World Bank Document
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
E511 vol. 2 SEAFinal/ISEC/17-09-01 2001 SOCIALAND ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT OF KARNATAKACOMMUNrTY- BASEDTANK IMPROVEMENTPROJECT Public Disclosure Authorized CONTENTS List of charts List of graphs List of Tables 1. Introduction 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Triggers for Decline 1.3 Administration of Tanks 1.4 Growing Financial Crunch 1.5 Existing Legal and Policy Framework Public Disclosure Authorized 1.6 Scope of the Social and EnvironmentAssessment 2. Project Description 2.0 Objectives 2.1 Major Activities 2.2 Project Scope and Components 3. Methodologyand Consultation 4. Lessons from Projects and Studies,Previous and Ongoing 4.0 Introduction 4.1 Projects and studies: Environmentalconcerns 4.2 Lessons/Experiences Public Disclosure Authorized 4.3 Projects and Studies on collectiveaction and community participation 4.4 Formationof water user's cooperativesocieties 5. Status: Baseline, Stakeholdersand CommunityParticipation 5.0 Baseline information 5.1 Stakeholderanalysis 5.2 Collectiveaction and communityorganisation 6. Environmentaland Social Impactsand AlternativeAssessment 6.0 Analysisof alternatives 7. Implicationsfor Project Design and Implementation 7.0 Social and environmental issues and screening 7.1 Natural resource management Public Disclosure Authorized 7.2 Policy recommendations 7.3 Institutionalstructure, capacity buildingand training needs for IA. 7.4 Institutionalframework for ITDP FILECOPY SEA/Final/ISEC/17-09-01 1-2 7.5 Monitoringand evaluationstrategy - environment 7.6 Social and economicmonitoring and evaluation 8. Gender Strategyand Action Plan 8.0 Introduction 8.1 Focus of the Project 8.2 Mainstreaminggender-strategy and action plan 8.3 Different levels of the projects and villages monitoring and learning systems 8.4 Capacitybuilding for different groups 8.5 Action plan - gender 9. EnvironmentalManagement Plan (EMP) 9.1 Critical Issues 9.2 Mitigation/ EnhancementMeasures 9.3 Screeningof Tanks and Interventions 9.4 Special Studies Suggested 9.5 Cost Estimates 10 IntegratedRest Management 10.1 Pest managementstrategy 10.2 Policy, RegulatoryFramework and InstitutionalCapacity 10.3 InstitutionalFramework 10.4 Pesticide Management/ IPM in Project 10.5 Integrated Pest ManagementAction Plan 10.6 Monitoringand Evaluation (M&E) 10.7 Costs 11 ResettlementAction Plan (RAP) 11.1 About the Project 11.2 Need for a ResettlementAction Plan 11.3 Process of Social Assessment 11.4 Benefits from the Project 11.5 Project Impacts 11.6 IdentifyingProject Affected Area and MinimizingAdverse Inpacts 11.7 Profile of the Affected Community 11.8 Voluntary Surrenderof Land 11.9 Legal and Policy Provisions 11.10 R&R Policy 11.11 Consultationwith the affectedcommunity 11.12 Action plan 11.13 RAP ApprovalProcess 11.14 InstitutionalArrangements for Implementationof RAP 11.15 GrievanceRedressal Mechanism 11.16 Monitoringand Evaluation 11.17 Costs and Budgeting SENFinal/ISEC/17-09-01 1-3 12 Tribal Issues and IndigenousPeople's DevelopmentPlan 12.1 Introduction 12.2 Objectivesof Tribal DevelopmentPlan 12.3 Social AssessmentProcess 12.4 BaselineData: Status 12.5 EconomicProfile 12.6 Land Ownership 12.7 Livelihoodpursuits among STc and SCs 12.8 Welfare Schemes for STs, SCs and others in Karnataka 12.9 Legal and Policy Frarnework 12.10 A Few Key LegislationsSafeguarding STs and SCs 12.11 Consultationwith STs, SCs and Others 12.12 Issues ConcerningST and SC Communities 12.13 Tribal DevelopmentStrategy 12.14 Action Plan 12.15 Action Plans at the Tank Level 12.16 ApprovalProcess 12.17 InstitutionalSetup 12.18 Capacity Buildingto Handle TD Activities 12.19 GrievanceRedressal Mechanism 12.20 Monitoring and Evaluation 12.21 ImplementationSchedule 12.22 Costs and Budget for TDP 13 Tribal DevelopmentPlan 13.1 Tribal DevelopmentPlan 13.2 Baseline Data 13.3 Action Plan 13.4 Schedule of Implementation 13.5 Monitoring and Evaluation 13.6 Budget for TDP 13.7 InstitutionalArrangements Annexures References SEAFinal/ISEC/17-09-01 1-4 Chapter1 INTRODUCTION 1.1. Introduction Governmentof Karnatakaintends to rehabilitate2000 traditional tanks through communitybased and demanddriven approach and handoverthe O&Mresponsibilities to the user groupsin a phasedmanner. The project developmentobjectives are to develop and improve rural livelihoodsand reduce poverty by developing and strengtheningcommunity-based approaches to managingselected tank systems.The proposedproject covers 34 talukasin 9 districts of the state. Tank restorationon a smallerscale was taken up in Rajasthansupported by SIDAand similar programme was funded by EuropeanCommission encouraging NGO's in various parts of Tamilnadu. DHANfoundation a reputedNGO has alsotaken up suchprogramme mainly in Madurai and RamanathapuramDistricts in Tamilnadu.Though the focus of these efforts has been on smaller tanks (below 40 ha. command area), these attempts helped governmentsand NGO's in understandingcomplexity and uniqueness of initiatingsimilar projectsin a limitedway. It is for the first time that the stateof Karnatakahas come out with a clear-cutapproach in taking up tank restorationon a larger scalewith upfront communityparticipation and activecollaboration of NGO's. Experienceduring the past two decadesreveal that if the designand strategies are evolvedelsewhere through top-downapproach with little concernfor local needs and situations,people will not evince any interest in such projects and any such investmentswill not stand test of sustainability.Tank is a symbol of indigenous knowledgesystems, that enabledcommunities to participatein full vigor takingpride in activitiesconnected with restorationand rehabilitation.With centralizedstate structures takingover the responsibilityof tank maintenanceincluding rehabilitation, the organic link betweencommunities and tank graduallydisappeared. The other factorssuch as siltation,aging, lower allocations,changes in the tank hydrology,degradation of the catchment,unscientific land andwater managementpractices contributed to the further deteriorationof tank systems. As part of the initiative,Govemment of Karnatakahas establisheda nodal agency calledJala Samvardhane Yojana Sangha (JSYS) as a specialpurpose vehicle and as an autonomous,registered society. JSYScan make decisionsfaster, function with professionalcompetency and ensure effective implementationof the World Bank projects'.JSYS through reputed NGOs has initiatedcommunity mobilization activities for integratedtank restorationas part of "learningwhile doing" exerciseby involvingtank user groups on a pilot basis,and launcheddifferent studiesto appraisethe current situationand to suggeststrategies. This study,one of the five studiessponsored by the I Becauseof bad experiencein implementingthe World Bankfunded tank rehabilitabonprojects during 1989-1992in Kamataka. SEWFinal/ISEC/17-09-01 1-5 JSYSand funded by the World Bank, has focused on social and environmental assessmentof the community-basedtank rehabilitationproject. 1.2. Background In the past, tanks had retaineda prime place in rural south India for their multipleuses, includingagriculture. It was also (and still it is) the cheapersource of irrigationcompared to other sourcesof surfaceirrigation. These tank systemswere favoredas they were adaptableand dependable for the reasonsthat they: a) hadlower gestation period; b) took lesser capital and operationexpenses; c) were easy to constructand operate; and d) couldbe constructedin smalland topographicallydifficult areas(Thippaiah 1998). Over the centuries,they provedas insulationagainst droughts, helped rechargegroundwater, could provide crucial irrigationsfor crop production, helpedretain good environmentand for the villagecommunity as a sourceof multiple use (including drinking water for men and animals,washing, bathing, water for livestock,fishing, cultural festivals,and other local rituals). Owingto this unique featuresand as well as largerpublic good in mind,the Indiankings, Jagirdars, religious institutionsand philanthropists,had built large number of tanksall overthe country. These rain water harvestingstructures in its various forms were known by different namesacross the country - e.g., kere in Karnataka,cheruvu in Andhra Pradesh,erie in TamilNadu, johad and bundin Rajasthan,ahar and pyne in Bihar.Over generationspeople have built bundedup the valleysand sub-valleysfacilitating the storageto servethe needsof the villageand groupof villages,particularly in southern andDeccan Plateau mostly comprising Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. This system has remainedeco-friendly and sustainablein practiceuntil 1960sin various statesand during the periodthe paddyoutput hasincreased all over the country.(Uan Oppenand Rao, 1987) After this period, there has been sluggishgrowth of tank- irrigatedarea both in the countryand in Karnataka. Tanks are importantmeans to conserveprecious water resourcesin semi-arid areas.It is well knownthat tankstraditionally performed useful role in providingirrigation, waterfor domesticuse including water for livestockand for washingclothes, supporting livelihoodsof the poor,protecting local environment and sustaining water resources. Tank irrigationin southIndia, in general,and Karnataka, in particular,has a longhistory, and it can be traced to prehistorictimes. Historically,the constructionof the tank and its maintenancewere seen not only as an ingeniousmethod of conservationof water resources,but alsoas a strategyfor humansurvival. Communities, therefore, evolved tank managementpractices in sucha waythose incentives for the individualhousehold and the communitywere