financing plan (in us$):€¦ · web viewia/exa project id: 1024. country: india. project title:...

* For multi-focal area projects, indicate agreed split between focal area allocations

** May refer also to previous PDF grants

CEO Endorsement Template-V2 Rev January 30, 2007

GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 1143IA/ExA PROJECT ID: 1024COUNTRY: IndiaPROJECT TITLE: Mainstreaming Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plant Diversity in Three Indian StatesGEF IA/ExA: UNDPOTHER PROJECT EXECUTING AGENCY(IES): N/ADURATION: 7 yearsGEF FOCAL AREA: Biodiversity GEF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES: SO2 Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes/Seascapes and SectorsGEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM: OP-3 Forest EcosystemCOUNCIL APPROVAL DATE: 13-Sep-2005COUNCIL APPROVED AMOUNT*: 4,935,000CEO ENDORSEMENT AMOUNT*:4,935,000EXPECTED AGENCY APPROVAL DATE: February 2008EXPECTED SUBMISSION DATE OF MID-TERM REPORT: September 2011EXPECTED GRANT CLOSING DATE: August 2015

REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENTUNDER THE GEF TRUST FUND

Approved on behalf of the UNDP. This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for CEO endorsement.

John HoughUNDP/GEF Officer-in-Charge

Sultana Bashir, Regional Technical AdvisorProject Contact Person

Date: November 26, 2007 Tel. and email: +662 2882728 [email protected]

FOR JOINT PARTNERSHIP***GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT ($)(Agency Name) (Share) (Fee)(Agency Name) (Share) (Fee)(Agency Name) (Share) (Fee)

FINANCING PLAN ($)PPG** Project*

GEF Total 345,000 4,935,000Co-financing (provide details in Section d): Co-

financing)

GEF IA/ExA - -Government (in cash)

4,539,070

Government (in kind)

1,909,051

Others 31,000Co-financing Total 6,479,121

Total 11,141,121Financing for Associated Activities If Any:

1

***Projects that are jointly implemented by more than one IA or ExA


2

1. FINANCING (for all the tables, expand or narrow table items as necessary)a) PROJECT COST

Project Components/Outcomes Co-financing ($) GEF ($) Total ($)1. Enabling environment for mainstreaming conservation and sustainable use of MAPS

994,380 700,732 1,695,112

2. Forest management policies in three project states for conservation and sustainable use of MAPs***

1,854,422 940,668 2,795,090

3. Mainstreaming conservation of MAPs at local level

1,000,008 1,828,000 2,828,008

4. Development of materials and methods for replication

1,994,961 980,600 2,975,561

5. Project Management budget/cost* 635,350 485,000 1,120,350Total Uses of Funds/project costs 6,479,121 4,935,000 11,414,121

* This item is the aggregate cost of project management; breakdown of this aggregate amount should be presented in the table b) below:** In accordance with both UNDP and GEF policies, no GEF project resources will be used to pay any government, agency or NGO staff or personnel.***MAP = Medicinal & Aromatic Plants

B) PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST1

Component Estimated staff weeks GEF($)

Other Sources ($)

Project Total ($)

Locally recruited personnel* 2,650 266,560 268,000 534,560Internationally recruited consultants*

0 0 0 0

Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications

122,329 173,000 295,329

Travel 64,611 162,000 226,611

Miscellaneous 31,500 32,350 63,850

Total 485,000 635,350 1,120,350*Local and international consultants in this table are those who are hired for functions related to the management of project. For those consultants who are hired to do a special task, they would be referred to as consultants providing technical assistance. For these consultants, please provide details of their services in c) below:Note: No UNDP Implementing Agency Services are being charged to the Project Budget. All such costs are being charged to the IA fee. The Government of India may request UNDP to provide a few execution services (including procurement and recruitment) under the National Execution Arrangements, and these will be charged to the Project Budget. Details of such charges can be provided after finalization and appraisal of the FSP through negotiations with the Government on such services.

C) CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS:Component Estimated staff

Weeks GEF($)Other

Sources ($)

Project Total ($)

Personnel 0 0 0 0 Local consultants* 5,000 553,209 1,431,791 1,985,000International consultants* 73 255,562 0 255,562Total 5,073 808,771 1,431,791 2,240,562

Note: We anticipate government co-financing of the TA components but the details of this will be agreed with the concerned State Forest Departments once the project has been endorsed.

1 For all consultants hired to manage project or provide technical assistance, please attach a description in terms of their staff weeks, roles and functions in the project, and their position titles in the organization, such as project officer, supervisor, assistants or secretaries.


3

D) CO-FINANCING Name of Co-financiers

(source) Classification TypeAt

Concept ($)

At Work Program ($) At CEO

Endorsement ($)*

Government of India (MoEF)

National Government In kind 407,909 407,909

Government of Uttaranchal

State Government In cash 1,052,281 1,052,281

Government of Uttaranchal

State Government In Kind 500,116 500,116

Government of Arunachal Pradesh

State Government In Cash 540,644 540,644

Government of Arunachal Pradesh

State Government In Kind 500,513 500,513

Government of Chattisgarh

State Government In cash 1,051,282 1051,282

Government of Chattisgarh

State Government In kind 500,513 500,513

National Medicinal Plant Board

Nat’l Government In cash 1,894,863 1,894,863

Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Traditions

Non-Governmental organization

In Kind 31,000 31,000

Total Co-financing 6,479,121 6,479,121* Reflect the final commitment amount of co-financiers and attach documents from co-financiers confirming co-financing commitments. Describe any difference of final commitment compared to those expressions of interest at concept stage or at work program inclusion.


4

2. RESPONSE TO REVIEWSA) COUNCIL

See annex A attached

B) GEF SECRETARIATSee annex B attached

C) REVIEW BY EXPERT FROM STAP ROSTER (IF REQUIRED) See annex C attached

d) Response to comments by GEF Secretariat received on 7 September 2007 See annex D attached

3. JUSTIFICATION FOR MAJOR CHANGES IN THE PROJECT, IF ANY2

N/A

4. REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS

a) Project Appraisal Document – please see separate fileb) Report on the Use of Project Preparation Grant – please see separate filec) Confirmed letters of commitments from co-financiers (with English translations) –

attached d) Agency Notification Template on Major Project Amendment and provide details of

the amendment, if applicable. N/A

2 Provide justifications for any major amendments in the project, including an increase of project amount exceeding 5% from the amount approved by the Council. Justification for such amendments and the project document will be circulated to the Council for a four-week review period. For procedures to the approval for major amendments, refer to the Council paper: Project Cycle Update: Clarification of Policies and Procedures for Project Amendment and Drops/Cancellations, GEF/C.24/Inf.5


5

http://gefweb.org/Documents/Council_Documents/GEF_C24/C.24.Inf.5_Project_Cycle_Update_FINAL.doc

http://gefweb.org/Documents/Council_Documents/GEF_C24/C.24.Inf.5_Project_Cycle_Update_FINAL.doc

Annex A: Response to GEF Council Comments

Country: India

Project title: Mainstreaming conservation and sustainable use of medicinal plant diversity in three Indian states

GEFSEC Project ID: 1156

UNDP Project ID: 1024

Operational Programme: 3

Implementing Agency: UNDP

The following are the main comments provided in the GEF Council review and responses are given below:

Comment Response Page/Para reference in UNDP Project Document

From Germany: We wish to raise attention to the fact that two of the States are part of the Hindukush-Himalayan Region. The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development is working in this geographical region and has ample experience with community-based approaches in natural resource management, including the sustainable management of medicinal and aromatic plants. Especially regarding the Outcome 4 on the replication it would be useful to include ICIMOD as a relevant actor, who can contribute to extend the experiences of the project not only to all of the northern Indian States but as well to the neighboring countries.

We thank the Council Member for this helpful suggestion. The UNDP project document has been amended to reflect a role for ICIMOD in the project’s replication-related activities.

Para 94


6

From France:

Interesting project design about medicinal plants. We feel however that indicators should normally be determined before the first year of the project, as proposed. With a 345,000 $ PDF, we feel that GEF Secretariat is entitled to get a clear set of quantified indicators, before decision.

We have now provided a detailed set of indicators up to the output level with clear targets and timelines. These are marked in yellow highlight in the revised logframe in the project document for easy reference.In a few cases, appropriate indicators and targets will be finalized based on baselines established at individual MPCA/FGB sites in consultation with State Forest Department, local communities and the appropriate technical agencies in Yr 1.

Section II, Part II, LFA

From Switzerland:

This particular well-designed project creates a win-win situation through, in the medium term, contributing to the improvement of the livelihoods of people relying on the use of medicinal plants, without losing a distinct focus on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The project benefits from a strong commitment on all levels of stakeholders involved (including co-financing), which is strong basis for sustainability. The broad support and stakeholder involvement are a good basis to extend the project’s impact well beyond project duration.

We support the proposal of the STAP for the early establishment of meaningful biodiversity indicators

Main concerns: None

We thank the Swiss Council Member for their strong support to this project. Additional indicators to measure impact on biodiversity status have been incorporated into the logframe, particularly at the Objective level and under Outcome 3 and are marked in yellow highlight. We have greatly revised the logframe to include better quantified process and impact indicators at all levels, including at the output level.



7

Annex B: Response to GEF Secretariat Concept Agreement Review

Country: India

Project title: Mainstreaming conservation and sustainable use of medicinal plant diversity in three Indian states

GEFSEC Project ID: 1156

UNDP Project ID: 1024

Operational Programme: 3

Implementing Agency: UNDP

The following are the main comments provided in the GEF Secretariat review and responses are given below:

Comment Response Page/Para reference UNDP Project Document

Indicators for specific outputs under each outcomes have to be developed at CEO endorsement

These have been developed. All changes and additions are marked in yellow highlight in the logframe


A detailed costing by activity and sub-activity, as well as letters of commitment from co-financers have to be attached at CEO endorsement

An activity-based budget and letters of co-financing have been annexed to the document

Co-financing letters are included below. An activity-based budget has been provided in Annex 7 of the project document.


8

Annex C: Response to STAP Review (Review by Jonathan Timberlake, June 2005)

The project team is grateful to the STAP reviewer for his thoughtful and constructive review designed to strengthen the proposed project. Responses to the reviewer’s comments, queries and recommendations and amendments made to the reviewed documents as a result are detailed in the response matrix below.

Response to STAP Review:

COMMENT RESPONSE AMENDMENTS MADE3

Overall ImpressionThere are four main concerns, which may be more apparent in the reviewed document than in reality. (1) Some of the technical aspects, such as how sites will be chosen, whether in situ conservation will work, which species to focus on, and how to measure success, are not well articulated.

1) We accept that some technical aspects are not fully articulated in the proposal documentation, mainly for reasons of space. We hope that the following will help clarify the issues raised by the reviewer. It should be noted that the lead national technical agency, FRLHT, has considerable prior experience in setting up MPCA/FGB complexes from South India. Other technical agencies will be identified during the inception phase to bolster the work of FRLHT. Target Forest Divisions were identified through state-level consultations during the PDF-B based on various criteria designed to maximize representation of unique MAP diversity within target project sites, including: biogeographic zone and province (based on the standard classification used in India as given in Rodgers et al. 2002, see additional comments in point 2 below); forest type (based on Champion & Seth’s standard classification, see Annex 3 of Prodoc4); altitudinal range (see Annex 6 of Prodoc); and reported inter and intra-specific diversity of key MAP species, including GSMP. It was beyond the scope and resources of the PDF-B to pinpoint the specific locations of the MPCA/FGB complexes within each Forest Division or to prioritize target species as the existing baseline information is very limited. As can be seen

3 Highlighted in blue in the text4 UNDP Project Document


9

COMMENT RESPONSE AMENDMENTS MADE

from Annex 6 of the Prodoc, the target Forest Divisions range in size from 600 sq. km to over 10,000 sq. km. Some 400 MAP species that are believed to occur in these forests were identified during the PDF-B using IUCN’s Conservation Assessment and Management Prioritization (CAMP) Guidelines. The list of GSMPs that will be targeted in this project was identified through this process (see Prodoc Annex 4). This baseline now needs ground verification during Years 1 & 2.

Several criteria will be used to determine the exact location and boundaries of each of the MPCA/FGB complexes within the target Forest Divisions. These will include maximizing MAP diversity and habitats within the final network of MPCA/FGB complexes, with priority given to areas with GSMP species, prioritized according to their global conservation status; habitat quality and uniqueness in surrounding forests as there is greater chance of success in more intact forests; and willingness of local communities to work with the project to achieve its stated objectives as this will improve the project’s chances of success. Selection of target species will include criteria such as global and national conservation status, extent of demand, options for sustainable harvesting and potential for cultivation. A comprehensive set of criteria for the selection of specific sites and target species will be agreed during the first six months of the project and sites and species will be finalized after conducting comprehensive field surveys to establish ecological and socio-economic baselines during Years 1 & 2.

(2) The project is ambitious in trying to cover a large number of project sites across a wide and disparate area. The concern is that project efforts and resources may get spread too thin, and possibilities for particular successes thus be reduced.

(2) This is clearly a potential risk but we have tried to ensure that the appropriate structures and mechanisms are in place at national, state and local levels to ensure strong coordination and efficient implementation to mitigate this risk. Once again the prior experience of FRLHT in coordinating comparable initiatives at the field level is a major strength lending confidence to this approach. We have also reduced this risk


10


further by reducing the number of project states from the 7 originally proposed in the PDF-B to 3. This was agreed after considerable negotiation with GoI. We believe it is necessary to include this many states and sites in order to maximise biogeographic representation within the MPCA/FGB complexes and their surrounding forests. Currently, the project will cover 3 of India’s 10 biogeographic zones and 5/26 biotic provinces. Arunachal Pradesh falls within the Himalayas Zone and the East Himalayas province, while Uttaranchal falls partly in the Himalayas Zone (West Himlayas Province) as well as the Gangetic Plains Zone (Upper Gangetic Plains Province). Meanwhile, Chattisgarh falls within the Deccan Peninsula Zone, mainly within the Eastern Highlands province, but also in the Central Highlands Province. While the GoI is extremely supportive of this project and views it as a major initiative within the MAP sector, it needs to be implemented on a large enough scale if it is to gain national recognition and bring about the desired policy changes at national and state level.

(3) How will the project be coordinated and a central direction and vision retained. How will its findings be synthesised to a level where they can become a model that can be replicated.

3) Proposed project management structures and implementation arrangements are described in detail in the Excecutive Summary in Section V/C (Para.80-88) and in Section I/Part III of the Prodoc (Paras 94-106). The project had proposed that overall project direction and cohesion could be provided by the technical lead agency. However, we accept that this aspect requires strengthening given the complexity of the project, different scales of operation and the number and diversity of sites. We have therefore decided to establish a formal Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to provide overall technical guidance throughout the life of the project. Additionally, the project will benefit from working closely with a Senior Technical Advisor (STA), particularly in the first year of the project when important groundwork will be done and project strategies will be clearly defined and agreed. The STA will remain associated with the project throughout its life with a gradual phasing out of the level of

Executive Summary: Paras 68, 82, 87, 88


11


input. FRLHT as the lead national Technical Agency will be responsible for synthesizing the experiences from this project so that the lessons learnt can be used to develop replicable models. Other technical agencies will assist in this process. Actual day to day coordination will be the responsibility of a central Project Management Unit and small state-level Project Coordination Teams, who will work closely with FRLHT and be guided by the TAG and the STA. The Executive Summary has been modified to reflect these changes.

(4) The logframe needs to be firmed up with more specific indicators for Outcomes and specific Outputs, and an attempt made to put Targets and appropriate Means of Verification in place. Baselines should be established as early as possible.

This aspect is addressed under various more detailed review comments below.

Relevance and PriorityThe global benefits in terms of species or ecosystem conservation, or in establishing models that could be used more widely, are not that clear in the proposal; perhaps a clearer articulation of which species and habitats will be targeted, and why, should be a priority before full-scale implementation.

However, if the project succeeds in mainstreaming non-timber plant conservation concerns into forest management, this will certainly have a significant positive impact on biodiversity. It is important, in this regard, to place the project in a regional perspective, and use some of its findings to benefit processes ion neighbouring countries.

As this is an SP2 project we did not elaborate in detail on the global benefits in terms of species and ecosystem conservation as mainstreaming MAP conservation and sustainable objectives into the forest productive sector is in itself considered a valid global benefit under SP2. We had thought global benefits in terms of species and ecosystems would be apparent given the biogeographic coverage of the project and the diversity and area of forest types that will be represented by the project sites (see Prodoc Annexes 3 & 6). As stated in Para 19 of the Executive Summary, we will be aiming to conserve over 80 GSMPs, including several critically endangered species (see Prodoc Annex 4). We anticipate that a total of 32,000 ha will be under intensive management to promote the in situ conservation of all MAPs, including these GSMP, while a further 6,000,000 ha of varied forest types will be under active management to favour maintenance of MAP diversity as a result of successfully mainstreaming MAP conservation objectives into the productive forest sector in the 3 project states. We have re-emphasized some of the global benefits through selected

Executive Summary: Paras 1, 4, 5, 27, 28, 29, 42, 51; Row 2 of the ICA matrix in Annex A


12


additions to the Executive Summary. We agree fully that there should be a clearer articulation of which species and habitats will be targeted by the project once the baselines have been established and before full-scale implementation is underway.

Dissemination of lessons learnt and successful models is a key project component (Outcome 4, see Executive Summary Paras 39-41). While we have not mentioned other countries explicitly, there is no doubt that many of our experiences will be extremely relevant to other countries in the region, particularly in South Asia and we will ensure that there is exchange of information and experience with other countries in the region by using MAPPA’s and FRLHT”s existing networks (see Prodoc Paras. 20-25), the networks of other technical agencies and through other means.

Background and JustificationThe justification and analysis is good, particularly of the institutional and legal aspects. The profile of the three States is good. Some technical aspects, however, don’t appear to be so well covered in the proposal, although they may well have been documented during studies carried out in the PDF-B stage. Such aspects include the identification of species and areas for action.

The technical aspects referred to by the reviewer were indeed addressed to the extent possible during the PDF-B as detailed in Rows 1 & 2 above.

The most biodiverse and important areas (in the sense of globally threatened Ecoregion or hotspot) are the forests of Arunachal Pradesh, yet these are stated to contain fewer medicinal plant species (26/87) than the other two areas.

Prodoc Annex 4 to which the reviewer is referring lists only GSMP. The CAMP process, which does not include field surveys, is likely to have underestimated the presence of GSMPs in Arunachal Pradesh as the flora of this state is still to be fully documented. It is believed that only some 40% of Arunachal’s flora has been documented. Arunachal is estimated to contain some 12% of India’s MAP diversity, or nearly 1,000 species (see Executive Summary Para 29). Therefore the true number of GSMP is likely to be much

Executive Summary: Para 29


13


higher. How this will compare with the total number of MAP species in the other two states, including the number of GSMPs is not clear. It does not follow that just because Arunachal Pradesh has high biological diversity that it will necessarily have as many recorded MAPs as other states as it is humans who determine whether a particular species has medicinal or aromatic properties, i.e. there are socio-cultural factors involved as well as biological ones. Arunachal has relatively low human population density. There may be greater numbers of MAPs recorded in Uttaranchal and Chattisgarh simply because uses have been found for a greater number of species by humans. Project baseline ecological and social surveys are likely to yield further information on number and status of MAPs in each state.

Of the 87 potential target species listed, 15 have significant quantities already produced under cultivation and only 2 are listed as having significant harvests from the wild. Does this make such species or areas more or less important for intervention?

The table in Prodoc Annex 4 perhaps did not include sufficient explanation of what was meant by the column entitled ‘Status of cultivation’. This has now been amended. This column was meant to provide an indication of the significance of cultivation versus wild collection in terms of supplying demand (to the extent known) for the 87 GSMP reported to occur in the proposed project forest divisions. The data are preliminary and based on a crude assessment by FRLHT of the total annual production of these 18 species (15 plus 3, not 2) based on the area under cultivation and estimated production rates based on available secondary data. These were then compared to data obtained through a one-off market study by FRLHT in 1998-99 on trade volumes of different MAP species and their sources. This involved mainly questionnaire-based interviews of traders at the 11 major wholesale trading centers in India. What is perhaps more significant here is that 69/87 or 79% of traded GSMP are exclusively obtained from the wild. Only for 17% of GSMP targeted by this project does there appear to be more production from cultivation than from the wild, but these data are meant to be preliminary and should be treated with caution Quantification through interview methods is notoriously inaccurate and this was a one-off assessment.

Prodoc Annex 4.


14


Further investigation and verification is required before the true situation is known. This will form part of the baseline studies for the project.

20 out of 87 species are stated to be under significant threat (EN, CR), while 6 species are listed under CITES (only 2 on Appendix 1). How will the list and its attributes be used to help in choosing of project sites or target species? It is suggested that the choice of project sites should be determined as much by technical aspects, such as presence of threatened species, habitats or species of concern, as by socio-political and logistical concerns.

We fully agree with the reviewer’s recommendation and as explained earlier in Rows 1 & 2, a comprehensive set of ecological, socio-political and practical criteria for site-selection will be elaborated during the project inception phase. The presence of globally threatened species will be a key determining factor for siting MPCA/FGBs. We will also aim for complementarity of species and habitats through the MPCA/FGB complexes. A form of gap analysis can be used to establish how to site these complexes in order to prioritize globally threatened species and capture greatest possible overall diversity.

The justification states (paras 36-38) that cultivation is not the best option, and that in situ conservation is the way forward. Other biodiversity is of course also conserved when habitats are protected, but with continued utilisation the pressures on harvested wild populations will still remain and may well become unsustainable under changed economic or social circumstances. The reasons given in the document for in situ conservation over cultivation for medicinal plants are not clear, especially as lack of knowledge of cultivation techniques can be overcome by applied research (which FRLHT have been doing). It is understood that this point was discussed specifically during project formulation. However, the cultivation of medicinal plants in the long run may well be an equal or more sustainable option, and also can generate employment and added value through secondary processing.

Please note that the information in Paras 36-38 mentioned by the reviewer is now in Paras 18-20 of the Executive Summary. We certainly did not mean to suggest that in situ conservation is the only way forward or that cultivation is never the best option. Indeed, we have clearly stated in Para 18 of the Executive Summary (former Para 36) that : “Cultivation can and should be considered for as many species as possible, particularly threatened ones”. We have nevertheless amended Paras 18 & 20 (formerly 36 & 38) of the Executive Summary to further clarify our original statements.

We decided not to pursue cultivation in this project on a large scale for the following reasons;

a) There are a lot of increasingly threatened MAPs in India, including large numbers of GSMP. Many of these have very specific habitat requirements - not surprisingly many of the GSMP fall in this category. We do not have the knowledge or technology at present to cultivate these effectively on any commercially viable scale. A lot of investment will be required to find out how to do this. This will take time. There

Executive Summary: Paras 18 & 20.


15


It would be a good idea if the project could also address cultivation of medicinal plants where appropriate, even if it is not a large component of the proposal. Small grants to local groups enterprises may be a way to go.

are question marks over differences in the 'quality' or 'potency' of the chemical compounds from cultivated plants over wild harvested. While this could be a perception issue, changing cultural preferences is notoriously difficult. b) There is also a livelihood issue. Those who rely on MAP harvesting are often among the most marginalised. Those who have the option of cultivating will be a different set of people - for a start they have to have land and capital - and the employment they generate may not be available to the people who have lost an important source of income. Also cultivation sites may not be near the forests and employers may require a more skilled labour force.

Given the above, it was agreed that it would be premature to tackle the demand-supply aspect of the medicinal plant trade without a much better understanding of the factors that drive this trade and the social, ecological and other implications of trying to increase production through cultivation.

Nevertheless, and as recommended by the reviewer, the project had always intended to promote cultivation on a small scale (see Para 20 & Outcomes 2 & 3). We will establish nurseries and seed centres for MAPs so that genuine planting material is available for cultivation, identify species which are suitable for afforestation and cultivation programmes and also trial cultivation of selected species, particularly GSMP, at demonstration sites. The project plans to work with the national and state government programmes to include more MAPs in their schemes to increase cultivation of species that are currently heavily harvested in the wild.

We acknowledge that sustainable harvesting may not be a viable strategy for many species in the long run especially where demand is high. Developing sustainable harvesting strategies is considered a necessary interim measure to maintain viable MAP populations in the wild while we find


16


ways to cultivate more MAP/GSMP species and better manage demand.

We maintain, however, that in situ conservation will still be necessary as it is likely to remain the most cost-effective way to maintain a large spectrum of MAP diversity, including GSMPs, and MAP habitats, with many associated additional global benefits.

There is little background given on other medicinal plant initiatives, particularly those elsewhere in Southeast Asia. Are there no similar initiatives in Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam? China has been mentioned as having a very large medicinal plant industry and usage - what lessons are there that may be useful? The UNESCO/WWF/Kew Plants and People Initiative, which has been running for more than 5 years, may have some lessons.

To the best of our knowledge there are no major medicinal plants conservation initiatives underway in Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam or even in China. However, identifying relevant experiences in other countries will form a key part of our baseline studies in Year 1. As part of this we will also look closely at the work of the People & Plants Initiative.

Objective and OutcomesThe Project Objective is clear and very good. However, the criteria used in the choice of States for project activity may result in the project covering such a range of conditions (social and biological) that it may not yield a coherent model for others to adopt. Activities may be too scattered and energies dissipated just keeping up with the quantity and diversity of conditions. Is it necessary to have such a wide diversity of sites?

We believe it is necessary to cover this many states and sites for the reasons outlined earlier (Rows 1& 2 above). As also noted earlier we are addressing the potential risks identified by the reviewer by ensuring that we put in place effective project coordination and management systems. We will also develop a strategy in Year 1 for implementing the project in a phased manner. A key principle of the project is to put in place effective M&E systems and to periodically review and revise the project strategy based on performance.

There are five Project Outcomes. There is a logic in that Outcome 1 is national, Outcome 2 is at State Forestry level, and Outcome 3 is at local government and community level (= implementation on the ground). However, Outcome 4, development of materials and methods for replication, would seem to be partly

It is accepted UNDP-GEF practice to have a separate outcome on replication. Therefore Outcome 4 inevitably encompasses elements of Outcomes 2 and 3 as it is about replicating successful lessons and models to non-project sites both within the project states and in 4 additional replication states. The project will only facilitate replication. Replication is meant to be driven primarily by the government and other


17


confounded with aspects of Outcomes 1 and 2. Some parts of Outcome 4 appear be outside direct project influence or activities, especially given the projected timeframe.

stakeholders and should be achievable if the project is successful in achieving its stated mainstreaming objectives.

It always seems a bit odd – almost circular – to have effective project management (Outcome 5) as a separate Outcome or set of outputs. Dissemination aspects, however, will be quite crucial to overall success and replicability of the project. And effective project management is essential in a project such as this covering a large area and range of authorities, persons and biological conditions. Indeed, this is a major challenge.

Again, this is accepted UNDP-GEF practice. Dissemination is a key project component (see Outcome 4) as is monitoring and evaluation (see Executive Summary: Paras 67-73; 80-88 and Prodoc Section I/Part III & IV)

Executive Summary: Paras 68, 69, 71, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88.

ActivitiesThe project is ambitious as regards some activities, given its timeframe. This is particularly the case when one looks at the geographical range, logistics and range of stakeholders, including three State Governments and Forestry authorities, that it intends to cover. Project energies and financial resources may be over-stretched to achieve sufficient in the 7 year project lifetime. Thought should be given to whether activities could be more focussed geographically, with a potentially greater impact achieved.

This comment has been addressed in the earlier rows of the response matrix in considerable detail. Should our periodic M&E results indicate that we need to review the project strategy and scale down our efforts, we will do so.

The reviewed document is not clear on whether there will be some sort of senior Technical Advisor, and how strong and dynamic or at what level the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) might be. Given the wide scope and

We recognize that the successful implementation of this project requires strong technical leadership and a high level of coordination due to its inter-sectoral nature and its implementation at the national level as well as in three project states and four replication states. We have amended

Executive Summary: Para 68 and Paras 82, 85, 87 & 88.


18


disparate conditions under which the project will be working, strong and visionary leadership, at least in the initial stages, might well be a good option. It is important to get a firm technical basis on which activities can build later.

the Executive Summary to clarify the roles of the TAG and the Senior Technical Advisor.

One concern is how the project will integrate and mainstream its experiences from across many project sites. It needs a strong Secretariat or Project Management Unit at national level. This should be addressed in the ProDoc and not left to the implementation stage.

We will ensure that strong implementation and management structures and mechanisms are in place, including a strong central coordination unit as well as comparable state level structures and mechanisms. Proposed structures and mechanisms are described in detail in the Prodoc (Section I/Part III) and more briefly in the Executive Summary: Paras 80-88).

Executive Summary: Para 84 & 85.

The reviewed document also often implies activities taking place at all sites at similar times. Perhaps the idea of phasing and prioritisation should be made more explicit. If one area is showing promise, and another is showing many delays, how should the project react? Who will decide this, and at what stage?

We intend to implement the project in a phased manner. We have tried to make this more explicit as suggested in Para 38 of the Executive Summary. If one area is showing more promise than another, the project will first try to understand why this is the case. How this will be addressed will depend on the relative importance of the site (in terms of the criteria used for site selection). Some areas may require more investment than others and this in itself is not a reason to necessarily abandon work and focus one easier areas. These decisions will have to be made through consensus by MoEF and UNDP with technical guidance from FRLHT, the TAG and the STA.

Executive Summary: Para 38

Although mentioned, the aspects of advocacy are perhaps inadequately brought out in the proposal. To mainstream a new idea, there has to be a strong element of advocacy, and this would appear to be critical for the project. The question of how appropriate a particular successful approach is under differing circumstances also has to be addressed; an evaluation of this needs to be one of the project activities.

Advocacy is a crucial aspect of the project as without this it will not be possible to bring about the envisaged changes in policy and practice at the national, state and local levels. However, as pointed out by the reviewer, this has not been clearly articulated and may require strengthening during the work planning process. Advocacy work will include strategic workshops at different levels that bring together policy and decision-makers and other key stakeholders. A range of information and communication materials will be produced by the project for advocacy purposes. FRLHT, the main project proponent and lead technical agency for the proposed project, has considerable experience in advocacy. Other


19


technical agencies such as the National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources will also be involved in advocacy work. It was as a result of their efforts that a Task Force on Medicinal Plants was set up by the Planning Commission of India, which led to the establishment of the NMPB and now the SMPBs.

There appears to be no research activity stated, yet lack of knowledge may well be a limiting factor in some areas and for some species. Perhaps activities of applied research should be explicitly included under Outcome 3.

Lack of knowledge has been clearly acknowledged to be a limiting factor, and research, both secondary and applied, will be key activities. Research results will be important in guiding project planning and implementation. Studies will need to be conducted under several outcomes to establish baselines and for M&E purposes. The precise nature and extent of such research will be established during the Project Inception Phase and during the annual work planning process. We would also like to have inputs from the TAG and the STA before finalizing research activities under different outcomes.

LogframeAlthough generally adequate, there are a few concerns on the presentation of the logframe. There are no Indicators or Targets for specific Outputs under each Outcome (e.g. Outputs 2.1-2.8, 3.1-3.5), which may detract from good monitoring and evaluation. Some of the Indicators given are too general to be adapted to specific Outputs. It is understood that GEF practice now is not to provide Indicators for specific Outputs at this stage of project development, but this can also mean the project has not been thought through with sufficient technical rigour.

I would have thought it possible to give some indications now as to how Outputs might be measured and orders of magnitude of what might be achieved.

As is accepted UNDP-GEF practice, indicators, targets and means of verification at the output level will be determined during the annual work planning process. While these are important, we focused mainly on trying to develop impact indicators at this stage. Considerable thought and effort have gone into the PDF-B process and subsequent design of this project. More detailed planning must be undertaken once the project teams are in place, with the inputs of the TAG and the STA. Indicators and targets will need refining once the baselines have been established. This is an iterative process.


20


There should be better linkages between stated Project Outcomes (e.g. Outcome 2 line 2, Outcome 3 line 4) and Targets and Means of Verification (horizontally on the logframe). At present some are not logically following one another.

We will ensure that the logframe is carefully and critically revisited during the project inception phase and revised to address these concerns. In one of the examples given, Outcome 2, Line 2, it is difficult to identify a meaningful target or means of verification at this stage as the SMPBs are either only recently established or being established. We are assuming they will have limited capacity based on the national experience, the resources and skills sets available. However, more information and discussion are required before we can identify useful targets and methods for measuring changes in capacity and the impacts of greater capacity. Outcome 3, line 4 was inadvertently included as an outcome indicator as it is in fact an output indicator and not an impact indicator. This has been deleted.

Executive Summary: Annex B, Outcome 3, line 4 deleted.)

Some of the assumptions given (e.g. Outcome 2 line 2, Outcome 3 line 2) are really project outcomes or outputs; there is some circularity here which should be rectified.

Outcome 2, Line 2: What we intended here was that the SFDs and SMPBs remain committed to achieving the stated project objectives throughout the life of this 7-year project, despite likely turnover in staff and other external developments. In other words, that they remain receptive, cooperative and proactive throughout. The omission of the word ‘remain’ in this sentence may have been the problem and we have added this. We accept that the assumption under Outcome 3, line 2 is indeed an output and have deleted this.

Executive Summary: Annex B, Outcome 2, line 2. and Outcome 3, line 2.

There should be more Targets at least provisionally set now or in Year 1 (e.g. under Outcomes 3 and 4). Too many are set to be filled in only in Years 2 or 3. Targets could be set for some sites or some States, not necessarily all at the same time. In such a large set of project activities it may take a while to sort out exactly what appropriate targets should be, but there does need to be some attempt to tie it down at this stage.

As already explained, it was beyond the scope of the PDF-B to collect the kinds of baseline required to establish meaningful quantified targets at this stage. We tried to be realistic while developing the logframe and setting targets. The reason this exercise is spread over the first 1-3 years is because we will be taking a phased approach to project implementation. The majority of targets will be set in Years 1 and 2. Few are being set in Year 3. We are certainly willing to reconsider the latter to see how the project could/should be implemented such that targets can be set earlier as recommended. We will do this in the inception phase. We would again like to have the inputs of the STA and the TAG for this process.

Quantifiable monitoring of plant populations is We agree completely and have tried to capture this in general CEO Endorsement Template-V2 Rev January 30, 2007

21


essential, with at least a significant number of baselines established in Year 1 at a number of sites. Without this, it may be difficult to judge any success, which will weaken the argument for replicability and uptake elsewhere. In some ways this is a bottom-line in conservation projects, and could be usefully and more explicitly incorporated here in the logframe.There does need to be a means of detecting overall project impact on biodiversity conservation. This might be through improved status of plant populations or forests; plans and strategies are not always the best indicators of success, but their implementation and influence value may well be. It is not clear at present how overall conservation impact can or will be measured.

terms in all the objective level indicators, which are quantifiable and relate to monitoring the status of MAP populations, including GSMP, and their habitat (e.g. Objective, Row 3, Row 4, Row 5). As explained earlier at this stage we cannot identify specific target species or forest types. This will be done during Years 1 & 2. The indicators at the objective level are the main way in which real conservation impact will be measured.

ReplicabilitySome aspects of this have been alluded to above. The strong NGO / State Government base, the fact that the proposal appears to have developed from, and built on, national initiatives, suggests that it is an appropriate and replicable structure. It is quite likely that any institutional success could be transferred elsewhere in the country. What is perhaps not so clear is (a) whether technical or social conditions in some project sites are so different (as has been indirectly suggested for social conditions in Arunachal Pradesh) that a successful approach there may not be appropriate elsewhere, and (b) exactly how this might be promoted.

What proportion of project resources, and at what stage, should go into promotion of project successes.

It is true that the ecological, socio-economic and field management conditions will vary across the states. In fact this in many ways is a strength as it allows the testing of project approaches in a variety of conditions and the results of implementation will provide rich lessons for wider replication in India especially in the four replication states. The replication strategy is based on sharing of experiences and lessons learnt from implementing the project. Replication efforts will also involve developing sufficient capacity amongst key stakeholders to enable them to adapt successful project models to their own local situations. Such an approach will help ensure the sustainability of these interventions. The project will support the replication states’ efforts to develop this capacity through different strategies including: dissemination of key experiences and successful models; providing training materials and modules developed for the project states which to be adapted by each replication state; organizing field visits project demonstration sites and training for key stakeholders from replication states.


22


Only 16% of GEF resources have been allocated for promoting replication. We anticipate that we will be in a position to begin promoting project successes by Year 4. While the replication goals of the project are ambitious, if we succeed then the conservation and sustainable use of MAPs would have gained a strong foundation over a large area of India, well beyond the 6,000,000 ha of forest targeted within the project areas. This will result in major national and global benefits, including the conservation a much greater spectrum of biodiversity than MAPs alone. We are committed to work with the four replication states given their involvement in the PDF-B process. To meet these goals the budget has been drawn up. GEF's contribution to the budget of this Outcome will largely be to provide the tools and processes for replication while the actual replication itself will be funded out of government funding.

Project FundingA percentage breakdown of the budget suggests that almost 12% of total funding (22% of GEF funding) is going to Outcome 5, or project management and coordination. This would seem rather high, and no detail or justification is given of what this would be allocated to.

As noted by the reviewer, the project is complex and ambitious in its scope and scale. To mitigate the risks associated with this, we have allocated sufficient resources to ensure effective project coordination, implementation and management, including comprehensive monitoring and evaluation systems that will allow us to practice adaptive management and demonstrate real conservation impact (see Executive Summary Section V/C and Prodoc Section I/Parts III & IV).

The major on-ground activities with areas, plants, local populations and authorities fall under Outcome 3, which will receive 24% of project funding (35% of GEF funding). This would appear to be adequate, although perhaps overall on the low side.

The budgets were calculated with major inputs from FRLHT who have considerable experience of similar work in southern India and who implemented the PDF-B. Some of the field work associated with monitoring and evaluation is budgeted under Outcome 5. Therefore the total amount available for field activities is higher than that budgeted against Outcome 3.

The allocation of 26.5% of overall project funding (16.5% of GEF funding) to materials and methods for replication of successful

The scale and cost of the replication strategy has been justified above.


23


models to other States outside of the three targeted ones (Outcome 4), would seem rather high for three reasons: (1) these models may not be found to be that appropriate or successful (sometimes project activities take on a momentum of their own, even if not that appropriate); (2) any findings would only become apparent towards the end of the project, leaving a relatively short time to spend a significant part of the budget; and (3) the project is basically confining its activities to only three States and to get involved in a number of additional ones may overstretch it. The task would appear to be one more appropriate to the Government of India, which is in fact committing the major part of funding for this Outcome, but one wonders why the GEF portion is so high. Having said that, it is important that sufficient funding is available for dissemination of findings and promotion of appropriate models, something which is often overlooked in projects.

The project will put in place a strong monitoring and evaluation plan (Prodoc: Section I/Part IV). Based on the results of the monitoring the project management will be able to judge the progress and success of various initiatives. The mid-term evaluation of the project will also provide very important lessons about project progress and success and their suitability for replication. If the results of the mid-term evaluation indicate that the project initiatives are not succeeding and hence not fit for replication, the NSC can then recommend a budget revision to reflect the current situation.

The replication strategy is based on capacity building and sharing of experiences. Stakeholders from the replication states will be involved with the project implementation from the early stages so that they have the opportunity to learn from the project implementation experience. This will also provide sufficient time for the implementation of the replication initiatives.

The actual implementation of the activities in the four replication states will be carried out by stakeholders in these states led by the respective state governments. The role of the project is to facilitate peer to peer to learning, prepare training materials, build capacities of the stakeholders and carry out thematic reviews. Since the state governments will take the lead in implementation of the replication activities this will not place too much of an additional burden on the project.

Time FrameThe project is stated to have a 7 year duration. This would appear to be adequate and appropriate for such a large, widespread and wide-ranging project. There are only two concerns. One concern would be that these processes take a long time, particularly for changing institutional attitudes, and it would be

The project has never intended to progress equally on all fronts. As mentioned earlier a, strategy of phased implementation is envisaged. The details of this will be worked out during the project inception phase.


24


unfortunate if successes were coming but then directed activities stop. The second concern is that there is perhaps not enough articulated in the proposal about how the project would handle faster-moving success in one area but not in another. By trying to progress equally on abroad front the project may well inhibit good rapid progress in another area. A staggered or area-prioritised logframe could help project management tackle this.


25

Annex D: Response to Comments by GEF Secretariat received on 7 September 2007

Country: IndiaProject Title: Mainstreaming Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plant Diversity in Three Indian StatesGEFSEC Project ID: 1156 UNDP Project ID: 1024Operational Programme: 3 Implementing Agenc (ies): UNDPAnticipated project financing ($million): PPG $ 0.35

GEF Project Allocation: $ 4.94 Total Project Cost: $ 11.76

Programme Manager: Paz Valiente IA Contact Person: Sultana Bashir

Comments Responses Reference in the Project Document

1. Locally recruited personnel fee seems high, specially when compared with local consultants fee working for technical assistance components. Please explain.

We apologize for an error on our part – the estimated number of staff weeks is in fact 2,650 and not 650. We have corrected the Request for CEO endorsement accordingly. The high number of staff weeks for project management is due to having both a national Project Management Unit as well as state-level Project Management Units. The latter are necessary given the relative remoteness of the 3 mountainous and forested project states, and the difficulties of travelling to and from these states as well as within them to access the field sites. The national PMU will include a full-time project manager supported by one programme officer, one administrative assistant and one accounts officer. Each state-level PMU will be headed by a designated nodal officer, supported by one or two officers.

Request for CEO Endorsement, Financing Table (b)

Section III Total Budget & Workplan: Budget Note 28 & 29

2. Please explain what is included under “Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications”

The project will be implemented in the relatively inaccessible hilly states of India, where roads are bad and public transport is limited and often unreliable and even dangerous because of a combination of difficult terrain, poorly maintained

Section III Total Budget & Workplan: Budget Notes 29 & 30


26

vehicles and drivers of varying skill and experience, who also operate under difficult working conditions. Dedicated and reliable project vehicles will be important to ensure smooth implementation of the project as well as to enhance the safety of project personnel. Vehicles are to be hired as required to support the work of the national and state-level PMUs at a total cost of US$14,285/year over 7 years. Reliable communications and efficient information management and exchange will also be essential and as the concerned State Governments have limited budgets for equipment and communications, $12,329 has been budgeted to provide each of the PMUs with computer and printer facilities and $10,000 to supplement existing government budgets for communications.

3. Please complete table c) on the Request for CEO endorsement and clarify what is the total amount the project allocates to technical assistance and how much will be covered by co-financiers. Please explain why component 5 is not cofinanced

The table has been updated and completed and all changes highlighted in yellow. The total amount allocated to technical assistance is 2,240,562 of which 1,431,791 is covered by cofinanciers.

The apparent absence of co-financing for Component 5 on M&E, Lessons Learning & Knowledge Systems is an artefact of the development history of this proposal which was designed and submitted to a work programme in GEF 3 when it was UNDP’s general policy to separate out GEF specific Learning and Knowledge Management Costs (relating to global benefits), to ensure that projects paid particular attention to these aspects during the course of project implementation. The costs of M&E and lessons learning borne by co-financiers were conversely charged against each of the outcomes. We have addressed this anomaly by eliminating learning as a specific

Request for CEO Endorsement, Financing Table (c)


27

GEF Outcome (ie deleting Outcome 5) and showed knowledge management costs against the main project Outcomes 1-4, congruent with the approach used for the co-finance.


28


29


30


31


32

AUGUST 29, 2007 TEMPLATE - ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Project Strategy Objectively verifiable indicators

Goal:To conserve India’s medicinal plant diversity Objective Indicator5 Baseline Target Sources of verification Risks and Assumptions

Objective:To mainstream conservation and sustainable use of medicinal plants including GSMP into the productive forest sector of three Indian states: Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal

Forest area actively managed for sustainable use of MAPs and maintenance of MAP diversity

0 ha.

Criteria for what constitutes ‘active management to favor sustainable use & maintenance of MAP diversity to be determined and agreed with key stakeholders such as State Forest Departments in Yr 1

c. 32,000 ha of forest in 21 MPCA/FGB complexes primarily managed for sustainable use & conservation of MAPs.

A further 6,000,000 ha under management that favours maintenance of MAP diversity, including GSMPs

Targeted biological and management surveys. Field visits, project M&E reports, forest management records

Significant global and national benefits secured by focusing mainly on supply side of MAPs production

Natural canopy cover as a measure of the overall ecological status of forests under active management for maintenance of MAP diversity.

Bi-annual district wise data on canopy cover status is available from Forest Survey of India

Canopy cover maintained or increased as appropriate in each project site. Exact target will be set after baselines are updated for the forests in which the 21 FGBs/MPCAs are situated.

Forest Survey of India Biennial Reports

National Remotes Sensing Agency data

Sample monitoring plots in different habitat types for FGBs

Continued national and state government commitment to achieving the project objective, particularly within MoEF, NMPB, SMPBs, SFDs.

Population status of selected MAP species including GSMP within FGB/MPCA complexes

Qualitative population status indicators for over 50 species known. For trees and shrubs density per unit area, data are not

Monitoring protocols with species specific plots including appropriate types of ecological indicators to

Ecological survey reports on abundance, density, distribution, germination and regeneration rates of target species during Yrs 1 & 3, 5

MAP collectors and other forest user/owners from local communities continue to support project objectives

5 Indicators are further specified and quantified in the ‘Target’ column along with timelines. CEO Endorsement Template-V2 Rev January 30, 2007

33

available, and will be monitored. Similarly, for herbs, areas of occurrence and qualitative assessment of population status also will be monitored.

be established in Yr 1.

Population stability of selected species maintained or improved over the years

and end of project MAP distribution and status may be affected by events such as extreme weather conditions or other perturbations, such as forest fires, increase in herbivores that consume particularly species, etc.

Population status of selected MAP including GSMP species in wider exploited forests surrounding FGB/MPCA complexes

Baseline as above. Available generic protocols will be adapted to develop species specific protocols with appropriate types of ecological indicators for specific species established in Yr 1.

Population stability of selected species maintained or improved as measured against baseline

Ecological survey reports Yrs 1 & 3, 5 and end of project

Number of MAP species including GSMP being harvested sustainably in demonstration sites

Sites where harvesting of GSMP populations takes place are known. Harvesting practices for some of the highly traded plants along with general impacts are broadly known, but comprehensive assessments are not available.

Identification and definition of indicators of ‘sustainable harvesting’ & monitoring protocols to be defined in year 1

Sustainable harvesting of 5 heavily exploited GSMPs in place by end of project.

Monitoring protocols developed for monitoring harvesting and being used annually

Ecological & social survey reports for baseline, mid and end of project and annual monitoring records as well as annual detailed assessment of impacts on regeneration levels, biomass levels, flowering and fruiting intensities of the 5 GSMP


34

Increase in area under different MAP species cultivated by government programmes

Isolated examples of cultivation over limited area

At least 5000 ha of cultivation under different MAP species under private, common and marginal or degraded lands owned by various Govt Depts such as Forests, and private owners.

Government records such as agriculture, revenue, NMPB and forest departments.

Increase in number of MAP species used in afforestation / cultivation programmes

10% of species are known to be cultivated sporadically in the state.

Based on the life history strategies of each species and habit, an additional 5 – 7 highly marketed species will be brought under cultivation. These may include herbacious rhizomatous species and species amenable for asexual propagation

Government records

Outcome 1:An enabling environment at the national level for mainstreaming the conservation and sustainable use of MAPs into forest management policies and practices

National forest policy revised to favor sustainable use & conservation of MAPs

No specific focus on MAPs in national forest policyEg JFM Guidelines do not address sustainable use or conservation of MAPs

Revised national JFM guidelines with stronger focus on conservation of MAPs

The revised JFM guidelines Key government stakeholders at national and state level are committed to intersectoral dialogue and action to bring about required cross-cutting changes in forest policy and practice and have full backing for doing so at highest political levels

Strengthened capacity within NMPB to fulfill their mandate

Limited technical and institutional capacity to fulfil key parts of its mandate such as assessing supply of

Capacity needs assessment of NMPB in inception phase.Targeted capacity development of key staff

Capacity assessment reports

Number and content of targeted trainings

Other government departments have sufficient interest in working with NMPB


35

MAPs, actively managing supply and demand and particularly for intersectoral national coordination

based on results of capacity assessment in Yrs 2 & 3.Mechanisms for assessing supply and demand of MAPs developed and adopted by NMPB by Yr 5.Mechanisms for intersectoral coordination developed and functionng effectively by Yr 3

Number and role of trained officers

NMPB reports, project reports and records

Minutes of national intersectoral meetings

Greater intersectoral cooperation at state level to achieve sustainable use and conservation of MAPs

No formal intersectoral cooperation in relation to MAPs to date. However, State and Central agencies involved with medicinal plants issues have been identified and committed themselves to provide their expertise for coordinating project components

An intersectoral technical coordination committee established and functioning in each of the project states by end of Yr 2

A National Strategy for the Sustainable Use & Conservation of MAPs signed off by at least 3 central ministries including MoEF and MoH by Yr 4

End of project policy and sector review

Reports and minutes of Technical coordination committee meetings.

Reports of different ministries/government departments

The endorsed strategy is published

Policy & sectoral review concluded with key revisions identified.

Strengthened and new legal mechanisms to protect community interests over MAPs, including IPR

Existing forest laws do not relate to medicinal plants.

Appropriate legal mechanisms and measures that build on existing mechanisms identified and developed in years 3 & 4 and adopted by end of project

New regulations or laws

Amendments to existing laws & regulations

There is sufficient political will at state and national level ratify and adopt new legal mechanisms and/or changes to existing mechanisms

Output 1.1A national strategy for the conservation

A comprehensive national strategy on MAPs

No such strategy exists. A holistic national strategy paper which addresses conservation,

National strategy document and associated GoI notification of the strategy


36

& sustainable use of MAPs

cultivation, sustainable use and trade of MAPs and protection of associated traditional knowledge developed by Yr 3 and issued in the form of a policy guideline to the states by GoI by Yr 5.

Output 1.2Revised national JFM guidelines with a stronger focus on conservation & sustainable use of MAPs

The revised national guidelines for JFM

Current JFM guidelines do not address sustainable use or conservation of MAPs.

Revised national JFM guidelines with stronger focus on conservation and sustainable use of MAPs especially GSMPs are issued by GoI by year 3.

Revised JFM guidelines and the GoI notification associated with it.

Output 1.3Legal mechanisms to protect Traditional Knowledge on harvesting, cultivation & use of MAPs

Legal mechanisms to protect Traditional Knowledge on MAPs.

There are no implementation strategies or regulations related to traditional ownership rights

Critical gaps in legal framework for protection of Traditional Knowledge, including IPR identified in Yr1. Regulations and legislation to safeguard traditional knowledge developed by Yr 3 by central government and adopted by Yr 4

Report on gaps in legal coverage.

Proposed draft regulations & laws or amendments to existing laws.

The notification and adoption of the legal mechanisms by the concerned government agencies

Output 1.4Identification of MAPs suitable for cultivation & inclusion in afforestation & income generating programmes of the NAEB and MoRD

Field verified list of MAPs suitable for cultivation and inclusion in NAEB & MoRD afforestation & income-generating programmes

NMPB has identified and notified 32 species with regional prioritization for cultivation and augmentation, but the list is not based on field information.

Legally notified state specific and field verified species specific list of actions and interventions in place on rolling basis in each of project states in Years, 3, 4 and 5

Instructions issued by MoEF and MoRD and the respective state governments notifying the list of identified species.The official government notifications and the adoption of the identified species in the officially supported afforestation and income generating programmes.


37

Output 1.5Strengthened capacity of NMPB towards sustainable management and mainstreaming of MAPs

Intersectoral dialogue & cooperation at national level

Technical assistance provided to states by NMPB

Currently NMBP has limited capacity to for or engaging in or leading intersectoral dialogue and coordination at national level and limited technical know-how on the sustainable management of wild MAPs

1. Increased instances of intersectoral dialogue and cooperation between relevant government ministries on MAPs conservation and sustainable use.2. Increased requests by relevant State Government Agencies for technical assistance by NMPB3.Enhanced fund flow to this sector from different ministries

Project reports on targeted capacity development provided to NMPB

NMPB reports.

Minutes of intersectoral meetings

Survey feedback from state agencies on technical assistance provided by NMPB

Output 1.6Strategy and protocols developed for threat assessment and monitoring conservation status of MAPs

Threat assessment & conservation status monitoring strategy and protocols.

Currently methods for generating field information for assessment of threat and conservation status of MAPs, including GSMPS do not exist.

Scientifically developed and field tested threat assessment protocol for MAPs developed (building on existing rapid threat assessment methods) and published by Yr 4 together with overall MAP monitoring strategy. Strategy and protocols adopted by the project state governments in the management of MAPs by Yr 5.

The monitoring strategy and threat assessment protocol and government orders mandating the adoption of it as a part of the management of MAPs.

Output 1.7Course module on the conservation & sustainable use of MAPs developed for the Indian Forest Service curriculum

A course module on conservation and sustainable use of MAPs

Currently the syllabus for Indian Forest Service curriculum does not include a module on conservation and sustainable use of MAPs.

To develop the module by year 2 and have it included in the syllabus by year 5.

Adoption of the revised syllabus with the MAP course module in the teaching of Indian Forest Service officers and other field functionaries.

Outcome 2Forest management policies in the three

State forest policies revised to favor sustainable use &

Limited focus on MAPs in key state forest policies, eg JFM

Revised JFM orders/circulars with stronger focus on

The revised orders/circulars

Revisions to other relevant

State governments are committed to goals of the CBD and see their relevance


38

project states that promote and support the conservation and sustainable use of MAPs

conservation of MAPs Guidelines do not refer to MAPs & Forest Division Working Plans do not address conservation management of MAPs. Other opportunities for forest policy changes at state level to be identified by end of Yr 1.

conservation of MAPs. Nature of required revisions to be determined based on policy analysis by Yr 1

Forest Division Working Plans in project districts revised

policy documents published

The revised Working Plans

with respect to MAPs sector and hence need to modify existing forest policies accordingly

Strengthened capacity within SMPBs to fulfill their mandate

Limited to non-existent capacity. Capacity needs of each SMPB to be assessed by Yr2/Q2

Over 80% of SMPB management and technical level staff to be sufficiently trained to deliver their mandate effectively by Yr 5

Individual State SMPB baseline and end of project capacity assessment reports

Project records of targeted capacity development of key SMPB staff based on capacity assessment findings

Reports of the SMPBs Verification by interviewing potential SMPB clients.

SFDs, SMPBs and other key sectors committed to intersectoral cooperation to effect policy changes that favour conservation and sustainable use of MAPs, preservation of Traditional Knowledge and protection of community-level IPR.

Greater intersectoral cooperation to achieve sustainable use and conservation of MAPs

Minimal. No dedicated policy for MAPs although growing interest, eg Chhattisgarh & Uttaranchal declared as ‘Herbal States’. Baseline studies by Yr 2/Q2 to include: a) Detailed analysis to establish extent of conflict and cooperation and main requirements for effective consultation and intersectoral action; and b) A detailed review of state-level policies and key sectors to be undertaken to identify

State-level intersectoral & technical coordination committees established.

Individual state strategies for the Sustainable Use & Conservation of MAPs signed off by at least 2 government departments in each state by Yr 6

Extent of change in intersectoral coordination and cooperation from baseline measured by numbers of meetings of state coordination committee, membership of committee, minutes and reports of committees and concrete MAP conservation measures implemented as a result of committee actions

Project monitoring reports.

Reports of different ministries/government departments

SFDs, SMPBs and other key sectors committed to intersectoral cooperation to effect policy changes that favour conservation and sustainable use of MAPs, preservation of Traditional Knowledge and protection of community-level IPR.


39

key areas for policy harmonization Number of state departments

that sign off on each state strategy

Output 2.1State Medicinal Plant Conservation & Sustainable Use Strategies for Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh & Uttaranchal.

The state-specific strategies

No state-specific MAP conservation and sustainable use strategies other than in Uttaranchal State which has a plan, but that is not as comprehensives as the strategies to be developed through this project.

State-specific strategies addressing the conservation, cultivation, sustainable use and trade of MAPs and protection of associated traditional knowledge formulated for Arunachal Pradesh by year 3 and Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal by year 4 and notified by each of the three state governments by the following year.

Published strategies and notifications.

Output 2.2Revised state forest policies that support conservation & sustainable use of MAPs.

Revised state forest policies

No specific focus on MAPs in forest policies of these three states.

Revised forest policies that favour sustainable use and conservation of MAPs formulated and adopted by the three project states by year 4.

Publication of the revised forest policies in the three states.

Output 2.3Revised state-level JFM Orders & Guidelines that integrate and strengthen MAP conservation and sustainable use objectives within overall JFM programmes and practices.

Revised state-level orders and guidelines for JFM

State-level JFM orders and guidelines do not address sustainable use or conservation of MAPs.

Revised state-level JFM orders and guidelines with stronger focus on conservation and sustainable use of MAPs especially GSMPs are issued by the respective state governments by year 4.

Copy of the revised state-level JFM orders and guidelines.

Output 2.4 Strengthened or new Existing forest laws do Legal gaps at state level The notification and CEO Endorsement Template-V2 Rev January 30, 2007

40

State-level legal mechanisms to protect traditional knowledge on harvesting, cultivation & use of MAPs.

state-level legal mechanisms to protect Traditional Knowledge on MAPs including IPR.

not relate to medicinal plants. States are in the process of developing their own legislation to implement the National Biodiversity Act which has potential for helping communities protect their interests over MAPs

identified by year 2 following national level analysis. Proposed mechanisms and/or amendments to existing laws and regulations to be based on changes to national level legislation and to be adopted by Yr 6..

adoption of the legal mechanisms by the concerned state government agencies.

Output 2.5Strengthened capacities of SMPBs

Capacity of SMPBs to deliver their main mandate in relation to MAP conservation & sustainable use

Limited to non-existent capacity. Capacity needs of each SMPB to be assessed by Yr2/Q2

Over 80% of SMPB management and technical level staff to be sufficiently trained to deliver their mandate effectively by Yr 5

Individual State SMPB baseline and end of project capacity assessment reports. Project records of targeted capacity development of key SMPB staff based on capacity assessment findingsReports of the SMPBs Verification by interviewing potential SMPB clients.

Output 2.6Identification of MAPs suitable for cultivation & inclusion in afforestation & income generating programmes of the NAEB & MoRD at the state level & SFDs & state Rural Development Boards.

State-level lists of suitable MAPs for cultivation in afforestation and income generating programmes of NAEB and MoRD, and SFDs & state Rural Development Boards

Currently no such state-specific field-verified lists of species exists.

Initial state-wise lists ready and notified by Yr 4 by relevant state government departments and final list notified by Yr 6.

The state government notifications and the adoption of the identified species in the government supported afforestation and income generating programmes.

Output 2.7Revised forest division working plans that provide clear guidelines for the conservation management of MAPs in all project

Revised forest division working plans in the project districts

Currently the forest divisions working plans do not focus on sustainable use of MAPs.

Revised forest division working plans incorporating the guidelines for the sustainable use of MAPs published in the project districts published and adopted in all the project

The revised forest division working plans


41

districts. districts through the course of the project depending on when the working plans are due for revision.

Output 2.8Comprehensive baseline and M&E system developed for monitoring the status of medicinal plant resources in each project state

Scientifically compiled comprehensive baseline on the status of MAPs in each of the project states.

Currently none of the project states have a specific information on the status of MAPs or monitoring protocols.

By year 5 the project states will have a dataset on the status of MAPs (i.e. species wise quantitative data on plant density and distribution in the FGBs and state-wide assessments of distribution and abundnce) and operational systems for MAP monitoring.

Project reports and reports of the state government agencies involved with the conservation and management of MAPs.

Outcome 3Conservation and sustainable use of MAPs mainstreamed at the local level into government and community forest management norms and practices at demonstration sites in the three project states.

Ha of government forest actively managed for sustainable use of MAPs and maintenance of MAP diversity

0 ha. Criteria for “active management” to favor sustainable use & maintenance of MAP diversity and suitable ecological indicators to be determined in Yr 1

At least 4 MPCAs/FGBs (established in each project state by Yr 4 (3 in state forest & 1 in community forest - 12 in total covering 18,000 ha) & 7 in total per project state by Yr 6 (5 in state forest and 2 in community forest – 21 in total or c. 32,000ha). Mid-way through the project and by the end of the project, respectively, an additional 2,000,000 ha and 6,000,000 ha of forest will be under active management for sustainable use and maintenance of MAP diversity.

Government records & project M&E records

Local government & communities perceive value in conservation of MAPs and moving towards more sustainable harvesting of MAPs


42

Numbers of SFD officers actively applying their training in conservation management of MAPs

0. Criteria for measuring this to be developed by Yr 2/Q2 at same time as when training module being developed.

To be established of Yr 2/Q3

To be determined, but to include field verification component and triangulation – eg results of ecological surveys combined with interviews with different stakeholder groups

Ha of community forest actively managed for sustainable use of MAPs and maintenance of MAP diversity

Minimal,

Indicators to be established in Yr 1 along with criteria for what constitutes ‘active management to favor sustainable use & maintenance of MAP diversity including suitable ecological indicators

Capacity gaps of communities, such as those for management and monitoring to be established by end of Yr 1Subsequently developing monitoring protocols and management practices.

Field surveys, project M&E reports, key informant interviews

Number of MAP species, including GSMP, for which sustainable harvesting techniques developed.

0 5 GSMPs per year from the Yr 3 onwards.

Species harvest protocols developed and implemented in selected Forest Divisions. Project records & Forest Division records

Number of MAP collectors and other groups practicing sustainable harvesting

0 75% of MAP collectors and all JFM groups practice sustainable harvesting in forest divisions for which sustainable harvesting protocols have been developed for target GSMPs by Yr 6

Project sample surveys

Forest Division and JFM committee records.

Extent of documentation of Traditional Knowledge on MAPs

Documentation is minimal

Target values for mid and end of project to be determined during Yr 1

Improved knowledge among MAP collectors and community forest users/managers about MAPs generally and

Documentation minimal Target values for mid and end of project to be determined during Yr 1

M& E reports related adoption of protocols


43

about their legal rights, obligations and the requirements for maintaining MAP diversity and abundance

Output 3.1Demonstration of in situ & ex situ techniques for the conservation management, including sustainable use, of MAP diversity, especially GSMP in state forests

MPCAs,,FGBs, sustainable harvesting practices, propagation and cultivation methods

No such techniques currently in use in project areas

At least 4 MPCAs/FGBs per project state by Yr 4 (3 in state forest and 5 by Yr 6 demonstrating sustainable management practices to target groups of stakeholders

Stable or increased population of target GSMPs as against baseline in state owned forest areas by end of project

Government records & project M&E records.

Output 3.2Strengthened MAP conservation management capacity within SFDs.

Numbers of SFD officers actively applying their training in conservation management of MAPs.

0. To be established by end of year 1.

To be determined, but to include field verification component and triangulation – eg results of ecological surveys combined with interviews with different stakeholder groups.

Output 3.3Pilot demonstration sites for the in situ & ex situ conservation & sustainable management of MAP diversity on community-owned or managed lands.

No. of pilot demonstration sites for in situ and ex situ MAP conservation & management on community lands

0 At least 1 MPCAs/FGBs established and functioning effectively in community forest in each state by Yr 4 and 2 in each state by Yr 5, with 6 in total by end of project.

Additionally, pilot propagation and cultivation of MAPs in private home gardens and farmlands and community lands

Project monitoring reports, PIRs, MTE & TE reports


44

adjoining forest areas, with a target of 5,000 ha under such cultivation by end of project.

Output 3.4Strengthened community capacity for the conservation and sustainable use of MAPs.

Proportion of MAP collectors & users practicing MAP conservation & sustainable use.

0 To be established by end of year 1.

Targeted sample surveys in project sites

Output 3.5Strengthened community capacity for documenting and conserving Traditional Knowledge relating to MAPS, including traditional medicine, harvesting techniques and how to protect their IPRs.

Extent of documentation of Traditional Knowledge on MAPs by the local communities in the form of documents like community biodiversity registers.

Currently none although the process was started under the National Biodiversity Act 2002

10 such registers to be produced every year in the villages around the FGBs (i.e. 1 per village) from year 2 onwards, with a total of 70 community registers/state produced by end of project

Community biodiversity registers and other community documents.

Outcome 4:Materials and methods developed for replicating the successful models of conservation and sustainable use of medicinal plants across other sites in the three states, and more broadly.

Number of additional forest divisions in project states and in replication states adopting successful models. Precise criteria to be determined by mid- project. These could include policy changes, new policies, capacity development of SMPBs, SFDs, MAP collectors, community forest users/managers, increased sustainable harvesting of MAPs in state forests and

Baseline values where known, others to be established by end of Yr 1

Policies No state in India has

dedicated strategies for the sustainable use and conservation of MAPs

Capacity of different

All targets to be determined by end of Yr 1

Government recordsRevised PoliciesRevised Working PlansRevised JFM GuidelinesRecords of number and nature of exchange visits between project demonstration sites and other areas involving range of stakeholders

Forest owners, managers and users are interested in conserving MAPs and harvesting them sustainably and therefore receptive to adapting lessons and experience of project to their local circumstances and have capacity to do so including sufficient funds at their disposal.


45

community forests.

Number of states developing strategies for Conservation & Sustainable Use of MAPs based on national and project state strategies.

Revision of forest division working plans in at least 2 forest divisions in each of the 4 replication states.

Training material and modules used and applied.

Establishment of effective FGB/MPCA complex in each replication state

stakeholder groups To be established

mid-project

Forest Working Plans Probably none that

take MAPs into account but to be confirmed

Training materials & course modules

Probably none, but to be confirmed

FGBs/MPCAs None in target

replication states in either state or community forests

Output 4.1State-level strategies for the conservation & sustainable use of MAPs developed in 4 replication states.

State-level strategies in 4 additional states

No such strategies currently exist.

State-specific strategies addressing the conservation, cultivation, sustainable use and trade of MAPs and protection of associated traditional knowledge formulated, notified and adopted by four additional state governments by year 7.

Copies of the four state strategy documents and the state government orders notifying these.

Output 4.2Capacities of SMPBs strengthened in 4 replication states based on experience of SMPBs in project states.

Capacity of SMPBs in 4 replications states to fulfil their mandate in relation to MAP conservation & sustainable use

Limited to non-existent capacity but to be confirmed by replication states.

Capacity targets to be set in Yr 3 together with relevant state authorities

Comparison of baseline and end of project capacity based on reports of the SMPBs


46

Output 4.3Training materials & module developed for SFD in project states adapted for use in replication states.

Adapted MAPs training materials and module

Currently no such materials available.

To have the state-specific training materials and module ready for the four replication states by year 5 and also have it accepted by the concerned state governments for use in the respective states.

Project reports and published training materials and correspondence from the state governments accepting the use of these training materials.

Output 4.4Demonstration of in situ & ex situ methods and approaches to the conservation & sustainable use of MAPs through exchange visits between project sites and new districts in replication states.

Number of exchange visits, number and type/affiliation of participants involved and techniques demonstrated

None Targets to be set in Yr 3 Government records & project M&E records.

Output 4.5Strengthened capacity for conservation management of MAPs by SFD and selected local communities in replication states.

Increased awareness & knowledge about different options for improved MAP conservation and management, including in situ & ex situ techniques, potential policy changes, etc

Limited such awareness or knowledge

Specific targets to be established by Yr 3.

Before and after capacity self-assessments of sample of SFD managers and community MAP collectors & users in replication states Government records & project M&E records.

Output 4.6 Revised forest division working plans that provide clear guidelines for the conservation management of MAPs in selected districts in replication states.

Revised forest division working plans incorporating the guidelines for the conservation management of MAPs published in the selected districts of the replication states.

Currently the forest divisions working plans do not focus on conservation of MAPs.

Agreement by replication state governments by end of project to revise forest division working plans to incorporate principles for effective conservation management of MAPs when the working plans

Eventual publication and adoption of the revised forest division working plans


47

are due for their next revision.


48

AUGUST 29, 2007 TEMPLATE -ANNEX B: CONSULTANTS TO BE HIRED FOR THE PROJECT

Position Titles$/

person weekEstimated

person weeks Tasks to be performedFor Project Management

The cost Project Management entails the cost for 1 Project Management Unit (PMU) at the national level and 3 state-level (SPMUs) in three project states. PMU consists of a full-time project manager, supported by one programme officer, one administrative assistant, and one accounts officer. Each SPMU consists of designated nodal officer and supported by two officers.

Local 201 2,650 1) Project manager (PM) will be in charge of overseeing the day-to-day project implementation and management of project activities, organizing and overseeing national and international consultant input, and overseeing monitoring and evaluation and ensuring that the project is on trackThe programme officer (PO) is responsible for the day-to-day guidance and operational management of the project and support activities. The PO will support, initiate, monitor and manage the project. The PO will report to the project manager and help liase with the government departments.2) Programme officer (PO) is responsible for the day-to-day guidance and operational management of the project and support activities. The PO will support, initiate, monitor and manage the project. The PO will report to the project manager and help liase with the government departments.3) Administrative Assistant (AA) will be under the direct supervision of the project manager to provide clerical support to all staff in the PMU4) Project Accountant will be under the supervision of the project manager and will be primarily responsible for managing the finances of the project

International N/A N/AFor Technical AssistanceLocal consultants 397 5,000 1) Policy & Legal Specialist will review current strategies and


49

policies in place at the national level and in the project states to identify the gaps for ensuring sustainable use of MAPs, work with relevant partners to develop a national strategy for MAP conservation and sustainable use and state-level policies, work with relevant partners to identify and/or develop suitable legal mechanisms to protect traditional knowledge relating to sustainable harvest, cultivation and use of MAPs within the guidelines of Biological Diversity Act (2002)2) Capacity Assessment & Development Component (different specialists to undertake different subcomponents based on required skills and experience) will perform following tasks Conduct a capacity needs assessment of the National Medicinal Plants Board in order to formulate a targeted capacity development program to enable the NMPB to better fulfil its mandate, including functioning effectively as an intersectoral coordinating body Conduct capacity needs assessment of State Medicinal Plants Board in order to formulate targeted capacity development programs to enable the SMPBs to better fulfil their mandate Identify MAP conservation and sustainable use related capacity gaps of local communities living in and around the forests and develop targeted capacity development program for MAP collectors and farmers Strengthening local capacity for conserving and applying traditional knowledge, documentation, IPRs and sustainable use of MAPs Develop a course module for conservation and sustainable use of MAPs for Indian Forest Service curriculum3) Consultants working on dissemination & replication component will conduct analysis and consolidation of lessons learnt through the implementation of the project and of best practices and models that are suitable for replication and broader uptake, develop strategies for dissemination of project experiences, lessons learnt and best practices for different target audiences through different strategies and develop a comprehensive and financially sustainable strategy for replication of effective models for MAP conservation in


50

other parts of India, including other states.International 3,500 73 1) Senior Technical Advisor will work intensively with the project

during the first year to put in place systems and processes for effective project implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and adaptive management. After the first year, the STA will remain closely associated with the project for the rest of the project period to provide expert guidance on a basis to be determined at the end of the first year.2) M&E Specialist(s) will work with the PMU to develop a project M&E system and lead periodic M&E surveys according to project M&E and implementation plans and ensure that project implementation is adapted as necessary in line with M&E feedback


51