India - West Bengal Forestry project

 ICRR 10124 Report Number : ICRR10124 ICR Review Operations Evaluation Department 1. Project Data : OEDID : OEDID: C2341 Project ID : P010391 Project Name : West Bengal Forestry project Country : India Sector : Forestry L/C Number : C2341 Partners involved : Prepared by : Wilfred V. Candler, OEDST Reviewed by : H. Levy Group Manager : Roger Slade Date Posted : 07/02/1998 2. Project Objectives, Financing, Costs and Components : Objectives: To improve the productivity, sustainability and ecological value of forests in West Bengal, for the benefit of local populations. Project was approved in FY93, closed in FY97, 3 months behind schedule, fully disbursed . Financing (US$ million): IDA 34.9, Government 9.2 Costs (US$ million, Appraise/Actual): Forestry Works 24.7/29.2 (Rehabilitation 13.0/17.0 of this), Supporting Works 4.7/4.8, Special Action Programs 5.3/4.5, Forest Department Support 2.9/2.0, and Fodder development 1.5/2.0. Components: (a) Prevention of degradation of forest lands, (b) Establishment of a sustainable protection system, (c) Enhancement of forest productivity, and (d) Conservation of bio-diversity. 3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives : Sustainability: Large areas (in excess of SAR estimates) of degraded forest were rehabilitated, forest degradation was decelerated and large areas of forest were put under community protection . Productivity: More productive technologies were developed for copicing new and improved tree varieties, and shade tolerant forages. However, tree planting survival on degraded lands was disappointing . Ecology: In this project forest conservation is biodiversity conservation . In addition support was given to seven parks and sanctuary areas, including the establishment of Ecodevelopment Committees . Mangrove rehabilitation resulted in more varied marine life. 4. Significant Achievements : Establishment of almost 3,300 village level Forest Protection Committees, with associated micro -plans for rehabilitation of degraded forest lands, and forest exploitation on a sustainable basis . 450,000 hectares (versus 118,000 pre-project and 176,000 as SAR post-project estimate) are now covered. Over 100,000 hectares of farm forestry targeted at poor farmers were established and over 20,000 hectares of mangroves were regenerated or planted . Improved seed quality for rehabilitated areas, and development of shade tolerant forages . 5. Significant Shortcomings : Forest Department was reorganised as planned, but this has not (yet, if ever) had the beneficial effects expected, (equating work loads, and freeing resources for soil conservation and farm forestry work ). Seedling survival rates were disappointing (about 50% after three years). Fortunately, much of the rehabilitation involved simple regeneration of existing rootstocks . The incentive framework in the north proved to be insufficient and needs reformulation . 6. Ratings : ICR OED Review Reason for Disagreement /Comments Outcome : Satisfactory Satisfactory Institutional Dev .: Partial Modest Sustainability : Uncertain Uncertain  Bank Performance : Satisfactory Satisfactory Borrower Perf .: Satisfactory Satisfactory Quality of ICR : Satisfactory 7. Lessons of Broad Applicability : Use of the logical framework, and critical path analysis (PERT) is recommended in project design, to connect project inputs to results. However, in partial contrast to this lesson, a process -oriented approach, rather than fixed blueprints is also recommended. Flexibility is required in micro planning, if village level Forest Protection Committees and local people are to buy -in to improving the productivity and protection of the forest . Bank staff need more guidance on the necessary degree of ex ante project ownership to justify proceeding, and how to enhance ownership during implementation . Need for improved communication (especially active listening) within the implementing agency and the Bank, and between the implenting agency and the Bank . Delegation of financial authority to field staff facilitates implementation. 8. Audit Recommended? Yes No Why? Building Block for Forest Policy Review 9. Comments on Quality of ICR : Exemplary. Supported by an unusual number of Working Papers .