THE WORLD BANK Summary of ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT (ESSA) FOR THE India: Rejuvenating Watersheds for Agricultural Resilience through Innovative Development (REWARD) (P172187) [Draft Final] 14 March 2021 The World Bank This document is being made publicly available so that views of interested members of the broader public may also be considered before all Program decisions are made final. TABLE OF CONTENT 1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 The REWARD Program .................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Government Program and Bank Financed Program (P Vs p) ....................................................... 3 2.2 Objectives and Result Areas ......................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Detailed Scope of the REWARD Program ................................................................................... 4 2.4 Institutional Arrangement for Program Implementation............................................................... 7 3 The Environmental and Social Systems Assessment ....................................................................... 8 3.1 Objectives and Core Principles ..................................................................................................... 8 3.2 ESSA Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 9 4 Environmental and Social Overview ............................................................................................... 10 5 Program Environment and Social Effects ...................................................................................... 12 6 Assessment of Environmental and Social Systems and Capacity ................................................. 14 6.1 Applicable Environment and Social Legal and Regulatory Framework..................................... 14 6.2 ESSA Core Principles ................................................................................................................. 14 6.3 Summary of Environmental Systems and Capacity .................................................................... 20 6.4 Summary of Social Systems and Capacity ................................................................................. 21 6.5 List of Excluded Activities ......................................................................................................... 22 6.6 Key Environmental and Social Gaps identified .......................................................................... 23 6.7 Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) ...................................................................................... 23 7 Stakeholder Consultations and Disclosure ..................................................................................... 24 8 Recommendations and Actions ........................................................................................................ 27 Annexures .................................................................................................................................................. 29 Annex-1: Detailed ESSA Report for REWARD Program in Andhra Pradesh Annex-2: Detailed ESSA Report for REWARD Program in Karnataka Annex-3: Detailed ESSA Report for REWARD Program in Odisha Environmental and Social Systems Assessment (ESSA): Summary1 1 BACKGROUND 1. Rainfed agriculture represents a major share of the country’s agricultural sector and is facing significant challenges. Of the 127 agro-climatic zones in India, 73 are rainfed, with 13 states accounting for about three-quarters of the total rainfed area. A total of 66 districts of the country’s poorest 100 districts are in rainfed areas. Generally, these rainfed areas receive less than 750 mm of rainfall annually and have less than 30 percent of cropland under irrigation (from both surface and ground water). India ranks first globally in terms of the area and value of produce from rainfed agriculture. Rainfed agriculture accounts for more than half of the net sown area in the country, mostly in arid and semi-arid areas, and supports an estimated 480 million people. Rainfed areas are home to 86 percent of the country’s poor, produce 40 percent of the food grains, support two-thirds of the livestock population, and are thus critical to poverty alleviation and food security in the country. Dry, rainfed regions are susceptible to drought and soil degradation that reduces fertility and increases downstream sedimentation. 2. Watershed management programs in India have evolved over time in terms of their approach, strategy, and operational scale. In the late 1970s watershed management programs were mainly top-down engineering-focused soil and water conservation infrastructure development to protect large downstream water bodies (especially dams) from silting up. From the late 1980s, programs began focusing on soil and water issues and productivity in resource-poor, poverty stricken upstream areas. From the late 1990s, a new approach based on participatory watershed planning, implementation and management was pioneered in several states including Andhra Pradesh (supported by Department for International Development (DFID), Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA)) and Karnataka (supported by DFID, DANIDA, World Bank). In 2009, the Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP) was launched, which marked the consolidation of various watershed development schemes under an integrated program. In 2015-16, the IWMP became a component of the GoI’s flagship program on extending irrigation coverage and improving water use efficiency – the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY). Recently, watershed programs, such as the Karnataka Watershed Development Project (KWDP)-II (known locally as ‘Sujala III’) financed by the Bank, began emphasizing improved biophysical and socio-economic site data, more science-based watershed planning, and value-chain development through investments in farmer producer organizations (FPOs) and market linkages. The operational scale of watershed development has also shifted over time from larger treatment areas to smaller micro-watersheds and then to a meso-scale focused on clusters of micro-watersheds covering contiguous areas2. 3. A robust institutional architecture for watershed development exists in the country. The Department of Land Resources (DoLR) of the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), GoI is the key national agency responsible for watershed development. The National Rainfed Areas Authority (NRAA) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare (MoAFW) provides technical and policy support to the DoLR on watershed development. State Level Nodal Agencies (SLNAs)3, housed in various agencies4, are responsible for delivering national watershed programs, including watershed planning, resource mobilization, monitoring, capacity building, and coordination through their district and block 1 This document summarizes the key ESSA findings and recommendations detailed in the detailed state reports that cover REWARD interventions in Karnataka, Odisha, and Andhra Pradesh, as well as the Department of Land Resources (DoLR) 2 Over time, watershed programs typically covered areas of 50,000 ha; from early 1990s to 2000s the programs moved to treating micro-watersheds of 500 ha; and from 2008 onwards the watershed programs focused on clusters of micro-watersheds covering contiguous areas of around 5,000 ha, emphasizing on a saturation approach of treating a high percentage of the site. 3 also referred to as State Watershed Departments (SWDs) in this document. 4 Depending on the state, this could be the Department of Agriculture, Panchayat Raj Department, Forest Department, or in some cases a separate Watershed Development Department. 1 level structures. To facilitate meaningful engagement of the community in planning, implementation, and monitoring of watershed development, community level institutions and local government bodies are supported. These include Watershed Development Committees (WDCs), farmer or water user groups, Self-Help Groups (SHGs), and the Gram Panchayats (GPs). 4. The WDC-PMKSY is a key source of funds for watershed management in the country. The DoLR provides national guidelines and funds in 60:40 cost sharing ratio to states through national watershed schemes/ WDC-PMKSY for execution at the sub-project level5. DoLR aims to bring at least one-third of untreated land under watershed development. While these programs have treated significant land areas to date with basic soil and water conservation, the broader impacts have been below expectations in terms of: incorporating hydrology, water management, and climate resiliency into plans and investments; supporting farmers to transition to climate resilient farming practices, more value addition and market access for increased productivity and incomes; and strengthening rural livelihood development to improve overall equity and opportunities for women. 5. The current WDC-PMKSY national watershed scheme is ending in March 2021, and a new follow-on program with a planned outlay of USD4.6 billion is awaiting Cabinet approval. Through the 2020-21 fiscal year in the current WDC-PMKSY and the new follow-on program, DoLR plans to undertake watershed management on 20-25 million ha. New National Watershed Guidelines will govern the follow-on scheme starting in April 2021. The new guiding watershed principles will address a number of key points including: land degradation neutrality and nutritional security; welfare of the watershed community and economic gains to the farmers; adaptation to climate change; biomass and livestock centric approach and emphasis on secondary agriculture; promoting land use and production systems in sync with climate and soil site-suitability of land resources; scientific planning based on technology inputs, spatial and non-spatial data, hydro-geologic and aquifer characteristics; institutional sustainability; and convergence of programs and resources. The thrust areas of the government program, specified in the new guidelines are decentralization, flexibility, transparency, equity, and community empowerment. In many ways, the new national guidelines mirror key elements and innovations from the successful Bank- supported Karnataka Watershed Development program - II. 2 THE REWARD PROGRAM 6. The REWARD PforR (Program for Results) will support the next phase of the WDC-PMKSY program. The proposed USD 134.6 million allocation to the REWARD PforR will be a sub-set of the new WDC-PMKSY program at both the national level and in the three project states. While the WDC- PMKSY has a total central outlay of USD4.6 billion for the whole country, the proposed central allocation for Karnataka, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and DoLR is USD557.14 million6. While the WDC- PMKSY program is implemented across all states (except for the Union Territory of Goa), the REWARD Program will be initially supporting the watershed program in three selected states – Karnataka, Odisha, and Andhra Pradesh, as well as at the national level over a six-year period. At the national level, the REWARD Program scope covers management, monitoring, communication, and knowledge sharing functions of the DoLR. At the state level, the REWARD Program will be contiguous in scope to the WDC-PMKSY, and support implementation of key science-based activities and demonstration sites, and in so doing, aim to influence the broader WDC-PMKSY in the three states. 5 The DoLR and SWDs use the term ‘project’ to refer to the watershed development activities covered by a single ‘Detailed Project Report’ and typically covering a sub-watershed or a micro-watershed. However, this document uses the term ‘sub- project’ to refer to the same, to avoid confusion with other national and state level projects . 6 This includes: DoLR USD22.86 million, Karnataka USD219.14 million, Odisha USD141.57 million, Andhra Pradesh USD173.57 million. 2 2.1 Government Program and Bank Financed Program (P Vs p) 7. The WDC-PMKY is a key source of funds for watershed management in the country. The DoLR provides national guidelines and funds to states through national watershed schemes for execution at the sub-project level. DoLR aims to bring at least one-third of untreated land under watershed development. The current WDC-PMKSY national watershed scheme is ending in March 2021, and a new follow-on program with a planned outlay of USD 4.6 billion is awaiting Cabinet approval. Through the 2020-21 fiscal year in the current WDC-PMKSY and the new follow-on program, DoLR plans to undertake watershed management on 20-25 million ha. The REWARD program will support the next phase of the WDC-PMKSY program. The proposed contribution by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) to the broader national watershed program would be USD128.6 million across the three states, and USD6 million to DoLR. The proposed USD134.6 million allocation to the REWARD PforR will be a sub-set of the new WDC-PMKSY program at both the national level and in the three Program states. 2.2 Objectives and Result Areas 8. The Project Development Objective (PDO) of the Program is to “Strengthen capacities of national and state institutions to adopt improved watershed management for increasing farmers’ resilience and support value chains in selected watersheds of participating states�. The PDO indicators include: a. Watershed Committees and Gram Panchayats demonstrate satisfactory watershed management as measured through a performance rating system. b. Land area treated with science-based watershed management technologies. c. Adoption of resilient agriculture technologies and practices by farmers. d. Increase in climate-adjusted soil moisture in targeted watershed areas; and e. Direct Program beneficiaries (number, disaggregated by gender and social group). 9. The Program focuses on two key result areas which have been agreed with the Government and through which the Bank’s support is likely to make a significant impact. These result areas are inter - linked and mutually reinforcing. The result areas are: Result Area 1: Strengthened Institutions and Supportive Policy for Watershed Development Result Area 2: Science-based Watershed Development and Enhanced Livelihoods 10. The types of activities that are planned to be covered under the program as part of Result Area-1 includes (a) Strengthened community institutions and local government bodies engaged in watershed management; (b) Enhanced institutional capacity for watershed management; (c) Establishing National Center of Excellence on Watershed Management; (d) Supportive policy for watershed development; (e) Strengthened monitoring and evaluation systems at national and state levels. Under the Result Area-2, the key activities included are (a) Science-based watershed development plans developed and implemented; (b) Farmers empowered with science-based and just-in-time agro-advisories. The scope of the program is summarized in the Table 1 below. Table 1: Program Scope WDC-PMKSY program REWARD Program Nation-wide program National level State level 3 Objective To ensure sustainable improvement Strengthen capacities of national and state institutions to adopt improved in productivity and livelihood/ watershed management for increasing farmers’ resilience and support income potential of land through value chains in selected watersheds of participating states. development of rainfed and degraded areas including wastelands Coverage DoLR’s national coordination role; DoLR’s national States of Karnataka, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh Implementation by all states (except coordination role for the state of Goa) Area 26 million hectares to be treated by Not applicable 1.7 million hectares (hectares) 2030 Activities • Institutional arrangements at • Development of • Strengthening community institutions in national, state, district, watershed supportive policy on watershed management sub-project (community) levels technical standards at • Enhancing institutional capacity for • Watershed development sub- national level. watershed management projects (entry point activities, • National Center of • Science-based watershed development DPR preparation, watershed Excellence on sub-projects (+LRI and Hydrology based works, value chain interventions, Watershed DPR preparation, saturation mode of livelihood activities for asset-less Management*. watershed works, value chain persons) interventions, livelihood support for • Technology inputs (use of GIS COVID-19 recovery) and RS) • Agro-advisories for farmers • Capacity building • Development of supportive policy at • Monitoring, Evaluation and state level on O&M Learning • Strengthening M&E 11. The primary beneficiaries of the REWARD Program are communities in rainfed areas that rely on sustainable land and water resources for livelihoods and ecosystem services. The sustainable development of watersheds based on better scientific inputs and technical capacities will lead to more effective conservation of soil, improved surface and ground water availability and efficiency of use, and enhanced agricultural productivity and profitability, thereby generating sustainable improvement in incomes. It will have positive impacts on women, small and marginal farmers, and agricultural laborers. The efforts to ensure social inclusion in watershed planning and management will enhance the benefits that accrue to the most vulnerable. 12. The REWARD Program will involve individual financing agreements with the DoLR (USD 6 million) and the states of Karnataka (USD 60 million), Odisha (USD 49 million), and Andhra Pradesh (USD19.6 million). Total Program financing will be USD 752.86 million, comprising of USD 618.26 million from government (central and state shares)7, and IBRD financing of USD 134.6 million. The World Bank’s Program Appraisal Document for REWARD details out the project including the results framework. 2.3 Detailed Scope of the REWARD Program 13. Under Results Area 1, REWARD program will be strengthening the institutional capacity and policy environment for science-based, participatory watershed development in the participating states through: (a) development of detailed guidelines for watershed development; (b) development and delivery of training modules on inclusive and participatory watershed development and governance systems; (c) roll-out of a performance assessment tool and incentive system for effective watershed management ; and (d) capturing of performance data through the state Management Information Systems (MIS). Support for 7 Includes Govt. contributions of (a) USD440.71 million WDC-PMKSY budget and (b) USD61.11 million borrower’s contribution. 4 Institution Capacity building for WDC-PMKSY will be through: (a) development of an improved human resources policy and placement of key human resources at the state, district, block/sub-block levels; (a) design and delivery of core training modules on environment and social sustainability measures; and (b) equipping and training of staff with information technology (IT) and communication systems. The Program will also support national and international knowledge events on watershed management (workshops, conferences, study tours/exposure visits, etc.). A National Center of Excellence on Watershed Management will be established in Karnataka, drawing on the expertise and experience of key technical partners involved in KWDP-II. The Centre will be developing curriculum framework and learning modules and provide trainings for national and state functionaries of participating states, as well as conduct action research studies, implement demonstration pilots and develop a knowledge portal on science-based watershed management. The REWARD Program will also support development and dissemination of new technical standards, operational protocols, operation and maintenance policy and pilot a science-based fertilizer demand and supply policies. Support will be provided for strengthening MIS and deployment of a GIS-enabled MIS platform, as well as for a rigorous impact evaluation that encompasses the application of remote sensing and GIS technologies. 14. Results Area 2 will support science-based watershed development and demonstrate more efficient and effective planning and implementation of watershed sub-projects that contribute to livelihood enhancement. Science-based, watershed development plans and detailed project reports (DPRs) will be prepared for around 250,000 hectares, across the three states. Plans and DPRs will be supported by the LRI and hydrology databases, field studies and remote sensing data as well as a Decision Support System (DSS) tools covering soil and water conservation planning, crop planning, land capability grouping, nutrient management, run-off, farm pond and check dam planning, crop water requirements, soil moisture and water balance, water budgeting, among others. These model watersheds will include interventions on community engagement, engineering works, agriculture, horticulture and forestry interventions, and livelihood support activities. To support these activities, Partnerships will be undertaken with scientific and technical institutions and a digital library and portal will be developed for storage and dissemination of the LRI and hydrology databases and DSS. To support transparency, equity, gender and community empowerment in watershed development, the REWARD Program will incentivize implementation of participatory, inclusive, and science-based watershed development in selected model watersheds. Local Watershed Development Fund for sustainability of the created assets and preparation of Project Completion Reports will be emphasized. The model watersheds are expected to function as sites for demonstration of good practices that can be replicated in other watersheds both in the participating states and in other states. 15. The REWARD Program emphasizes the role of agro-advisories in supporting climate change adaptation through the adoption of LRI and weather-based agro-advisories disseminated among farmers through multiple information and communication technologies (ICT) channels and the extension system. The Program will support trainings, exposure visits, field demonstrations, communication materials and mobile solutions etc., in partnership with agriculture extension institutions such as the district level Agriculture Technology and Management Agencies (ATMA) and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), and farmer extension centres. Livelihood enhancement and COVID-19 recovery will be supported through value chain interventions and market linkages that include: (a) establishment and/or strengthening of Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs), including FPOs led by women; (b) support to FPOs for working capital, with special focus on women-led FPOs; (c) establishment of PPPs for enhancing both local and distant market linkages of farmers/FPOs; (d) development of basic agri-processing infrastructure in the FPOs to reduce distress sales and curtail losses during contingencies; and (e) input support to farmers and women agriculture workers linked to FPOs. These activities will integrate emphasis on climate mitigation and adaptation opportunities along the value chain (such as use of energy efficient equipment and renewable energy in agri-processing, climate risk resilient infrastructure development). To achieve a more equitable distribution of benefits, and to aid in the long-term rehabilitation of such vulnerable households, the REWARD Program will support: (a) formation or identification of existing SHGs and Common 5 Interest Groups (CIGs); (b) implementation of Livelihood Enhancement Plans (LEPs); (c) sustenance support (kitchen gardens, multi-layer farming, etc.) to improve household food security; (d) livestock and fisheries enhancement interventions; and (e) provision of wage employment for vulnerable households in watershed works. 16. Department of Land Resources. The scope of DoLR at the central level covers management, monitoring, communication, and knowledge sharing functions. The key activities that the DoLR, supported by National Rainfed Area Authority (NRAA) need to carry out under the REWARD program includes: (a) Establish a PMU for REWARD program; (b) Mobilize financial resources for state Program implementation; (c) Functioning of the Secretary level national steering committee to improve convergence between agriculture, watershed, ground water and other related departments; (d) Establish a national technical committee (headed by NRAA) to develop, test and standardize scientific protocols and DSS tools and strengthen the national digital library; (e) Support implementation of the Program in REWARD states through coordination with national technical agencies, guidance and monitoring; (f) Organize national/international knowledge exchange events; (g) Develop/refine national guidelines for watershed development; and (h) Distil lessons from REWARD and mainstream these in revised national guidelines. 17. Karnataka. The REWARD program in Karnataka will be implemented in twenty-one rainfed districts of Karnataka using WDC-PMKSY scheme with IBRD contribution to the tune of USD 60 million over the six-year period. Under Sujala-III project, it covered a total of 2534 micro-watersheds (MWS) covering 14.06 lakh ha, of which 89 MWS was taken up in saturation mode covering 46.7 thousand ha and created LRI data base for another 2445 MWS covering 13.6 lakh ha across 11 districts of Karnataka viz. Bidar, Gulbarga, Yadgir, Koppal, Gadag, Davangere/ Bellary, Chamrajnagar, Bijapur, Chikkamangalur, Raichur and Tumkur. The REWARD program proposes to contribute to GoK in saturating the watershed development interventions in remaining MWSs in these 11 districts and creates Land Resource Inventory (LRI) data set for another 8-9 districts. It will also support value chain development towards livelihood development and building agriculture resilience through formation and strengthening of Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs). The REWARD program plans to further strengthen WDD with policy and institutional capacity to enhance efficiency and effectiveness of the watershed program in Karnataka. In addition, under the REWARD program, Karnataka has also been identified to have an additional role as a ‘lighthouse’ state that will enable knowledge exchange and provide capacity building support to other states because of its experience in implementing science-based watershed planning and monitoring. 18. Odisha. The REWARD program in Odisha will be implemented in seven rainfed districts using WDC-PMKSY scheme with IBRD contribution to the tune of USD 50 million over the six-year period. The REWARD program in Odisha is planned to develop 17 Green field sites to establish model watersheds on saturation. For this purpose, 152 micro watersheds have been identified in five pilot districts (i.e., Nayagarh, Dhenkanal, Koraput, Sambalpur, Deogarh) for taking up intended interventions, covering a total geographical area of 1.15 lakh ha. Land Resources Inventory (LRI) activities will also be taken up in 5.26 lakh ha in seven districts (including five pilot districts and Nabrangpur and Sundargarh districts) to provide comprehensive site- specific cadastral level information useful for appropriate Natural Resources Management (NRM) planning at farm level and integrated development of the area. Also, it will support value chain development towards livelihood enhancement through formation and strengthening of Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) 19. Andhra Pradesh. The REWARD program in Andhra Pradesh will be implemented in six rainfed districts using WDC-PMKSY scheme with IBRD contribution to the tune of USD 19.6 million over the six-year period. Under REWARD, Land Resources Inventory (LRI) activities will also be taken up in 2 lakh ha spread over 52 sub watersheds across in six districts (Anantapur, Chittoor, Kadapa, Kurnool, Prakasam, and Visakhapatnam), and planned to establish model micro-watersheds on saturation mode covering 50,000 ha area using science-based watershed planning and implementation, along with 6 demonstrating effective O&M system of watershed assets. It will also support value chain development towards livelihood development and building agriculture resilience through formation and strengthening of Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs). 2.4 Institutional Arrangement for Program Implementation 20. The institutional framework for implementing the Program is currently defined by the national WDC-PMKSY guidelines (2011) and no major changes are anticipated in New Watershed Development guideline under preparation (2021). The prescribed guidelines are followed by participating states in spirit, while the actual institutional arrangements differ from state to state, defined by local needs and historic evolution of its public sector institutions. Details are given below. 21. National level arrangements. The DoLR, within the Ministry of Rural Development, is the national nodal agency for managing the government watershed program8. DoLR’s main role is to develop national programs and guidelines to implement them, raise and manage finances (central share), monitor implementation, and promote knowledge sharing. DoLR is supported by the National Rainfed Areas Authority (NRAA), an autonomous agency under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. DoLR is further supported by the consultants placed as part of the Program Management Unit (PMU) for REWARD. The NRAA’s key support to DoLR is in developing/updating national watershed guidelines, strategic plans, technical manuals, and standards, monitoring program impacts, conducting special studies, etc. 22. State level arrangements. In the states the State Watershed Departments9 (SWDs) housed within the Panchayati Raj and Rural Development Department in Andhra Pradesh, and Agriculture Departments in Karnataka and Odisha, are the key state level implementing organizations. These are alternatively known as State Level Nodal Agencies (SLNAs). SLNAs will establish respective PMU for REWARD and will be further supported by qualified scientific and technical partners for LRI and hydrology data collection and application of DSS tools and hosting the data on a digital platform10; Develop standard protocols for using digital data for watershed planning and train district and block level staff in their use; Strengthen the MIS/M&E and GRM systems and adopt the same for the Program; Follow an institutional staffing plan for strengthening district and block offices and implement the same; Strengthen policy and guidelines for maintenance and monitoring of treated watersheds ; Develop policy and guidelines for performance incentives for WCs/GPs; Monitor Program performance; develop quarterly, half yearly, annual progress reports; Support state/ district training institutions in delivering required trainings ; Develop IEC content and tools for communications with WCs/GPs and farmers; Manage finance flows and ensure regular audits. Additional Responsibilities for Karnataka as the Lighthouse State: Establish a national center of excellence on watershed development; Support officials and technical partners in other states on implementing LRI and DSS tools; Work with DoLR on national and international knowledge sharing. 23. District and Block Levels. At the district level, a District Office11 is responsible for overseeing the implementation of watershed programs. The district office is responsible for technical guidance to Project Implementing Agencies (PIAs), review and approval of DPRs and annual action plans, organizing 8 Guidelines for New Generation Watershed Development Projects. 2020. Government of India. 9 These units are designated as State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA), as per GoI guidelines 10 While the sector benefits from scientific data and planning, the scientific/ research organizations can also benefit by data for research, improving the curriculum of their courses etc. 11 While the District offices and PIAs in Odisha are dedicated for watershed works, in Karnataka they are under the Agriculture department and are responsible for both agriculture and watershed works. In Andhra Pradesh they are under PR&RD and are responsible for both watersheds and MNREGA works. In Karnataka and Odisha, they are called Watershed Cell cum Data Center (WCDC) and in AP they are District Water Management Agency (DWMA) 7 necessary capacity building, and financial management. The actual planning, DPR preparation and implementation is carried out by the PIAs located either at the block level or sub-block levels. 24. Program Implementation Agency (PIA) (either a government unit or NGO): Develop DPRs for selected micro-/sub-watersheds using science-based site data, DSS tools, and with a saturation mode; Educate communities on the science-based approach, form user groups and watershed committees, and actively engage them in the sub-project cycle; Maintain and update all records in the MIS system; Support WC/GP in implementation and resolving any critical issues; Coordinate with block offices and other stakeholders. 25. Village Level. The Gram Panchayats (GPs) and the Watershed Committees (WCs) are responsible for community mobilization, providing inputs to DPRs, implementing micro-watershed sub- projects, record keeping, maintenance of the treated watersheds and resolve all grievances with support from the PIAs. 3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT 3.1 Objectives and Core Principles 26. The World Bank policy on PforR financing requires an environmental and social system assessment (ESSA) of the operations financed under the PforR. Accordingly, an ESSA was carried out to assess the adequacy of the environmental and social systems at the state/national level in context of the Program boundary in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha. 27. The overall objectives of the ESSA are to : (a) identify potential environmental and social benefits, risks, and impacts applicable to the Program interventions; (b) review the policy and legal framework related to management of environmental and social impacts of the Program interventions; (c) assess institutional capacity for environmental and social management systems within the Program system; (d) assess Program system performance with respect to the core principles of the PforR instrument and identify gaps, if any; and (e) describe actions to be taken to fill the gaps that will be used as inputs to the PAP. More specifically, the ESSA assesses the extent to which the Program’s environmental and social management systems are adequate for and consistent with the six core environmental and social principles (hereafter, Core Principles), as may be applicable or relevant under PforR circumstances. The Core Principles are listed below and further defined through corresponding Key Planning Elements that are included under each Core Principle in Section (a) Core Principle 1: Environmental and Social Management: Environmental and social management procedures and processes are designed to: (a) promote environmental and social sustainability in Program design; (b) avoid, minimize, or mitigate against adverse impacts; and (c) promote informed decision making related to a Program’s environmental and social effects . (b) Core Principle 2: Natural Habitats and Physical Cultural Resources: Environmental and social management procedures and processes are designed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate any adverse effects (on natural habitats and physical and cultural resources) resulting from the Program. (c) Core Principle 3: Public and Worker Safety: Program procedures ensure adequate measures to protect public and worker safety against the potential risks associated with: (a) construction and/or operations of facilities or other operational practices developed or promoted under the Program; and (b) exposure to toxic chemicals, hazardous wastes, and otherwise dangerous materials. (d) Core Principle 4: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement: Land acquisition and loss of access to natural resources are managed in a way that avoids or minimizes displacement, and 8 affected people are assisted in improving, or at least restoring, their livelihoods and living standards. (e) Core Principle 5: Indigenous Peoples and Vulnerable Groups: Due consideration is given to cultural appropriateness of, and equitable access to, Program benefits, giving special attention to the rights and interests of indigenous peoples and to the needs or concerns of vulnerable groups. (f) Core Principle 6: Social Conflict: Avoid exacerbating social conflict, especially in fragile states, post-conflict areas, or areas subject to territorial disputes. 3.2 ESSA Methodology 28. The Environmental and Social Systems Assessment (ESSA) was carried out in line with the World Bank policy and procedure for PforR financing for the REWARD Program. The ESSA covered a comprehensive review of all relevant E&S plans/frameworks, implementation documents and other technical studies/reports related to the National as well as State-supported watershed programs, including the World Bank supported watershed projects in Karnataka. And was complemented with consultations with key primary and secondary stakeholders including SLNA/ SWDs and the other line departments; field visit to watersheds in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh with face-to-face interactions with community groups including small and marginal farmers, women and women SHGs, landless households, user groups/ common interest groups, etc., and community institutions including Watershed Committees, PRIs, NGOs and government line departments and partner agencies. In addition, following the Covid-19 pandemic, multiple rounds of virtual consultations were held with government counterparts, partners, and watershed community representatives in all the 3 participating states. 29. State Reports. The ESSA identified key gaps and opportunities for further strengthening the existing institutional, operational, and regulatory systems and capacities pertaining to E&S issues in the REWARD Program in each of the participating states. Separate state ESSA reports have been prepared. And in each of the states, the draft ESSA report was presented to wide range of stakeholders for their comments and suggestion through multi-stakeholder consultation in virtual manner in August 2020 and further in February 2021 and revised after incorporating comments and suggestions received from these multi-stakeholder consultation workshops. The state ESSA reports form the basis for preparing this summary document. The detailed state ESSA reports are presented as Annex to this consolidated report.  Annex A – ESSA for Andhra Pradesh  Annex B – ESSA for Odisha  Annex C – ESSA for Karnataka 9 4 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL OVERVIEW 30. About 51 percent (71.745 million ha) of the 140.13 million ha of net sown area in the country is rainfed, and home to 86 percent of the country’s poor. Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh account for more than three-quarters of the total rainfed area in India12. Rainfed areas are characterized by low and erratic rainfall, high temperature, soil nutrient deficiencies, excessive runoff, and high drought incidence. Since rainfed areas contribute significantly to agricultural output (producing 44 percent of country’s food grains, 80 percent of the pulses, 73 percent of oilseeds and 66 percent of livestock), conservation and sustainability of these lands and their natural capital becomes essential. 31. Karnataka: The state has a dynamic and erratic weather that changes from place to place within its territory. Due to its varying geographic and physiographic conditions, Karnataka experiences climatic variations that range from arid to semi-arid in the plateau region, sub-humid to humid tropical in the Western Ghats and humid tropical monsoon in the coastal plains. Karnataka has total geographical area of about 12.9 million ha. of which 5.2 million ha area is already treated and about 1.8 million ha is under treatment under various watershed programs. About 5.2 million ha rainfed watersheds yet to be treated on watershed approach. 32. About 61.3 percent of the state population lives in rural Karnataka (Census 2011) with agriculture being the main occupation and about 65 percent of the total geographical area of the state is utilized for agriculture. Scheduled castes (SC) account for about 17.1 percent of the population whereas the Scheduled Tribe (ST) account for about 6.95 percent of total population in Karnataka. According to 2010-11 Agriculture Census, 7.83million farm holdings are operating 12.16 million hectares of agriculture land in Karnataka. Small and marginal holdings account for 76.44 percent of total holdings and operate only 40.05 percent of the total operated area, while semi-medium, medium and large holdings account for 23.57 percent of the total holdings and their operational land holding is 59.95 percent out of the total operational area. Women play an important role in agriculture and women work participation ratio in rural Karnataka is 38.9 percent. 33. Andhra Pradesh: The state is geographically divided into three distinct regions, viz. the coastal plains, the Eastern Ghats and the western peneplains. Of which the coastal plain region found along the coast from southern end to northern, i.e., from Nellore district to Srikakulam district; Eastern Ghats, a non–continuous range of hills running for about 600 km from northeast to southwest along the coast with a width varying from 20 to 100 km, are dissected by many valleys, and elevation ranges from 600 to 1350 m; and the western peneplains are with scattered hillocks, and the interior plateau region with peneplains of 150–600 m elevation. Andhra Pradesh has a total geographical area of about 16.3 million ha. Of this, 12.6 million ha are treatable, and 3.44 million ha has been treated so far under different schemes. A total area of about 9.16 million ha is yet to be treated. 12 Maharashtra (14.49 million ha), Rajasthan (12.15 million ha), Madhya Pradesh (9.31 million ha), Karnataka (7.46 million ha), Andhra Pradesh (6.48 million ha), Gujarat (6.58 million ha). 10 34. Andhra Pradesh (AP) is largely rural with 70.42 percent of the population living in rural areas. Of the total population Scheduled Cates (SC) constitute 17.10percent and Scheduled Tribes (ST) 5.33 percent. Of the total scheduled tribes in Andhra Pradesh, approximately 50 percent reside in four districts Vishakhapatnam (23 percent), East Godavari (11 percent), Nellore (10 percent) and Vizianagaram (9 percent). The tribal dominated Scheduled-V areas in Andhra Pradesh are largely concentrated in East Godavari, West Godavari and Vishakhapatnam districts. In Andhra Pradesh, about 65.39 percent operational holdings belong to marginal farmers and they operate only 26.68 percent of area, small farmer holdings are about 20.88 percent and operating about 27.80 percent of the area. Whereas, semi medium to large farmers have 13.73 percent of operational holdings and operating about 41.76 percent of the area. 35. Odisha: Odisha topography consists of fertile coastal plains to the east bounded by Bay of Bengal. Mountainous highlands and plateau regions occupy the center of the state. Western and north- western portions of the state consist of rolling uplands. The state also has some major floodplains encompassing the river systems. Almost one-third of Odisha (37.34 percent) is covered by forests, and most are in southern and western Odisha. Odisha has a total geographical area of about 15.57 million ha, which is divided into 20,079 micro-watersheds. Of these, 16,873 are treatable and 7,721 have been taken up so far under different schemes. A total of 9,152 micro-watersheds covering an area of about 4.7 million ha is yet to be treated. The WDC- PMKSY has been the main source of funding for watershed development in the state. The Odisha Mineral Bearing Area Development Corporation (OMBADC) set up by the Government of Odisha (GoO) in 2014 also provides funds to watershed development in the mining districts of the state. In 1977-78, the state created the Directorate of Soil Conservation, which is responsible for watershed development. 36. About 83.3 percent of the population live in rural Odisha with agriculture being the main occupation. Workers population account for 43.2 percent of the population in rural Odisha of which about 18.9 percent are agricultural laborers. During 2010-11 there were 4.7 million operational holdings in the state out of which marginal farmers account for 75 percent holding and 44 percent of land with average size of holding being 0.57 ha. The pattern is similar among tribal groups as about 69 percent of ST farmers have marginal holdings with average holding size being 0.6 ha. Odisha has the third largest concentration of tribal population in the country with 62 tribes, including 13 Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs), mostly residing in the hilly regions of the State. The Scheduled Tribe account for 22.8 percent of the total population. Odisha is having more than 44% of the area as scheduled area (under Schedule -V) and it covers about 67% of the tribal population in the state spread over 119 Blocks in 13 tribal Districts. 11 5 PROGRAM ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL EFFECTS 37. Potential Benefits: The overall environmental and social impact of the watershed Program is likely to be positive, owing to benefits such as increased ground water level, improved soil moisture and increase in green coverage, crop productivity due to multi-cropping and increase in rural incomes subsequently reducing poverty. Strengthen capacities of project authorities and functionaries with support from both public and private specialized institutions to implement more science-based watershed projects will be beneficial for overall hydrological services and environmental sustainability. Establish high-level coordinating bodies in the state government on the lines of Multi Stakeholder Platforms, supported by 2030 WRG, for convergence of watershed issues will benefit environment with convergence of state specific goal on forest cover, agriculture and horticulture development in terms of developing rainfed districts. 38. The key social benefit of the program emerges from strengthening watershed committees, PRIs and other community institutions and building their capacities, that is expected to increase people’s participation, equitable and inclusive benefit sharing, gender equality and citizen’s engagement in the watershed sector in the participant states. In addition, the program will also enhance local employment and livelihood opportunities for watershed populations including for marginal and small farmers as well as for wage laborers; increased availability of drinking water; improvements in household incomes and general economic development. These interventions are expected to improve the climate resilience of vulnerable communities in rainfed areas. Strengthening state and national institutions to coordinate and provide appropriate policy and program guidance and learnings from best practices will have long-term positive impact. 39. E&S Effects: The E&S risks are assessed to be ‘Moderate’ as the impacts are expected to be small scale, localized, reversible and predictable, and can be effectively mitigated through the strengthening of the existing E&S management systems of the implementing agencies. Most of the E&S risks and impacts are mainly on account of gaps identified in existing implementation processes of watershed program and the small scale, site specific, reversible impacts are highly amenable to risk mitigation measures. 40. Potential Risks: The key social risk relates to weak community ownership and preparedness to participate in science-based watershed planning and DPR preparation, and inadequate inclusion of small and marginal farmers and landless/asset less households in watershed committees and among direct program beneficiaries, especially women, scheduled castes (SC), scheduled tribes (ST) and other socially vulnerable groups. Marginalization of women and vulnerable communities in watershed committees, and infrastructure and livelihood planning are also important risks. Transition to a science-based approach may weaken the systems and mechanisms of community participation in watershed planning and social inclusion in watershed institutions and direct beneficiaries. LRI based approach could make the watershed planning process more ‘top down’ in approach compared to ‘bottoms up’ planning processes envisaged in IWMP and PMKSY-WDC. Risk of excluding SC and ST communities, landless and wage dependent households, and women from program planning processes, inclusive benefit sharing, and grievance redress could increase. 41. The potential environmental risk comes from the large and varied geographical scope of the Program area spreading across rain fed areas of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa, with high variations in climate conditions specially rainfall, physical characteristics including terrain and cropping pattern across these states. 42. The Program includes several elements of Climate Smart Agriculture including soil management, water management, provision of agro-advisories to farmers, appropriate crop selection which are clearly spelt out in Result Area 2 that supports climate change adaptation through incentivizing the adoption of just-in-time agro-advisories based on LRI and weather-based information. Also, the risk of extension of 12 watershed interventions to forest, wetland, and other environmental sensitive areas without initial screening at the DPR preparation stage is worth mentioning. REWARD will utilize LRI based planning, with data available at land parcel level, that will screen out such risks at DPR preparation stage itself and would further be screened at WCs/GPs during DPR finalization stage. 43. The science-based planning approaches to be adopted by the REWARD program reduces the risk of ignoring overall hydrology and water resource budget in the macro-watershed, including changes in ground water table, water quality parameters, water intensive crop selection and increase in pesticide use. with methods of soil, land, and water conservation. However, these risks are designed to be mitigated through Result Areas 1(e) Strengthened monitoring and evaluation systems at national and state levels on First, by deployment of a GIS-enabled MIS platform that focuses on tracking activities, outputs and outcomes, and integrates tracking of process efficiency and quality. Other risks related to over-use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides are expected to be mitigated through agro-advisories issued to farmers. The systems risks associated with the Program include the lack of systematic E&S screening procedures which may lead to extension of interventions to environmental sensitive areas and improper identification of physical cultural resources, inadequacy in training systems on E&S aspects to frontline workers, and lack of clarity on institutional responsibilities for implementing and monitoring E&S activities. Gaps in institutional responsibilities, operational guidelines, and implementation capacity for screening, mitigating, monitoring, and reporting of social risks adds to the risk profile. 44. The Program will establish a scientific assessment and evaluation system, including a rigorous impact evaluation that encompasses the application of remote sensing and GIS technologies; process monitoring, and thematic studies for assessing change in specific parameters (such as groundwater level, sediment load, soil organic carbon) to evaluate the effectiveness of watershed investments. During course of the project, value of ecosystem services like water budgeting and their contribution to watershed development scoping will be explored and also landscape approach for integrating planned convergence of other programmes of the partner Departments of Agriculture, Horticulture, Forestry, MGNERGA with SWD’s target to conserve soil moisture to improve outcomes on water yield, ground water and sediments in the long run for environmental sustainability can be seen in the project. 13 6 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS AND CAPACITY 6.1 Applicable Environment and Social Legal and Regulatory Framework 45. ESSA reviewed the applicable Government of India and the state government laws, regulations, policies, programs and procedures relevant to managing the environmental and social effects of the proposed program and included environmental and social protection laws and policies also13. The legal framework for environmental and social systems are adequate and backed by set of comprehensive laws, regulations, technical guidelines, and standards, that apply nationwide and to participating states as well. 46. With regard to environment, the following relevant legal and regulatory frameworks were assessed: (i) Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 and associated Rules, Forest (Conservation) Act No. 69 of 1980 and amended in 1988, (ii) The Wildlife (Protection) Act I972, Amendment 1991 (iii) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and associated Rules, (iv) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and associated Rules, (v) Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000, (vi) Biological Diversity Act 2002 Biological Diversity Rules 2004, (vii) Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, (viii) Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, (ix) Other Waste Management Rules; (x) The Ancient Monuments, Archaeological sites and Remains Act, 1958, (xi) National Green Tribunal (NGT) Orders. All the regulatory procedures are clear, streamlined and well established. Overall, there are no significant gaps in the legal and regulatory systems that need to be addressed under this Program. Gaps were observed in enforcement of the existing legal and regulatory frameworks and backing them with well-defined institutional mechanisms and operational procedures. 47. Over the last four decades, the watershed program has gradually evolved into a comprehensive system with IWMP/ WDC-PMKSY guidelines providing a comprehensive framework for watershed development in India, and that is generally consistent with the PforR. With the innovation brought in for science-based watershed planning, NRAA is in the process of helping DoLR prepare new generation watershed guideline incorporating the same and which will replace the current IWMP guideline. 48. The core guiding principle of the IWMP/WDC-PMKSY program includes (a) Inclusion and equitable benefits to most marginalized sections of the communities including Scheduled Tribes, the Scheduled Castes, landless, women, small and marginal farmers living in the watershed villages; (b) participation of women in watershed institutions, consultations and livelihood benefits, and in accessing related opportunities and resources; (c) Building accountability by ensuring transparency at all levels and ensuring Gram Sabha’s participation in planning and management along with mechanism of social audits; (d) Involvement of NGOs and/or facilitating agencies for social mobilization, building capacities of community, CBOs, SHGs and Gram Panchayats and to help support the process of planning and implementation, and (e) setting up effective monitoring and evaluation mechanism of the program interventions. 6.2 ESSA Core Principles 49. The most relevant ESSA core principles for the REWARD program are those dealing with implementation and management of E&S screening and mitigation measures, including natural habitat and physical and cultural resources, public and workers safety, rights and interests of indigenous people (or Scheduled Tribes). The core principles on land acquisition and involuntary resettlement are not applicable but may require screening for any potential adverse impacts in select cases. The capacity of dealing with management of E&S measures, citizen’s engagement, gender and social inclusion, and community participation in watershed planning and implementation varies across states. This variation is based on the state specific institutional arrangements, delegation of responsibilities and power, human 13Covering protection of rights and interests of backward, scheduled caste (SC) and scheduled tribe (ST) and other marginalized communities, citizen engagement, livelihoods, inclusion, gender, labor and other sector related laws and policies 14 resources deputed, systems and processes designed. In most of the participating states, staffing for E&S management at district and block levels is either absent or unclear, and some of the necessary technical and social skills such as community mobilization are lacking. The multi-department coordination mechanisms show gaps and have weak convergence in program implementation. While the state ESSA Annexes for Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Odisha presents a detailed assessment, and given the watershed development program across all the states follows the present IWMP/ WDC-PMKSY guideline and the institutional structure, the findings of the assessment are similar in nature and summarized below. Core Principle 1: Program E&S management systems are designed to (a) promote E&S sustainability in the Program design;(b) avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts; and (c) promote informed decision-making relating to a Program’s E&S effects. System and Capacity 50. The IWMP/ WDC-PMKSY program guidelines clearly articulate the institutional responsibilities at different level of program implementation right from national, state, district, Block/ PIA, GP and village level, also spell out clear roles and responsibility, and the process to be adopted for watershed planning and implementation. Each of the participating states have adopted the same with minor variation based on the state specific institutional arrangements (as in which department the SLNA is housed and based on that department’s institutional structure at district and block level), delegation of responsibilities and power, human resources deputed, systems and processes designed. While in Karnataka, Watershed Development Department (WDD) has been specially created for watershed development program implementation, in Andhra Pradesh it is the Department of Panchayati Raj and Rural Development (PR&RD) that is implementing watershed development programs. And in Odisha it is the Directorate of Soil Conservation and Watershed Development under the Department of Agriculture that is implementing the watershed development program. Each of these department/directorate has followed the IWMP guideline and adopted it within its own institutional structure, and hence has its own strengths as well as limitations. 51. The WDC-PMKSY guidelines spell out the institutional mechanism along with roles and responsibilities and guiding principles on Environment and Social Sustainability aspects in watershed development, which have been adapted by the states based on their institutional priorities and structures. These will be further strengthened under the REWARD program. The Project Implementing Agency (PIA) provide necessary technical guidance to the village level institutions - Watershed Committees (WCs), Self-Help Groups (SHGs) and User Groups (UGs) for preparation of DPR through a strong Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) exercise. 52. The new generation watershed guideline and which will be brought to implementation during next phase of WDC-PMKSY that the REWARD program supports, learns from the KUDP-II (Sujala-II) program from Karnataka of using science-based watershed planning and implementing using detail scientific and social data for each land parcel. While Karnataka has experience of watershed planning and implementing using comprehensive land resource inventory (LRI) based approaches under the Sujala-III project, it is new to Andhra Pradesh and Odisha, and they will need support during the transition phase to upscale their institutional and technical capacity for the same. Under the REWARD program, both states have identified technical and scientific partners to support them. 53. In Karnataka since LRI data base are available they are better placed to Incorporate recognized elements of environmental and social screening, assessment good practice, effects and assess assessment of potentially induced, cumulative, and trans boundary impacts. Andhra Pradesh have some experience of science-based work while doing water audit and with their technical partners they can also catch-up Karnataka since functionaries who were incorporation E&S aspects with the community have exposure to GIS, MIS platforms. 15 54. With the potential change in the watershed planning process using LRI database and DSS system for preparing the early draft of watershed plan/ DPR, which was earlier being done through a detailed participative community consultative processes, requires both institutional processes and capacity enhancement across the implementation chain to ensure community ownership of the watershed plan/ DPR. An initial process was developed under KWDP-II (Sujala-III) project in Karnataka, but it lacks in detailing for being translated on ground and require revisiting and strengthening. 55. Social accountability is one of the guiding principles in the IWMP/ WDC-PMKSY guideline and different states have different mechanism for the same including mechanism for social audit. While different states have some mechanism of social audit by presenting physical and financial details in Gram Sabha, Andhra Pradesh has an elaborate system of social accountability in watershed planning and implementation through social audit using a well-laid process by Society for Social Audits Accountability and Transparency (SSAAT), an autonomous body, responsible for the conduct of social audits in the state. Every year the social audit is conducted by the SSAAT and observations are disclosed for further tracking at their website (http://socialaudit.ap.gov.in/). Key Gaps 56. Though the current guidelines recognize aspects of E&S screening and monitoring but at present there is no laid down system or procedure to address E&S screening, impact mitigation or monitoring and evaluation. In the existing watershed program implementation chain, there is no articulation of institutional responsibility for implementing the E&S activities and monitoring the same. However, some risk emerges from its weak compliances in practice, as it requires enabling institutional and technical capacity for the same. In the existing WDC-PMKSY program, involvement of primary stakeholders is at the center of planning of watershed projects. 57. The Government program does not consider trans-boundary impact of existing structures, forests, upstream users, and impact on downstream users. Thus, there is increased chance of the interventions spreading into forest boundary and common property resources and reduction in the effectiveness of the program. Conflict among the users over common resources and encroaching degraded forestland may lead to issues in future, Also, Watershed Assistant is believed to be taking care of it in co-ordination with other line Departments. However, there are issues in co-ordination among Departments in absence for clear guidelines. Also, the program does not provide adequate opportunity to engage stakeholders on induced, cumulative, and trans-boundary impacts. 58. The current process of watershed plan preparation following IWMP/ WDC-PMKSY guidelines has a detailed process of community participation and consultation during the watershed plan preparation. The watershed plan preparation proposed using LRI data as proposed in REWARD program has brought in more accurate and efficient watershed treatment activities for any land parcel using the computer-based decision support system (DSS) in a scientific manner which is currently being done under WDS-PMKSY using community consultative processes. And hence, it poses the risk of compromising the community consultative process mainly from small and marginal farmers, women and other disadvantaged groups including SC, ST and landless. 59. LRI-DSS offers huge opportunity in the project to achieve large scale goals of protecting and conserving hydrologic services and/or managing negative downstream and groundwater impacts if in- field captured data on infiltration and run-off is given as input data in hydrological models used for DPR preparation and issuing advisories to farmers. Hydrological data on ground water storage, silt movement, surface water flow is collected periodically in the model watersheds and benchmark sites. Model micro- watersheds are truly important to report baseline and record change in critical hydrological and environmental parameters to generate realistic representative data. 16 Core Principle -2: : Program E&S management systems are designed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts on natural habitats and physical cultural resources resulting from the Program. System and Capacity 60. At present in Watershed committees and user groups along with field level functionaries in the micro-watershed ensure identifying and protecting physical and cultural resources. However, it lacks clear guideline of conducting environmental and social screening for the same. 61. The LRI data set captures each land parcel wise scientific details as well as ownership and social data to feed into decision support system (DSS) for preparation draft DPR/ watershed plan. This includes information on forests, land use, waterlogged areas etc., and thus provide opportunity to mainstream environmental screening using the LRI tools specially to exclude forest areas, water bodies and habitations etc. from treatment. 62. There are potential risks of encroaching forest land or notified wetland or natural habitat areas, and the current mechanism to address them in the watershed works are: • Activities/ treatments which involve encroachment of forest land requires permission of the Forest & Environment Department. Provision for approval and sanction of community forest rights (CFR) and individual forest rights (IFR) under the FRA support watershed treatments in forest lands. • Presently Inter-departmental coordination from Forest Department, Wildlife Department, Revenue Department is the way by which natural habitats are being protected or screened out in absence of any clear guidelines. Whereas there is coordination issue, which is major, gap in addressing the project impact not to extent to these areas. 63. At present, many of the CPR land are encroached by the neighboring farmers. Also, if any land is vacant, with prior permission from the revenue department, the work can be taken up like gully control and SMC etc. in the revenue hillocks and streams, and block/ bund plantation can be taken up in open land, and plantation in Barren hillocks. Key Gaps 64. At present, there is no formal system and procedural guidance for conducting E&S screening for natural habitats and physical and cultural resources. The present system of screening getting done by default during the process of consultation during DPR preparation may also change with LRI-DSS based draft DPR preparation, and hence poses risk to physical and cultural resources. Also, there is no proper system of documenting ecological sensitive areas, natural habitat, and archeological areas within the proposed watershed. Core Principle -3: : Program E&S management systems are designed to protect public and worker safety against the potential risks associated with (a) the construction and/or operation of facilities or other operational practices under the Program; (b) exposure to toxic chemicals, hazardous wastes, and otherwise dangerous materials under the Program; and (c) reconstruction or rehabilitation of infrastructure located in areas prone to natural hazards. System and Capacity 65. Most of the watershed works involves local community or local labor and does not include any large-scale construction contracts or construction sites and camps. Soil and conservation works do not 17 pose any risks related to toxic chemicals, hazardous wastes, and otherwise dangerous materials under the Program. Also, child labor and/bonded labor is strictly prohibited by national and state laws, and the risks of their being involved in any activities associated with watershed development are very low. No large- scale labor influx is anticipated. 66. Watershed development is also being done using MGNREGA scheme, however, it remains in the ambit of MGNREGA provisions and processes. In addition, the legislative and regulatory provisions under various acts such as RTI Act 2005; Minimum Wages Act 1948 (with amendments); Child Labor (prohibition and regulation) Act 1986, 2015; and provision under the constitution and Fifth schedule areas are applicable as the case maybe and provide for larger umbrella of guidance and framework. 67. There is also existing inbuilt system of Pest Management and Advisories on regulated use of chemical fertilizer and no use of hazardous material but those need to be brought under E&S Management Framework. Presently advisories are provided by Agriculture Department for restricted use of pesticides and fertilizers. The Implementation Authority recognizes need of guidelines or records available with the authorities that such advisories are issued. Key Gaps 68. The construction of watershed structures does require proper management of construction activities, given it poses risks to people and animals falling in these trenches and other structures if not properly managed and/or aware of it. 69. With intensive agriculture due to improved crop growing conditions and increased availability of water, it may lead to risks of overuse of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc., thus leading to groundwater and soil contamination. Core Principle -4: Program E&S systems manage land acquisition and loss of access to natural resources in a way that avoids or minimizes displacement and assists affected people in improving, or at the minimum restoring, their livelihoods and living standards. 70. Though the national legal and regulatory framework on land acquisition and involuntary resettlement is adequate, the watershed program does not involve land acquisition and physical displacement. The civil works proposed are going to be small in nature such as check dams, anicuts, tanks, ponds, and trenches. The impacts of these civil works are localized and reversible without much effort. The project will not finance any land acquisition or support activities that require doing so. The analysis of other watershed projects in India and in participating states suggests that in watershed projects there has been no land acquisition and hence the risk of resettlement impacts is minimal or non-existent. The guidance provided in the participating states include: • No activities under the watershed project components are taken-up if it involves physical displacement of local people, either from their residences and/or commercial places. • Before taking up activity, WC tries to understand involvement of any land acquisition or forceful eviction because of the proposed intervention, and explores alternatives if needed. • In cases, if encroachment is observed and the encroached land is proposed for development, the project does not take up any such activity in the encroached land, without community agreement and support as needed. 71. The E&S screening to be instituted to screen out any eventualities that may involve risk of loss of access to natural resources or adverse impacts on livelihoods and living standards. Core Principle -5: Program E&S systems give due consideration to the cultural appropriateness of, and equitable access to, Program benefits, giving special attention to the rights and interests of 18 Indigenous Peoples/ Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities, and to the needs or concerns of vulnerable groups. System and Capacity 72. Under IWMP/WDC-PMKSY, as part of DPR preparation and as part of social data collection, a detail consultative process using PRA methods including participatory wellbeing ranking is followed to inform inclusion of women, tribal, and other vulnerable groups for prioritization interventions for them. However, this process does not get adequate attention or could get marginalized under the LRI approach. 73. In the Watershed Committee (WC) in all three states, participation of members from scheduled caste (SC), scheduled tribe (ST) and women is prioritized, and in some states like Andhra Pradesh and Odisha also have formal guidance for number of SC, ST and women members to be there is the WC to ensure interests and priorities of women, SCs, STs are addressed in the DPR. The watershed development program in tribal dominated Schedule-V areas is generally implemented by Intensive Tribal Development Agency (ITDA) or in coordination with Tribal Welfare Department to have good convergence of schemes. However, assessment of field situation suggests convergence and coordination at the district and block level is not up to the desired level. The tribal population living in the Schedule-V areas of the state that is falling under the, and other such clusters, and those outside the Schedule-V areas covered under the program of Tribal Development Department in convergence with other departments to promote livelihood, art and culture and other tribal welfare schemes. 74. One of the guiding principles of the WDC-PMKSY program is to build equity and promote gender sensitivity. The program capitalizes on the existing base of women SHGs that were set up under other programs in its operational area. In participating states, it is ensured that SHGs participate in the Watershed Committee. Promoting women SHGs is an important means to their participation, empowerment, and building stake in decision making. In Andhra Pradesh the Village Organization (VO) which is the federation of SHGs take lead in implementing the watershed program. 75. Guidelines on Value Chain Development and promotion of Farmer Producer Organisations do include provisions for inclusion of women producers as well as small and marginal farmers from SC and ST households. The proposed program plans to further support farmers and including women in the value chain interventions, which plans to focus on production enhancement, post-harvest management, infrastructure development, and forward and backward linkages of producers to markets. This will also support establishment and/or strengthening of Farmer Producer Collectives (FPCs) in select watershed clusters, including FPCs led by women. However, the current monitoring system lacks in capturing and monitoring gender specific data as well as data on equitable benefit sharing. Key Gaps 76. The LRI and DSS based approach may result in more ‘top-down’ planning in watershed development. Review of Sujala-III in Karnataka suggested that though a balance between scientific knowledge for planning and consultation with farmers and marginalized groups were intended, it could not be institutionalized properly. And hence, there is need for development of SOP/ detailed guideline to community participation and consultation process using scientific data for watershed planning. 77. Though extending benefits for income generation to women members through SHGs is a tested significant step that has shown visible impacts; however, it also runs the risk of excluding those women who may not be members of such groups. In such a scenario, there is a need to expand SHG coverage base. The reasons and factors preventing other women to be a part of SHGs need to be assessed and suitable measures are to be undertaken for their inclusion. 19 78. The program lacks in monitoring the information on benefits shared with socially disadvantaged groups including SC, ST, and women. A lack of social and gender disaggregated data for planning also makes it ineffective to plan for interventions and measure impacts thereby on socially disadvantaged population and women. Baseline data needs to be gender disaggregated like identification of female headed households, separate recording of number of days of employment generated for women, level of women involvement in watershed institutions, number of women disaggregated by social groupings benefited through different activities of the watershed program etc. 79. Special attention is required especially for tribal and marginalized population and in Scheduled-V areas as they require little more handholding support and awareness building to participate and take equitable benefit of the program. Core Principle -6: Program E&S systems avoid exacerbating social conflict, especially in fragile states, post-conflict areas, or areas subject to territorial disputes. 80. Program will invest in some of the poorest and socioeconomically backward areas of the country, with higher vulnerability to climate change and food security issues. The overall environmental and social impact of the watershed Program is going to be positive in terms of improved crop productivity and rural livelihoods. Program is expected to increase people’s participation, equitable and inclusive benefit sharing, gender equality and citizen’s engagement in the watershed sector in the participant states. In addition, the program will also enhance local employment and livelihood opportunities for watershed populations including for marginal and small farmers as well as for wage laborers 81. While some of the watershed areas may come under the government designated left wing extremism (LWE) affected areas, the activities proposed under the REWARD program are unlikely to exacerbate the conflict in such areas. The watershed experience in Odisha and Andhra Pradesh suggests that there are not systemic features in the program that exacerbate the social conflict. On the contrary, community participation in watershed planning, and investments in agriculture lands and local livelihoods stimulates the local ownership and demand for such interventions in these resource poor areas. The state government also implements various development projects, including livelihood programs and irrigation facilities, besides critical road networks etc. in these areas. In many ways, watershed interventions coupled with livelihood investments integrate community priorities into development planning and reduce the alienation of local population in LWE areas. 6.3 Summary of Environmental Systems and Capacity 82. While Karnataka has experience of watershed planning and implementing using comprehensive LRI based approaches under the KWDP-II (Sujala-III) project, it is new to Andhra Pradesh and Odisha, and they will need support during the transition phase to upscale their institutional and technical capacity for the same. Under the REWARD program, both states have identified technical and scientific partners to support them. In addition, Karnataka will act as Lighthouse state by sharing its knowledge and experience with Andhra Pradesh and Odisha and other states in collecting, processing and applying LRI based watershed planning and implementation. The LRI-DSS based system uses the land resource site- specific data (both physical and chemical properties) at the cadastral level along with hydrological data on permeability, infiltration rate, run-off, erosion, soil moisture, soil storage, ground water storage, recharge, etc. and the Hydrology partner to develop Models for estimating water fractions (ET, Soil Moisture, run- off, Groundwater) leading to Water Balance. At present, water budget and hydrological outputs are calculated with mathematical models with limited ground measurements which are normalized according to soil management units. In this process, while there is a system in place to protect environmentally sensitive areas which is already captured but accumulated under one layer, but it is not clearly visible and need to be clearly displayed on DPR outputs with database. The risk screening at present depends on 20 knowledge the community and the field level functionary. In absence of systematic and informed approach of E&S risk screening and lack of inter-departmental co-ordination there are chances of extension of watershed interventions to forest areas or wetlands or common property resources like pastureland etc. The inter-departmental co-ordination especially with forest department and revenue department is a major gap in protection, conservation efforts including treatment of upper ridge areas the inter-departmental meetings among functionaries of forest department, revenue department, and wildlife department with the officials from Irrigation, Watershed, Agriculture and Horticulture Departments are missing in present system. In the implementation chain there is no articulation of individual or agency responsible for implementing and monitoring the E&S activities. Also, lack of skill among frontline functionaries to demystify core technical details is built in the LRI-DSS with environment and social aspects. The system of crop advisories, use of fertilizer, water use, etc. generated through DSS and communicated regularly need to be documented and used in monitoring of benefits. The hydrological data on ground water storage, silt movement, surface water flow is collected periodically in the model watersheds and benchmark sites for monitoring. The same database can be for measuring mid-term and end-term impacts and shall capture larger goals of protecting and conserving hydrologic services and/or managing negative downstream and groundwater impacts which otherwise remains unaddressed. Also, in LRI, the climate resilience is addressed with input of dynamic weather data of rainfall, relative humidity, temperature, etc. These datasets capture and address climate variations. Therefore, outputs so generated are accommodating climate issues and environmental sustainability effectively. Crop choices based on the prevailing weather conditions, soil quality and site data collected through LRI will ensure the success of farming and thereby enhance the resilience of the farmers in the watershed areas. Establishing a scientific assessment and evaluation system, including a system of valuation of ecosystem services that encompasses the application of remote sensing and GIS technologies; process monitoring, and thematic studies for assessing change in specific parameters (such as groundwater level, sediment load, soil organic carbon) to evaluate the effectiveness of watershed investments is possible with huge data sets generated under LRI based planning. An effective institutional mechanism will have to be developed for the same and to move towards capturing additional benefit on environmental sustainability. 6.4 Summary of Social Systems and Capacity 83. The existing legislative framework is adequate to ensure social sustainability and the interest of marginalized and vulnerable population including the SC and ST. Primarily it is the IWMP/WDC- PMKSY guideline and its further replacement with new generation Watershed Development Guideline provides the legal and regulatory framework to the program and is adequate and quite comprehensive. It has core principles related to ensuring equitable benefits, addressing gender issues, building accountability, being inclusive, and setting up effective monitoring and evaluation system. It clearly articulates the principles, processes, institutional responsibilities at different level of program implementation right from national, state, district, Block/ PIA, and village level for watershed planning and implementation. The process of watershed selection for treatment is based on regional assessment of the environment especially soil health and water availability in the rainfed area. Geographically these areas also house higher proportion of poor, and hence, addressing equity and inclusion is quite important and rightly being prioritized in the watershed guideline. The WDC-PMKSY guidelines promote detailed consultation with community groups including with SC, ST, and other marginalized groups on each land parcel to prepare the watershed plan. The process also includes using PRA tools and mapping such as participatory wellbeing ranking and social mapping to ensure inclusion of women, tribal, and other vulnerable groups. The watershed institutions also have participation from SC, ST, women, and other marginalized groups, though vary across states and some states like Andhra Pradesh have also developed guidance for the same. However, the DPR preparation using LRI based data has brought in more accurate and efficient watershed treatment activities for any land parcel using the computer-based decision support system (DSS) in a scientific manner which is currently being done using community consultative 21 processes. And hence, it poses the risk of compromising the community consultative process and/or giving inadequate importance to it for preparation of the draft DPR/ watershed plan. 84. While state like Andhra Pradesh has good mechanism of ensuring social accountability in watershed planning and implementation through social audit by the well-laid process by Society for Social Audits Accountability and Transparency (SSAAT), an autonomous body, is responsible for the conduct of social audits in the state, other states like Karnataka and Odisha does not have such elaborate process and lack in detailing. Also, promoting women SHGs is an important means to their participation, empowerment, and building stake in decision making. Though extending benefits for income generation to women members through SHGs is a tested significant step that has shown visible impacts; however, it also runs the risk of excluding those women who may not be members of such groups. 85. The REWARD Program does not intend to do any land acquisition or resettlement as the proposed civil works are going to be small, local structures such as check dams, anicuts, tanks, ponds, and trenches. Further analysis of other watershed projects in India and in the participating states suggests that there is no land acquisition involved and hence the risk relating to acquiring land and resettlement is minimal or non-existent. Also, as most of the watershed works involve the local community working on it or local labor employed, any large-scale labor influx is not anticipated. Though there is mandate of addressing marginalized groups including tribal population, the assessment suggests no special measures planned to focus on specific needs of tribal groups and which also lacked inter departmental coordination for any convergence with schemes focusing on tribal development. Even though equity and sustainability are considered as guiding principles of the program, operational or institutional mechanisms are not in place to ensure this. The states also show gaps in systematic E&S monitoring and reporting, including gender, inclusion and grievance redressal aspects, and lacks in collecting and reporting disaggregated data on gender and on specific community groups (such as ST and SC) to track benefits and impact on them. 86. Rural women play a central role in managing land, water, biomass, and agriculture, as well as addressing household requirements of food and income, and are consequently most affected by climate- change and vulnerabilities associated with rainfed agriculture14. Successive guidelines15 as well as Projects on watershed development have emphasized on women’s representation in water institutions as well as their participation in watershed planning and management. However, the implementation experience and outcomes for gender equity have shown significant variations. This is due to multiple reasons, such as inadequate project focus on women’s engagement, and their differential needs and priorities, social and cultural constraints that limit women’s voice and agency, as well as longer term constraints such as women’s ownership of land. Despite several success stories on women’s engagement in watershed development, their overall participation in watershed development as leaders of watershed committees, as participants in watershed planning and as direct beneficiaries of watershed investments has been mixed and limited. 6.5 List of Excluded Activities 87. Based on the assessment, it is proposed and agreed with SLNAs of the participating states that, the REWARD Program will not finance any activities that would cause high or substantial E&S risks and impacts including activities involving: (a) any land acquisition and/or involuntary resettlement impacts; (b) use of child or bonded or forced labor or labor involved in any hazardous activities; (c) destruction of any physical cultural resources; (d) any work that would convert or encroach forest lands, notified wetlands or any eco-sensitive areas; (e) any work that would bring large scale submergence beyond drainage line; (f) any work that would convert common property resources including grazing lands; (g) any work that would restrict minimum ecological flow of the rivers and rivulets; (h) use of most toxic 14 Gender Perspective in Water Management: The Involvement of Women in Participatory Water Institutions of Eastern India, Varsha Khandker; 2019 15 Integrated Watershed Management Guidelines, 2011; GoI 22 pesticides classified as ‘Class I’ (based on toxicity of the active ingredient) by the World Health Organization; and (i) use of or generation of hazardous material or chemicals beyond permissible levels specified in Schedule II of Hazardous Waste Handling and Management Rules, 2016. The Bank will provide implementation support to the REWARD Program to remain in compliance with the agreed Environment and Social requirements as wells the PforR policy. 6.6 Key Environmental and Social Gaps identified 88. The key environmental and social gaps identified are (a) the LRI based watershed planning being top-down planning approach compared to currently ‘bottoms up’ approach, poses gaps in detailed process guideline in giving adequate priority to community participation and risk of compromising the community consultative process for preparation of the DPR/ watershed plan; (b) The current system lacks in doing systematic screening for environmental and social risks and issues including for any adverse effects on biodiversity and cultural resource; (c) There is increased chance of interventions spreading into forest boundary and/or common property resources in absence of mechanism to check it; (d) Lack of inter-departmental co-ordination mechanism in dealing with forest, wetland and other environmentally sensitive areas as part of watershed plan; (e) Lack in addressing trans-boundary impact of existing structures, forests, upstream users and impact on downstream users; (f) Intensive agriculture with crop growing conditions, may lead to risks of overuse of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc., thus polluting groundwater; (g) In absence of proper guidance, improper management of the civil activities may lead to worker safety issues; (h) Convergence of different schemes targeting tribal and vulnerable groups remains a challenge; (i) Methods and parameters of M&E system is not spelt out properly for Environmental and social risks and impacts e.g. monitoring gender specific data as well as data on equitable benefit sharing to SC, ST, landless and other socially disadvantaged groups; and (j) Lack of systematic reporting and tracking of grievances received manually at different administrative level. 89. The persistent gender gaps pertain to: first, women’s leadership in watershed development committees, water user groups and watershed development teams/associations16; second, women’s structured participation in watershed infrastructure planning, prioritization, implementation and operation and maintenance of watershed investments17; third, absence of gender-disaggregated data in baseline surveys, detailed project reports (DPRs) and monitoring and reporting systems;18 and fourth, targeting of women farmers, women agriculture workers and women-headed households as direct beneficiaries of watershed interventions. However, the Result Area-1(a) aims to address inclusion of women as leaders and decision-makers in watershed committees, watershed development teams and water-user groups/ associations, provide targeted training/capacity building approaches for women/women-led groups in WCs and GPs guidelines, and institute mechanism for structured consultations with women’s groups as part of baseline survey and DPR preparation. 6.7 Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) 90. REWARD participating states leverage existing country system to receive, resolve and manage grievances, mainly grievance redress portals, Chief Minister’s (CMs) grievances cell and other state specific mechanisms. The current grievance redress mechanism in the participating states has multiple ways to register grievances and get redressal. This includes: • Using Right to Information (RTI) Act to get information and resolution of grievances as mandated under the Act. 16 Women, Water and Leadership; Asian Development Bank (ADB) Briefs 2014 17 Impact Study of Karnataka Watershed Development Project II (Sujala III), TERI; 2019. 18 Implementation Completion and Results Report, World Bank, 2017. 23 • Registering grievances online through Chief Minister’s (CM’s) grievance cell in all three participating states under the control of Department of Personnel Administration and Reforms (DP&AR) which are generally received and tracked through state online portals such as http://www.espandana.karnataka.gov.in/cms/portal/login.jsf in Karnataka, https://www.spandana.ap.gov.in/ in Andhra Pradesh, and https://cmgcodisha.gov.in/ in Odisha. On receipt of the grievances, initial screening is done at DP&PR and forwarded to the concerned department for resolution. The concerned departments make further investigations and address the grievances and report back to DP&PR where the grievances are monitored and tracked online. • In addition to the online system, Karnataka and Odisha has a system of registering grievances at watershed level or cluster of village level or block/ district level or to SWD level manually. In Andhra Pradesh, following the Spandana program, weekly meetings are held to redress public grievances at State, District and Mandal levels. • At the national level the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) is an online web-enabled system (https://pgportal.gov.in/) in association with Directorate of Public Grievances (DPG) and Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) to register and track grievance. 91. However, the key systems gap is lack of systematic reporting and tracking of grievances received at watershed level, at cluster level (e.g., at RSK in Karnataka), and at block/ Mandal and district level largely due to current systems being manual, there is no consolidation and tracking of grievances received and resolved in specified period at the SLNA level. And this needs to be strengthen in a manner that all grievances received are tracked properly for resolution. The REWARD program will support the strengthening of the GRM and its integration with M & E systems. 7 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND DISCLOSURE The stakeholder consultations were undertaken with both primary and secondary in all three participating states. It includes (a) Field visits to watersheds and consultations with primary stakeholders; (b) Face-to- face discussions with SLNAs/ SWDs, other line departments, and technical partners; (c) Written comments from SLNAs based on E&S checklist and virtual consultations with SWD officials; (d) Sharing of draft ESSA and feedback by SLNA/ SWDs; (e) Multistakeholder consultations primary and with secondary stakeholders. Field Visits: Prior to COVID19 lockdowns, field visits were undertaken in Karnataka to watersheds in different agro-climatic zones in two districts. During the field visit, consultations and focus group discussions were held with key program stakeholders including with Watershed Committees/ Executive Committees, Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs), Women SHGs, community members - farmers and landless including SC, ST and women, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and discussions were also held with program implementation chain at PIA, district and state level. In addition to discussions, visits were also made to various watershed structures. Given the COVID19 situation with travel restrictions field visit could not be taken up in Andhra Pradesh and Odisha by the safeguard team and relied on field information shared by the technical team. 24 Discussion with community members at Nabhapur Discussion with women SHG members at Nabhapur Village of Belanhadi GP in Gadag district Village of Belanhadi GP in Gadag district Face-to-face discussions: Prior to COVID19 lockdowns, face-to-face discussions were held with SLNAs of all three participating states along with some of their technical partner agencies and other line departments including Agriculture Department, Horticulture Dept., Animal Husbandry Dept, Panchayati Raj and Rural Development Department etc. and NGOs. Virtual consultations: Virtual consultations were done in a systematic manner with SLNA/ SWD officials in all three participating states based on checklist developed and shared with them for their written response and using that as base for further consultations and discussions with the key officials. Virtual consultations were done multiple times with key officials in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Odisha and with DoLR officials to get clarity on system and processes being followed on ground. Sharing of draft ESSA and feedback by SLNA/ SWDs: The draft ESSA report prepared based on desk review, field visits and consultations was also shared with SLNAs of all the participating states for their feedback and suggestions. Based on their feedback and suggestions the draft ESSA reports were revised. Multi-stakeholder Consultations: The revised ESSA report was further presented to wide range of stakeholders for their comments and suggestion through multi-stakeholder consultation virtually organized with secondary stakeholders including district and block level officials of the SWDs and line departments, technical partners and civil society partners in August 2020. Further, a series of consultations held with primary stakeholders and their institutions from all REWRD districts in all three states covering representatives from PIAs, Watershed Committees, SHG members and their federations, user groups and farmers, PRI members, and local NGOs in a virtual manner on in January/ February 2021 in all three participating states. The draft final ESSA was prepared after incorporating the feedback and suggestions from both the stakeholder workshops. State Multi-stakeholder consultation Multi-stakeholder consultation with with Secondary Stakeholders Primary Stakeholders Andhra Pradesh August 14, 2020 with 30 30th January 2021 with 79 participants participants from all REWARD districts Karnataka August 13, 2020 with 60 4th, 5th, 8th, and 9th February 2021 participants coving primary stakeholders. In each of the consultations about 50-60 participants from 5-6 districts joined covering all 21 REWARD districts. Odisha August 12, 2020 with 50 05th February 2021 with around 63 25 participants participants from all REWARD districts Multi-stakeholder Dissemination workshop: In addition to the above a final multistakeholder dissemination workshop is planned during appraisal mission of the REWARD project. 92. Disclosure: The updated draft ESSA will be disclosed in country at the SLNAs/ Department’s website in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Odisha and also at DoLR website, and on the World Bank’s external website by the completion of appraisal of the project, to serve as the basis for discussion and receipt of feedback and comments. The final ESSA will be disclosed prior to World Bank Board consideration of the Program. 26 8 RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS 93. Strengthening watershed committees, PRIs and other community institutions and building their capacities is expected to increase people’s participation, equitable and inclusive benefit sharing, gender equality and citizen’s engagement in the watershed sector in the participant states. Key environmental and social risks are related to weak capacity for screening, planning, and monitoring and will be addressed through relevant capacity building measures. Capacity building for data-driven and science-based approaches for developing and implementing DPRs, and monitoring, will help mitigate environmental risks related to hydrology, soil erosion, soil moisture, and fertilizer use, among others. Also, capacity building related to dissemination of LRI cards will help improve decision making by farmers on appropriate crop selection and agriculture practices. The Program will undertake appropriate trainings and capacity building measures on participatory watershed planning and implementation, adoption of gender and socially inclusive processes, governance and functioning of the watershed committees and GPs, grievance redressal and social accountability, design of SOPs for different sub-project cycles, social outreach and IEC activities to build awareness of target communities, and improving MIS systems to capture key data on social inclusion and sustainability issues. In addition, the Program will design and implement ‘performance incentives/rewards’ to the WCs/GPs to enhance active engagement, local innovations and accountability. 94. Institutionalizing E&S risk screening and climate smart agro advisories will address the identified gaps related to extension of watershed interventions to forest, wetland and other environmentally sensitive areas; change in cropping patter to more water intensive high value crops leading to excessive withdrawal of ground water, and increase use of fertilizer and pesticides; risk of increase in salinity & sodicity due to excessive irrigation in some areas; risk of restricting surface flow at plot level thereby impacting water bodies in the downstream and overall hydrology. In the program design LRI-DSS supported advisories issued to farmers for crop selection including nutrition management, fertilizer use and water conservation efforts are well designed. The planned convergence of other programs of the partner Departments of Agriculture, Horticulture, Forestry, and MNERGA to conserve soil moisture will contribute to effectively managing all such environmental issues identified in existing system. 95. Other envisaged issue of ignoring overall hydrology, which includes water resource budget, conservation, flow etc. in the macro watershed, change in ground water table, change in water quality, water intensive crop selection and increase in pesticide use can be addressed through macro-watershed level evaluation with the data captured in model watersheds and benchmark sites. 96. The key recommendations addressing the environmental and social systems gaps identified, as well as for enhancing environmental and social benefits includes: 1. Operational guidelines to be prepared and adopted for community participation, social inclusion, building community ownership, and accountability mechanism in line with the new watershed development guideline for different phases of watershed planning and implementation. 2. Early screening for identification of potential environmental and social risks during DPR preparation including LRI and DSS platform to show land use and environmental areas; and guidance on preparation of environmental and social management plan (ESMP). 3. Inclusion of gender and socially disaggregated data in M&E system along with periodic monitoring and reporting on E&S parameters. 4. Preparation and adoption of E&S operations guidance note for watershed sub-projects and FPO business plans, including, a mechanism for institutionalizing DPR specific Environment and Social Management Plans (ESMPs). 27 5. Providing E&S Training and Capacity program for frontline program staff, PIAs, WDCs, FPOs, field NGOs and PRIs. 6. Strengthening institutional mechanism for E&S aspects with clear roles and responsibilities at different administrative levels. 7. Support for converging with other government agencies on Forest Department. Tribal Development, Social Welfare, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, and Forest. 8. Crop Advisories by the Government shall include the advisories on adverse impact of overuse of insecticides and chemical fertilizers as per the Pesticide & fertilizer management plan to be prepared by the Government. 9. Including women in leadership positions in watershed committees and FPOs, as well as among direct participants and beneficiaries of livelihood interventions. 10. Addressing macro and micro-level environmental issues such as overall hydrology which includes water resource budget, conservation, flow, etc., in the macro watershed, change in ground water table, change in water quality. 11. Existing Grievance Redress Management (GRM) system to be further strengthened and streamlined for registering, screening, and redressing, monitoring, and reporting. 12. Establishing a scientific assessment and evaluation system, including a rigorous impact evaluation that encompasses the application of remote sensing and GIS technologies; process monitoring, and thematic studies for assessing change in specific parameters (such as groundwater level, sediment load, soil organic carbon) to evaluate the effectiveness of watershed investments. 13. Adopting a system of valuation of ecosystem services like water budgeting and their contribution to watershed development scoping will be explored and also landscape approach for integrating planned convergence of other programs (including with partner Departments of Agriculture, Horticulture, Forestry, and MGNERGA) to conserve soil moisture to improve outcomes on water yield, ground water and sediments in the long run for environmental sustainability. 97. Input to Program Action Plan: While most of the recommendations will be incorporated in the program operations manual, a higher-level action is recommended as part of the program action plan (PAP) and includes point #1 and #11 above as the PAP action. 98. Mainstreaming of E&S Recommendations: Most of the E&S recommendation will be part of State Specific Program Manual and some would be mainstreamed and are incorporated in Result Areas, PDO indicators and DLRs. 99. Human Resource/ Staffing: At DoLR and at the SLNAs/ SWDs existing PMU experts will be designated and have the responsibility to oversee the implementation of E&S activities including the monitoring, and reporting. Similarly, Officials at district, block and PIA level will also be identified and trained for providing implementation support, monitoring and reporting of implementation of E&S activities in the participating states. 100. Implementation Support Plan: The Implementation Support Plan (ISP) outlines the approach that the World Bank will take to support DoLR, WDD (in Karnataka), PR&RD Department (in Andhra Pradesh), and DSC&WD (in Odisha) in the implementation of environmental and social recommendation and actions of the REWARD Program, including reviewing the implementation progress, providing technical support where needed and will be delivered through multiple channels: six-monthly implementation support missions; interim technical missions. The main thr ust of the Bank’s implementation support will be concentrated on the overall implementation quality of Environmental and social risk management for sustainable environmental and social outcomes of the project. 28 ANNEXURES The Annexes are presented as separate volumes to keep this summary report brief, they are an integral part of this report and to be read along with this. Annex-1: Detailed ESSA Report for REWARD Program in Andhra Pradesh Annex-2: Detailed ESSA Report for REWARD Program in Karnataka Annex-3: Detailed ESSA Report for REWARD Program in Odisha 29