India - National Social Forestry Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 13698 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA NATIONAL SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT (CREDIT 1611-IN) NOVEMBER 10, 1994 Agriculture Operations Division India Department South Asia Regional Office This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA NATIONAL SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT (Cr.1611-IN) CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS Name of currency (abbreviation) = Indian Rupee (Rs.) Currency Exchange Rate: Appraisal Year Average (1984/85): US$ 1.00 = Rs. 11.89 Intervening Year Average (1985 to 92): US$1.00 = Rs.15.94 Completion Year Average (1992/93): US$1.00 = Rs.26.41 FISCAL YEAR GOI and all States: April I to March 31 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Metric System ABBREVIATIONS CSO Central Support Office ERR Economic Rate of Return FAO/CP Food Agriculture Organization/Cooperative Program FD Forestry Department FRR Financial Rate of Return GOI Government of India IDA International Development Association M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MOEF Ministry of Environment and Forestry MTR Mid-Term Review NGO Non-Government Organization NSFP National Social Forestry Project NWDB National Wasteland Development Board SAR Staff Appraisal Report T&V Training and Visit USAID United States Agency for International Development WB World Bank  THE WORLD BANK FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Washington, D.C. 20433 U.S.A. Offic of Dirctoi'-Germwal Operatons Evakuto November 10, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT Subject: Project Completion Report on India National Social Forestry (Credit 1611-IN! Attached is the Project Completion Report on India: National Social Forestry Project (Credit 1611-IN). Parts I and III were prepared by the South Asia Regional Office and Part II by the four participating Borrower states. The project was the seventh Bank-assisted social forestry project in India, providing assistance to the Government of India and four states: Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh. The project aimed to increase production of fuelwood, small timber, poles, and fodder; increase rural employment, farmers' incomes, and economic opportunities for landless people; afforest degraded areas and wastelands, and reduce soil erosion; and strengthen forestry institutions. A majority of project targets were met or exceeded during implementation. Farm forestry has been highly satisfactory, becoming a popular movement in parts of Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, which had benefitted earlier from Bank support for social forestry. Despite poor coordination of nursery and plantation operations, planting on private, community, and government wastelands made substantial progress, and interest in tree planting was raised. But the project made little contribution to fuelwood or fodder production, and project components aimed at the poor and landless were unsatisfactory. Innovations designed to increase participation by the poor and enhance equity, were stymied by vested interests. Commercially viable components have succeeded, although a degree of market saturation has taken place which may undermine sustainability. Continued financial support for public project components is uncertain. Monitoring and evaluation followed agreed guidelines, but lack of commitment and frequent staff changes reduced its effectiveness. The value of training and technical assistance provided was questionable. The quality of the PCR is satisfactory. In Part II, the four participating states provide individual accounts of implementation experience of variable quality, but consistent overall with Parts I and III. For Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, only summaries are included but the full Part II reports are available in OED's files. Because of the success of farm forestry and tree planting on wastelands, the outcome of the project is rated as satisfactory. But institutional development has been modest, and sustainability is uncertain. An audit is planned. Attachment This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents mey not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.   FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA NATIONAL SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT (Cr.1611-IN) TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ...................................................................... i EVALUATION SUMMARY ..................................................................... iii PART I PROJECT REVIEW FROM BANK'S PERSPECTIVE ...................................... 1 1. Project Identity .......................................................... 1 2. Project Background and Objectives ......................................................... 1 3. Project Design Aspects ......................................................... 1 4. Project Implementation ......................................................... 2 5. Project Results ......................................................... 10 6. Project Sustainability ......................................................... 13 7. Bank Performance ........................................................................... . 14 8. Borrower's Performance ................ 14 9. Lessons Learned ................ 14 PART II PROJECT REVIEW FROM BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE ........................... 16 PART m STATISTICAL INFORMATION ................................................... 38 1. Related Bank Loans and/or Credits ....................................... 38 2. Project Timetable ................................................ 38 3. Credit Disbursements .......................................................... 39 4. Project Implementation ......................................................... 40 A. Physical Targets and Achievements ....................................................... 40 B. Staffing, Civil Works and Vehicles - Physical Targets and Achievements ...... ..... 41 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  5. Project Cost and Financing ................. 42 A. Project Cost ................. 42 B. Project Financing ................. 43 6. Project Results ................. 44 A. Direct Benefits .................. 44 B. Economic Impact ................. 45 C. Financial Impact .................. 45 D. Studies .................. 46 7. Status of Covenants ................. 48 8. Use of Bank Resources ................. 52 A. Staff Inputs ................................................. 52 B. Missions .................................................... 52 TABLES 1. Exchange Rate and Inflation Factors ................................................. 53 2. Sensitivity Analysis ................................................... 54 ANNEX 1 Financial and Economic Re-evaluation. 55 Table IA Rajasthan - Farm Forestry ................ ................................. 61 Table 1B Rajasthan - Community Woodlots .................................................. 62 Table 1C Rajasthan - Rehabilitation of Degraded Forests ........................................... 63 Table ID Rajasthan - Strip Plantations ................................................... 64 Table 1E Rajasthan - Economic Analysis - Total Project ........................................... 65 Table 1F Rajasthan - Investment Costs in Financial and Economic Terms ......... .............. 67 Table IG Rajasthan - Physical Phasing of Plantations ............................................... 68 Table 2A Uttar Pradesh - Farm Forestry ....................... .......................... 69 Table 2B Uttar Pradesh - Community Woodlots ................................................. 70 Table 2C Uttar Pradesh - Rehabilitation of Degraded Forests ................... .................. 71 Table 2D Uttar Pradesh - Strip Plantations ........................... ...................... 72 Table 2E Uttar Pradesh - Economic Analysis - Total Project ....................... ................ 73 Table 2F Uttar Pradesh - Investment Costs in Financial and Economic Terms ................... 75 Table 2G Uttar Pradesh - Physical Phasing of Plantations ........................... .............. 76 Table 3A Himachal Pradesh - Farm Forestry ................................................. 77 Table 3B Himachal Pradesh - Community Woodlots ............................................... 78 Table 3C Himachal Pradesh - Rehabilitation of Degraded Forests .............. ................... 80 Table 3D Himachal Pradesh - Economic Analysis - Total Project .............. ................... 8 1 Table 3E Himachal Pradesh - Investment Costs in Financial and Economic Terms ....... ...... 83 Table 3F Himachal Pradesh - Physical Phasing of Plantations ..................................... 84 Table 4A Gujarat - Farm Forestry ................................................. 85 Table 4B Gujarat - Community Woodlots ................................................... 86 Table 4C Gujarat - Rehabilitation of Degraded Forests ............................................. 87 Table 4D Gujarat - Strip Plantations ................................................. 88 Table 4E Gujarat - Economic Analysis - Total Project ............................................... 89 Table 4F Gujarat - Investment Costs in Financial and Economic Terms .......... ............... 91  Table 4G Gujarat - Physical Phasing of Plantations ............. ..................... 92 Table 5 Financial Prices .................................. 93 Table 6 Economic Analysis - Total Project .9..................................4 Table 7 Sensitivity Analysis ................................... 96 Table 8 Per Ha Yield Estimates for Major Species Planted under the Project .97   i PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA NATIONAL SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT (Credit 1611-IN) PREFACE This is the Project Completion Report (PCR) for the National Social Forestry Project (NSFP) for which an IDA Credit of SDR166.4 million (Credit 1611-IN) (US$165 million equivalent) was approved on June 18, 1985. SDR11.O million was cancelled on December 1991 as part of the funds redeployment exercise. The Credit closed on March 31, 1993, 27 months behind schedule. Final disbursement from the Credit was made on April 6, 1993, and the revised credit amount of SDR155.4 was fully disbursed. The Preface, Evaluation Summary, Part I and Part Im of this report were prepared by an FAO/World Bank Cooperative Program mission which visited India in September/October 1993. Part II was prepared by Governments of participating states. The report was based, inter alia, on a review of the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR), the legal documents, supervision reports, correspondence between the Bank and the Borrower, internal Bank memoranda and reports, field visits, and discussions with the officials of Government of India (GOI), and the State Govemments of Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh as well as the World Bank (WB) staff in New Dehli and Washington who had been associated with the project.   iii PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA NATIONAL SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT (Credit 1611-IN) EVALUATION SUMMARY 1. Objectives 1.1 The project aimed at increasing production of fuelwood, small timber, poles, fodder and other minor forest products; rural employment and incomes and opportunities for participation of landless persons; afforestation of degraded areas and wasteland; and strengthening forestry institutions through provision for additional staff, training, research and equipment. It was designed to provide continuing assistance for two of the four states, viz. Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, to expand and improve social forestry activities started under earlier Bank-assisted projects, and to initiate investments in two other states, viz. Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. 2. Implementation Experience 2.1 Project activities commenced in 1986. There were start-up delays but at project completion most targets set at its appraisal, Mid-Term Review and extension were exceeded. Farm forestry, community land and government wasteland plantings registered remarkable achievements. Tree tenure plantations (for poor and landless), however, have fallen short of projected targets. All the four project states supported decentralized private nurseries; but progress in Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh was poor. Coordination of nursery and plantation operations in all participating states was inadequate; seed demand could not be met from the limited number of mature seed producing stands and much of the seed procurement was from uncertified private sources; and seedling grading standards also received little attention. As a result, many seedlings of poor quality were planted, adversely influencing survival and output. No uniform policy was pursued in the project states for pricing and distribution of seedlings. In general, the prices at which seedlings were sold to farmers were lower than costs of production. There has been a progressive increase in selling prices and that all planters are now charged for seedlings distributed, even if full cost recovery is not attained. 2.2 In Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, which account for 90 percent of achievements under farm forestry, farmers' preference were for timber and pole producing species. Although plantation targets in community wasteland plantations were exceeded, there was little consultation and participation of the local communities in the planning, establishment or management of these plantations, which in the majority of cases have been done by the Forest Department. Further, the appraisal expectation that benefit-sharing arrangements, for both intermediate and final yields, would be formulated prior to plantation establishment has not been realized. In most states, community plantations are still with Forestry Department. In areas where the decision has been taken to transfer protection and management responsibilities to local communities/panchayats, there are concerns about sustained protection and management of these plantations. The vegetational composition and structure of the established stands in government wasteland plantations are as anticipated at appraisal and area targets have been exceeded. The expectations that the project would contribute to improved technical efficiency of plantation operations have not been fully met. 2.3 Project states followed GOI/WB monitoring and evaluation guidelines. Frequent changes in staff, limited feedback into planning, and inadequate staffing and Monitoring and  iv Evaluation (M&E) training constrained the effectiveness of M&E operations. While overseas training provided for high-level officers enabled them to acquaint themselves with management aspects of social forestry, little practical use was made of the expertise gained. Greater emphasis should have been placed on in-country training and exchange of social forestry experiences between the mid- and field-level officials of the states. Training offered to farmers, representatives of panchayats, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and nursery operators covered tree planting and nursery techniques. Collaboration between Forestry and Agricultural Departments for extension in the project states was nominal. This was mainly due to lack of: (a) identified nodal authority to ensure joint work program; and (b) appropriate extension messages for farm forestry development and improved post-plantation management. In all the four states, research programming was weak and the involvement of Forestry Department officials to review the research progress in the light of social forestry requirements was minimal. The component to establish a Central Support Office to assist the State Governments in project formulation, M&E and provide a forum for cross-fertilization of experiences did not take off and could not contribute to improving the states' capabilities as expected. At project completion, project costs amounted to Rs. 6,762 million, 17 percent higher than appraisal estimate. 3. Results 3.1 Overall, the project has achieved its main objectives. Estimated aggregate wood production level is expected to match the appraisal estimates, despite lower than expected survival and productivity rates and changes in stand composition and production mix. In contrast to SAR expectations, farm forestry will not substantially contribute to fuelwood and fodder production, since most participating farmers' preference has been for commercial species for cash incomes rather than the species for meeting specifically the subsistence needs for fuelwood and fodder. On the other hand, plantations in public lands generate the highest increases in fuelwood and fodder production. The estimates of economic rate of return (ERRs) for the project as a whole is 22 percent, and for each of the four sub-projects are 12 percent (Rajasthan), 28 percent (Uttar Pradesh), 13 percent (Himachal Pradesh) and 23 percent (Gujarat), as compared with the appraisal estimates of 27 percent, 17 percent, 25 percent, 34 percent and 26 percent respectively. 3.2 The project also has resulted in several other positive developments. It has evoked and widened the interest of the rural population in tree planting and served as a vehicle to bring about some policy changes including removal of restrictions which discourage expansion of farm forestry and introducing rules to enhance community participation and benefit-sharing. The project investments provided substantial employment opportunities to the rural poor. Plantations in degraded areas have helped to conserve soil and water as well as to take the pressure off the national forest resources. 4. Sustainability 4.1 Farm forestry, as popularized by the project, has now become a movement in several parts of Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat. Its favorable impact on incomes has contributed to positive changes in the attitude of farmers towards tree planting. Market saturation for some of the products could impede expanded planting of certain species. In Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, farm forestry is not yet well established. Without continued support and resolution of technical issues which affect productivity, sustainability of activities initiated through the project in these states is uncertain. Sustained management of plantations on public lands is not likely unless some radical steps are taken to involve the communities to have larger measure of responsibility to protect and maintain the established plantations. In the absence of continued government financing or follow-up projects, institutional facilities and incremental staff brought in by the project will remain seriously underudlized.  v S. Lessons Learnt 5.1 The key lessons learnt in the implementation of this project include the following: (a) The much stronger performance of the project in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh (which had already benefited from earlier projects) than in the other two states, suggests that a prolonged commitment (exceeding the conventional project period of five years) is necessary to develop the capacity to manage large-scale social forestry projects. (b) Even resource poor farmers are prepared to commit land and labor to planting slow maturing species of forest trees on a significant scale inspite of the lack of immediate benefits. Plantings for fuelwood production, while possibly of interest to the landless, has little appeal to landholders who can meet their fuel needs from lops and tops or from other on-farm sources. (c) Vested departmental interests and traditional modes of operation are the biggest obstacles to promoting genuine community participation in woodlot management and to encourage the emergence of private-sector run nurseries. The preferred structure for the latter is a pricing policy for seedlings which makes nursery operations pay. (d) Investment in training, especially overseas training, are only warranted if linked to staffing plans which enable those who have been trained to apply their newly-acquired skills. (e) The project would have benefited from highly targeted short-term technical assistance aimed at introducing improved plantation techniques for arid areas and at developing a greater integration between farm forestry and livestock- based farming system.   1 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA NATIONAL SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT (Credit 1611-IN) PART I. PROJECT REVIEW FROM BANK'S PERSPECTIVE 1. Project Identity Project Name : National Social Forestry Project Credit No. : 1611-IN RVP Unit : South Asia Region Country : India Sector : Forestry 2. Project Background and Objectives 2.1 The National Social Forestry Project (NSFP) is the seventh Bank-assisted project aimed at supporting social forestry development in India. It originated from the proposals prepared in 1984 by four states (Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh) with the assistance of the office of the Inspector General of Forests and the World Bank (WB) Resident Mission in New Delhi. The project was jointly appraised by WB and USAID in 1985, and became effective in February 1986. With an estimated total cost of about US$328 million (Rs. 3,933 million), including an Interntional Development Association (IDA) credit of US$165 million and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) financing of US$80 million, this five-year project aimed at: (a) increasing production of fuelwood, small timber, poles and fodder, (b) increasing rural employment, farmers' incomes and opportunities for participation of landless persons; (c) afforestation of degraded areas and wasteland and reducing soil erosion; and (iv) strengthening forestry institutions. The main components of the project included: (a) plantation activities including the development of agro-forestry, tree ownership schemes for the poor and landless, community and government wasteland plantations; and (b) institutional and infrastructure support, providing for incremental forestry staff, housing, offices, equipment, planning, training, extension, research, studies, fuel-saving devices and monitoring and evaluation. Provision was also made under the project to establish a Social Forestry Support Office in the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. This office was intended to play a coordinating, support and policy guidance role in the development of social forestry throughout India. 3. Project Design Aspects 3.1 The project, built on the experiences gained from the earlier Bank-financed and other social forestry projects in India, included several new features: emphasis on planting on private lands; an increased role for decentralized private nurseries; the imposition of limits on free seedling  2 distribution and the introduction of a pricing policy aimed at increasing cost recovery; plantations on common and government-owned wastelands devoted to meeting fuelwood needs of the poor, formation of tree ownership schemes for the landless; enhanced community participation and formulation of written agreements with village panchayats for benefit-sharing and early transfer of responsibilities to the participating communities for protection, maintenance and replantation of community (panchayat) plantations. It also called for increased involvement of existing agricultural extension services in social forestry; and improved operational efficiency through reducing costs and strengthening institutions. 3.2 The project was designed to provide continuing assistance for two of the four states, viz. Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, to expand and improve social forestry activities started under earlier Bank-assisted projects (Credit 925-IN and Credit 961-IN) and to initiate investments in Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. To meet the overall project objectives and to suit the differing requirements of the participating states, flexibility was allowed in plantation models and implementation arrangements. The scope and scale, particularly of the physical component targets, generally corresponded to project requirements. In retrospect, however, the design would have benefited from more emphasis on defining the technological aspects of project operations (e.g. seed collection, processing, nursery and seedling standards and post-establishment plantation management) and elaboration of the modalities of community participation. Some of the more innovative proposals, (e.g. for tree tenure for the landless, and benefit sharing arrangements in public plantations) were based on unduly optimistic expectations over the rate at which fundamentally new concepts would be taken up, as evidenced by reductions in scale adopted during project implementation. Over-emphasis on establishing special units exclusively for social forestry has contributed to recurrent budgetary problems in the post-project period and raised questions over the institutional sustainability of the project. 4. Project Implementation 4.1 Project activities started in 1986. Following the Mid-Term Review (MTR) in 1988, several adjustments were made in the targets, which were further revised in 1990, when the project closing date was extended until 31 March 1993. The USAID financing was utilized only up to the end of the original closing date of the project, and the IDA credit savings arising from the devaluation of the Rupee were utilized to finance project operations during the extended period. Modifications introduced during 1990 revision emphasized aspects relating to seedling pricing, benefit-sharing in public plantations and village level micro-planning, for total land resource development. 4.2 Plantation activities. Total area planted under the project (1,857,012 ha) surpassed the targets set at appraisal, MTR and project extension (708,983 ha, 765,560 ha and 1,474,380 ha respectively) but the additional area was achieved by prolonging the disbursement period. As can be noted from Table 4A in Part III, farm forestry, community land and government wasteland plantings registered spectacular achievements, substantially exceeding the targets projected in the SAR. Tree tenure plantations (for poor and landless), however, have fallen short of the relatively modest expectations set for them. Progress, however, was not uniform in all the project states. The following paragraphs review these aspects. 4.3 Nursery development and production. Provision was made for the produc- tion of 700 million seedlings through project-financed nurseries. It was expected that all four participating states would support the development of large numbers of family operated/private sector nurseries. This expectation materialized in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, where 35 percent to 40 percent of total seedlings production was from the private sector, but there was much less progress in promoting private sector nurseries in the other two states where only 15-20 percent of seedlings were produced privately. This is partly explained by the fact that Gujarat and Uttar  3 Pradesh were in the second phase of Bank-funded social forestry operations and farm forestry was already an established and expanding activity in these states. 4.4 Coordination of nursery and plantation operations was inadequate. Although nursery stock composition, in general, corresponded well with the needs of the plantation program, the lack of information about demand for specific species led to their over-production. In some cases, the mission observed that up to 60 percent of the seedling stock was not lifted from the nurseries. Additionally, nursery seedling production data and mission observations indicated that containerized/polypot seedling production rates in some private nurseries were as low as 50 to 60 seedlings/M2, which are below the expected standard production rates of 150 to 200 seedlings/M2. 4.5 The project provided individual families, non-governmental institutions and schools with seeds, polythene bags, fertilizers, training and technical advice. However, because of the scale of the private planting program and increased number of non-departmental and public nurseries, technical supervision (in this case by officials of the rank of foresters and deputy foresters) was not as desired. Among private nursery operators, 'kissan' or farmer and 'Mahilla Mandal' (Women's Group) nurseries performed better than some of the other institutional nurseries. Moreover, public nurseries did not become effective extension centers. Forestry Department nurseries, which could have served as demonstrations on technology improvement and management efficiency did not meet these expectations, partly due to the project management's primary concern for meeting seedling production targets for large-scale plantation programs rather than quality seedling production. 4.6 Nursery technology improvement. Seedling quality improvement initiatives included identification of 'plus trees' for seed production and collection but there was little management of the candidate plus trees. In all four states, however, seed demand could not be met from these limited number of seed production stands. Further, since many of the tree species raised for the project plantations were newly introduced, the number of mature seed producing stands, inside or outside traditional forest areas of these states, was limited. In general, much of the seed procurement for plantations continued to be from uncertified private sources and with only limited quality control. Establishment of seedling grading standards received little attention, partly due to the scale of the seedling production operations. As a result, many seedlings of poor quality appear to have been planted, adversely affecting survival and output. 4.7 Project nursery and plantation development were generally perceived and organized as separate and mutually exclusive activities. There was no effort to integrate the management of the two operations or to take account of plantation site conditions in deciding upon the nursery management regimes. For example, planting stock for moisture-stressed areas such as semi-arid sites in Rajasthan, or for degraded forest areas, would have benefited from the introduction of high root/shoot ratios to improve their survival probability. Thus, nurseries raising stock for agro- ecological zones or plantation components where moisture stress was the main constraint on plant survival and growth, received identical treatment (watering and fertilization) to those raising stock for other less stressed agro-ecological zones. Site-specific nursery management for raising drought-tolerant planting stock would involve manipulation of seedbed seedling density, polypot size, fertilizer composition and frequency, and applying appropriate root-pruning techniques. In addition, the holding of polypots in the nursery for longer than the desirable period, inadequate shifting in the nursery beds, and the lack of root-pruning, resulted in root-curling, which adversely affected the seedling quality. 4.8 Private plantations. Limited numbers of fuelwood, fodder, small timber and fruit producing species were distributed free of cost for private planting on farm boundaries and homesteads. However, in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, which represent 90 percent of the achievements under the farm forestry component, farmers' preferences were for timber and pole  4 producing species which account for 77 percent and 72 percent of the growing stock respectively. As a consequence, the phasing of output and product mix does not correspond with appraisal expectations which called for emphasis on fast-growing fuelwood species. On the other hand, stand composition in Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan, where fuel is in tighter supply, by and large corresponds to SAR expectations. 4.9 An unexpectedly high proportion (about 60 percent) of the farm forestry plantations in Gujarat was established in blocks, owned by bigger landlords. Surveys undertaken in the State by the Forestry Department indicate that about 18 percent of the farm forestry beneficiaries have raised block plantations accounting for about 60 percent of the planting stock. In the other three states, 80 percent to 85 percent of planting has been done on farm boundaries and in homesteads. 4.10 The survival rates for Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat are estimated at 31 percent, 75 percent, 54 percent and 18 percent respectively. On the average, the planting densities range from 1,800 to 2,500 plants/ha as against 1,500/ha recommended in the SAR. Inspite of the Bank mission's recommendations, the stand densities were not adjusted to the site factors, in particular, to rainfall. This might have contributed to high plant mortality and reduced growth due to increased inter-plant competition for limited water resources available in high moisture stressed areas. 4.11 Private plantations were also to be established on ecologically vulnerable private lands belonging to economically disadvantaged farmers. However, a review of the selected sites and discussions with beneficiaries indicated that these ecological and socio-economic criteria (i.e. beneficiaries who were poor/belonging to socially-disadvantaged sections of society) were not adequately adhered to. The sites selected neither showed any extraordinary signs of soil erosion or land degradation. 4.12 In Uttar Pradesh, which accounted for the largest share of farm forestry under the project, implementation impact was uneven between the Western and Eastern parts of the state. The slower progress in the Eastern part is largely attributable to its smaller size of land holdings, higher tenancy, relatively less-developed marketing opportunities and greater degree of landlessness. Additionally, social forestry investments in the past were directed to the western part, mainly due to favorable conditions (e.g. relatively well-developed infrastructure and commercial orientation of farmers). The State Government has taken increasingly active role to enlarge and speed up the program in the eastern part through deployment of additional staff, vehicles and equipment and construction of office buildings, all financed under the project. The impact of these investments is expected to be realized well beyond the completion of the project. 4.13 Community wasteland and woodlot plantations. Community wasteland plantations were to be established in collaboration with village panchayats. These plantations were intended to augment the supply of fuelwood, fruits and other edible products for the use of the participating communities and the plantation targets were exceeded. However, in the majority of cases, the community involvement was limited to obtaining formal approval of the panchayat for providing community land for plantation establishment by the Forestry Department. There was little consultation or participation of the community in the planning, establishment, or management of these plantations which was done by the Forest Department. The micro-planning surveys conducted in the four states were often carried out after plantations were established. Further, the appraisal expectation that benefit-sharing arrangements, for both intermediate and final yields, would be forrnulated prior to plantation establishment was not realized. As a result, many of the participating communities still perceive these plantations as a government department activity rather than a cooperative effort by them and Forestry Department, and their future is in doubt. Following GOI's decision to adopt a joint forest management approach for public forestry plantations, steps were taken by the participating states to frame regulations and form management units towards the  5 later phase of the project. It is too early to assess the operational efficacy and impact of these, since the experiences gained so far are limited. 4.14 In most of the community woodlot plantations, the species mix and planting densities match the SAR expectations. However, the stand structure lacks the expected emphasis on production of fruits, edible flowers and tassar silk. The Arjun (Terminalia sps.) plantations established on a small-scale for tassar silk production in Uttar Pradesh initially generated additional employment and income for the communities and individuals involved. However, due to discontinuity in the support provided by the state silk board and inadequate stand management by the project, this activity was abandoned and failed to reach its full potential. 4.15 In Gujarat, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, grass fodder production (along with tree crop production) in these plantations was targeted toward meeting the fodder needs of the village communities, who enthusiastically welcomed it. However, the full potential of this activity was not realised due to the factors discussed in para 4.22. 4.16 Tree survival rates under this component in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat are 64 percent, 63 percent, 51 percent and 61 percent respectively, as against the SAR estimate of 80 percent. The adoption of soil and moisture conservation and harvesting techniques involving contour planting in "V" ditches was encouraged by the Bank missions to improve plant survival and growth. Further, plantations on several sites established towards the latter part of the project emphasized multi-storeyed stand structures to improve site utilisation, soil conservation and to diversify production. 4.17 Government wasteland plantations. The project activities aimed at the rehabilitation of government wastelands included establishment of plantations on government forest lands and along roadsides, railway lines and canal banks. These plantations were expected to produce fuelwood, small timber, poles and fodder. The vegetational composition and structure of the established stands are as anticipated at appraisal and area targets have been exceeded. Soil and moisture conservation and harvesting techniques involving contour "V" ditch planting were extensively used. In Rajasthan, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, cattle proof trenching has been used as a protection measure against grazing damage by cattle. As against an 80 percent SAR plant survival estimate, the survival rates for Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat are 56 percent, 58 percent, 51 percent and 55 percent respectively. 4.18 Strip plantations have been established in linear and block forms along roadsides, canal banks and railway strips. In Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, multi-row strip plantations of fuelwood and ornamental species have been established. However, fruit and edible flower producing species are not well represented in the stand composition. The plant survival rates for Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat are 52 percent, 62 percent, and 54 percent respectively. The stand densities average about 1,800/ha as against the SAR expectation of 1,300-2,000. Plantation Management and Technology 4.19 Plantation management activities like weeding, irrigation and fertilization are generally carried out by farmers for eucalyptus, teak and poplar in block plantations in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat. Such management activities are uncommon in boundary plantations. 4.20 Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, broadleaved species like Acacias, Ulmus, Ailanthus, etc. have been planted primarily for fuelwood and fodder. The project has done little to guide farmers in managing these plantations to maximize fuelwood and fodder production. The planting density adopted for these stands was not consistent with the goal of maximizing fuelwood and fodder production.  6 4.21 All four states have passed orders to facilitate felling and transportation by owners of the most commonly planted social forestry species, but some valuable species (teak and conifers) are still on the restricted list. This could become a major constraint in the future as teak planting is showing an upward trend both in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, and continued restrictions on tree felling in Himachal Pradesh could adversely affect the benefits realized from private and community land conifer plantations. 4.22 The project envisaged that established community plantations would be handed over to the villages for management. However, as discussed earlier (para. 4.12), this process has not made much progress and in most states these plantations are still with Forestry Department. In the absence of a well-defined responsibility and benefit-sharing arrangement between Forestry Department and the local communities, post-establishment management in many cases is restricted to protection and in a few cases to harvest scheduling. Lack of silvicultural operations like pruning, topping and thinning has resulted in loss of intermediate benefits of fuelwood and leaf- fodder yields. In areas where decision has been taken to transfer protection and management responsibilities to local panchayats, without adequately consulting and preparing the local communities, there are concerns regarding sustained protection and management of these plantations. 4.23 In contrast, the project has made good use of customary arrangements of fodder- sharing from protected forest and community lands (locally called 'Ghasnis') in Himachal Pradesh. In other states, however, grass fodder management is still determined by administrative regulations rather than technical concerns. For example, fodder grass harvesting in Rajasthan from both community wastelands and degraded forest areas follows the administrative auctioning calendar (i.e. first week of October) rather than the timings of actual fodder availability. Consequently, grass harvesting is restricted to a single harvest, resulting in substantial loss of production. These inadequate efforts to optimize the use of fodder production fail to recognize that the community lands on which these plantations are established were often the only fodder source for the cattle belonging to the village poor, and thus may have contributed to greater social inequity. Moreover, little attention has been paid to promoting the use of tree leaf-fodder, fruit and other non-tree crop production. 4.24 Management of degraded forest areas and strip plantations has been restricted to their protection. The arrangements for sharing intermediary products (twigs, branchwood, leaf-fodder, grass) from these plantations were not worked out prior to their establishment. This apart, regulations governing these forest lands restrict local community access to reserve forest area plantations. Although, in some areas strip plantations serve as an important source of fuel for the rural poor, very little effort has been made to intensify fuelwood production from these plantations. Technological Issues 4.25 The expectations that the project would contribute to improved technical efficiency of plantation operations have not been fully met. Low plantation survival rates and lower than expected productivity estimates are indicative of this. Except in Uttar Pradesh, where plant survival rates show a marginal upward trend as project implementation progressed, such trends are not evident in the other states. As discussed previously, (para. 4.6, seedling quality), inferior seedling quality is a contributing factor to poor plant survival and growth. The project has not succeeded in promoting the adoption of mulching and early weeding to increase survival rates in arid and semi-arid areas, and the continued practice of advance pit-digging (while fitting in with the availability of labor during the dry season) negatively affects survival rates in moisture-stressed sites. Moreover, there has been no attempt to integrate forestry in these areas with the pastoral- based farming systems; thus, for instance, the low pollarding of Ailanthus and other fodder trees,  7 and the use of improved pruning tools, has not been introduced in Rajasthan where it would have been appropriate. 4.26 Because of administrative and operational constraints, clear-felling and harvesting of stemwood for use as fuelwood has not been possible from the strip plantations. However, harvesting of twigs and branchwood from these plantations does not face such constraints. Therefore, it would be advisable to manage these stands to maximize production of branchwood rather than, as at present, of stemwood by increasing inter-row and inter-plant spacing. Similarly, fruit production (including from Emblica fruit trees in community and strip plantations in Gujarat) would be enhanced if adequate attention was given to tree density and pruning of these trees for better fruit setting and maturing. 4.27 The project contributed positively to the introduction of stratified mixed stands in community woodlot and degraded forest area plantations. However, inadequate attention to the location of various species in different strata of the stand, (for instance, underplanting of strong light-demanders without appropriate canopy or stand manipulation) has resulted in unduly high plant mortality. The Bank correctly encouraged planting of grasses, shrubs, trees in a multi-tier stand structure. However, their spatial arrangement at the planting site and management often failed to take full advantage of such stand composition, as each element of the system has been treated independently and in isolation from the other, thereby losing the intended efficacy. 4.28 In addition, management would have to pay greater attention to monitoring soil- nutrient levels, particularly of nitrogen and phosphorous, to ensure stable and sustainable biomass production from government and community wasteland plantations. Institutional Aspects 4.29 Training and Extension. The project placed emphasis on in-service training for Forestry Department staff in all the participating states. In general, it was assumed that the project states would use existing training institutions. Hence, funds were provided primarily for the improvement and utilization of the existing training facilities. 4.30 Provision was made for short-term training courses and workshops and study tours and fellowships within and outside the country. A total of 9,600 forestry personnel -- as against the appraisal target of 6,777 -- received project-funded in-service training in seed collection, nursery operations, extension methodology and preparation of micro-plans. The project also financed participation of 321 Forestry Department staff (mostly from Rajasthan and Gujarat), in various social forestry workshops and study tours organized within the country. Sixty-two forestry officers - as compared to 82 foreseen at appraisal - from the four states attended overseas training/seminars in such fields as social forestry project management and agro-forestry techniques. While this enabled high-level officers to acquaint themselves with latest technological and management aspects of social forestry, little practical use was made of their expertise for improving project implementation. It would have been useful to have given greater emphasis to in- country training particularly for mid and field-level officials. 4.31 In addition, a large number of farmers, panchayat representatives, members of NGOs including women's groups, students and nursery operators (totalling over 1.7 million persons in the project states) were provided with project-funded short-term (1 to 6 days) training in tree planting and nursery techniques. Training courses offered, however, did not place adequate emphasis on technical aspects of project plantation operations. In general, the courses offered reflected social forestry program priorities in the concerned states. Overall, project assistance for training has been well utilized, significantly contributing to improving the existing human resources for an enlarged social forestry operation.  8 4.32 The project design intended that there should be collaborative efforts between the Forestry and Agricultural Departments for providing extension support for farm forestry operations. Range Officers were expected to serve as Forestry Subject Matter Specialists with the Training and Visit (T&V) agricultural extension system. In some states (e.g. Uttar Pradesh) attempts were made to involve the T&V extension workers for farm forestry operations but with limited success. Overall, the collaboration between Forestry and Agricultural Departments in the project states was nominal and well below expectations. This was due to lack of: (a) an identified nodal authority to ensure development of a joint-work program; (b) prescribed institutional arrangements for field-level coordination between the project staff and extension workers; and (c) appropriate extension messages for farm forestry development. The project extension activities were limited to mass media publicity, publication of pamphlets on planting techniques and organizing farmers' camps and seminars. Although these activities promoted farm forestry, they do not appear to have contributed much to improving post- plantation performance. Moreover, social forestry workers (e.g. forest guards) who were to be the primary extension agents, were taken up with the departmental activities for seedling production, distribution, and plantation protection, leaving little time for extension. In retrospect, for this program to be successful, it would have been beneficial to draw, in advance, an action plan mutually agreeable to the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture and monitor its implementation to see whether any adjustment or exclusive attention by one agency to extension work would be necessary. 4.33 Research and Studies. There were a number of deficiencies in the imple- mentation of this component. In all the project states, research programming was weak; research priorities and the institutions/researchers who would be responsible for their execution were not identified on time; there were delays in the release of funds to the contracted institutions; and the involvement of Forestry Department officials to review the research progress in the light of social forestry requirements was minimal. Despite these shortcomings, the project made a useful contribution in supporting several basic investigations. These included wood balance studies, soil and moisture conservation technology and multi-tier plantation trials, evaluation of silvo-pasture models suitable for saline/alkaline areas, and provenance and vegetative propagation trials for social forestry species. Most of the project-supported research work was carried out on a contractual basis by the local universities/research institutions within the states. It may also be claimed that, as a result of the importance given under the project for these and other related areas of study, social forestry has now become a priority area in the forestry research program of the participating states. 4.34 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E). M&E units established in the project states followed GOUWB M&E guidelines for their monitoring activities. In addition to perforning routine but somewhat restricted physical and financial monitoring, these units also undertook and organized a number of studies. These included surveys on farmn forestry, community land plantations, degraded forest areas, and strip plantations. In some states, these units also undertook preparation of forest product price bulletins. 4.35 The main constraints which limited the effectiveness of M&E operations in project states included: (a) frequent changes in senior staff; (b) limited feedback into planning; (c) lack of M&E training for staff; and (d) inadequate staffing of these units. 4.36 Seedling Pricing and Distribution Policies. No uniform policy was pursued in the project states for the pricing and distribution of seedlings. In general, the prices at which seedlings were sold to farmers were lower than cost of production, which in all cases were very much lower in private nurseries than Forest Department nurseries. Increased subsidies were available to members of selected castes and tribes.  9 4.37 A positive feature of the pricing policy in all the four states is that there has been a progressive increase in selling prices and that all planters are now charged for seedlings distributed, even if fuU cost recovery is not attained. This promotes better species selection, care of plants, and less wastage, while providing opportunities for private nurseries to market their seedlings and continue their seedling production activities. 4.38 Tree tenure schemes under the project constituted an important means to benefit the poorer sections of the population. The implementation experience of this component indicates that it was unsuccessful. The main reasons for this include: (a) the long gestation period to obtain benefits from tree plantations; (b) allocation of worst available land, land subject to claims by local elite; and (c) delays in issuance of pattas due to lack of coordination between Forest Department and Revenue Department. 4.39 It may be worth noting in this context, that the equity issues and the implementation arrangements for other minor components, e.g. woodsaving devices, received peripheral importance in the project and consequently their implementation was below expectations. Part of the problem was that Forestry Department, preoccupied with its forestry activities, was ill- equipped to fully handle equity and other social issues and the involvement of other agencies was also minimal. v 4.40 Central Support Office. A sum of US$5 million was provided under the project to establish a Central Support Office (CSO) within the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MOEF). This office was to assist the state governments in formulation of projects, monitoring and evaluation of the program, provide a forum for cross-fertilization of ideas and experiences, conduct problem-specific studies relevant to afforestation, and play a coordinating and policy guidance role in the development of social forestry throughout India. The National Wasteland Development Board (NWDB) of MOEF initially took over all the tasks assigned to CSO. 4.41 This component did not result in the anticipated benefits. First of all, there is little evidence that the Office helped to improve capability of the participating states to formulate and evaluate projects. Many of the state-level senior staff responsible for project implementation were unaware of the unit's existence. 4.42 CSO engaged seven regional institutions to carry out monitoring, training, and studies on such subjects as role of women and peoples' participation in social forestry. These regional centers were carrying out these tasks in isolation and no attempt was made to feed the results of their investigations into the policy-making mechanism of the states. As a result, they did not contribute to improve the states' capabilities for effective project implementation. CSO continues to suffer from an identity crisis and many of the MOEF posts established to implement the component have now been reassigned to another department (Rural Development Ministry). 4.43 Cost Control. The project has envisaged several ways of reducing the cost of social forestry plantation. These included reducing costly barbed wire fencing, earlier handover of management of community woodlots to beneficiaries and decentralised seedling production and distribution. There has been some progress on each of these themes, although degree of success varied between states. Another source of cost reduction was the emphasis given to farm forestry which provided the lowest cost model as set out below: ?taaaaaic Co pcr Iliccmia n 107z/Y rPna RhawA UtLar Pn,h I limachaA Pndml| G -_ [ ha _ r,ar fomeiry 6.67 4*,631 7.1U5 Communsy -Dootot 11.000 14.911 5.967 23.613 Rehab. of dcgadtc amas J000 13BCd 6.023 1 .07 S9np pbianhaIo 15.900 11.276 -  10 4.44 At credit closing date, the farm forestry model has remained dominant in all states. It is noteworthy that the involvement of 'kissan' nurseries has helped keep the cost of seedling production close to levels predicted at appraisal. Project Cost 4.45 At appraisal, the project was estimated to cost Rs. 3,933 million (US$328 million) or Rs. 5,547/ha over a planting area of 708,983 ha. The actual cost of implementing the project over 1,857,000 ha of planted area was Rs. 6,762 million (US$384.5 million) or Rs. 3,641/ha, representing expenditure per ha equivalent to 72 percent of the original estimate in rupee terms. A combination of the extension in planted areas, the lower unit costs and the depreciation of the rupee against the US dollar led to a cost overrun of only 17 percent. Among the states, Himachal Pradesh recorded the highest increase in expenditure of 113 percent, followed by Rajasthan (111 percent), Uttar Pradesh (78 percent) and Gujarat (29 percent) - see Part IIUSA. These cost increases in Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan are largely attributable to a lower proportion of farm forestry (the lowest cost model) in the total planted area - 31 percent and 56 percent, compared to appraisal targets of 47 percent and 66 percent respectively and to the continued heavy dependence on the departmental production of seedlings. 4.46 As expected, about 66 percent of total costs (compared to 64 percent at appraisal) were absorbed by plantation activities. The organization and management component absorbed 27 percent and the remaining 7 percent were distributed among research, extension, training, planning, monitoring and evaluation, and central support office. Project costs at appraisal and completion are given in Part IV/SA. The project cost increase (in Rupees) was caused by extended plantation targets, escalating prices and costs, especially labor costs, and quantities higher than appraisal estimates. Appraisal estimates of local price and physical contingencies proved to be underestimates. 5. Project Results 5.1 Overall, the project has achieved its main objectives. However, there have been some deficiencies in project performance. As discussed in paras. 4.6, 4.10, 4.13 and 4.22, these deficiencies mainly relate to nursery technology, adjustment of plant densities to site factors, community participation in the planning, establishment and management of public plantations, and transfer of such plantations to local communities. Although there had been shortfalls in survival rates and productivity, as well as changes in stand composition, estimated aggregate production level is expected to match the appraisal estimate. This output level is possible because of: (a) the increase (17 percent) in the effective production area from 550,512 at appraisal to 642,414 ha at completion, comprising farm forestry (5 percent), community woodlot (2.4 percent) and government wastelands (86 percent); and (b) higher than recommended initial planting densities in the farm forestry component. 5.2 Production mix. The project objectives emphasized increasing of fuelwood and fodder production: as shown in the following table, it was estimated that at full production 89 percent of tree biomass production would be in the form of fuelwood, and 11 percent in the forrn of poles, small timber and stemwood.  11 Project Product Distribution Product SAR Estimate ai PCR Estimate b/ Fuelwood 89 38 Timbers/ a1 1162 'I Based on SAR production estimates at full production. bW Based on full 32-year production cycle. 'I This includes poles, small timber and stemwood. In contrast, the PCR estimates show that about 38 percent of biomass production would eventually be in the form of fuelwood, and 62 percent would be in poles and stemwood. 5.3 In contrast to SAR expectations, farm forestry will not substantially contribute to fuelwood and fodder production. In states like Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, which account for 90 percent of the total project area covered under farm forestry, the production is primarily in the form of timber and poles, as the farmers' priority was for cash/incomes rather than for meeting the subsistence needs of fuelwood and fodder. Production Distribution (%) LI i awhr UJW AuaIJt 0 H maaa FraeWl Guam l~~~~Fo I"; ;A Fucs T nmeer I La Fua*w I Timeer |A 14/ .~ F &nw X " | tFe _ 1 Foeadd - I Ffc _I 1 F e Faorm fwstry 44 22 24 1s 73 9 52 4* 2 12 71 2 COmMur'ty 6U 6 13 36 33 30 63 l 21 37 33 la Sm5Kand v~Anmm A.fao.0 ofe 9rade4 90 * 9t 40 51 9 24 70 6 64 26 9 Sl"