India - West Bengal Forestry Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 18068 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT INDIA WEST BENGAL FORESTRY PROJECT (IDA CREDIT NO. 23410-IN) June 24, 1998 Rural Development Unit South Asia Region 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.  CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS Currency Unit = Rupees (Rs.) 1991 US$1.00 = Rs. 26.00 1992 US$1.00 = Rs. 26.00 1993 US$1.00 = Rs. 30.00 1994 US$ 1.00 = Rs.31.40 1995 US$1.00 = Rs. 32.40 1996 US$1.00 = Rs.35.40 1997 US$1.00 = Rs.36.00 1998 US$1.00 = Rs.39.00 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES The metric system is used throughout this report. GOVERNMENT FISCAL YEAR July 1 to June 30 GRANT YEAR 1 The Credit became effective on June 23, 1992 and the first year of the operation was 1992/93. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ARDD Animal Resource Development Department, GOWB EDC Ecodevelopment Committee ERR Economic Rate of Return FD Forest Department, GOWB FPC Forest Protection Committee FRR Financial Rate of Return GO Government Order GOI Government of India GOWB Government of West Bengal ICR Implementation Completion Review IDA International Development Association JFM Joint Forest Management MOEF Ministry of Environment and Forestry MTR Mid-term Review NGO Non-governmental Organization NPV Net Present Value NTFP Non-timber Forest Product OED Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank PA Protected Area SAR Staff Appraisal Report Vice President: MiekoNishimizu Country Director: Edwin R. Lim Technical Manager: Michael Baxter/Ridwan Ali Staff Member: Jessica Mott  FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT INDIA WEST BENGAL FORESTRY PROJECT (IDA CREDIT NO. 234110-IN) Preface ................i Evaluation Summary.r . PART 1: IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT A. Statement/Evaluation of Objecitives ........................................1 B. Achievement of Objectives .....................................................2 C. Major Factors Affecting the Project ......................................................5 D. Sustainability ......................................................6 E. World Bank Performance ..7 F. Borrower Performance .8 G. Assessment of Outcome .8 H. Plan for Future Operation ............................8 I. Key Lessons Leared .9 PART 2: STATISTICAL TABLES .11 Table 1: Summary of Assessments .12 Table 2: Related Bank Loans/Credits . 13 Table 3: Project Timetable .14 Table 4: Credit Disbursements: Cumulative Estimated and Actual .14 Table 5: Key Indicators for Project Implementation .15 Table 6: Key Indicators for Project Operation .17 Table 7: Studies Included in Project . 18 Table 8A: Project Costs ................... 22 Table 8B: Project Financing .22 Table 9: Economic Analysis ................... 23 Table 10: Status of Legal Covenants .24 Table 11: Compliance with Operational Manual Statements .................................. 29 Table 12: World Bank Resources: Staff Inputs .29 Table 13: World Bank Resources: Missions. 30 Annexes 1. ICR Mission Aide Memoire .33 2. Borrower's Implementation Cormpletion Report ................................................ 37 3. Economic and Financial Re-evaluation .45 4. Social Impacts .67 5. Environmental Impacts .75 6. List of Working Papers in ICR Volume II .79 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.-  i IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT INDIA WEST BENGAL FORESTRY PROJECT (IDA CREDIT NO. 23410-IN) Preface 1. This is the Implementation Completion Report for the West Bengal Forestry Project in India, for which IDA Credit 23410-IN in the amount of SDR 24.4 million (US$ 34.0 million) was approved on March 17, 1992 and made effective on June 23, 1992. The credit was formally closed on December 31, 1997, compared with the original closing date of September 30, 1997. Final disbursement took place on June 9, 1998 and the Credit was fully disbursed. There was no cofinancing for the project. 2. This ICR was prepared by a mission led by Jessica Mott of the Rural Development Sector Management Unit of the South Asia Region. It was reviewed by Michael Baxter and Ridwan Ali. The borrower's own ICR is included in Annex 2. 3. Preparation of this ICR began during the Bank's final supervision/completion mission, January 13-28, 1998. It is based on material in the project file, data and comments provided by the implementing agency, other relevant studies, mission discussions, discussions with former task team members, and suggestions of the peer reviewer.  ii IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT INDIA WEST BENGAL FORESTRY PROJECT (IDA CREDIT NO. 23410-IN) Evaluation Summary Introduction 1. The 1988 National Forest Policy of India regards forests first, as an ecological necessity, second, as a source of goods for use by local populations, and third, as a source of wood and other products for industries and other non-local users. The Bank has supported the 1988 policy with a series of state forestry projects that address resource management and biodiversity in an integrated fashion, through policy and institutional reforms, participatory resource management, technology improvement, and mainstreaming of biodiversity concerns both within protected areas and outside them. These projects also build on the lessons learned from Bank support in the 1980s for more narrowly focused social forestry projects, including one in West Bengal. The West Bengal Forestry Project is the first of the sector vvide state forestry projects to reach completion. Project Objectives 2. Objectives. The broad goals of the project as reflected in the Staff Appraisal Report were to (a) prevent continuing degradation of the forest lands, (b) establish a sustainable protection system, (c) enhance productivity and (d) conserve biodiversity. The project strategy sought to address these goals by increasing the participation of local people and by introducing more productive forest management practices. Project Agreement covenants related to the objectives included a time-bound reorganization, a research plan and technical guidance, retention of specialized staffing, specified forest treatments, transit regulatory reform, benefit sharing arrangements for joint forest management, and the elimination of seedling subsidies. 3. Evaluation of objectives. While the goals and basic strategy of the project were relatively clear, its implementation strategy was not entirely consistent. Some components emphasized flexibility, while others projected a prescriptive approach. Another problem was that structure of the components confused the purpose and nature of expenditure. The SAR did not list indicators for assessing impacts, socioeconomic considerations, sustainability, and other factors. The components and indicators would also have had greater clarity if there had been more emphasis on qualities and processes rather than physical inputs. Implenientation Experience and Results 4. Preventing degradation and establishing a protection system. The project exceeded appraisal estimates. It rehabilitated large areas of degraded forests, substantially decelerated the onset of degradaltion in other forest lands, and made a major contribution toward comprehensive and sustainable coverage of forest lands that are potentially suitable for community protection efforts. Almost 3,300 registered Forest Protection Committees (FPCs) are now responsible for helping to protect over 450,000 ha, covering over 90% of all protected and reserve forest lands in the southwest, and over 60% of all forest lands with nearby rural communities in the north and in the mangroves. FPCs now effectively protect an estimated 280,000 ha, a significant increase over the estimated 118,000 ha pre-project situation and 176,000 ha SAR expectations. Furthermore, forestry officials are now convinced of the importance of the joint forest management (JFM) approach. The reorganization was implemented, but its impact on protection is not clear.  5. Enhancing productivity. The project: has increased productivity, but less than appraisal expectations. The project's most important potential contribution to productivity is the extent to which it has laid a foundation for very significant productivity gains in the future related to the use of improved planting material, improved coppice management techniques, shade tolerant fodder, and the recognition of the importance of bottom-up, site-specific planning and improved marketing. One of the project's significant accomplishments was the change in attitude among forestry officials, many of whom now strongly support these approaches. During the project period, the project accelerated the conversion of wastelands to more productive use. Offsetting this, however, average third-year survival rates were only 50% on the plantations, and there was less intercropping than expected. The transit regulation reforms and elimination of seedling subsidies were implemented. 6. Biodiversity conservation. The project exceeded appraisal expectations. FPC protection contributed to improved wildlife habitats and corridors, and native plant conservation. Activities in mangroves supported globally significant wetlands, the Sunderbans. The support to park management and research was also beneficial. The project experience contributed to the first government order for ecodevelopment committees (EDCs) in India, influencing similar orders in several other states, and establishing an incentive framework for biodiversity conservation in and around parks and sanctuaries. 7. Costs, financing, and implementation timetable. The-unit costs closely corresponded to the appraisal estimates, and physical quantities of treatments and civil works reflect adjustments agreed with the Bank. Total project costs equaled US$44.1 million compared with appraisal estimates of US$39.0 million. The government financed most of the additional costs. Implementation was timely, except for certain items subject to procurement clearance, especially technical assistance. 8. Key Factors. On the negative side, government clearance requirements for consultancies, the civil service structure, rigidity in the approved project budget and its allocation, and inadequate monitoring and evaluation adversely affected project performance. On the positive side, the delegation of financial powers to local forestry officials, and experiential learning by staff about participatory forest protection and improved planting materials contributed to project achievements. 9. Performance of World Bank. Bank performance was satisfactory. The project was innovative, and the task was therefore challenging. In retrospect, there were shortcomings in overall project structure, economic analysis, organizational analysis, communication between Bank staff and project officials, and the identification of major adjustments needed at the mid-term review. 10. Performance of Borrower. Borrowe:r performance was satisfactory; however, there were shortcomings in project coordination, communication of the underlying intentions of the project design, stakeholder partnerships, organizational development and management, and the involvemrient of women. 11. Overall Outcome. The overall outcome of the project is satisfactory, but there are serious concerns regarding sustainability. Summary of Findings, Future Operations, and Key Lessons Learned 12. Plans for Future Operations and Sustainability. The Forest Department (FD) has not drafted specific plans for future operations related to project investments. The financial sustainability is uncertain. FY98/99 is the first time since FY8 1/82 that the FD has not received significant funding from foreign assistance. Even if there is sufficient budget to sustain existing achievements, additional development investments would be needed to realize the potential of several project activities such as the pilot modern nurseries, the shade-tolerant fodder cultivars, the biodiversity action plans, etc. On the positive side, with continued development, the JFM incentive framework is likely to be sustainable for the southwest and the mangroves. However, in the north it has largely failed and needs fundamental reformulation with different benefit sharing arrangements that would more successfully entice local people to help in protection. In addition, new institutional arrangements are needed to fully  iv operationalize the forest department's partnership with Panchayats on Social Forestry, to arrange financial management systems that would allow strong sustainable partnerships with other implementing agencies, and to provide adequate expertise and attention to monitoring, adaptive management, marketing, improved planting material, JFM and ecodevelopment microplanning, farm forestry extension, and watershed conservation. 13. Lessons for Ongoing and Future Projects in the Forestry Sector. * Best Practice. Examples of best practice lessons in the project included (a) systems with delegated financial authority greatly facilitates fund flow and disbursement, and was a major reason for the complete disbursement of the credit, (b) shade tolerant grasses and legumes are technically feasible, which opens significant opportunities for forestry, since they can be planted after the trees mature beyond the stage when they can be browsed by cattle or goats, and (c) experiential learning during project implementation broadened and deepened the intially fragile ovvnership of reforms involving participatory forest management and improved planting materials. * Potential improvements. The project experience demonstrated that (a) project design and implementation should be results-oriented with a flexible process-oriented approach and an effective monitoring system, (b) project design and implementation should focus on measures to ensure financial, institutional, and incentive framework sustainability, (c) organizational reform is risky and requires careful analysis of power relationships and risks, (d) realistic economic analysis requires a careful consideration of the without project scenario. * Benefits to Forestry Portfolio. Other states implementing forestry projects have benefited from West Bengal's pioneer efforts. Their design already addresses many of the potential improvements outlined above. A major purpose of this in-depth learning ICR is to further deepen the application of these lessons in future situations, both within West Bengal, and in other states.  IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT INDIA WEST BENGAL FORESTRY PROJECT (IDA CREDIT NO. 23410-IN) Part I: Impleimentation Assessment A. Statement/Evaluation of Objectives I. Country and Sector Context. The 1988 National Forest Policy of India regards forests first, as an ecological necessity, second, as a source of goods for use by local populations, and third, as a source of wood and other products for industries and other non-local users. The Bank has supported this policy with a series of state forestry projects that address resource management and biodiversity in an integrated fashion, through policy and institutional reforms, participatory resource management, technology improvement, and mainstreaming of biodiversity concerns both within protected areas and outside them. These projects also build on the lessons learned from Bank support in the 1980s for more narrowly focused social forestry projects, including one in West Bengal. The West Bengal Forestry Project is the first of the sector wide state forestry projects to reach completion. 2. Project Objectives. The broad goals of the project as reflected in the Staff Appraisal Report were to: (a) prevent continuing degradation of the forest lands (b) establish a sustainable protection system (c) enhance productivity and (d) conserve biodiversity The project strategy sought to address these goals by increasing the participation of local people and by introducing more productive forest management practices. Specifically, the project included components intended to support regeneration and afforestation of degraded lands, mature government plantations, and farm forestry. It also provided assistance for supporting works including roads, demarcation, and watershed conservation, and for special action programs in research and plant propagation, training, institutional development of joint forest management (JFM), Ibiodiversity research and protection, and the regeneration of mangroves. In addition, the project included service support (houses, offices, vehicles, information systems, etc.), and fodder research and development. The mid-term review made minor adjustments to the physical targets but did not change the overall basic design. 3. Special Legal Covenants Promoting Objectives. Project Agreement covenants related to the objectives included a time-bound reorganization, a research plan and technical guidance, retention of specialized staffing, specified forest treatments, measures (e.g., regulatory reform) for farm forestry, benefit sharing arrangements for joint forest management, and the elimination of seedling subsidies. 4. Evaluation of Objectives - Context and Complexity. The project's goals, strategy, and specific components aimed to implement India's forestry sector objectives, as reflected in the 1988 National Forest Policy, and Eighth Five Year Plan, which emphasized investments for rehabilitation of degraded forests. The goals, strategy, and components conformed with the Bank's Country Assistance Strategy, which focused on efficient resource allocation, increased efficiency in the public sector, and appropriate targeting and delivery of support systems to the poor. They were also consistent with the Bank's forest policy and with the Asia Region's strategy for forestry lending which emphasized policy dialogue coupled with investment with afforestation. Due to the comprehensive, integrated nature of the project design, which treated the forestry sector as a whole, the project was complex. It had a large range of components, and a wide variety of ecological and geographical locations. Organizationally, however, the project was relatively simple in that it focused only on one state, with two implementing agencies.  2 5. Evaluation of Objectives - Content. The strategy and components were generally realistic and within the capacity of the implementing agency. While the goals and basic strategy of the project were relatively clear, its implementation strategy was not entirely consistent. The description of some activities (e.g., JFNI implementation support) emphasized a strategy of flexibility, learning from experience, and bottom- up planning, but wording for other activities (e.g. forest treatment models) projected a rigid, prescriptive approach . Another problem was that structure of the components confused the purpose and nature of expenditure. For example, it would have been more appropriate to group the treatments, associated works, training and other support according to the purpose (e.g., separate components for farm forestry, joint forest management in southwest, etc.). Greater emphasis on purpose might have helped to identify gaps in project activities (e.g., extension in farm forestry; activities directly address overgrazing problems; support to working plan revision; etc.). The main sector policy reforms of benefit sharing arrangements for JFM (prior to project inception), the simplification of the transit pass for farm forestry, and the elimination of seedling subsidies were modest relative to subsequent Bank-financed forestry projects and the staff appraisal report (SAR) did not describe a process for ongoing policy dialogue and reform. The SAR did not list indicators for assessing impacts, socioeconomic considerations, sustainability, and other factors. The components and indicators would also have had greater clarity if there had been more emphasis on qualities and processes rather than physical inputs. The design would benefited from a high quality log-frame planning approach, but at the time this was not common Bank practice. B. Achievement of Objectives 6. Preventing degradation and establishing a protection system. The project exceeded appraisal estimates. It rehabilitated large areas of degraded forests, substantially decelerated the onset of degradation in other forest lands, and made a major contribution toward comprehensive and sustainable coverage of forest lands that are potentially suitable for community protection efforts. * Coverage. Almost 3,300 registered Forest Protection Committees (FPCs) are now responsible for helping to protect over 450,000 ha, covering over 90% of all protected and reserve forest lands in the southwest, and over 60% of all forest lands with nearby rural communities in the northr and in the mangroves. * Planning. FPC microplans were focused on the distribution of project budget rather than on a sustainable particiipatory site-specific forest management plan. The management information system (MIS) did not achieve the aims of computerizing microplan information and supporting bottom-up planning, nor was the plan (added at mid-term) to develop simple geographical (GIS) capacity ever implemented. However, in a commendable achievement in spite of the limited support from the project, the FD revised the working plans to incorporate the environmental and social considerations. * Effectiveness. An estimated 70% of the FPCs in the southwest and the mangroves function effectively, but only 25% of the FPCs in the north are effective. The quality of the JFM policy would have been much higher if it had continued to evolve in response to field experience. * Area utnder protection. FPCs now effectively help to protect an estimated 280,000 ha, a significant increase over the estimated 118,000 ha pre-project situation and 176,000 ha SAR expectations. Furthermore, forestry officials are now convinced of the importance of the JFM approach. At the time of project design, senior FD managers and Bank staff feared that without strict mandates field staff woulct revert to traditional treatments, which had emphasized physical biomass output rather than benefit flows to local people (for protection incentives) ecological considerations, and overall economic productivity. In retrospect, there should have been more attention to result-oriented monitoring and procedures for adjustment.  3 * Environmental impact. Environmental benefits of protection (apart from biodiversity conservation described below) include soil and water conservation throughout the state, and flood control in the mangroves. * Fodder. The impact of the fodder activities on protection is uncertain. * Reorganization. The reorganization of the Forest Department was implemented, but there is no evidence that the reorganization accomplished its obj ectives of distributing the staff work loads more evenly or of providing more field staff to implement JFM. Furthermore it did notmake satisfactory arrangements for soil conservation and farm forestry work. 7. Enhancing productivity. The project has increased productivity, but less than appraisal expectations. * Future productivity. The project's most important potential contribution to productivity is the extent to which it has laid a foundation for very significant productivity gains in the future related to the use of improved planting material, improved coppice manage nent techniques, shade tolerant fodder, and the recognition of the importance of bottom-up, site-specific planning and improved marketing. One of the project's significant accomplishments was the change in attitude: among forestry officials, many of whom now strongly support these approaches. i Improved land use. During the project period, the main contribution to productivity comprised the acceleration in converting wastelands to more productive use under joint forest management (JFM) and farm forestry. The project fully used the 38,000 ha of area that actually required viable rootstock treatments. The plantation treatments (mostly in degraded lands) on about 41,000 ha in the southwest and north exceeded both the SAR and mid-term review (MTR) estimates. * Plantation survival. Offsetting the larger p:lantation areas, however, recent monitoring surveys indicate average third-year survival rates of only 50% on the plantations (please note that planting materials and survival rates are not factors in viable rootstock treatments). Many of the plantation treatment models prescribed in the project design have proved unsuitable. These low survival rates were a result of rigid treatment application and budget allocations. The rigidity undermined site-specific, bottom-up planning with a focus on underlying purposes, as well as adjustment in treatment design based on monitored results. * Intercropping. There was also less intercropping than anticipated -- in many areas intended for intercropping, there was none at all, while in other areas, FPCs intercropped only in the first year of plantation. * Farm forestry. Like JFM, farm forestry on 102,769 ha increased land use productivity, with most plantings going on marginal private lands cr on public (non-forest) wastelands whose only other use was for periodic grazing. However, the farm forestry productivity could have been further increased with better technical extension, market information and quality planting materials. The reorganization neglected farm forestry requirements. There is no information on the impact of the transit pass simplification on the incentive framework. The elimination of seedling subsidies in almost all districts has increased the prospects of financial sustainability of the f-arm forestry program, as well as an incentive framework that should help increase survival rates. * Mangroves. The mangrove regeneration and afforestation on 20,663 ha (consistent with the reduced MTR estimate that reflected a delayed start-up) did not involve any changes in technical guidelines, but there are likely to be productivity gains in mangroves associated with community protection. * Planting material. About 50% of the planlations were covered by source-identified quality seed, and some 400 ha were covered by improved seedlings produced mainly in 12 pilot modem nurseries. FD did meet appraisal objectives of keeping specialized research staff in position for the duration of the project and this contributed in a major way to the physical and attitudinal achievements of the pilot modem nurseries.  4 * Fodder. Under the fodder component Animal Resources Development Department (ARDD) has developed 30 shade-tolerant cultivars which show significant promise for increasing overall productivity by providing a good source of grazing fodder in mature plantations. Improved fodder production in new plantations coupled with a significant population of improved cattle breeds has significantly increased milk production in the targeted villages. 8. Bliodiversity Conservation. The project exceeded appraisal expectations. * Forest Areas. The forest protection and regeneration activities have helped to conserve biodiversity throughout the 280,000 hajointly protected by FPCs, contributing to improved wildlife habitats, and native plant conservation. * Mangroves. The mangrove protection and afforestation also contributed to the biodiversity conservation of globally significant coastal wetlands, the Sunderbans Biosphere Reserve. * Ecodevelopment. The project established a total of 97 registered ecodevelopment committees, who are now beginning to play a role in the protection of seven parks and sanctuary areas in the Sunderbans and the north that cover a total of 356,000 ha. In a policy development unanticipated at appraisal, the JFM experience contributed to the first government order for ecodevelopment committees (EDCs) in India, influencing similar orders in several other states, and establishing an incentive framework for biodiversity conservation in and around parks and sanctuaries. * Northern parks. The limited scale park management support in the North has helped important habitats for endangered species such as tigers, rhinos, elephants, and red pandas. Unlike many other states in India, the West Bengal FD had allocated sufficient staff to wildlife wing even prior to the project, a factor which greatly facilitated project achievements in biodiversity conservation. * Research. Mid-term adjustments substantially expanded the biodiversity component to include joint protection by ecodevelopment committees and an increase in the number of research studies from 4 to 12. The MTR also rectified the unrealistic appraisal plan to recruit additional wildlife research staff by proposing instead to contract biodiversity research. 9. Stakeholder Partnerships. Stakeholder partnerships focused on the involvement of non- govemmental organizations (NGOs) in JFM support, and the creation of comiTiunity-based organizations (FPCs and EDCs), and inter-agency linkages between FD and ARDD. The project did not involve NGOs to the extent originally envisaged. The project exceeded its original objectives in the creation of community- based organizations. The number of registered FPCs grew to a total of 3,289, a significant increase over the 963 FPCs registered before the project. In addition to the FPCs, 97 EDCs have been established. There is still room for improvement in the functioning of the FPCs and EDCs, especially in the north. FD and ARDD worked together during the project period, but did not identify steps needed to sustain the partnership. One unanticipated achievement of the elimination of seedling subsidies was the recent agreement in principle for the Forest Department to provide technical support to Panchayats for group farm forestry and strip plantations on panchayat lands. 10. Facilities. The improved facilities for field staff, which have only recently been completed, and the headquarters building, which is still under construction, are expected to improve working conditions, morale and staff effectiveness. The headquarters building will have the added advantage of consolidating office locations and facilitating coordination. 11. Forestry Projects in Other States. One significant benefit was the influence of the project experience on the design of forestry projects in other states. West Bengal provided inspiration, as well as pragmatic lessons about areas requiring more attention (e.g. process orientation, project coordination, communication, extent and timing of policy reform), which other states are now addressing. 12. Economic and Financial Re-evaluation. The SAR estimated an ERR of 20% and an NPV of Rs. 756 million (in 1991 Rs.), based on 100% of the costs. However, the validity of these estimates is  5 questionable, because they assume that there would be no FPC protection nor plantations in the project areas without the project. Using different assumptions for the without project scenario, the re-estimated ERR is 9% and the re-estimated NPV is -129 million Rs. in 199 IRs., based on 85%of the costs. Re-estimated ERRs range from 4% for southwest plantations to 28% for scuthwest sal. Major reasons behind the reduction in the ERR include (a) without project scenarios that assume continued, although slower growth in FPC protection in SW and continued investment in plantations and farrm forestry, although at lower level than the with project situation (b) incorporation of the level of FPC fuinctioning and its impact on sustainability; (c) incorporation of the relatively low survival rates and lower than Enticipated use of intercropping, and (d) potential harvesting and marketing constraints for poles. The re-estimated ERR and NPV would be significantly higher, (ERR of 12% and NPV of 14 million Rs in 1991 Rs), if fature development replicated on a large scale the project's pilot efforts to use improved planting stock and addressed harvesting and marketing constraints. It would be even higher with the development of stronger operational linkages to complementary programs involving other government agencies (e.g., shade tolerant fodder, Panchayat support for farm forestry), increased the percentage of well-functioning FPCs and EDCs, and increased managerial effectiveness at all staff levels. Assuming such development also included the implementation of the biodiversity action plans, and expanded support for biodiversity, forestry, and policy research, the returns would further increase, although they would not be reflected in the quantified analysis. 13. Social Impact - The project very effectively targeted the poor, especially tribals, and exceeded appraisal expectations for total number of beneficiaries.