISM ZONE Du AREA OF THE TIGER RESERVE EXCLUDED FROM THE SANCTUARY Hazaribag ha Giridih Daltenganj 2 AREA OF POTENTIAL INUNDATION FROM KUTKU DAM Ranchi ROADS Palmau T,ger RAILROADS ResrveTa * FOREST REST HOUSES O VILLAGES/VILLAGE ENCLAVES * RANGE HEADQUARTERS Cha - -- - . DISTRICT BOUNDARIES - - STATE BOUNDARIES To Nagpur / 0 100 200 300 KILOMETERS Palarmau Tiger reserve, located in the Palamau district in KILOMETERS southwest Bihar, is 1 026 km2 in area The core zone encompasses 213 km2, 766 km2 of the buffer zone form the Palamau WildliFe Sanctuary, and 47 km2 is reserve forest. Some 29 km2 of this area is designated as a tourism zone An area of 225 km2 covering the current core area plus a portion of the sancturay is the intended area of the proposed Betfla National Park. .... Kerb PALAMAU DIST RICT ..LY 1j9 B MADHYA PR ADESH RANCHI DIST RICT The bona ies-olr denoinah-n and any other Wn.. Ahwno ti,r map do no-epiy on the part of The W-O BA 0 1 2 3 4 5 Grop, -ny 1.dgmn~ on Ihe 1egal stis. oF-y ternby. or any | | | | endo,rseen or accptance of -uc iboundone KILOME T ERS JULY 1996  IBRD 27846 INDIA ECODEVELOPMENT PROJECT s PENCH TIGER RESERVE kK- MADHYA PRADESH PENCH TIGER RESERVE BOUNDARY h so shadho lam BHOPAL CORE AREA/PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK U, 6l 5 - A fhboIndore D-as BUFFER AREAS. .~äD Hc-shagoba o PENCH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY - RESERVED FORESTS - ,- - b Tiger 159bhil - PROTECTED FORESTS SUBMERGENCE AREA d Roan REVENUE AREAS MADHYA MAIN ROADS SECONDARY ROADS PRADESH RAILROADS 0 VILLAGES KCWETEPS - - - - DISTRICT BOUNDARY STATE BOUNDARY Located in the Seoni and Chhindwara districts of Modkyo Pradesh, Pench Tiger Reserve covers an area of 757 km2, with a core zone (intended national park) of 293 km- a lourism zone (intended national park) of 55 km2, a wildife sancuary of 118 km2 and 308 km2 of reserve and protected forests SEONI 0 51 10 15 20 25 KILOMETERS sapu K nChapapar fafngbe ri Bichhua C H IN AN Mohp ni rI C ra n i ( r K- , Khawas. kapar MAHARA The boundores coors deiommaons and any other ,nforon show o ihs map do not empiy vn the pn of The World Bank Grouy.-i- l-d on the lal sts oFny ernt, orany ndorsemient or accepiono, of such boundanes JULY 1996  IBRD 27847 To Karwar INDIA ECODEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE KERALA Cannanore PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE BOUNDARY Calicut PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY Molappurom To Salem CORE AREA KERALA Pghat BUFFER AREA/SANCTUARY Trichur TOURISM AREA/SANCTUARY Ernakulam Åk ROADS Idukki o TEMPLE Kottam Penyar Tiger Alleppey m Reserve 0 VILLAGES/VILLAGE ENCLAVES A , To Maduri, - - - - DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Quilon -. - STATE BOUNDARY TRIVANDRUM The Periyar Tiger Reserve, located in the Idukki district of Kerala, covers an area of 777 km', of wich 350 km2 is the core zone (nationol park), 377 km2 is sanctuary 0 100 200 300 buffer zone and 50 km2 is a sonctuary lourism zone. KILOMETERS 0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS IDUKKI DISTRICT Manygaladev 0 temple Tlekkadys (Headqurters) t KOTTAYAM DISTRICT TAMIL - NADU QUILON DISTRICT The 6 oundanes, colors, denoinahons ornd any other informnchon shown on ti~ map do nor.ply. on the pot of The World Bnk Group, ary judgnenton the legal status of ary trotry or any endorsen.rt or acceptance of such boundr,es JULY 1996  IBRD 27848 ToLaanganCanagr INDIA RAJASTHAN Gann jand,h ECODEVELOPMENT PROJECT RANTHAMBORE TIGER RESERVE - RAJASTHAN D RANTHAMBORE NATIONAL PARK S ar BOUNDARY / war 0 CORE AREA Jaisalnmer -Nagaur RANTHAMBORE TIGER RESERVE BOUNDARY - - BUFFER AREAS SANCTUARIES Rre KAWAUI GAME RESERVE Sawa madho R b RESERVED FOREST AREAS h lwara R-se ROADS S1roh RAILROADS ONotldwara 0 VILLAGES/VILLAGE ENCLAVES Ahme bd Mands halawar STATE BOUNDARY A a Dungarpur 0 100 200 300 Banswaro KILOMETERS To Ahmedab.d and Srat Located in the Sawai Madhopur district in southeastern Rapasthan, the Ronihambhore Tiger Reserve covers an area af 1334.6km2. consisting o a national park of 392.5 km2, (274 5 km2 core zone and 118 km, buffer zone) the Sawai Man Singh Sanctuary {127 6 km'), Keladevi Sanctuary 674 km2), Kawalji Game Reserve (7 6 km--} and some reserved forests (132.9 km9 SAWAI MADHOPUR DISTRICT ... Hadoti SANCTUARY. O Mokholio Sham ur r okpoli ODangpa O Lundhev Ranwal Surwa O0 O R ,,1 0 OI IchpurI Khilahipur O aad O Lordli ROdKebent oriKndar o LYBaroaO Kusha pura 'ÉMel Kalan MADHYA RawahijoaDaIutpra PR ADESH jai a C0 O Khandelwala Badpur ,, Lachhmipur .,,. SAWAI -'SANCTULARY 0 5 10 15 20 25 K;LOMETERS Theý boudar,ies.,r denom,nnt.ns and any otherifrmto show on Ihr, map d. not, ipy onth part od The Worid Bank Grop, any iudgmeni on the legai staius of any ternto- or any endorsmenw or acceptanc ol such boundones JULY 1996   IMAG ING P.E'-ort No P- 6953 IN Type: MOE'