IEG Review of 20 World Bank–Funded Projects in Tiger...

12

IEG Review of 20 World Bank–Funded

Projects in Tiger Landscapes

EvalBrief12-cover:EvalBrief12-cover 1/18/11 4:29 PM

IEG Review of 20 World Bank–Funded Projects in Tiger LandscapesRichard Carlos Worden and Colin Rees

Evaluation Brief 12

2011The World Bank

Washington, D.C.http://www.worldbank.org/ieg

© 2011 Independent Evaluation GroupCommunications, Learning, and StrategyThe World Bank1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433Email: [email protected]: 202-458-4487Fax: 202-522-3125http://www.worldbank.org/ieg

All rights reserved

This Evaluation Brief is a product of the staff of the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) of the World Bank. The findings, in-terpretations, and conclusions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the WorldBank or the governments they represent.

The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denomina-tions, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank orIEG concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Rights and PermissionsThe material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permissionmay be a violation of applicable law. IEG encourages the dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to re-produce portions of the work promptly.

For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information [email protected].

ISBN-13: 978-1-60244-142-2 ISBN-10: 1-60244-142-1

v Abbreviations

vii Acknowledgments

ix Executive Summary

xiii Management Comments

1 1. Background and Purpose

3 2. Method and Scope of Work

7 3. Findings

7 Identification of Potential Threats

10 Mitigation of Identified Threats

13 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures to Address Threats

19 4. Conclusions and Outstanding Issues

23 Appendix A: List of Evaluated Projects

24 Appendix B: Rating Scale for Assessing Impacts of World Bank-Funded Projects on Wild Tigers

25 Bibliography

Box18 1 Two Examples of Protecting Tiger Populations

Tables4 1 Breakdown of Selected Projects 5 2 Operational Manual Statements and Policy Notes9 3 Identification of Potential Impacts 13 4 Mitigation of Potential Impacts 18 5 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures and Programs

Figure19 1 Average Evaluation Ratings Summarized by Thematic Area

Contents

v

Abbreviations

CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership FundGTI Global Tiger InitiativeICDP Integrated Conservation and Development ProjectICR Implementation Completion and Results ReportIEG Independent Evaluation GroupISR Implementation Supervision ReportIUCN International Union for Conservation of NatureNGO Nongovernmental organizationOD Operational DirectiveOP Operational PolicyOPN Operational Policy NoteRMP1 Lao PDR Road Maintenance Project (first)RMP2 Lao PDR Road Maintenance Project (second)SOS Save Our Species ProgramWBG World Bank Group

v i i

Acknowledgments

This brief was prepared by Richard CarlosWorden (Task Manager) and Colin Rees (Consul-tant) under the supervision of Monika Huppi,Manager, IEG Sector Evaluation, and CherylGrey, Director, IEG-World Bank. The work was

carried out under the overall direction of VinodThomas, Director-General, Evaluation. Adminis-trative and logistical support was provided bySvetlana Raykova and Marie Charles. HeatherDittbrenner provided editorial support.

i x

Executive Summary

Biodiversity is critical to maintaining the integrity of ecosystems and theecological processes that support species and human well-being. Theworld is facing an unprecedented rate of species extinction: one in eight

bird species, one in four mammals, and one in three amphibians are threat-ened. Species can recover with concerted conservation.

As a charismatic endangered species, tigers havebecome a powerful symbol of biodiversity lossglobally, as their numbers have dropped from100,000 at the turn of the 20th century to anestimated 3,000–3,500 tigers in the wild today.The need to protect tigers has taken on greaturgency, and international efforts are attemptingto pull them back from the edge of extinction.From November 21 to 24, 2010, the RussianFederation hosted leaders from 13 tiger rangecountries at a conference in St. Petersburg. Thegoal was inter alia to eliminate illegal trade intiger parts while protecting tiger habitats—andto double the tiger population by 2022. TheWorld Bank has provided strong leadership andsupport for the initiative.

Biodiversity interventions can have potentiallylarge cobenefits: biodiversity conservation,climate change stabilization, food and watersecurity, and poverty reduction. The World Bankhas been the largest financier for biodiversity,with commitments of more than $2 billion overthe last two decades and substantial leveragingof cofinancing. However, the number of newprojects approved that contain biodiversityactivities has dropped considerably since themid-2000s. The Evaluation Cooperation Groupnotes “…numbers of projects directly targetingbiodiversity issues have declined in the WorldBank and some other IFIs…perhaps due to

competing demands and an increased emphasison climate change” (ECG 2010).

At present, the Bank is according importance tobiodiversity by taking a leading role in strategicpartnerships, such as the Global Tiger Initiative(GTI), the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund(CEPF), and the Save Our Species (SOS)program. By prioritizing such initiatives, theBank aims to bring crucial attention and fundingto ecosystem and biodiversity conservation. It isalso crucial at the same time to integrate conser-vation in development projects in sectors such asinfrastructure and rural development, which canhave negative effects on biodiversity withoutadequate mitigating actions.

There is growing awareness that, in addition totargeted conservation efforts, the design andimplementation of development projects needto ensure that biodiversity conservation andpoverty reduction reinforce each other (forexample, see ECG 2010). Prompted by theinterest expressed by the GTI and the WorldBank President, IEG reviewed a sample of 20closed World Bank-supported developmentprojects in or near tiger habitats in Asia that hadthe potential to cause significant degradation orconversion of protected natural habitats andthe plant and animal species living within them.This work complements earlier evaluations of

targeted biodiversity conservation projects andseeks to provide key lessons going forward.

These 20 projects, which had closed in the pastdecade,1 covered rural transportation, watershedmanagement, forestry, and integrated develop-ment. They were assessed to see—

1. Whether they had identified potential threatsto tiger populations and their habitats in par-ticular, as well as those of other protectedspecies and natural habitats more generally

2. The extent to which they had incorporatedmitigation measures to protect tigers and otherprotected species and natural habitats intoproject preparation and implementation

3. The effectiveness of mitigation measures em-ployed during project implementation.

In terms of identifying threats to biodiversity, theevaluation found the following:

• Almost all projects satisfactorily identified po-tential direct, indirect, and cumulative impactsand risks to natural habitats and protectedspecies such as tigers, and most gathered ad-equate baseline data on sensitive species andhabitats.

• There were lapses in the application of theBank’s Natural Habitats safeguard policy and alack of clarity regarding its analytical require -ments, apart from those required under the En-vironmental Assessment safeguard policy.

In terms of preparing adequate mitigation plansand measures, the analysis revealed that—

• Roughly three-quarters of the projects evalu-ated used appropriate assessment tools andprepared adequate mitigation plans to pre-vent and minimize direct impacts to pro-tected natural habitats and species, andconsidered the need to strengthen local

clients’ and stakeholders’ safeguard imple-mentation capabilities.

• One-third of the projects did not take ade-quate steps to address the indirect impactsof projects on protected habitats and specieswithin a project’s area of influence, and aboutone-third did not incorporate mitigation meas-ures recommended in project preparation doc-uments to address such impacts and risksduring implementation.

Finally, in assessing the effectiveness of mitiga-tion measures, this review revealed gaps indocumented information about impacts andoutcomes:

• Fewer than half of the projects demonstratedadequate supervision of clients’ implementa-tion of mitigation measures and monitoring andevaluation programs or adequately supervisedsafeguard policy compliance.

• Most monitoring data were used to verify pro-cedural compliance or to measure inputs ratherthan environmental outcomes, nor was it ap-parent whether serious or imminent threats hadtriggered corrective actions to address them.

• In terms of direct project impacts on protectedhabitats and species, only three projects pro-vided evidence of having implemented miti-gation measures effectively, and none coulddemonstrate successful mitigation of the moreserious indirect threats to protected habitatsand species.

A number of key lessons emerge from the experi-ence of the 20 closed2 projects reviewed. First,there was a pattern of solid due diligence assess-ment work conducted early during projectpreparation and appraisal process. However, thatwas not followed up by adequate environmentalsupervision and monitoring of impacts andoutcomes, as only a few projects reported on theeffectiveness of mitigation measures. This is

x

E VA L UAT I O N B R I E F 12

1. Of the 20 projects closed in 1999, the original 2009 closing date of one was extended, and the project wasthus still active at the time of the evaluation. The remainder of the projects closed between 2000 and 2010.Details are provided in Appendix A.2. Due to extension of closing date, one of the projects reviewed was still active.

consistent with a main finding of the IEG evalua-tion of the safeguard and sustainability policies,which recommended that the WBG, countries,and partners put more emphasis on supervision,better monitoring of implementation of applica-ble safeguard policies, increased transparencythrough public access to periodic progressreports, greater use of local partnerships, andindependent verification of implementationactivities and outcomes. In response, the WBGhas committed to a program to strengthen thesupervision of safeguards implementation.

Second, there was inconsistent application of thesafeguard policy for Natural Habitats and littleapparent difference between those projects thatapplied it and those that did not. There were nonotable differences in the analyses undertakenby projects that triggered the Natural Habitatpolicy and those that addressed biodiversityconcerns under the Environmental Assessmentpolicy. Nor were the outcomes achieved by thetwo groups of projects much different from eachother. This suggests a need to further clarify theappropriate application and distinct analyticalrequirements of the Natural Habitat safeguardpolicy.

Third, a fundamental question arises regardinghow far the Bank’s responsibility extends toensure that clients address indirect impacts thatextend beyond the project’s area of influence andare driven by forces of a regional or even globalnature, such as the poaching crisis and unsustain-able extraction of natural resources. Although theBank’s operational policies require attention toindirect impacts within a project’s area ofinfluence, it is beyond the reach of safeguards ofindividual projects to address underlying causesor drivers of impact, such as organized networksillegally trafficking in wildlife. Addressing these

issues requires policies and programs at nationaland transnational levels.

To address the global challenge of biodiversityloss, the Bank is taking a leading role in jointactions and strategic partnerships with donors,governments, the private sector, and civil society,such as the SOS microgrant financing program,the GTI, and the CEPF. The SOS program, underpreparation for Board approval, aims to addressthe funding gap for biodiversity conservation bymobilizing innovative grant financing and privatesector engagement in partnership with the WorldConservation Union.

The GTI has spearheaded an internationalframework to curb illegal networks trafficking inwildlife, such as tiger parts, and has supported theInternational Consortium on Combating WildlifeCrime to strengthen regional cooperation,improve wildlife crime reporting, establish tigertrade data, and enhance law enforcement underthe Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. TheGTI is working with partners on innovativefunding schemes, such as a Wildlife Premiumpiggy-backing onto the Reduced Emissions fromDeforestation and Degradation+ carbon marketand the Global Tiger Recovery Program. The CEPFhas awarded over $100 million to more than 1,500nongovernmental organizations and privatesector organizations in the biodiversity hotspots.

This review has shown that as important as thesetargeted biodiversity efforts is the need for theBank, countries, and partners to strengthenefforts to integrate biodiversity conservation intoprojects in sectors where they can have negativebiodiversity impacts without mitigating actions,such as rural transport, watershed management,or integrated rural development.

I E G R E V I E W O F 2 0 WO R L D B A N K – F U N D E D P R O J E C T S I N T I G E R L A N D S C A P E S

x i

x i i i

Management Comments

At the launch of the Global Tiger Initiative (GTI)in June 2008, World Bank president Robert B.Zoellick requested such an independent reviewto help the Bank in learning lessons from thepast to inform future engagement in the contextof habitat conservation and wildlife protection.The reviewed projects were approved by theBoard of Executive Directors as far back as 1994,and all projects have since closed. None of these20 projects was a stand- alone biodiversityproject, and 11 were in the transport sector.

Bank management welcomes the timing ofthe evaluation, as it feeds into the Bank’supdated Environment Strategy to befinalized in the spring of 2011. As a vanish-ing icon of historical, ecological, and culturalimportance, the tiger has become a powerfulsymbol of the threat to biodiversity globally andof the urgent need to protect the species as partof the broader agenda of biodiversity conserva-tion. The Bank is committed to biodiversityconservation and has been the largest financierfor biodiversity conservation since the 1980s.More recently, the Bank has launched a series ofinitiatives to promote policy changes to addressbiodiversity and environmental concerns,including the GTI, the Critical EcosystemsPartnership Fund, and the Save Our Speciesprogram. The GTI is a corporate initiativelaunched by the World Bank President in June2008, aimed at mainstreaming conservation intothe development agenda and reversing thedecline in wild tiger populations. In this context,one key element of the updated Environment

Strategy is to further enhance the Bank’s workin natural resource management and biodiver-sity, and how best to link global public goods likebiodiversity and ecosystem services into Bank country- level policy and program- and project- level support.

Management acknowledges the lessonsderived from the IEG review and is commit-ted to continue improving the resultseffectiveness of Bank-financed projectswhile supporting its clients in their effortsto ensure environmental and socialsustainability of their projects. The IEGreview complements its July 2010 evaluation ofenvironmental and social safeguard policies, andmany of the broader issues raised in the revieware being addressed in the context of the Board- endorsed Management Action Plan. In thiscontext, management appreciates the opportu-nity to elaborate and provide clarification onsome of the more specific issues identified in this review.

Management notes that the median year ofconcept review of the 20 reviewed projectsis 1997. Some of the design issues noted in theIEG review have been previously identified inother reviews and subsequently addressed—such as monitoring and evaluation, for example,requiring adequate baseline data by the time ofthe first Implementation Status and ResultsReport (ISR) and the need for an increased focuson project impact design, supervision, and evaluation.

Management welcomes the Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group(IEG) review of 20 World Bank- supported projects in selected tigerrange countries.

Management is pleased that IEG has notedthe upfront due diligence undertaken bythe Bank and its borrowers, including assess-ment work undertaken in terms of identificationof potential threats to natural habitats andendangered species, including the collection ofkey baseline data. In particular, managementnotes that the review states, “Almost all projectssatisfactorily identified potential direct, indirect,and cumulative impacts and risks to naturalhabitats and protected species such as tigers, andmost gathered adequate baseline data onsensitive species and habitats.” Managementintends to continue to take appropriate action toensure that infrastructure projects, includingroads, take effective measures to mitigatepotential impacts and risks to sensitive ecosys-tems and habitats.

At the same time, management recognizesthat there is scope for improvement in themonitoring and reporting on environmen-tal impacts and outcomes during projectimplementation and has therefore increasedits focus on improved reporting of mitigationplans and outcomes through ISRs andImplementation Completion and ResultsReports. Management is also taking measures tostrengthen supervision of the implementation ofsafeguard policies as part of its response to theIEG safeguards evaluation. These include, at theproject level, expanded training on the applica-tion of the policy for Natural Habitats(Operational Policy 4.04) and initiating aprogram for accreditation of staff working on theimplementation of environmental and socialsafeguard policies.

Management recognizes the need to shiftfrom an emphasis on projects to alsoinclude a broader focus on supportingcountries in the context of nationalpolicies, legislation, and programs onhabitat conservation and the protection ofendangered species such as the tiger. It is clearfrom the IEG review and operational experiencethat the drivers of threats to natural habitats and

biodiversity are extremely complex and diverse.In most cases, the primary drivers of threats tobiodiversity are best dealt with at a broaderpolicy level, through environmental impactassessment policies, incentives, and theirenforcement; specific programs; and last but notleast at the level of protected area management.This includes the need to support strengtheningof governance to address activities such as illegallogging and other forms of illicit habitat destruc-tion, poaching of threatened and endangeredspecies, and wildlife trade in contravention ofinternational conventions and national laws.

Management concurs with the IEG reviewthat there are distinct limits to the degreeto which the Bank and borrower can beheld responsible for “indirect impacts.”Both the Bank and most implementing organiza-tions at the national and subnational levels have well- defined mandates and authority that do notextend into addressing the wide range of“drivers” behind many forms of habitat destruc-tion and loss of species. Because of the Bank’srole in supporting specific projects (for instance,a road project implemented by a ministry oftransport), it is important that far- reachingpotential “indirect impacts”—if outside thescope of the particular project—are addressedthrough policy and programmatic efforts.Management is encouraging governments andtheir development partners to use strategicenvironmental assessments to address issues upfront at the macro level to support developmentof policy-, strategy- and program- level interven-tions. Individual projects are seldom the primarycause for nor can they provide the completesolution to natural habitat and biodiversitythreats. Similarly, some of the more far- reachingindirect impacts concerning habitat and conser-vation of tigers or other endangered species(which are often outside the boundaries ofsector investment projects and beyond the scopeof the Bank’s safeguard policies) are bestaddressed through complementary legalmeasures to control poaching and trafficking inanimals in collaboration with regional and

x i v


national governments and their partners in bothdevelopment and law enforcement.

Management appreciates the advice thatthe Bank should further mainstreambiodiversity into sectors that can have signifi-cant effects on biodiversity, such as infrastructureand rural development. Management agrees that

mainstreaming biodiversity considerations intothe design and implementation of Bank- supported projects to complement focused stand- alone biodiversity conservation efforts iskey to achieve results in this area. Managementintends to continue advancing this agendathrough proactive support to improve environ-mental aspects of Bank- supported projects.


x v

1

1. Background and Purpose

Biological diversity is critical to maintaining the functional and structuralintegrity of ecosystems and the ecological processes that support lifeand well- being. The earth’s biodiversity has been declining over the past

several decades at an increasingly rapid rate, with steep declines in habitat andspecies numbers including extinction (Butchart and others 2010).

One in eight bird species, one in four mammals,and one in three amphibians are threatened. Butspecies can and do recover with concertedconservation efforts. Tiger populations havedropped from more than 100,000 at the turn ofthe 20th century to an estimated 3,000–3,500tigers in the wild today (Smithsonian NationalZoological Park and World Bank 2008; WWF andothers 2010). Three of the nine subspecies oftigers have become extinct during that time (GTINo date–a), and the remaining populationsinhabit only seven percent of their traditionalrange (WWF and others 2008; Sanderson andothers 2006; Dinerstein and others 2007).

As a vanishing icon of historical, ecological, andcultural importance, the tiger has become apowerful symbol of the threat to biodiversity.International efforts are under way to attempt topull tigers back from the edge of extinction.From November 21 to 24, 2010, the RussianFederation hosted leaders from 13 tiger rangecountries at a conference in St. Petersburg. Thegoal was inter alia to eliminate illegal trade intiger parts while protecting tiger habitats—anddouble the tiger population by 2022.

The conservation of biodiversity has thusemerged as an environmental issue of global

importance and concern, with the “primary goal[of] maintaining the long- term potential of worldbiological resources to meet the needs and aspira-tions of future generations—a fundamental princi-ple of sustainable development” (World Bank1991, p. 69). Although the World Bank supportsthis goal through initiatives such as the GlobalTiger Initiative (GTI), the Critical EcosystemPartnership Fund (CEPF), and the Save OurSpecies (SOS) innovative grant- making partner-ship and country level biodiversity conservationprojects, its main focus and mission is to alleviatepoverty, increase economic growth, and improvethe quality of life. It therefore has to integrateefforts to improve the quality of people’s lives withefforts to conserve biodiversity. These aremutually reinforcing goals, but there are oftenshort-term trade- offs, winners, and losers—andhence hard choices.

The World Bank and other agencies havesupported efforts to conserve biodiversitythrough targeted interventions. Historically, theBank has been the largest financier for biodiver-sity conservation, with commitments of morethan $2 billion over the last two decades andsubstantial leveraging of cofinancing. But thenumber of new projects approved that containbiodiversity activities has dropped considerably

1. The number of projects coded as containing biodiversity peaked at 39 in fiscal 2005 and has since thendropped to around 20 per year. Total commitments (including Global Environment Facility funding) coded tobiodiversity have witnessed substantial year-to-year fluctuations over the last five years, reaching almost $175million in fiscal 2005, $43 million in 2007, $262 million in 2009, and $84 million in 2010.

since the mid-2000s.1 The Evaluation CooperationGroup notes: “...numbers of projects directlytargeting biodiversity issues have declined in theWorld Bank and some other IFIs... perhaps due tocompeting demands and an increased emphasison climate change” (ECG 2010).

Also important to biodiversity conservation is theintegration of conservation and other environ-mental protection measures in the planning andimplementation of development projects insectors (for example, infrastructure, energy, andrural development), which can have consider-able negative effects on biodiversity if mitigatingactions are not made an integral part of projectdesign and implementation.

Prompted by the interest expressed by the GTIand the World Bank President, the IndependentEvaluation Group (IEG) conducted a desk reviewof 20 World Bank- supported rural development,rural transportation, and integrated conservationand development projects that posed signifi-cant potential adverse impacts and risks to tigerpopulations and habitats (as well as otherprotected species and natural habitats) in Asiancountries. As a basis for lessons going forward, it

tried to see to what extent the projects took intoconsideration the need to mitigate potentialimpacts to protected natural habitats and specieswhile supporting investments to meet humandevelopment needs. The review approached thisquestion along three thematic lines of evaluative questions:

• Determine the extent to which threats to tigerpopulations and habitats (as well as those ofother protected species and natural habitats)had been identified.

• Ascertain whether mitigation measures andprograms had been adequately designed andprepared to address those threats.

• Assess the effectiveness of mitigation meas-ures addressing threats and adverse effects ontiger populations and habitats (as well as otherprotected species and natural habitats).

This work complements earlier evaluation workfocused more directly on the effectiveness ofspecific biodiversity conservation projects andinitiatives which are not the subject of thisevaluation. (See the Bibliography for a listing ofother relevant IEG evaluations and otherrelevant Bank publications.)

2


3

2. Method and Scope of Work

An electronic search of World Bank projects located in tiger range coun-tries that were classified as Category A (significant potential adverse ef-fects) or Category B (limited environmental impacts) projects and

were either nearly closed (that is, with project activities substantially completed,but the project not officially closed) or had closed within the past 10 years wasundertaken by GTI staff. It resulted in a list of 115 projects. However, the proj-ect location was only specified at the “administrative unit 1” level, equivalentto an entire state or province.

As a result, when these projects were manuallyoverlaid at a higher level of resolution with tigerconservation landscape maps developed by theGTI’s partner organizations (WWF and others),many were found to be located far from tigerhabitats, with little or no potential to causeadverse impacts.

Therefore, a second screening process wasutilized to eliminate those projects not overlap-ping with or within close proximity to tigerhabitats; those not considered likely to generatesignificant adverse impacts, such as projects in thehealth, education, water supply and sanitation,and urban and social development sectors; andthose in countries where the Bank had negligiblelending, such as Malaysia and Thailand. China wasdropped because few loans were made in the areacontaining the last remaining tiger populations inthe northeastern border with Russia. This processreduced the list to 49 projects.

At this point, IEG convened a group of biodiver-sity conservation experts from the World Bankand nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) toprioritize the projects against the jointly agreed- upon selection criteria listed below and to

comment on the standardized assessmenttemplate containing the evaluation questionsIEG had developed for the assessment. For thefinal selection of 20 projects for evaluation, thefollowing criteria were used:

• Minimum area of at least 1,000 square kilo-meters of project overlap with tiger conserva-tion landscapes at time of project preparation

• Projects with higher degrees of connectivityinter alia to other nearby sensitive habitats,such as protected areas, wildlife reserves orwilderness, national parks, or other managednatural areas (that is, World Conservation Union[IUCN] Categories I–VI)

• Projects with significant potential to cause ad-verse impacts on tigers and their habitats, aswell as to other protected species and natural habitats

• A well- balanced mix of well- known and well- studied projects (for example, the Ecodevel-opment Project in India), along with less visiblebut more typical Bank projects, such as dis-persed road rehabilitation projects.

On this basis, IEG selected 20 closed1 projects toassess, which is reflected in the breakdown of

1. Due to extension of closing date, one project was still active.

projects according to topic, region, and category(see Table 1). Given the small sample size andpurposeful selection of projects for review, thesample is not statistically representative of all Bank- supported projects that potentiallyaffected tiger populations or habitats (or otherbroader biodiversity indices), but it does presentan illustrative cross- section and is similar in sizeto that of several other studies undertakenrecently to address the issue of threats tobiodiversity posed by Bank- supported projects,including threats to tigers and their habitats.2 Alist of the projects reviewed is presented inAppendix A.

IEG developed a standardized assessmenttemplate of 15 evaluative questions to apply to all20 projects, based on the Bank’s operationalpolicies for environmental assessment andnatural habitats (see Tables 3, 4, and 5). Thetemplate was discussed with the group of Bankand NGO biodiversity experts convened by IEG(see page 3). A biodiversity conservation expertreviewed all available project documentsgenerated during project preparation andappraisal (that is, Staff Appraisal Reports, ProjectAssessment Documents, and EnvironmentalAssessments) as well as during the supervisionand post- supervision phases of the project cycle

(for example, Implementation Status and ResultsReports, Implementation Completion Reports[ICRs] and ICR Reviews).

Each project was assessed using a six- point ratingscale, with 1 representing highly satisfactory and6 highly unsatisfactory (Appendix B presentsdefinitions for each value). This six- point scoringsystem was then collapsed into two groups:satisfactory, with scores from 1 to 3, and unsatis-factory, with scores from 4 to 6. Questions thatcould not be assessed due to a lack of informa-tion were classified as not evaluable. Anotherevaluator then validated the assessments toensure internal consistency and crediblecomparisons across projects. Follow- up in-terviews with Bank staff were then conducted inan attempt to fill in the remaining informationgaps and to deepen the understanding of keyissues not apparent from reviewing project documents.

The evaluative questions were clustered aroundthree themes: (a) identification of potentialthreats, (b) mitigation plans and measures tominimize such threats, and (c)the effectivenessor performance of those measures to minimizenegative impacts on tiger populations andhabitats (as well as on other sensitive species or

4


Environmental Assessment

Number of Region categorySector or topic projects SAR EAP A B

Rural transportation 11 7 4 5 6

Rural development 2 2 0 2

Integrated conservation and development 3 1 2 1 2

Watershed and natural resources management, including forestry 4 1 3 2 2

Total 20 9 11 8 12Source: IEG.

Note: EAP = East Asia and Pacific Region; SAR = South Asia Region.

Table 1: Breakdown of Selected Projects

2. A Smithsonian report (Smithsonian National Zoological Park and World Bank 2008) examined 30 World Bankprojects; the GTI-SGI Working Group Paper (No date–b) examined 16 World Bank projects as case studies; anda joint UNDP–World Bank study (UNDP and World Bank 2007) reviewed 10 case study projects.

habitats). These themes are directly related toand anchored in the Bank’s operational policieson environmental assessment and naturalhabitats, which have been developed over thepast three decades to guide the application ofenvironmental assessments and other environ-mental safeguard policies, such as naturalhabitats, forests, and pest management.

Specifically, the review assessed the degree towhich the conversion or degradation by Bank- supported projects posed significant impactsand risks to protected natural habitats andspecies (including tigers) in a project’s area ofinfluence. If threats were identified, the reviewassessed whether mitigation measures wereplanned and implemented, as required by theBank’s environmental safeguards policies.Finally, if mitigation measures were taken, thereview assessed the results or effectiveness ofthem to address potential impacts.

Relevant operational policies have their originsin the mid-1980s and include OperationalManual Statement (OMS) 2.36 for EnvironmentalAssessment and Operational Policy Note (OPN)11.02 for Wildlands. These and their subsequentupdates are listed in Table 2.

OMS 2.36 was issued in May 1984 and stated thatthe Bank “will not finance projects that causesevere or irreversible environmental degrada-tion” or that would “significantly modify naturalareas.” This was replaced in 1989 by OperationalDirective (OD) 4.00, Appendix A and OD 4.01 in1991; these outlined Bank policy and proceduresfor conducting environmental assessments forlending operations. These were in turn replacedby the current Operational Policy and BankProcedure for Environmental Assessment (OPand BP 4.01) in January 1999 and last updated inMarch 2007.

OP 4.01 on Environmental Assessment (OD 4.00,Annex A, which preceded and was replaced byOP 4.01) requires that environmental baseline

conditions be assessed and potentially significantdirect and indirect impacts on critical naturalhabitats and other natural habitats predictedwithin the project’s area of influence, including“all its ancillary aspects, such as power transmis-sion corridors, pipelines, canals, tunnels, reloca-tion and access roads, borrow and disposal areas,and construction camps, as well as unplanneddevelopment induced by the project.”3 Theevolution of these policies over the years has notsubstantively changed in terms of their purposeor requirements. Their central purpose hasconsistently remained to help ensure thatprojects under consideration for Bank financingare “environmentally sound and sustainable, andthus improve decision making.”4

OPN 11.02 for Wildlands was issued in June 1986and spelled out the justification and policyguidance when Bank projects and lendingoperations affected natural habitats. It describedthe various types of wildland management plansand design considerations and highlighted theneed for adequate supervision and long- termmonitoring as a “key aspect of conservation ofbiological diversity in Bank projects” (WorldBank 1991). OP 4.04 superseded OPN 11.02 inSeptember 1995, was updated in June 2001, andwas revised slightly in 2004 to its current form.


5

3. OP 4.0, Environmental Assessment, Annex A – Definitions, January 1999, p. 1. 4. OP 4.01, Environmental Assessment, January 1999, p. 1.

Table 2: Operational Manual Statements and Policy Notes

Policy Date(s)Environmental Assessment

OMS 2.36 1984

OD 4.00 (Annex A) 1989

OD 4.01 1991

OP/BP 4.01 1999, 2004, 2007

Natural Habitat

OPN 11.02 1986

OD 4.00 (Annex D) 1989

OP 4.04 1995, 2001, 2004Source: World Bank.

Note: OD = Operational Directive; OMS = Operational Manual Statement; OP/BP = Operation Policy;

OPN = Operational Policy Note.

OP 4.04 (Natural Habitats) strictly prohibits Banksupport for projects that would lead to the signif-icant conversion or degradation of any criticalnatural habitat and explicitly allows such impactsin “other” natural habitats only when there is nofeasible alternative and acceptable mitigationmeasures are included in the project design,implementation, and funding.

”Significant conversion” is defined by the NaturalHabitat policy (OP 4.04, Appendix A) as the“elimination or severe diminution of the integrityof a critical or other natural habitat caused by amajor, long- term change in land or water use,”whereas “degradation” is defined as any modifi-cation that “substantially reduces the habitat’sability to maintain viable populations of its nativespecies.”5 Those impacts can “result directlyfrom the action of a project or through anindirect mechanism (for example, throughinduced settlement along a road).”6

Bank policy requires that the potential for suchimpacts be identified early in the project prepara-tion phase so that appropriate conservation andmitigation measures can be defined and theirestimated costs included in the project´s financ-ing. An important distinction is made between“critical natural habitats”7 and other (noncritical)natural habitats in terms of the conditions underwhich such impacts may occur in noncriticalnatural habitats. Similar to the evolution of theoperational policy on environmental assessment,the purpose and requirements of the operationalpolicy on natural habitats have not substantiallychanged over time. The evaluation criteriaapplied to the 20 projects reviewed in this assess-ment are thus anchored in these requirements.

There is considerable overlap in the intent,methods, and procedures of these twosafeguard policies, but they have severalimportant differences. These differencesinclude a specific reference in Natural Habitatpolicy (OP 4.04) to take the “precautionaryapproach” when appraising and supervising Bank- supported projects to ensure environmen-tally sustainable development outcomes; cleardefinitions of “critical natural habitats” and“other natural habitats,” including the specificconditions under which projects may proceed ifthey are likely to cause significant degradationor conversion of noncritical natural habitats, andthe identification of credible, recognized lists of protected animal and plant species, such asrare, threatened, endangered, vulnerable, andmigratory species.8

Essentially, the Natural Habitat safeguard policy isa specialized application of the environmentalassessment process that contains standards bywhich decisions can be made regarding theadequate identification of threats, specific formsof mitigation measures, and acceptable levels of“residual impact” (those impacts remaining aftermitigation measures have been applied) ininstances where Bank- supported operations arelocated in or near natural areas or habitats ofprotected species that might be adverselyaffected by changes in ecological conditions vitalto their continued existence and viability. Incontrast, OP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment) isprocedurally prescriptive and does not establishstandards of acceptable residual impact. Finally,interviews with regional safeguard advisorsrevealed the powerful signaling effect that trigger-ing safeguard policies has on stakeholders.

6


5. OP 4.04, Annex A – Definitions, June 2001, p. 1.6. OP 4.04, Annex A – Definitions, June 2001, p. 1.7. Critical natural habitats are defined in OP 4.04as legally protected areas, areas proposed for protection,unprotected but of known high conservation value, or that maintain conditions vital for the viability of rare,vulnerable, migratory, or endangered species in these areas. 8. OP 4.04, Annex A – Definitions, June 2001, p. 1.

7

3. Findings

Identification of Potential Threats

The vast majority of evaluated projects adequately identified the spatialoverlap with or proximity of the project´s area of influence to tiger habi-tats as well as to other protected animal and plant species and natural

habitats.

Almost all projects identified the potentialimpacts of indirect or cumulative threats totiger habitats as well as to other natural habitatsand protected species to the extent that theywere present. Three- quarters of the projectsgathered relevant baseline data. Eleven projectswere found to have satisfactorily applied theappropriate Bank environmental safeguardpolicies; five did not, and four others providedinsufficient information about the environ-mental context to determine if the appropriatesafeguard policies requirements had beentaken into account. Overall, the majority ofunsatisfactory or non- evaluable ratings werefound in just three projects.

The first set of five evaluation questions addressedthe identification of threats to protected naturalhabitats and animal and plant species—includingtiger populations and habitats1—that could causesignificant degradation or conversion of thoseareas and populations. Tigers were the focus ofthis study in part because of the public concernand attention being paid to their rapidly declining

numbers and habitat. The symbolic visibility oftigers and their role as a top predator make themexcellent proxies of much broader indices ofbiological health and diversity and overall ecologi-cal services. Therefore, though they were singledout in this report, other indicators of biodiversitywere also considered because the Bank’s relevantsafeguard policies address these broader concerns.

Thus, the first set of evaluation questionsaddressed different aspects of potential risksposed to natural habitats and protected species(including tigers), as required by the Bank’ssafeguard policies: (a) the extent to which thepotential threats posed by project- related activi-ties overlapping with, or in close proximity to,protected natural habitats were identified; (b) theextent to which potential threats to protectedspecies, including tiger populations, posed by theproject were identified; (c) whether indirect orcumulative impacts caused by external activitiesor processes induced by the Bank- supportedproject were identified; (d) whether studies of

1. The term “protected areas and species” is used throughout this report as a form of shorthand to indicateboth natural habitats and species that are recognized as having special status or importance by the Bank orother authoritative sources determined by Regional environment sector units. This includes internationallyaccepted IUCN Natural Habitat Categories I–VI or the IUCN Red Lists for either Threatened Animals or Threat-ened Plants, as well as areas recognized by traditional local communities, areas with known high suitability forbiodiversity conservation, that maintain conditions vital for the viability of these protected areas, or that arecritical for rare, vulnerable, migratory, or endangered species. Definitions can be found in OP 4.04, Annex A –Definitions.

baseline ecological conditions, demographictrends, social pressures, or land- use patterns thatcould potentially affect tiger habitats or popula-tions had been conducted in preparing theprojects; and (e) whether the relevant Banksafeguard policy requirements had been applied.

Some plant and animal species are highly adaptive“pioneers” in terms of filling new ecological nichesor vacuums created by changing conditions.Tigers, however, are extremely territorial and poor“dispersers.” They often will not cross a new orupgraded road of more than a certain width or onethat is travelled frequently. This can effectively cutthem off from former habitat and prevent themfrom maintaining viable reproducing populations.Consequently, to know whether protected areas orspecies are at risk from direct or indirect threatsassociated with a Bank- supported project, it isnecessary to analyze the ecological context of theproject and baseline conditions.

Identification of potential threats to protectednatural areas (as defined by the IUCN’s sixcategories of protected areas and cited in OP4.04) was satisfactorily identified in 17 of the 20projects assessed. The only projects wherepotential threats to protected natural habitatswere not adequately identified were the Indone-sia Bengkulu Regional Development, whichrecognized the benefit of reducing humanpressures on the nearby national park of KerinciSeblat, but did not identify protected naturalhabitats within its own area of influence, and theLao PDR Road Maintenance (RMP1) and VietnamRural Transport projects, which did notadequately identify threats to protected naturalhabitats because impacts were considered“minor and localized.”

However, it appears that the cumulative effectsof a multitude of small road works and theindirect impacts of improved access created bymaintaining the road networks near natural areaswere not adequately considered under thesethree projects. In the case of Lao PDR, theSecond Road Maintenance Project did muchbetter at identifying protected habitats andspecies by conducting a Strategic Environmental

Assessment, which revealed high levels ofwildlife trafficking along the border with China.

Proximity to or overlap with populations ofprotected species (such as tiger populations)was satisfactorily identified in 18 of the 20projects assessed. The Bengkulu RegionalDevelopment Project was the only project thatacknowledged the presence of tiger populationsin the nearby national park of Kerinci Seblat, butit did not adequately conduct surveys to detecttheir presence within the project’s area ofinfluence. It was not possible to determinewhether tigers or other protected species wereidentified in the Vietnam Rural Transport Project.

Analysis of the third question, regarding whethercumulative or indirect impacts (in addition todirect impacts) on natural habitats and protectedspecies within a project’s area of influence wereadequately identified, revealed that 18 projectssatisfactorily identified all types of threats. Oneproject (RMP1) did not provide adequate site- specific information about indirect and cumula-tive impacts to protected species or naturalhabitats and relied too heavily on overly genericand vague government guidelines. Anotherproject (Vietnam Rural Transport) did notprepare an environmental assessment or provideany information about such impacts because ofthe project’s sequential approach and “smallenvironmental impacts.” Consequently, as far ascould be determined, environmental manage-ment needs were not incorporated in its implementation.

Nearly three- quarters (14) of the projectsgathered adequate baseline data during thepreparatory phase. Typically, these data weregathered during the preparation of the projectenvironmental assessments or a comprehensiveenvironmental assessment (either regional orsectoral). In three cases it was not clear from theproject documentation to what extent adequatebaseline data had been collected. In anotherthree cases, the information gathered throughbaseline studies and biosurveys or inventorieswas judged inadequate and of poor quality.Documentation of local community and NGO

8


involvement as well as ample opportunities forpublic consultations in nearly all 20 projectsproved satisfactory. These are important positivefindings, as sound environmental assessments,along with client implementation, local involve-ment, and project supervision, are the founda-tions of environmental management.

For 11 of the 20 projects there was evidence thatrelevant Bank safeguards policy requirementswere adequately applied, taking into account theproject’s potential to cause “significant degrada-tion or conversion” of natural habitats andprotected species either by applying the require-ments under the Natural Habitats safeguardpolicy (OP 4.04) or under the EnvironmentalAssessment policy (OP 4.01). Six projectssatisfactorily considered impacts to protectedhabitats and species under the umbrella environ-mental safeguard policy (OP 4.01) withoutapparently triggering the Natural Habitat policy(OP 4.04).

Five other projects neither triggered the NaturalHabitats safeguard nor adequately addressedpotential significant impacts to protected areasor species under the Environmental Assessment

policy when that appeared to be warranted. Oneof these projects was found to be in violation ofboth OP 4.01 and OP 4.04 by an Inspection Panelinvestigation (the Cambodia Forest ConcessionManagement Project). Two of the four assessedprojects in Indonesia fell into this category, butonly one of six assessed projects in India did so.Finally, four projects could not be evaluatedbecause the information provided in projectdocuments was insufficient to ascertain whethersignificant degradation or conversion of naturalhabitats or protected species occurred.

Only 2 of 11 rural transport projects (Tamil Naduand Grand Trunk projects in India) applied theNatural Habitats policy. The other nine ruraltransport projects, also located in or near criticalnatural habitats or populations of protectedspecies, addressed the issues under the Environ-mental Assessment policy, but only four of thesenine projects did so satisfactorily. The twoprojects that applied the Natural Habitat policydid not notably differ in the nature or scale ofimpacts from the other projects, making itunclear why they applied the Bank’s NaturalHabitats policy when the others did not. Norwere the assessment methods or mitigation


9

Evaluative questions Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Not evaluableTo what extent was project overlap with, or proximity to, protected areas (such as national parks and reserves or IUCN Categories I – VI of Protected Areas) identified as a potential threat of significant degradation or conversion? 17 3 0

To what extent was project overlap with, or proximity to, protected species (such as tiger populations and/or habitats) identified as a potential threat of significant impact? 18 1 1

To what extent were indirect threats or cumulative impacts associated with other activities in the project area of influence identified as posing significant risks to protected species and/or habitats? 18 1 1

To what extent were relevant data gathered (for example, biodiversity baseline studies or bio- inventories), identifying and assessing potential significant adverse impacts on protected species and/or habitats? 14 3 3

Were relevant safeguard policy requirements identified and applied? 11 5 4

Average identification ratings (%) 78 13 9Source: IEG.Note: A six- point rating scale was used: 1 = highly satisfactory, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = moderately satisfactory, 4 = moderately unsatisfactory, 5 = unsatisfactory, 6 = highly unsatisfactory.Ratings from 1 to 3 were grouped into a “satisfactory” category; ratings from 4 to 6 were grouped into an “unsatisfactory” category. “Not evaluable” means insufficient informationwas available to answer the evaluation questions.

Table 3: Identification of Potential Impacts

measures they proposed substantively differentfrom the other road projects, as far as could bedetermined. This raises concerns about the lackof clarity in consistently applying the NaturalHabitats operational policy and its additionalanalytical requirements compared to theEnvironmental Assessment policy. These con-cerns have been confirmed in interviews withRegional safeguard and biodiversity staff in theEast Asia and Pacific and South Asia Regions.

Mitigation of Identified Threats

For most of the projects reviewed, adequatemitigation plans were prepared to addressdirect impacts, appropriate assessment methodswere used, project activities to strengthen thecapabilities of local clients and partners weredeveloped, and sufficient resources werebudgeted to implement efforts to mitigate thenegative impacts of identified threats. In termsof addressing indirect threats to protectedspecies and natural habitats, such as encroach-ment and settlement into natural areas andpoaching of wildlife, less than half of the projectsprepared adequate measures to address thosethreats; a third chose not to address them eventhough they were identified in project prepara-tion documents.

The Environmental Assessment operationalpolicy (like OD 4.01 before it) requires thatmitigation measures be adequately designed andimplemented “by preventing, minimizing,mitigating, or compensating for adverse environ-mental impacts and enhancing positive impacts;and includes the process of mitigating andmanaging adverse environmental impactsthroughout project implementation.”2 Thisapplies to both direct impacts of the project aswell as indirect impacts from other activitiesunrelated to but induced by and within aproject’s area of influence.

Direct impacts are those associated with theactual effects of the project itself having to do,

for example, with the maintenance, improve-ment, or rehabilitation of existing roads or theconstruction of new roads or highways. Potentialimpacts include fragmentation or loss of naturalhabitats, changes in water drainage patterns,land slumping or landslides, soil erosion andleaching of toxic minerals, contamination orsedimentation of nearby water bodies, pollutionand disturbance from road work crews, andwildlife road kills.

Mitigation measures are typically wellunderstood and straightforward to implement,such as realigning roads to avoid or minimizecontact with sensitive areas or species,engineered water drainage and land stabilizationstructures, and non- engineered solutions toproblems such as minimizing impacts fromworker camps and land moving operations in thefirst place, controlling wind and water erosionthrough immediate re- vegetation and replantingof hedges or trees to act as physical barriers,restoring borrow pits and quarries, and vigilantenvironmental monitoring, reporting, and verifi-cation as part of adaptive management andproject supervision.

Indirect impacts are those associated with aproject but that are not a direct result of anactivity of the project itself. They are typicallyinduced by the project, such as human coloniza-tion and settlement attracted to an area byimproved access to natural resources, lessgovernment oversight and control, or by thoseseeking greater security from persecution orcheaper land prices. The impacts that may ensueinclude the illegal poaching or capture ofwildlife, logging of trees, and extraction ofnatural resources from the area.

Mitigation measures are typically more difficultto implement but tend to follow the same mitiga-tion hierarchy as for addressing direct impacts,which is avoidance first, then minimization ofunavoidable impacts through better manage-ment or government controls. The last type of

1 0


2. OP 4.01, Environmental Assessment, January 1999, paragraph 2, p. 1.

mitigation is to compensate for residual impactsthrough offsets of similar existing or newprotected areas. The residual impacts remainingafter prevention and minimization options havebeen exhausted must be compensated for underthe Natural Habitat policy (like OPN 11.02 beforeit), which states that such “mitigation measuresinclude, as appropriate, minimizing habitat lossand establishing and maintaining an ecologicallysimilar protected area.”3

When projects or a program are likely to havesignificant sectoral or regional impacts, the Banksupports sectoral or regional environmentalassessments. Such assessments must “indicatethe present location of natural habitats in theregion or sector involved, analyze the ecologicalfunctions and relative importance of such naturalhabitats, and describe the associated manage-ment issues.”4 The Bank’s operational policiesalso require it to “take into account theborrower’s ability to implement the appropriateconservation and mitigation measures. If thereare potential institutional capacity problems, theproject includes components that develop thecapacity of national and local institutions foreffective environmental planning and manage-ment.”5 Finally, the policies require projects toensure that adequate financial resources areincluded in project budgets to implementplanned conservation measures and environ-mental management programs.

Thus, the second thematic set includes fivequestions responding to these requirements ofthe Bank’s environmental safeguard policies,encompassing the following issues: (a) adequatedesign of conservation programs and mitigationmeasures to address significant project- relateddirect threats and impacts to protected speciesand habitats; (b) the degree to which conserva-tion and mitigation activities had fully compliedwith the Bank’s environmental safeguard policiesto also address broader indirect threats; (c) useof “upstream” diagnostic tools, such as strategic,

sectoral, or regional environmental assessmentsin cases of potential large- scale, cumulativesectoral or regional effects; (d) whether projectactivities had been prepared to strengthen thecapabilities of local stakeholders and counter-parts (for example, improving protected areasmanagement or community patrols); and (e)whether resources to support mitigationprograms had been included in projectimplementation budgets.

Three- quarters of the projects reviewed did asatisfactory job of preparing adequate mitigationmeasures and conservation plans to prevent,minimize, or compensate for significant adversedirect impacts on natural habitats or protectedspecies (including tigers). Nine projectsattempted to address indirect threats toprotected species and habitats (including tigersand tiger ranges). One- third did not include anyactions in their mitigation plans, even when theywere identified in project appraisal documentsand environmental assessments as among themost serious threats, for example, poaching.These decisions were made because, in manycases, the threats were viewed as beyond thescope and resources of the project to realistically address.

From a review of ex post documents and follow- upinterviews with former project staff members,client commitment to address these threats wasalso quite low, often in spite of strong pressurefrom civil society organizations to take strongermitigation measures. Many staff membersinterviewed stated that they did not act on thefindings of environmental assessments to addressindirect threats because many clients consideredsuch action as going beyond the scope andmandate of the project and a misallocation ofproject resources. Although addressing the rootcauses or drivers of impact would clearly bebeyond the intended requirement of OP 4.04,Bank safeguard policies require projects to addressindirect threats affecting the project within their


1 1

3. OP 4.04, Natural Habitats, June 2001, paragraph 5, p. 1. 4. BP 4.04, Natural Habitats, June 2001, paragraph 7, p. 2.5. OP 4.04, Natural Habitats, June 2001, paragraph 6, p. 1.

area of influence. Therefore, a distinction wasmade in the analysis between indirect impacts thatwould potentially affect the project area andsystemic drivers or root causes of impacts. Usingthis rule, it was found that one- third of the projectsdid not adequately address indirect/inducedimpacts in the project’s area of influence.

For example, the Environmental Assessment forthe Indonesia Integrated Swamps DevelopmentProject predicted that a significant increase inillegal poaching and wildlife trafficking activitieswould occur in the project area of influence. Itnoted the presence of tigers at some project sitesand concluded that the only way to stop thetrade in tigers was to attack the problem at thedealer level and close black market opportuni-ties. No actions were taken because this wasperceived to be a law enforcement issue beyondthe scope of the project to effectively address.However, the fact that the drivers of impact wereof a regional nature did not obviate the require-ment of the project to implement mitigationmeasures to prevent, minimize, or compensatethe impacts on protected species and naturalhabitats experienced in the project’s area ofinfluence, and to monitor their effectivenessover time as part of the project’s monitoring andevaluation system.

All but four of the projects conducted upstreamassessments, such as regional or sectoralenvironmental assessments. However, althoughthey may have conducted such studies, it was notclear in many cases from project documentswhether they made effective use of the assess-ments as inputs to reaching agreements withborrowers to implement the Bank’s safeguardpolicies or to inform implementation decisionsthat project managers made.

The majority of projects reviewed included capacity- building elements for local counterpartsin project activities. However, these projectcomponents or elements were often measuredas inputs or outputs (for example, the number oflocal counterparts trained or knowledgeproducts disseminated) rather than as outcomesachieved as a result of their implementation.

Illustrating both of these issues (that is, the useand value added of upstream assessments andlocal capacity- building efforts) is the case of thefirst and second road maintenance projects in LaoPDR. These two projects provide an example ofBank staff learning from experience and improv-ing implementation through better projectdesign and supervision in the follow- on project.In the first Lao PDR Road Maintenance Project(RMP1), no environmental assessment wasprepared, and the Bank’s project staff relied onvery generic national environmental guidelinesto supervise implementation of the project(mentioned in the “Identification” section).

Annex 11 (Safeguard Policies, Social and Environ-mental Issues) of the staff appraisal document forRMP1 stated, “Better maintained roads could leadto increased accessibility in remote areas thusincreasing the potential for uncontrolled resourceextraction and land conversion along the road.Concern over such issues is heightened in areaswhere roads pass through protected areas andother sites of a sensitive ecological nature.”However, in apparent contradiction to this analysis,the appraisal document concluded: “Environmen-tal issues associated with the project are temporaryand localized in nature....” Therefore, no environ-mental assessment was prepared, and no publicconsultations were held for RMP1.

In contrast, the Summary of the Safeguard PolicyIssues in Annex 10 of the Project AppraisalDocument for the second Lao PDR Road Mainte-nance Project (RMP2) stated: “Main concerns arerelated to management of borrow pits, potentialimpacts on natural habitats and other sensitiveareas, compliance performance of contractors,and capacity of the [Department of Roads]environmental and social safeguard staff and fieldengineers to supervise and monitor thesafeguards.” As a result of these concerns, aStrategic Environmental Assessment wasconducted during the preparation of RMP2 withthe following justification:

Based on the lessons learned from RMP1,the mitigation activities are designed to: (a)prevent or mitigate the adverse social and

1 2


environmental impacts of project works,including ensuring adequate disclosureand consultation; (b) facilitate mainstream-ing of safeguard procedures andguidelines; (c) enhance capacity of theEnvironmental and Social Division ofMCTPC; and (d) identify priority programsto improve [Department of Roads’]capacity to address the safeguard issues.Funding for the activities has beenprovided under the Project. Effectiveexecution of the mitigation plan will ensurethat the Project meets with the require-ments of the Bank’s safeguard policies andwill also significantly increase ... capacity toaddress the environment and social issuesrelated to road development.

Finally, with respect to whether adequate humanand financial resources had been provided toimplement mitigation measures and monitoringprograms, 12 projects did appear to be adequate,and none was unsatisfactory in this regard as faras could be determined by a review of projectdocumentation. However, it was not possible to

make that assessment in eight cases (40 percent)because of poor or inaccessible project reportingdocuments. Table 4 shows the rating results forthe five “mitigation” evaluation questions.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures toAddress Threats

Little information was available that doc-umented the effectiveness of mitigationmeasures in achieving better environmentaloutcomes. Consequently, it could only beestablished that a few projects had successfullymitigated either direct or indirect threats toprotected species or natural habitats. This wasparticularly true for indirect impacts inducedby Bank supported projects in the area. Mostprojects did not have the information requiredto report on the results achieved or to provideuseful lessons from past experience to apply toongoing and future projects, policies, and decisions.

Both OP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment) andOP 4.04 (Natural Habitats) and their predecessors


1 3

Evaluative questions Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Not evaluableTo what extent were adequate mitigation plans/programs prepared to address direct impacts on natural habitats and protected species (including tigers)? 15 3 2

To what extent did mitigation programs include measures to address indirect threats within the project’s area of influence? 9 7 4

To what extent were appropriate assessment methods (for example, sectoral or regional environmental assessment) and mitigation programs (for example, environmental management systems or Endangered Species Action Plans) prepared to address direct and/or indirect threats? 16 3 1

To what extent were World Bank project activities designed to help strengthen the capacity of local stakeholders to protect natural habitats and protected species? 14 3 3

To what extent were adequate resources included in the project budget to implement conservation and mitigation measures, and monitoring and evaluation programs? 12 0 8

Average mitigation ratings (%) 66 16 18Source: IEG.Note: A six- point rating scale was used: 1 = highly satisfactory, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = moderately satisfactory, 4 = moderately unsatisfactory, 5 =unsatisfactory, 6 = highly unsatisfactory. Ratings from 1 to 3 were grouped into a “satisfactory” category; ratings from 4 to 6 were grouped intoan “unsatisfactory” category. “Not evaluable” means insufficient information was available to answer the evaluation questions.

Table 4: Mitigation of Potential Impacts

require the Bank to supervise the client orborrower’s implementation of all projects toensure compliance with the Bank’s applicablesafeguard policies. Both these safeguard policiesrequire that direct and indirect threats within theproject’s area of influence be identified andaddressed in environmental management plans,mitigated to the extent practicable, andmonitored regularly throughout the projectimplementation process. The Natural Habitatspolicy explicitly states that appropriate correctiveactions should be taken when warranted bymonitoring data that provide feedback on conser-vation outcomes.6

Therefore, a third set of questions was used tomeasure the effectiveness of mitigation mea-sures across all 20 projects to determine theadequacy of Bank supervision in ensuringcompliance with relevant safeguard policies andthe effectiveness of mitigation measures andprograms in addressing both direct and indirector cumulative impacts. Also, issues such aswhether corrective actions had been taken whenwarranted by monitoring data, and whether anymonitoring data had been systematicallycollected and evaluated in terms of the project’seffect on natural habitats or protected species ingeneral, or more specifically, if any changes ortrends in key indicator species populations orhabitats (such as tigers) had occurred in theproject’s area of influence over the life of theproject were also assessed.

The last two questions sought to determinewhether data on key indicators of biodiversityhealth and natural habitat conditions had beenmonitored, and if so, to what extent that informa-tion indicated an upward or downward trend inkey species’ populations and habitats within theproject’s area of influence, and whether that couldbe attributed to project activities. This questionwas intended to measure the ultimate indicator ofinterest for the purposes of this study: positiveand negative effects of Bank- financed projects on

protected species and natural habitats (in particu-lar wild tigers and their habitats).

The primary data sources of information used todetermine the effectiveness of mitigationmeasures were Implementation SupervisionReports (ISRs) and ICRs prepared by Bank projectstaff, and ICR Reviews prepared by IEG staff tovalidate project performance and outcomessupplemented by any additional informationavailable in project files. ISRs require that a ratingbe given of the borrower’s compliance withapplicable safeguard policies, but these arefrequently not substantiated with any narrativeand are usually done by nonspecialist projectstaff. The Bank’s operational policies require thatthe ICR evaluate environmental impacts and theeffectiveness of any mitigation measures, includ-ing natural habitat conservation, although theydo not require ratings for safeguards compli-ance.7 Acceptable indicators of environmentalperformance were only mentioned in a few of theprojects evaluated, and were not integrated intothe results frameworks of the majority of projects(aside from the three Integrated Conservationand Development Projects [ICDP]).

One of the most salient results of the evaluationwas how little information was available todetermine the extent to which planned mitiga-tion measures were actually implemented toprotect natural habitats and protected species,and how little information was provided bywhich to evaluate their effectiveness. Follow- upinterviews with project staff did not providesignificant information to fill gaps of understand-ing about environmental outcomes achieved.Interviews also revealed largely incompleteproject files that were difficult to access, makingit difficult to assess whether documents hadbeen prepared.

The high number of “not evaluable” ratings inthe effectiveness set of questions (see Table 5)was six times higher than it was for the set of

1 4


6. OP 4.04, Annex A – Definitions, June 2001, para. 1(e).7. BP. 4.01, paragraph 29, and BP 4.04, paragraph 6.

questions regarding the identification of threatsor impacts and three times higher than it was forquestions about the preparation of mitigationplans. This demonstrates a lack of transparencyand accountability in many of the projects’monitoring, reporting, and verification systems.For example, it could only be determined for oneproject whether protected species and habitats(including tiger populations or habitats) hadincreased or decreased in the vicinity of theproject. For the other 19 projects, that informa-tion was not available or a judgment could not bemade by the evaluators, even though almost all(17) had identified protected species or naturalhabitats within the project’s area of influence inproject preparation documents.

Similarly, there was insufficient information inavailable project documents to determine ifmitigation measures had been effective inaddressing the most serious indirect threats toprotected species and habitats—habitat frag-mentation and degradation or loss—in 14 of the20 projects evaluated. In terms of whethercorrective actions had been taken to remedyperceived or actual adverse impacts, 12 projectswere lacking information to allow a determina-tion to be made on that question (see Table 5).These findings raise questions about whetherdocuments for Bank- supervised projects (suchas ISRs and ICRs) are reporting useful informa-tion about the effectiveness of mitigationmeasures or the environmental outcomesachieved by the project. These findings are inline with those from a broader IEG evaluation ofBank Group safeguards and sustainabilitypolicies (IEG 2010b), which found that Bankprojects often lack adequate monitoring andevaluation of safeguards performance results.

Nine projects had adequately supervised andreported on the implementation of mitigationmeasures to protect biodiversity and naturalareas and nine did not. However, of those thathad demonstrated satisfactory supervision of theclient’s implementation of mitigation measures,most had done so in the form of inputs oroutputs, not outcomes. For the remaining twoprojects, it could not be determined whether

they had satisfactorily supervised the client’simplementation of applicable safeguard policyrequirements. A few projects that were wellsupervised by Bank staff in terms of complyingwith environmental safeguards did not result insuccessful outcomes because of poor implemen-tation of mitigation measures and projectmanagement systems by clients.

An example of this was provided by the GrandTrunk Road Improvement Project in India. Bankstaff thoroughly reviewed the assessment ofpotential risks and threats to natural habitats andprotected species and prepared a comprehen-sive mitigation program along the entire lengthof upgraded trunk highways in the GoldenTriangle region. However, weak institutionalcapabilities resulted in “recurring implementa-tion problems and inadequate monitoring” ofenvironmental conditions or impacts. Similarissues of not regularly monitoring compliancewith safeguard requirements that were noted inthe ICR also applied to the road informationreporting system of road paving and safetyconditions that jeopardized the enormousgovernment investment in this project. TheEnvironmental and Social Management Systemdeveloped in 2001 to guide the NationalHighways Authority of India had still not beenadopted when the ex post ICR was written.

Only the three ICDPs in the sample were able todemonstrate successful mitigation of direct project- related threats or impacts on naturalhabitats and protected species. For eight otherprojects, inadequate attention was paid to civilworks activities or project management toensure mitigation of direct project impacts withthe potential to cause significant impacts tonatural habitats or protected species. In theremaining nine projects of the sample there wasinsufficient information in project documents todetermine whether direct threats or impacts hadbeen satisfactorily addressed by the mitigationmeasures or environmental management sys-tems. These results reflected the generally poorquality of data collection, analysis, and reportingof results- based information throughout thesample of projects evaluated.


1 5

The lack of information on the implementation,performance, or outcome of mitigation measureswas even more pronounced in the case of indirectthreats or impacts. In nearly three- fourths of theprojects, it was not possible to make an assess-ment because of poor documentation. Severalprojects attempted to address indirect threats tonatural habitats and protected species within theproject’s area of influence, but where informationabout implementation and results is available, itpoints to limited success and the challengesfacing those attempting to address indirectthreats at the project level.

Despite diligent Bank supervision, the KerinciSeblat ICDP was instructive for its unsuccessfuleffort to mitigate indirect threats and impacts tothe project site. The difficulty of trying to imposeconservation values on existing social systems orresistant economic interests by external parties(for example, the Bank and conservation NGOs)was clearly stated in the ICR for the Kerinci SeblatICDP: “Changing the behavior of societies iscomplex and slow, and understanding theincentives for certain types of behavior is of keyimportance...conservation cannot work in asituation where there is no effective governance”(World Bank 2003). The central developmenthypothesis of the project “incorrectly assumedthat village- level poverty and the lack of alternativelivelihoods were the driving forces behind illegalnatural resource extraction (for example, agricul-tural encroachment, poaching, and logging).”

Therefore, it was assumed that interventions topromote alternative livelihoods would reducesuch behaviors and improve management ofnearby protected areas. However, several of thetargeted villages around Kerinci Seblat NationalPark were among the wealthiest in Sumatra, andmany of those responsible for such activitieswere individuals acting with immunity fromprosecution. The ICR stated, “Very few individu-als responsible for financially backing the illegalsawmills and logging networks operating in thearea were ever prosecuted due to corruption andintimidation of the judicial system, and no onehas ever been prosecuted for attacks on parkpatrols or for burning down park administrative

buildings” (World Bank 2003, p. 14). The ICRconcluded that the project had made a “signifi-cant impact in protecting the national park andpreventing forest loss” (World Bank 2003, pp.6–7), by stopping several proposed road projectsand shutting down a third of the illegal sawmillslocated in the park and buffer zones.

Among the 20 projects reviewed, only the IndiaEcodevelopment Project could demonstrate thatit mitigated indirect threats to protected speciesand natural habitats, such as tigers and theirhabitat. But this project was overwhelmed byindirect impacts in some of its seven projectareas, stretching its capacity and financialresources to mitigate potential impacts toprotected natural habitats and species itencompassed. Despite preparation of Environ-mental Assessments and mitigation programs,satisfactory monitoring and evaluation systems,and extensive input and participation fromaffected communities, the project’s efforts tocontrol poaching and natural resource extractionwithin national parks and reserves wereunsuccessful in several sites. The failure of thestate government to return a portion of the eco- tax charged to visitors of the Ranthambore TigerReserve, or of local hotels deriving benefits fromtourism to the Reserve to return a portion of therevenues generated by the reserve, underminedthe commitment and incentive of localcommunities to support the project.

The ICR for the Vietnam Forest Protection andRural Development Project stated that closesupervision of the applicable safeguard policieswas maintained throughout the project, and thereduction in the number and severity of forestviolations and crimes was confirmed by the ICRReview. However, there was no corroboratingevidence presented to substantiate if mitigationefforts had in fact staunched poaching activitiesin the project area of influence.

As evidenced by this review, there are manyinstances where adequately addressing the rootcauses of indirect impacts on natural habitats andprotected species requires measures beyond thescope of what project- level safeguards measures

1 6


and implementing agencies can address. Theyrequire concerted and focused action at thepolicy level, which is generally beyond themandate and purview of implementing agenciesin charge of specific development projects.

Six projects were able to demonstrate thatcorrective actions had been taken during theirimplementation in response to unexpectedthreats or because of the unanticipated degreeor nature of impacts experienced. In most cases,this was a direct result of good project manage-ment and supervision. An example of correctiveactions taken was provided by the Kerinci SeblatICDP that underwent a “radical redesign” follow-ing the midterm review, but was ultimately ratedas having been unsatisfactory because of the longdelay in the project management’s response toobvious indications that the development theoryof the project was seriously flawed and compro-mising the project’s achievement of its develop-ment objectives.

However, in one case (the Cambodia ForestConcession and Management Project), correc-tive actions were taken in response to the Bank’sInspection Panel finding that the project had notcomplied with Bank safeguard policies forEnvironmental Assessment, Natural Habitats,and Physical Cultural Property by supportingforest concessionaires engaged in illegal anduncontrolled logging without adequate supervi-sion and monitoring (World Bank 2009, pp.81–2). The Bank Management Response andAction Plan included a new Natural ResourcesManagement Framework to address the immedi-ate concerns of illegal logging, continued forestloss and degradation, and uncontrolled en-croachment and poaching. In the majority ofprojects reviewed (14), there was no evidenceprovided in project documents, from interviews,or in response to requests for information thatany corrective actions were taken.

Among the 20 projects reviewed, only theEcodevelopment Project in India providedevidence that it had conducted tiger populationsurveys and defined tiger habitats at several of itsproject sites. A senior-level Bank biodiversity

expert mentioned that such surveys had alsobeen conducted regularly on another one of theICDPs (Kerinci Seblat), but the IEG evaluationteam was not successful in locating documenta-tion to validate this assertion. No informationwas available or provided of any upward ordownward trends in protected species or naturalhabitats (including tiger populations or habitats)attributable to the project for any of the other 18projects sampled.

The three ICDPs (Kerinci Seblat in Indonesia,Forest Protection and Rural Development inVietnam, and Ecodevelopment in India) werespecial cases in the study sample because theirprimary objective was to balance the need forlocal economic development with that ofconserving biodiversity through a mixture ofregulatory mechanisms and financial incentivesto decrease unsustainable or illegal naturalresource extraction practices. This balancing actproved very difficult to achieve in practice,demonstrating the inseparable link betweengood governance and biodiversity conservation.The recent experience of two ongoing projectssuggests that effective engagement at thecommunity level is essential to arrestingencroachment and settlement of protectednatural and poaching of protected species, asdescribed in Box 1.

The three ICDPs demonstrated strongermonitoring and evaluation systems than the restof the projects evaluated. Two of them weresupported by Global Environment Facility financ-ing. NGOs played an instrumental role through-out the implementation of these projects inaddressing indirect and cumulative impacts ofthreats to natural habitats and protected species.Last, all three projects point to the issue ofsustained coordination with relevant parties,especially when there were regional master land- use plans covering areas within the projects’areas of influence.

Ironically, unlike the rest of the projects in thesample, much of what is known about theshortcomings of ICDPs would not have beenappreciated were it not for their comprehensive


1 7

documentation and reporting of implementationactivities and environmental outcomes. Staffworking on these projects collected andanalyzed environmental monitoring data onchanges and trends in vegetative cover andspecies populations from baseline conditions toinform project management decisions based on results- based information within an adaptive

project environmental management system. Thistrend has been promoted by Bank operationalmanagement initiatives in recent years.

The results of the final set of evaluationquestions regarding the “effectiveness” of mitiga-tion measures and programs are presented inTable 5.

1 8


Two projects that were not evaluated as part of this assessmenthave shown promising results for slowing tiger poaching andencroachment into core tiger habitats. The Terai Arc Land-scape project in Nepal has initiated joint forestry programswith local communities and granted local people stewardshipresponsibilities of critical core areas and migratory corridors.The goal is to maintain genetically viable pools of breedingtigers with adequate prey populations and protection frompoaching. This has been shown to be an effective conservationmechanism if a large enough share of the benefits gained frommanaging natural resources sustainably is directed back tothe communities.

A second example of tiger conservation efforts is the ongo-ing program of the Wildlife Conservation Society in the RussianFar East. This program has taken a similar approach of strength-ening the “property rights” of local communities and local or-ganized groups of hunters responsible for managing hunting,controlling poaching, and monitoring wildlife populations of Amur(Siberian) tiger populations. In exchange for meeting these con-ditions, these groups are given exclusive leases to hunt in theselarge intact natural areas. As a result of this program and othercombined efforts in the region by governments, local communi-ties, and local and international NGOs, tiger populations in this re-gion have reversed their decline and begun to recover.

Box 1: Two Examples of Protecting Tiger Populations

Source: Smithsonian National Zoological Park and World Bank 2008, pp. 19–21.

Evaluative questions Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Not evaluable

Was there adequate supervision and reporting on the implementation of mitigation measures, monitoring and evaluation systems, and institutional support? 9 9 2

To what extent were project mitigation measures successful in protecting natural habitats and protected species from direct impacts (including tiger populations and habitats)? 3 8 9

To what extent were project mitigation measures successful in protecting natural habitats and protected species from indirect impacts (including tiger populations and habitats)? 0 6 14

To what extent were corrective actions taken to remedy perceived or actual adverse impacts natural habitats and protected species (including tiger populations and habitats)? 6 2 12

Did protected species and/or natural habitats (including tiger populations and habitats) increase or decrease in the area of influence of World Bank projects, and was this attributable to the project? 1 0 19

Average effectiveness ratings (%) 19 25 56Source: IEG.

Note: A six- point rating scale was used: 1 = highly satisfactory, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = moderately satisfactory, 4 = moderately unsatisfactory, 5 = unsatisfactory, 6 = highly unsatisfactory.

Ratings from 1 to 3 were grouped into a “satisfactory” category; ratings from 4 to 6 were grouped into an “unsatisfactory” category. “Not evaluable” means insufficient information was

available to answer the evaluation questions.

Table 5: Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures and Programs

1 9

4. Conclusions and Outstanding Issues

Figure 1 summarizes the average percentage ratings across the three mainevaluation themes. The average share of satisfactory ratings for thequestions involving identification and mitigation were 78 and 66 percent,

respectively, but then dropped off markedly for effectiveness (19 percent), prin-cipally because of lack of evidence about the performance of mitigation meas-ures. Unsatisfactory ratings (center bars in Figure 1) remained relatively lowthroughout the three areas of investigation (ranging from 13 to 25 percent),and the share of “not evaluable” ratings rose modestly from identification tomitigation (from 9 to 18 percent) and increased sharply for the set of effec-tiveness questions (56 percent).

The lessons from the main findings are similar tothose of IEG’s recent evaluation of the BankGroup’s social and environmental safeguardpolicies and performance standards (IEG2010b). In general, the sampled projectsinstituted rigorous due diligence practices,resulting in high- quality environmental andsocial assessments being conducted during thepreparation and appraisal phase of projects.However, in most projects evaluated, clients didnot provide adequate monitoring and evaluationdata about the effectiveness of activitiesundertaken or of the results achieved duringimplementation. This made it difficult for them(and for the Bank in its supervisory function) toidentify conditions warranting corrective actions,to document actions taken and results achieved,or to apply lessons learned to other projects. Inresponse to IEG’s evaluation of the Bank Group’ssafeguards policies and performance standards,World Bank management has committed toundertake actions to strengthen supervision andmonitoring of the application and results ofsafeguards policies (IEG 2010b, pp. xxxiv–xlii)..

An important finding of this review is thefrequent but not always effectual use of upstream

strategic assessment tools, such as sectoral andregional environmental assessments. The factthat such assessment tools are being usedindicates that Bank projects are taking a step inthe right direction because sound environmentalassessment is a necessary precondition forsubsequent positive outcomes. However, it is notnecessarily a sufficient prerequisite if not fullyimplemented or linked to adaptive and self-

Figure 1: Average Evaluation Ratings Summarized byThematic Area

Summary Chart of Ratings Results

Percentsatisfactory

Percentunsatisfactory

Percent notevaluable

100

80

60

40

20

0

Perc

ent

Identification

78

139

66

16 18 1925

56

Mitigation Effectiveness

adjusting project management systems. One- third of the 20 case studies did not integrateactions detailed in environmental assessmentsinto project design to address clearly identifiedindirect threats to protected natural habitats andspecies. It was also apparent that ecological datawere not collected, analyzed, or evaluated as partof environmental management systems andappropriately integrated into overall projectimplementation and management systems,decisions, or actions.

The paucity of data on direct and indirectimpacts on nearby protected species andhabitats (including tiger populations andhabitats) at project conclusion even whenenvironmental assessments identified significantpotential negative project impacts was striking.The fact that essentially no project coulddemonstrate that it had successfully mitigatedindirect impacts on protected species’ popula-tions and habitats within the project’s area ofinfluence—although several made seriousattempts to do so—and that only one actuallymeasured upward or downward trends in suchpopulations or habitats makes it clear that betterapplication of existing monitoring tools is needed.

It was not surprising to find that only one project(Kerinci Seblat ICDP) had used remote sensingand imagery tools to conduct threat assessmentsand to deploy vehicle and foot patrols toencroachment hot spots, because many of theprojects evaluated were designed well over adecade ago. However, there have been rapidtechnological advances in recent years in landscape- scale spatial assessment platforms and real- time field- based monitoring systems; thesecan provide cost- effective, reliable and timelydata about rapidly changing conditions in thefield that pose imminent threats to species andhabitats of concern.

There was inconsistent application of the NaturalHabitats policy among the 20 projects evaluated,with little apparent difference between projectsthat addressed natural habitat issues under theEnvironmental Assessment policy and those that

did so under the Natural Habitat policy. A substan-tial number of projects took into account thespecial requirements posed by natural habitatsand protected species under the Bank’s umbrellaenvironmental assessment policy. However, theefficacy of this approach was limited, with five ofthe eleven projects that took this approach failingto do so satisfactorily. The Natural Habitats policyis very clear about the situations in which itshould be triggered; it is far less clear about theadditional analysis or actions required to complywith its mandate of taking a precautionaryapproach. This suggests a gap in the consistencyof its application and in the prescriptive guidanceprovided about what actions should be takenwhen OP 4.04 is applicable.

In addition to using GIS- supported decisionsupport systems to interpret landscape- scaleearth observation imaging platforms or higherresolution aerial surveys (for example, LIDAR), anumber of other approaches are beingpromoted and used by the Bank and othermultilateral donors, such as putting moreemphasis on addressing indirect impacts,making greater use of payment for environmen-tal services, ensuring more direct and transpar-ent benefit flows to local communities, clarifyingproperty rights of common- access naturalresources, and promoting global standards ofenvironmental governance. These approacheswere not evaluated in this review, but they havebeen applied in a number of Bank- financedprojects with biodiversity impacts and might beconsidered in defining future guidance aboutwhat specific actions should be undertakenwhen OP 4.04 is applied.

In many cases, indirect threats of poaching andencroachment were clearly identified in projectenvironmental assessments, but mitigationmeasures were not implemented by more than one- third of the projects evaluated. Frominterviews, it became apparent that the reasonfor this is that the threats were perceived astranscending the resources, capabilities, andmandates of the projects as well as the role of theBank as a lender. This raises the fundamentalquestion of how realistic it is to expect individual

2 0


development projects to address systemicthreats to wild tiger populations, such as theongoing “poaching crisis” occurring in tigerrange countries and the more gradual but equallydestructive process of habitat loss, fragmenta-tion, degradation, and decreased connectivity oflarge, intact tracts of tiger habitats. Effectivelyaddressing these broader issues is vital butusually calls for actions that go beyond the scopeof what such projects can address withsafeguards measures.

These impacts require dedicated national ortransnational policies and programs well beyondthe scope of individual projects to effectivelyaddress. Several projects assessed here wereheavily criticized by NGOs for impacts andoutcomes that could have reasonably beenconsidered beyond the projects’ ability or meansto mitigate and that go beyond the legal require-ments of the Bank’s safeguard policy framework.Other projects attempting to implement novelapproaches to integrate the basic needs ofdevelopment with biodiversity conservationwere also criticized. In several cases, the projectswere trying to inculcate new attitudes andbehaviors among local populations in the face ofpowerful economic interests and establishedsocial practices. Whether some projects mighthave gone further to address these threats isdebatable, but all projects must monitor theenvironmental impacts of both direct andindirect threats and document the environmen-tal outcomes achieved by the project.

Safeguards are an essential part in the Bank’stoolbox as a means to achieve sustainabledevelopment, but it is clear that safeguards bythemselves are not sufficient to address broadersystemic threats to biodiversity conservation. Itcannot be assumed that by simply remedying thecurrent deficiencies in implementation supportand uneven supervision on a project- by- projectbasis the remaining wild tiger populations will besaved. As a recent joint United Nations Develop-ment Programme–World Bank Global Environ-ment Facility report states, “The scale ofinterventions is usually much smaller than thescale of the threat” (UNDP and World Bank

2007). In the face of such threats, the Bank hasbegun to apply its global experience and conven-ing power, its financial leadership and ability toleverage large, innovative capital flows, and its high- level dialogue with governments to engageclients and regional partners in civil society tostrategically address these types of systemicthreats through a variety of different forums,partnerships, and initiatives.

In taking a leading role with several new andongoing initiatives, such as the Global TigerInitiative (GTI), the Save Our Species (SOS)microgrant financing program, and the CriticalEcosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), the Bankhas launched a series of coordinated joint actionsand strategic partnerships with other donors,governments, the private sector, and civil societyto address the global challenge of biodiversityloss. For example, the SOS program is beingprepared for Bank Board approval to address thefunding gap for biodiversity conservation bymobilizing grant financing and private sectorengagement in partnership with the WorldConservation Union.

The GTI has spearheaded the Bank’s efforts todevelop an effective international framework tohelp curb illegal networks trafficking in wildlife,such as tiger parts, and has supported therecently formed International Consortium onCombating Wildlife Crime to strengthen regionalcooperation, improve wildlife crime reporting,establish a clearinghouse of tiger trade trackingdata, and enhance international law enforcementefforts at the recent Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora (CITES). It also aims to help to raise politi-cal awareness and financial support for the causeof biodiversity conservation, in fora such as the2010 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, whichbrought together policy makers from key donorsand the 13 tiger range countries. The GTI is alsoworking with partners on developing potentiallyinnovative funding schemes, such as a wildlifepremium piggy- backing on the ReducedEmissions from Deforestation and Degrada-tion+ carbon market and the Global TigerRecovery Program. Finally, the CEPF has awarded


2 1

over $100 million to more than 1,500 NGOs andprivate sector organizations in the world’sbiodiversity hotspots.

In parallel with these valuable biodiversityconservation efforts and initiatives, this reviewhas shown that the Bank, countries, and partnersshould continue efforts to integrate biodiversityconsiderations into the design and implementa-

tion of development projects. Complementaryto promoting biodiversity conservation throughtargeted efforts are steps to anticipate andmitigate biodiversity losses associated withdevelopment projects in areas such as ruraltransport, watershed management, or integratedrural development.

2 2


2 3

Appendix A: List of Evaluated Projects

Concept Board Name Region Sector note review approval date Closing date

Bhutan: Rural Road Access Project (Category B) SAR TR February 1999 December 1999 June 2006

Cambodia Forest Concessions (Category B) EAP ARD May 1999 June 2000 December 2005

India: AP State Highway (Category B) SAR TR June 1995 June 1997 January 2003

India: Grand Trunk Road (Category A) SAR TR January 2001 June 2001 June 2008

India: Karnataka State Highway (Category A) SAR TR August 2000 May 2001 December 2006

India: Tamil Nadu Road Sector (Category A) SAR TR March 1999 June 2003 March 2009*

India: Integrated Watersheds Development (Hill 2) Project (Category A) SAR ARD July 1998 June 1999September 2005

India: Eco-development Project (Category B) SAR ARD January 1992 September 1996 June 2004

Indonesia: Bengkulu Regional Development (Category B) EAP TR October 1995 March 1998 December 2005

Indonesia: Integrated Swamps Development (Category A) EAP ARD March 1988 June 1994 September 2000

Indonesia: Sumatra Regional Roads (Category A) EAP TR May 1996 March 1998 December 2005

Indonesia: Kerinci Seblat ICDP (Category A) EAP ARD November 1991 April 1996 September 2002

Lao PDR: Road Maintenance Project I (Category B) EAP TR February 2000 March 2001 December 2004

Lao PDR: Road Maintenance Project II (Category B) EAP TR February 2004 June 2004 June 2010

Lao PDR: Agricultural Development Project (Category B) EAP ARD April 2000 May 2001 June 2008

Nepal: Rd. Maintenance & Rehabilitation (Category B) EAP TR January 1992 March 1994 June 1999

Nepal: Road Maintenance & Development II Project (Category A) SAR TR November 1997 November 1999 June 2007

Vietnam: Rural Transport (Category B) EAP TR April 1995 December 1996 December 2001

Vietnam: Northern Mountains Poverty (Category B) EAP ARD November 1999 October 2001 December 2007

Vietnam: Forest Protection & Rural Development Project (Category B) EAP ARD September 1995 October 1997 June 2006Source: IEG.

Note: Category A = projects likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that may affect an area broader than the sites or facilities subject to physical works; Category B =

projects with potential adverse environmental impacts on human populations or environmentally important areas—including wetlands, forests, grasslands, and other natural habitats—

that are less adverse than those of Category A projects. These impacts are site specific; few if any are irreversible, and in most cases mitigatory measures can be designed more readily

than for Category A projects. Regions: EAP = East Asia and Pacific; SAR = South Asia. Sectors: ARD = Agriculture and Rural Development; TR = Transport. * signifies still active project

with closing date subsequently extended beyond that given in project document.

2 4

Appendix B: Rating Scale for AssessingImpacts of World Bank–Funded Projectson Wild Tigers

Rating Definition1 Highly satisfactory Exemplary identification/analysis of potential impacts on wild tiger populations and

habitats and other species/habitats of concern. Creative approaches to mitigation measures and their management. Highly effective implementation of the mitigation measures and other protective activities. Innovations and opportunities taken to design and implement protection measures for species or habitats per se and provide stepped up supervision of their implementation.

2 Satisfactory Satisfactory identification/analysis of potential impacts on wild tiger populations and habitats and other rare and endangered species/habitats. Adoption of appropriate mitigation measures and their management. Satisfactory implementation of the mitigation measures and other protective activities. Satisfactory supervision of their implementation. No innovations and opportunities taken to design and implement protection measures for species or habitats per se or to provide close supervision of their implementation.

3 Moderately satisfactory Moderate lapses in identification/analysis of potential impacts on wild tiger populations and habitats and other rare and endangered species/habitats. Moderate lapses in adoption of appropriate mitigation measures and their management or in implementation of the mitigation measures and other protective activities and supervision of their implementation, but not considered to put implementation of protective measures at risk.

4 Moderately unsatisfactory Significant lapses in identification/analysis of potential impacts on wild tiger populations and habitats and other species or habitats of concern, adoption of appropriate mitigation measures, management and implementation of mitigation measures and other protective activities, supervision of their implementation. Considered to put implementation of protective measures at risk. Opportunities exist to rectify oversights not taken.

5 Unsatisfactory Very significant lapses in identification/analysis of potential impacts on wild tiger populations and habitats and other species/habitats of concern, adoption of appropriate mitigation measures, management and implementation of the mitigation measures and other protective activities, supervision of their implementation. Considered to put implementation of protective measures at risk. Few, if any, opportunities to rectify oversights or issues.

6 Highly unsatisfactory No recognition of potential impacts on wild tiger populations and habitats, no formulation of mitigation measures and their management, no implementation of the mitigation measures and other protective activities. No opportunities taken to design and implement protection measures for species or habitats per se.

Source: IEG.

2 5

IEG Evaluations2002a. “Benin: Natural Resources Management

Project.” Project Performance Assessment ReportNo. 24352. Washington, DC: World Bank.

2002b. “Bolivia: Biodiversity Conservation Project.”Project Performance Assessment Report No.24604. Washington, DC: World Bank.

2003. “Mali: Natural Resources Management Project.”Project Performance Assessment Report No.27493. Washington, DC: World Bank.

2006. “Bangladesh: Forest Resources ManagementProject.” Project Performance Assessment ReportNo. 36295. Washington, DC: World Bank.

2008. Environmental Sustainability: An Evaluationof World Bank Group Support. Washington, DC:World Bank.

2010a. “Burkina Faso: Partnership for Natural Ecosys-tem Management Project.” Project PerformanceAssessment Report No. 55443. Washington, DC:World Bank.

2010b. Safeguards and Sustainability Policies in aChanging World: An Independent Evaluation ofWorld Bank Experience. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank PublicationsSmithsonian National Zoological Park and World

Bank. 2008. A Future for Wild Tigers. Washington,DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 1991. “Environmental AssessmentSourcebook: Policies, Procedures, and Cross- Sectoral Issues.” World Bank Technical Paper#139, Washington, DC.

———. 2003. “Implementation Completion Reportfor the Kerinci Seblat Integrated Conservation andDevelopment Project.” Report No. 25753, WorldBank, Washington, DC.

———. 2007. Mainstreaming Conservation inInfrastructure Projects: Case Studies from LatinAmerica. Washington, DC: World Bank.

———. 2009. The Inspection Panel at 15 Years.Washington, DC: World Bank.

UNDP and World Bank. 2007. Reducing Threats toProtected Areas: Lessons from the Field.

WWF (World Wildlife Fund), UN EnvironmentProgramme–World Conservation MonitoringCentre, and MDA Federal. 2010. An Assessment ofManagement and Threats in Tiger Conservation Landscapes.

GTI Thematic and Working Paper SeriesNo date a. At a Glance: Mainstreaming Conserva-

tion in Development.No date b. Smart Green Infrastructure in Tiger

Range Countries: A Multi- Level Approach.2010a. Avoiding the Unthinkable: What will it Cost to

Prevent Tigers Becoming Extinct in the Wild.2010b. Competing Demands: Understanding and

Addressing the Socio- economic Forces that Workfor and against Tiger Conservation.

2010c. Creating Local Constituencies for TigerConservation through Community Incentivesand Alternative Livelihoods.

2010d. Innovative Finance for Tiger Conservation.2010e. Landscape- scale, Ecology- based Management

of Wild Tiger Populations.

OtherButchart, Stuart H. M., M. Walpole, B. Collen, A. van

Strien, J. P. W. Scharlemann, R. E. A. Almond, J. E.M. Baillie, et al. 2010. “Global Biodiversity: Indica-tors of Recent Declines.” Science 328 (5982):1164–68.

Dinerstein, E., C. Loucks, E. Wikramanayake, J.Ginsberg, et al. 2007. “The Fate of Wild Tigers.”Bioscience 57 (6): 508–14.

ECG (evaluation Cooperation Group of the Interna-tional Financing Institutions). 2010. “EnsuringBiodiversity in a Sustainable Future: Lessons fromEvaluation.” Convention on Biological Diversity,Nagoya, Japan, October 13.

Sanderson, E. J. Forrest, C. Loucks, J. Ginsberg, E.Dinerstein, et al. 2006. Setting Priorities for theConservation and Recovery of Wild Tigers:

Bibliography

2005–2015. The Technical Assessment. Washing-ton, DC, and New York: World ConservationSociety, World Wildlife Fund, Smithsonian, andNFWF- STF.

WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society), WWF (WorldWildlife Fund), Wildlife and Conservation Centerof SNZP, and Save the Tiger Fund. 2006. Technical

Assessment: Setting Priorities for the Conservationand Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005–2010.

WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society), WWF (WorldWildlife Fund), Wildlife and Conservation Centerof SNZP, and Save the Tiger Fund. 2006. A User’sGuide: Setting Priorities for the Conservation andRecovery of Wild Tigers: 2005–2010.

2 6


12

IEG Review of 20 World Bank–Funded

Projects in Tiger Landscapes

EvalBrief12-cover:EvalBrief12-cover 1/18/11 4:29 PM Page 1

IEG Review of 20 World Bank–Funded Projects in Tiger...

Documents

Transcript of IEG Review of 20 World Bank–Funded Projects in Tiger...