· Web viewAgriculture is at the core of Indian society. More than 50% of the population is engaged in the agricultural sector. As a nation of smallholder farmers, over 70% of individual

PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Green-Ag: Transforming Indian agriculture for global environmental benefits and the conservation of critical biodiversity and forest landscapes

Country(ies): India GEF Project ID:1 9243

GEF Agency(ies): FAO GEF Agency Project ID: 637244

Other Executing Partner(s): Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare (MoAFW);Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change (MoEF&CC)

Submission Date:Resubmission Date:

31 July 201516 Feb 201625 Mar 2016

GEF Focal Area(s): Multi-focal Area (BD, LD, CC, SFM) Project Duration (Months)

84

Integrated Approach Pilot IAP-Cities IAP-Commodities IAP-Food Security Corporate Program: SGP

Name of parent program: N/A Project Agency Fee ($) 3,020,284

A. INDICATIVE FOCAL AREA STRATEGY FRAMEWORK AND OTHER PROGRAM STRATEGIES 2

Objectives/Programs (Focal Areas, Integrated Approach Pilot Corporate Programs) Trust

Fund

($)

GEF Project

Financing

Co-financing

BD-3 Program 7: Securing agriculture’s future: sustainable use of plant and animal genetic resources

GEF-TF 8,652,922 154,250,950

BD-4 Program 9: Managing the human-biodiversity interface GEF-TF 12,730,234 180,650,259

LD-1 Program 1: Agro-ecological intensificationLD-1 Program 2: Sustainable land management for climate-smart agriculture

GEF-TF2,114,128 15,174,565

LD-3 Program 4: Scaling-up sustainable land management through the landscape approach

GEF-TF 2,114,128 5,518,024

CCM-2 Program 4: Promote conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks in forests and other land-uses, and support climate-smart agriculture

GEF-TF 2,727,908 64,451,550

SFM-1 Maintained Forest Resources: Reduce the pressures on high-conservation-value forests by addressing the drivers of deforestation.

GEF-TF 5,219,396 74,076,010

Total Costs 33,558,716 494,121,358

B. INDICATIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY

Project Objective: Catalyze transformative change for India’s agricultural sector to support achievement of national and global environmental benefits and conserve critical biodiversity and forest landscapes.

Project Components

Fin. Type3 Project Outcomes Project Outputs

Trust Fund, Focal Area

(in $)GEF

Project Financing

Co-financing

1. India’s agricultural sector mainstreaming BD, SLM,

TA BD, LD, CCM, and SFM considerations mainstreamed into India’s policies and institutions related to agriculture and

1.1 Multi-sectoral platforms for sustainable agriculture established and

BDLDCCMSFM

3,418,4301,367,372

866,0021,686,426

56,933,2057,035,480

21,913,52724,445,083

1 Project ID number will be assigned by GEFSEC and to be entered by Agency in subsequent document submissions.

2 When completing Table A, refer to the excerpts on GEF 6 Results Frameworks for GETF, LDCF and SCCF.

3 Financing type can be either investment or technical assistance.

GEF-6 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION FORM (PIF)

PROJECT TYPE: FULL-SIZETYPE OF TRUST FUND: GEF TF

https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/document/GEF6%20Results%20Framework%20for%20GEFTF%20and%20LDCF.SCCF_.pdf



CCM, and SFM across landscapes of highest conservation concern

land-use.Potential IndicatorsNational agricultural policies fully incorporate measurable indicators to conserve critical biodiversity and forest landscapes (e.g. National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture)

- MoAFW and MoEFCC coordinated in at least five states to track and report improved conservation status of globally significant species and critical forest ecosystems relevant to agricultural policy changes.

- 5 states adopt and operationalize conservation strategies for at least 1.5 million hectares of priority biodiversity and forest landscapes that fully incorporate biodiversity conservation indicators

- US$ 250,000,000 of annual GoI agricultural programs, missions and related investments re-aligned to support conservation-oriented agriculture

- US$ 125,000,000 of annual state investments re-aligned to support conservation oriented agriculture

- At least 10,000 uses of the Green-Ag electronic knowledge base and associated tool box annually

operational

1.2 Critical landscapes for conservation agriculture interventions identified and prioritized nationally1.3 National and state level agricultural policy frameworks mainstream and support achievement of global environment benefits 1.4 National Green Landscape Conservation Strategy and policy adopted and under implementation1.5 Conservation agriculture “best practices” captured and disseminated 1.6 National monitoring program established to inform decision-making for conservation agriculture

Total 7,338,230 110,327,295

2. Improved agricultural practices demonstrating the delivery of tangible BD, LD, CCM, and SFM benefits

TA/ INV

Agricultural and forest management practices on priority landscapes yield benefits for BD, LD, CCM, and SFM.Potential Indicators- A total of 1.17 million

hectares within 5 protected-area biospheres showing biodiversity conservation improvements as a result of more sustainable agricultural and SFM

2.1 Target green landscapes fully assessed and demarcated with support of State and District level multi-sectoral platforms2.2 Green-Ag Farmer Field Schools established2.3 State-level Green Landscape Conservation Strategies

BDLDCCMSFM

Total

16,946,4802,659,5401,732,0043,284,428

24,622,452

277,968,00313,657,10942,538,02349,630,928

383,794,063

Green-Ag: Transforming Indian Agriculture to Promote Global Conservation Benefits Page 2

practices

- Habitat improvements at five ecosystems evincing measurable reduction of agricultural and forest degradation threats and impacts to globally significant species (TBD at PPG, e.g., Great Indian bustard, Bengal tiger, Asian elephant, Gangetic dolphin, and Clouded leopard.)

-Farmers across 100,000 ha utilizing and conserving genetic diversity of at least 10 globally significant traditional and/or endemic plant and animal species or varieties. (TBD at PPG.)

- At least 400,000 hectares of currently degraded productive landscapes under SLM.

- At least 350,000 hectares of high conservation value forestlands under SFM.

- At least 250,000 households adopting improved land management practices for BD, LD, CCM, and SFM benefits

- At least 150,000 agriculturalists (male and female) participating in Green-Ag Farmer Field Schools and applying Green-Ag and SFM practices

- Of which, at least 40,000 female agriculturalists participating in and benefitting from female cohort specific Green-Ag Farmer Field Schools

- At least 500 forestry, agricultural, and wildlife officials and staff members at priority landscapes evincing improved, related capacities

implemented, including:- SFM realized by applying integrated, landscape conservation approaches- CSA established using FFS systems- BD benefits verified through conservation agriculture management2.4 Lessons learned monitored, captured, up-scaled and mainstreamed within national, state, and district policy frameworks


- At least 26.9 Mt CO2e sequestered or avoided through improved agricultural practices (estimate excludes expected wider benefits from policy changes)

Subtotal 31,960,682 494,121,358

Project Management Cost (PMC)4 5% 1,598,034 -

Total Project Cost 33,558,716 494,121,358

Project Agency Fees 9% 3,020,284 -

PPG (incl. agency fees @ 9%) 327,000 -

Total GEF Funding 36,906,000 -

For multi-trust fund projects, provide the total amount of PMC in Table B, and indicate the split of PMC among the different trust funds here: ( )

C. INDICATIVE SOURCES OF CO-FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT BY NAME AND BY TYPE, IF AVAILABLE

Sources of Co-financing Name of Co-financier Type of Co-financing Amount ($)

Recipient Government Ministry of Agriculture Grants/ In-kind 202,589,757

Recipient Government Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change

Grants/ In-kind 49,412,136

Recipient Government State of Odisha Grants/ In-kind 9,882,427

Recipient Government State of Rajasthan Grants/ In-kind 29,647,281

Recipient Government State of Madhya Pradesh Grants/ In-kind 9,882,427

Recipient Government State of Uttarakhand Grants/ In-kind 9,882,427

Recipient Government State of Mizoram Grants/ In-kind 9,882,427

Recipient Government Project-affected Districts (TBD) Grants/ In-kind 2,470,607

Recipient Government Ministry of Human Resources Development(Mid-day Meal Scheme)

Grants/ In-kind9,882,427

Recipient Government Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs(National Food Security Act)

Grants/ In-kind118,589,127

Recipient Government Ministry of Women and Child Development (National Nutrition Mission)

Grants/ In-kind 2,470,607

GEF Agency FAO (Regional, Global and TCPs) Grants/ In-kind 4,941,214

Donor JICA Grants/ In-kind 10,000,000

Donor World Bank Grants/ In-kind 4,823,640

Other donors/ executing partners TBD Grants/ In-kind TBD

4 For GEF Project Financing up to $2 million, PMC could be up to10% of the subtotal; above $2 million, PMC could be up to 5% of the subtotal. PMC should be charged proportionately to focal areas based on focal area project financing amount in Table D below.


http://www.thegef.org/gef/policy/co-financing

Private Sector TBD Grants/ In-kind 9,882,427

Financial Institutions NABARD Grants/ In-kind 9,882,427

Total Co-financing 494,121,358

D. INDICATIVE TRUST FUND RESOURCES REQUESTED BY AGENCY(IES), COUNTRY(IES) AND THE PROGRAMMING OF FUNDS a)

GEF Agency

Trust Fund

Country/Regional/

GlobalFocal Area

Programmingof Funds

(in $)

GEF Project

Financing (a)

Agency Fee (b)

Total(c)=a+b

FAO GEFTF India Biodiversity 21,383,156 1,924,484 23,307,640

FAO GEFTF India Land Degradation 4,228,256 380,543 4,608,799

FAO GEFTF India CCM 2,727,908 245,511 2,973,419

FAO GEFTF India SFM 5,219,396 469,746 5,689,142

Sub-Total 33,558,716 3,020,284 36,579,000

PPG to be requested (w/ justifications for the exceptional size) 300,000 27,000 327,000

Total GEF Resources 33,858,716 3,047,284 36,906,000

a) Refer to the Fee Policy for GEF Partner Agencies.

E. PROJECT PREPARATION GRANT (PPG)5

Is Project Preparation Grant requested? Yes If no, skip item E.

PPG Amount requested by agency(ies), Trust Fund, country(ies) and the Programming of funds

Project Preparation Grant amount requested: US$ 300,000 PPG Agency Fee: US$ 27,000

GEF Agency

Trust Fund

Country/ Regional/

Global

Focal Area

Programmingof Funds

(in $)

PPG (a)AgencyFee6 (b)

Totalc = a + b

FAO GEF Country BD SFM 191,156 17,204 208,360

FAO GEF Country LD SFM 37,799 3,402 41,201

FAO GEF Country CCM SFM 24,386 2,195 26,581

FAO GEF Country SFM SFM 46,659 4,199 50,858

Total PPG Amount 300,000 27,000 327,000

F. PROJECT’S TARGET CONTRIBUTIONS TO GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS7

Corporate Results Replenishment Targets Project Targets

1. Maintain globally significant biodiversity and the ecosystem goods and services that it provides to society

Improved management of landscapes and seascapes covering 300 million hectares

1,500,000 ha (direct)5,000,000 ha (indirect)

5 PPG requested amount is determined by the size of the GEF Project Financing (PF) as follows: Up to $50k for PF up to$2m (for MSP); up to $100k for PF up to $3m; $150k for PF up to $6m; $200k for PF up to $10m; and $300k for PF above $10m. On an exceptional basis, PPG amount may differ upon detailed discussion and justification with the GEFSEC.

6 PPG fee percentage follows the percentage of the Agency fee over the GEF Project Financing amount requested.

7 Provide those indicator values in this table to the extent applicable to your proposed project. Progress in programming against these targets for the projects per the Corporate Results Framework in the GEF-6 Programming Directions, will be aggregated and reported during mid-term and at the conclusion of the replenishment period. There is no need to complete this table for climate adaptation projects financed solely through LDCF and/or SCCF.


http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/GEF.C.46.07.Rev_.01_Summary_of_the_Negotiations_of_the_Sixth_Replenishment_of_the_GEF_Trust_Fund_May_22_2014.pdf

http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/document/gef-fee-policy.pdf

2. Sustainable land management in production systems (agriculture, rangelands, and forest landscapes)

120 million hectares under sustainable land management

750,000 ha

3. Transboundary waters N/A

4. Support to transformational shifts towards a low-emission and resilient development path

750 million tons of CO2e mitigated (include both direct and indirect)

26.9 Mt CO2e

(direct + 13-year post-project capitalization; see Annex 1)

5. POPs, ODS, mercury, etc. N/A

6. MEA capacity development and mainstreaming

N/A

PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

1. Project Description

1.1 Global Environmental and/or Adaptation Problems, Root Causes and Barriers that need to addressed

Context

1. General Background: The territory of the Republic of India covers more than 3 million km2. The nation has the world’s seventh largest economy. The annual GDP is a little over US$ 2 trillion. India is the world's largest democracy, comprised of 29 states and 7 union territories. The total population is now approximately 1.2 billion people. An estimated 200 million Indians live below the poverty line. The nation is highly diverse in terms of culture, climate, and ecology.

2. Agricultural Sector: Agriculture is at the core of Indian society. More than 50% of the population is engaged in the agricultural sector. As a nation of smallholder farmers, over 70% of individual farmland holdings are less than one hectare. Nearly 180 million hectares or 46% of the country’s land is used for agriculture. India is the world’s second-highest producer of farm outputs and the world’s highest producer from rain-fed agriculture. With nearly 20% of the globe’s domestic livestock, India is the world’s top producer of milk products. From 2000 to 2014, the agricultural services and machinery sectors cumulatively attracted foreign direct investment (FDI) equity inflows of US$ 2.15 billion. From 2008 to 2009, the Government of India invested over US$ 17.5 billion in agriculture and private-sector investments totalled nearly US$ 80 billion. Agriculture accounts for 18% of the nation’s GDP and about 14% of its exports (2013-14).

3. The MoAFW reports that an additional 310 million tons of food grains per year will be required by 2050 to feed the nation. From 1951 to 2011, net sown area is estimated to have declined from 0.33 ha to 0.14 ha per capita. From 1951 to 2000, land availability per capita decreased from 0.91 ha to 0.32 ha. If this trend continues, available agricultural land per capita will likely decrease to 0.19 ha by 2050. Although the estimated number of livestock in the country reduced from 529.6 million in 2007 to 512 million in 2012 due in part to the global economic recession, the livestock population is expected to grow to 781 million by 2050.

4. Biodiversity: India is an extremely diverse country, renowned for globally significant biodiversity. India has four of the world’s 34 global biodiversity hotspots. India encompasses 15 of WWF’s global 200 eco-regions. Current estimates show that India has 45,000 species of plants and 91,000 species of animals, including 60,000 insect species and 3,000 fish species. These species represent a significant percentage of the world’s total diversity, including 14% of all avian species, 12% of all fish species, over 8% of all mammalian species, and 8% of all reptilian species. Endemism is extremely high. There are 4,045 endemic plant species, 156 endemic reptilian species, 110 endemic amphibian species, and 69 endemic bird species. India conserves hundreds of globally threatened species. These include the Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis Linnaeus), Sarus crane (Antigone antigone), clouded leopard


(Neofelis nebulosa), Gangetic dolphin (Platanista gangetica), black-necked crane (Grus nigricollis), and great Indian bustard (Ardeotis nigriceps).

5. Agrobiodiversity: India is one 12 Vavilov global centres of crop diversity. More than 900 species of wild relatives of domesticated crops originate in India. Approximately 800 of species of cereals, millets, grain legumes (pulses), vegetables, fruits, nuts, oilseeds, sugar-yielding plants, fibre crops, forage/ fodder crops, spices, condiments, plantation crops, medicinal and aromatic plants, ornamental plants, and agro-forestry species have been recorded in the country. India is a primary centre of diversity for species such as black gram, moth bean, pigeon pea, some cucurbits, tree cotton, capsularis jute, jackfruit, banana, mango, large cardamom, black pepper, several minor millets, and many medicinal plants. The nation has more than 10,000 landraces of rice. There are 34 native breeds of cattle, 12 breeds of buffaloes, 21 breeds of goats, 39 breeds of sheep, and 15 breeds of chickens. Examples include: poultry species such as Aseel, Kadaknath, and frizzle fowl, goat species such as Sirohi, Beetal, and Jamunapari, and cattle species such as Gir, Mithun, Brahman, Karkaj, and Ongole.

6. Protected Areas: India’s first protected area was established in 1935. The current terrestrial protected area network covers approximately 166,851 km2 or 5% of the country. The network is comprised of nearly 700 individual protected areas. India has four categories of protected areas: national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, conservation reserves, and community reserves. The country has designated special reserve areas specifically for the conservation of globally significant species such as Bengal tigers, Indian elephants, and the great Indian bustard. India’s protected area regime is largely defined by the productive rural landscape. Agricultural interests or productive forests surround nearly all of the nation’s protected areas. Activities both inside and outside protected area borders often include farming, grazing, forestry, or the collection of non-timber forest products (NTFP).

7. Forests: India has a stated goal of achieving 33% forest coverage (National Forest Policy, 1988). About 80 million hectares (MHa) or 25% of India is forested (FAO, 2013). While the quality of forest is diminished, overall forest cover is increasing. The Government of India (GoI) estimates that since 2013, forests have expanded by 377,500 ha (India State of Forest Report, 2015). Forestry contributes less than 2% to overall GDP. Each year, India imports approximately US$ 1 billion worth of raw logs. However, GoI estimates that more than 300 million residents rely upon forests. Rural people heavily depend upon forested lands, such as for fuel-wood and NTFP.

Project Sites

8. Initial site selection and PIF development benefitted from a fairly rigorous approach. Based upon the basic project concept and framework, the Government of India narrowed the priority states for project investment to five: Rajasthan, Orissa, Uttarakhand, Mizoram, and Madhya Pradesh. The map below depicts indicative locations for project sites relative to high-conservation-value areas. Additional sites for initial investment or expansion might be identified in the PPG phase.

9. Each state represents values that directly correspond to Government of India’s conservation priorities and the ability to secure and deliver global environmental benefits (BD, LD, SFM, CCM) at a scale appropriate to GEF investment. Each location represents a unique set of ecosystems and associated conservation challenges associated with the agricultural sector. The diversity of locations will facilitate the development of unique models for conservation interventions that can be nationally modified, up-scaled, and applied to similar ecosystems. Preliminary site selection within each state was refined based upon several criteria, including significance of biodiversity, potential for scaling up, presence of baseline programs, agro-biodiversity opportunities, and diversity of agricultural challenges.

10. FAO and Government of India staff conducted several missions to potential project States and Districts. This included field investigations to potential field locations. Detailed discussions were held with government staff, including representatives of MoAFW and MoEF, farmers, protected area administrators, community forestry groups, wildlife biologists, and other stakeholders at the state, district and field level. These discussions revolved around the potential project design, perceived conservation challenges, and the appropriateness and scale of site selection.


11. Each location represents different habitats and globally significant species. A specific national protected area will anchor efforts at each project site. This will help ensure the project results in the conservation of high-value biodiversity. As noted, existing protected areas indicate areas of high conservation value. India’s protected areas are generally not devoid of people. Protected areas are also productive landscapes often defined by agriculture and associated natural resource uses both inside and outside of protected area boundaries.

12. Each location represents a variation of conservation challenges related to agricultural practices, e.g., dry land, irrigated, upland, cultivation, grazing, etc. This variety will facilitate learning and upscaling. This representation will also help ensure delivery of diverse global environmental benefits.

13. Although project site ecosystems vary greatly, each location shares quite similar policy baselines. For instance, agricultural approaches are mostly driven by national agricultural policies. On-the-ground natural resource managers responsible for conservation and agriculture generally do not benefit from coordinated and strategic approaches. Information generated during these extensive investigations informed the PIF development process. During the PPG, baseline information at each site will be augmented and improved. This will be captured within the final project document and be reflected in the final project design.

14. The proposed project sites offer opportunities to benefit from baseline governmental and non-governmental initiatives related to biodiversity conservation, agro-biodiversity, forestry, and other conservation issues. This includes initiatives involving the World Bank, IFAD, UNDP, UNEP, and others. GoI is working with GEF’s Country Partnership Program in Rajasthan via the Sustainable Land and Ecosystem Management (SLEM) project to reduce and reverse land degradation. JICA has entered Phase II of its support for Rajasthan’s Forestry and Biodiversity Project (~$132.6M). In Uttarakhand, the World Bank initiated a loan ($121.2M) to support community-based management of micro-watersheds via the Uttarakhand Decentralized Watershed Development project (Phase II). IFAD is supporting the government of the State of Odisha through the Odisha Particularly Vulnerable Groups Empowerment and Livelihoods Improvement Programme (total cost $130.4M; IFAD load $51.2M). MoAFW, MoEFCC, associated state-level departments, and FAO have had multiple discussions with these various organizations to plan preliminarily for alignment and various forms of potential support and partnership. As discussed in the coordination section of this PIF, a primary element of PPG activity will be to make certain identified baseline actions and existing capacities are synergized and necessary partnerships in place to support achievement of the project’s objectives.


Indicative Locations of Project Sites Relative to High-Conservation-Value Areas

15. State of Rajasthan: The project intends to focus on two districts: Jaisalmer and Barmer. These districts both encompass India’s Desert National Park8. The protected area comprises 316,200 ha. Desert National Park is an identified Important Bird Area. The wildlife sanctuary provides highly important habitat for the critically endangered great Indian bustard. Fewer than 200 of these bustards remain in the wild. The PA also provides habitat for blackbuck antelope, jackal, fox, and a host of cat species. A rapid rise in unsustainable cultivation compounded by persistent overgrazing presents major conservation challenges to the protected area.

16. State of Madhya Pradesh: The project intends to focus on the ravines area, primarily in and around the National Chambal Sanctuary. The protected area covers 134,475 ha over three states, including 27,475 ha in Rajasthan, 43,500 ha in Madhya Pradesh, and 63,500 ha in Uttar Pradesh. The wider buffer zone encompasses approximately 400,000 additional ha. The Chambal River provides habitat for the Gangetic dolphin (Platanista gangetica) and gharial (Gavialis gangeticus). The region and associated protected area network are threatened by severe land and water degradation driven by factors such as expanding irrigated agriculture and overgrazing.

17. State of Uttarakhand: The project intends to focus in and around Corbett National Park. The 52,080-ha lower Himalayan protected area provides habitat for a host of globally significant species, including tigers. The landscape both within and around the protected area is subjected to human pressures. Deforestation, erosion, land degradation, and other unsustainable natural resource uses resulting from agricultural activity constrain the conservation effectiveness of Corbett.

18. State of Orissa: The project intends to focus in and around Similipal National Park. The park’s 556,970 ha include 84,570 ha of core area, 212,900 ha of buffer zone, and 259,500 ha of a 10-km-wide transitional zone. The park is one of India’s flagship protected areas comprised of the Similipal Tiger Reserve, Hadgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, and Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary. This is a lowland area that receives substantial rainfall. A host of agricultural production both within and outside the

8 Although the protected area is commonly referred to as Desert National Park, it is legally classified as a wildlife refuge as long as people reside inside the protected-area boundaries.


protected area boundaries, including extensive rice cultivation, reduces conservation effectiveness. This is particularly pronounced to the east, towards the Bay of Bengal.

19. State of Mizoram: The project intends to focus in and around Phawngpui/ Blue Mountain National Park. Mizoram is located in the eastern-most region of India. This 5,000-ha protected area and the surrounding region provide critical habitat for globally threatened and endangered species such as clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) and wild elephant (Elephas maximus). Shifting agriculture, or jhum, defines the region’s traditional agriculture. Although potentially sustainable, current practices of shortened regeneration and intensification adversely impact ecological integrity and social stability.

Institutional Framework

20. The MoAFW oversees the agricultural sector, including production, market, and policy aspects. MoAFW is organized around three departments: Department of Agriculture, Cooperation, and Farmers’ Welfare (DACFW), Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE), and Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAH&D). The National Commission on Farmers (NCF) recommends policies, programs, and measures for agricultural development.

21. The MoEF&CC oversees issues such as forestry, biodiversity conservation, protected-areas management, and pollution abatement. The National Board for Wild Life (NBWL) supports the conservation policy framework. The National Forest Commission (NFC) reviews and assesses forest policies. Forests are generally administered by state forest departments. GoI has organized nearly 100,000 joint forest management committees (JFMCs) in partnership with forest departments to support community-based forestry. JFMCs are now working towards sustainable management of more than 22 MHa of forests.

22. The Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers (MoCF) is responsible for production and distribution of fertilizers. The MCF has three departments: Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Department of Fertilizers, and Department of Pharmaceuticals.

23. The Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) manages development of rural India. MoRD has two departments: Department of Rural Development and Department of Land Resources. Related programs include the Integrated Watershed Management Programme.

Policy and Legal Framework

24. The legal framework for agriculture includes the: Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914, Agriculture Produce (Grading & Marking) Act, 1937, The Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Fertilizer Control Order (1957), National Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC) Act, 1962, Seeds Act (1966), Insecticides Act (1968), Coconut Development Board Act, (CDB) Act. 5 of 1979, The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act (2001), National Seed Policy (2002), and Food Safety and Standards Act (2006), and the National Food Security Act (2013). The Cattle Trespass Act (1871, amended 1921) allows state governments to control livestock damage.

25. The organic acts covering wildlife conservation and protected areas are the Wildlife (Protection) Act (1972) and Biological Diversity Act (2002). Forests are regulated according to the Forest Act (1927), the Forest Conservation Act (1980), the National Forest Policy (1988), and the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Dwellers Recognition of Forest Rights Act (2006). The Environment Protection Act (1986) governs pollution abatement.

Threats and Impacts

26. As the human population grows and economic expectations change, India is understandably pushing forward an agenda predicated on increasing production. However, unsustainable agricultural practices are a primary driver of reduced ecosystem services across rural India. The underlying causes of this are many. India’s agricultural policy framework largely decides how agriculture operates across India. Annual government investments and subsidies represent hundreds of millions


of dollars. By effecting private and public sectors, financial and regulatory incentives prioritize types of agricultural approaches (e.g., crop selection) adopted by millions of farmers nationally.

27. Existing policies that determine the direction of agriculture practices at national, state and district levels do not generally integrate conservation concerns. In addition, agricultural investments and policies do not distinguish between locations of different ecological value, e.g., highly productive landscapes and protected areas. This is a critical underlying driver of degradation. Public and private agricultural interests in high conservation value landscapes are generally subject to the same policies as agricultural interests at lower conservation priority landscapes. As a result, farmers operating in high conservation value landscapes rarely receive meaningful incentives and related capacity support to adopt more conservation oriented agriculture approaches.

28. This underlying cause is further compounded by a fairly limited amount of strategic coordination between agencies responsible for agriculture, forestry, ecosystem services, and biodiversity conservation at national, state and district levels. This compartmentalization of mandates often challenges harmonization between conservation and production priorities. This often leads to conflicting on-the-ground approaches. The result is that India has made advances to make agriculture more sustainable in some locations. However, there are no working models of agriculture delivering both productive value and conservation benefits at a scale necessary to provide meaningful global environmental benefits. Even monitoring does not take place regarding the impacts of various agriculture practices to inform national, state and district level decision-making.

29. The negative conservation impacts of agriculture are particularly problematic at high conservation value landscapes where convergence of agriculture production and support for biodiversity conservation, SFM, and LD should be paramount. If this situation is not changed and underlying causes not addressed, the negative impacts of unsustainable agriculture will accelerate with cumulative impacts to biodiversity loss, land degradation, unsustainable forest management, and climate change.

30. Biodiversity Loss: The adverse environmental impacts of agriculture are often most pronounced at high-conservation-value locations such as key biodiversity areas, forested lands, and protected areas. India’s protected areas are predominately located in relatively remote rural areas often defined by small-scale farming and open-access common-property resources such as pastures and village forests. Agricultural production at these sites was traditionally of low intensity, providing a buffer and corridors for critical habitats that maintained ecosystem services and offered refuge for biodiversity both inside and outside protected areas. However, WWF estimates that agriculture now directly threatens 12 of India’s 15 most important eco-regions.

31. IUCN found that agriculture threatens at least 84 of India’s red-listed species, including 11 critically endangered species, 41 endangered species, and 32 vulnerable species. India’s 5th National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2014) noted, “Land use change, especially the expansion and intensification of agriculture, is creating pressure on habitats in some regions of the country through loss and fragmentation of forests, grasslands, scrublands, wetlands and other habitats. Agricultural intensification leading to loss of habitat heterogeneity, effects of agrochemicals on wild species and pollution and eutrophication due to agricultural runoff also threaten both species and the habitats they occur in.” The National Environment Policy of India (2006) noted, “Wetlands are under threat from drainage and conversion for agriculture and human settlements, besides pollution.” India’s 5th National Report to the CBD (2014) noted that the “pressures of livestock grazing on forests and grasslands are severe.” Overgrazing is reducing available habitat for wild species, generating human-wildlife conflicts, and increasing rates of desertification and land degradation. The National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan noted that loss of habitats and over-exploitation have led to depletion of genetic diversity of several wild animals and cultivated plants.

32. Agrobiodiversity Loss: Farmers in India are moving away from the use of traditional crop varieties, livestock breeds, and practices with associated losses of globally significant species and genetic diversity. This is done in part via higher-yielding “modern” varieties. Mono-cropping is


becoming more prevalent. Crops such as Bt cotton, rice9, and maize are replacing traditional crops such as finger millet, black gram, and pigeon pea. India’s indigenous breeds are being lost at an alarming rate with approximately 10 indigenous cattle breeds, 4 varieties of buffalo, 8 sheep varieties, 6 goat varieties, 4 camel varieties, 6 horse varieties, and 14 poultry varieties estimated to be in rapid decline as a result of changing agricultural practices.

33. Land Degradation: Agriculture contributes to the degradation of approximately 120.40 MHa or 36.6% of India’s land base. Degradation of India’s land includes water and wind erosion (94 MHa), soil acidity (17.93 MHa), soil alkalinity/ sodicity (3.71 MHa), soil salinity (2.73 MHa), and water logging (0.91 MHa). The remaining 0.26 MHa of degraded lands are impacted cumulatively by non-agricultural sources such as mining and industrial waste. Land degradation linked to agricultural practices results the loss of nearly 5.3 billion tons (Gt) of soil per year. Approximately 29% of those eroded soils are deposited in the sea and 10% contribute to reservoir siltation. Land degradation is resulting in the severe loss of soil productivity. The Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) and the National Academy for Agricultural Sciences estimate that 71% of India’s cultivated fields or 100 MHa of croplands are moving towards conditions that would no longer support farming. Removal or burning of crop residues, reduced manuring, intensive cropping, imbalanced and excessive applications of fertilizers and pesticides, and sub-plow soil compaction result in a decline in soil fertility in many areas. Extensive irrigation schemes are resulting in declining quality and quantity of both ground and surface water resources. Excessive tillage contributes to declining soil organic matter and erosion. In many parts of the country, the amount of agro-chemical use has increased dramatically. The national average consumption of fertilizers has remained stable (144 kg per ha in 2011-12), but very high variability has been observed in fertilizer consumption among the states.

34. Forest Degradation: Agriculture often contributes to forest degradation due to both unsustainable cultivation and grazing practices. As human populations expand and agricultural practices intensify, pressures upon forest resources mount. This includes both the rate of forest loss and the overharvest of forest resources. Rural agricultural communities in India have traditionally relied upon wildlife, fuel wood, and NTFPs for sustenance, medicine, and commerce. About 80% of rural dwellers rely on fuel wood, which provides 40% of India’s energy. Fuel wood consumption is estimated at 270 million tons (Mt) annually. Land clearing for agriculture continues to drive deforestation. Over-use of rangelands and forest areas by domestic animals significantly impacts ecosystems, particularly in communal lands in or near areas of high biodiversity value. Agriculture, particularly over-grazing, often drives unsustainable forest practices in India.

35. Degradation of Fresh Water: Agriculture places huge demands upon India’s limited water resources. India is the world’s largest consumer of ground water. The nation accounts for nearly one-fourth of annual global groundwater extraction. Increasingly extensive and intensive groundwater irrigation has significantly drawn down water tables throughout much of the country. From 2002 to 2008, groundwater levels in northwestern India fell about 2 m despite normal to above-average rainfall. This represents a loss of about 109 km3 of groundwater, twice the capacity of the Upper Wainganga Reservoir (India’s largest). A 2010 study by the World Bank found that ground water extraction in India’s agricultural sector has profound ecological and social impacts. Inappropriate use of agro-chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides is a major source of water pollution.

36. Climate Change: Climate change is an emerging threat that will accelerate the loss of productivity and the adverse ecological impacts of agriculture. For example, increased intensity of rain events will lead to higher rates of erosion. Extended periods of drought will deplete resilience of threatened biodiversity. Ground water depletion will increase as recharge capacity is limited. Habitats currently pushed to the brink of ecological collapse will be further threatened by the compounding impacts of climate change.

37. Agriculture is a predominant factor in CCM. About one-fourth of India’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 2.07 GtCO2e (2013 estimate) arise from the agricultural sector. Agricultural

9 Outside its endemic range


contributions to India’s total GHG emissions comprise enteric fermentation (59.5%), rice cultivation (20.9%), agricultural soils (16.3%), crop residues (1.9%), and manure management (1.4%).

38. According to Bhatia, Jain, & Pathak (2013), “The annual direct and indirect N2O-N emissions from Indian agricultural soils were estimated to be 118.67 Gg (55.5 Tg CO2 equivalent) and 19.48 Gg (9.1 Tg CO2 equivalent), respectively. The global warming potential of the agricultural soils was estimated to be 148 Tg for the year 2007. Emissions from field burning of agricultural residues resulted in an annual emission of 250 Gg of CH4 (6.2 Tg CO2 equivalent) and 6.5 Gg of N2O (1.9 Tg CO2 equivalent). Emission of CH4 from Indian rice fields has remained almost constant during this period whereas there has been an increase of 176% in N2O emissions from agricultural soils due to increased inorganic fertilizer application, however the greenhouse gas emission intensity has declined over the years due to increase in food production.”

39. A study by Prasad, Stinner, Cardina, Moore, Gupta, Tsuruta, Tanabe, Badarinath, & Hoy (2003) found, “Results suggest that total N2O-N emissions [in India] (direct, animal waste and indirect sources) increased ~6.1 times from ~0.048 to ~0.294 Tg N2O-N, over 40 years. Source-wise breakdown of emissions from 1961–2000 indicated that during 1961 most of the N2O-N inputs were from crop residues (61%) and biological nitrogen fixation (25%), while during 2000 the main sources were synthetic fertilizer (~48%) and crop residues (19%). Direct emissions increased from ~0.031 to ~0.183 Tg. It is estimated that ~3.1% of global N2O-N emissions comes from India. Trends in food production, primarily cereals (rice, wheat and coarse grains) and pulses, and fertilizer consumption from 1961–2000 suggest that food production (cereals and pulses) increased only 3.7 times, while nitrogenous fertilizer consumption increased ~43 times over this period, leading to extensive release of nitrogen to the atmosphere.”

40. India’s REDD+ states that forests neutralize about 11% of India’s GHG emissions with forest loss and degradation associated with unsustainable impacting CCM. According to the 2013 Forestry Assessment, almost 25% of India’s forest areas have inadequate regeneration and 10% of all forest areas have almost no regeneration. Approximately 75% of India’s forest areas are negatively affected by grazing.

Long-term Solution

41. GoI aims to transform India’s agricultural sector to contribute to the achievement of global environmental objectives. This is particularly urgent across productive landscapes associated with locations of highest ecological value such as protected areas and key biodiversity areas. Agriculture should contribute to the reduction of land degradation, increase forest conservation, and deliver significant co-benefits for climate change mitigation and adaptation. This will help secure critical ecosystem services upon which rural Indians and globally significant biodiversity rely.

42. To achieve this long-term solution, GoI aims to apply a strategic and informed approach to agriculture that fully integrates global environmental objectives. Interventions should prioritize areas of highest ecological value and be tailored to fit unique challenges of diverse ecosystems. Decision-makers across sectors should be empowered to assimilate global environmental objectives into the productive landscape. The actions of natural resource management decision-makers at national, state, and local levels should be more harmonized. Cooperative management between protected areas, local resource users, and agricultural agencies should be innovated and operationalized.

43. GoI aims to mainstream ecologically sustainable agricultural approaches within policies designed to address all aspects of production, including cropping, grazing, fertilizer use, irrigation, marketing, sustainable rural livelihoods, land use planning, and gender-related issues. The performance of financial and technical investments in India’s agricultural sector should be measured not only by production results, but also by indicators that measure achievement of global environmental benefits. Decision-making at all levels should be informed by rigorous monitoring to identify impacts and progress towards achievement of concrete BD, LD, CCM, and SFM objectives.

44. GoI aims for substantive, quantifiable, and tangible conservation advances from India’s agricultural sector. Agriculturalists should have the knowledge, tools and incentives required to adopt


improved practices. Pathways for farmers to access knowledge and information regarding the best international and national practices for conservation should be strengthened. This requires building the capacity of service providers such as extension officers to deliver information and for recipient stakeholders to appreciate and understand more fully their abilities to help address global environmental issues. Innovative tools should be applied to support better information sharing at the farmer-to-farmer level. Centres of agricultural excellence should be operational, showing the potential benefits of improved practices by identifying beneficial convergence between biodiversity, sustainable land management, sustainable forest management, and climate change mitigation. Demonstrating conservation should be realized at a landscape level, so that agriculture supports conservation at an ecologically significant scale.

Barriers

45. Two primary barriers stand between the current situation and the desired long-term solution.

Barrier 1: Agricultural sector does not fully integrate environmental concerns

46. The Government of India is committed to promoting the achievement of global conservation objectives. However, the existing governance system for agriculture hinders progress. There is limited experience with the integration of biodiversity conservation, land degradation, CCM, and SFM issues within agricultural policies and related institutional frameworks. Under the current situation, the agricultural governance framework is focused on production, without adequate environmental or conservation safeguards. The current agricultural system is based largely upon promoting outputs rather than outcomes. As a result, agricultural investments and support systems are not directed towards the promotion of ecosystem-based solutions. Removing this barrier requires building the capacity of cultivators, and decision-makers at all levels, to mainstream global conservation values within agriculture. This barrier is particularly challenging in areas of higher biodiversity value.

47. India has an understandable and persistent need to provide food security for a growing population and invests heavily into the agricultural sector. In the 1950s, India made an explicit commitment to agricultural development. Central and state policies and associated programs and investments continue to reflect this mandate. These policies have led to substantial increases in agricultural production, but often at the cost of increased environmental consequences. Rather than considering environmental outcomes or impacts as part of the overall agricultural picture, implemented programs tend to focus primarily upon production values and outputs provided.

48. Institutional frameworks need to align better at national, state, and local levels to encourage better coordination of agricultural production with the achievement of global conservation objectives. Stakeholders require greater access to information regarding best international and national principles and practices. Stakeholders require better tools and information to guide evidence-based policy adjustments that increase convergence between environmental objectives and livelihood improvements. These stakeholders need evidence from rigorous monitoring and information management showing that improved agricultural practices translate into more sustainable livelihoods and reduce risks to agricultural production while simultaneously promoting the conservation of critical species, ecosystems, and ecosystem services. They require the tools necessary to understand and measure how agricultural decisions affect biodiversity conservation, land degradation, sustainable forest management, and climate change mitigation. This capacity must then be mainstreamed within policies and investments at the national, state, and local level to drive “on-the-ground” improvements.

49. Production of key agricultural commodities is largely driven by price supports and market demand rather than agro-climates and other environmental parameters. Most policies strongly encourage production of a narrow range of crops that require significant inputs. Agricultural policies do not adequately encourage environmentally friendly practices or discourage environmentally harmful actions. These factors impede achievement of objectives related to soil health and land degradation. For example, farmers grow heavily irrigated crops in very arid regions as a result of political guarantees of free or nearly free electricity for groundwater extraction and inexpensive or


free access to water. Biodiversity conservation is not fully mainstreamed within agricultural decision-making frameworks.

50. The National Food Security Act (NFSA) guarantees the purchase and price of only wheat, rice, and coarse grains.10 NFSA misses opportunities to support more fully various national strategies for nutrition, soil health, water security, biodiversity, and financial sustainability. Fertilizer subsidies are currently paid to producers, such that farmers benefit from the subsidy only if they buy and use fertilizer, especially heavily supported urea. Direct payment of subsidies to farmers rather than to producers would allow farmers more discretion over outcome-based investments and provide an incentive for need-based application of fertilizers. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) facilitates employment of rural labourers for rural development projects and includes a mechanism for direct payments. MGNREGA’s direct payment scheme has increased efficiencies, reduced leakages, improved transparency and accountability, provided faster payments to beneficiaries, reduced opportunities for beneficiary fraud, and reduced opportunities for benefit-related exploitation.

51. Numerous policies and investments promote sustainable farming practices. However, these divergent investments do not adequately converge with conservation goals. There is a particular lack of governance systems to support better integration of agricultural production with protected area management, buffer zone conservation, and general biodiversity conservation. As a result, the large body of policies and investments do not fully address this barrier.

52. The 2008 National Biodiversity Action Plan (NBAP) was updated in 2014. Many of the updated targets include better management of human effects on biodiversity and associated habitats surrounding protected areas. NBAP prioritizes conservation of agro-biodiversity and calls for greater policy harmonization to avoid adverse impacts to biodiversity. This includes integration of biodiversity concerns in economic and social development.

53. The National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) advocates strategies for India to achieve co-benefits between climate change mitigation and adaptation. Part of this effort is to integrate with National Missions on Water, Green India, Enhanced Energy Efficiency, Solar, and Climate Change. NMSA calls for a multi-stakeholder committee to coordinate and support its implementation, but NMSA does not integrate issues pertaining to biodiversity.

54. The Traditional Agriculture Development Programme supports the expansion of organic production. The National Mission for Green India provides investments to address climate change through improving forestry practices, including across the productive agricultural landscape. The National Initiative on Climate-resilient Agriculture (NICRA) promotes adaptation in the agricultural sector. The National Agro-forestry Policy is designed to support the integration of trees and shrubs within the agricultural landscapes. The National Livestock Mission advocates for greater fodder production, but does not adequately address SFM.

55. Agro-biodiversity can deliver substantial environmental benefits with traditional crops and livestock varieties generally better adapted and more compatible with ecological conditions. However, agro-biodiversity is not integrated into some of the largest and most influential agricultural programs in India, such as the National Food Security Act or the Mid-Day Meals Programme.

56. A more strategic and coordinated policy approach that integrates global conservation objectives could deliver monumental changes. Even relatively small shifts in India’s enormous policy and investment framework could yield out-sized benefits. Simply coordinating current output-driven subsidies and programs to orient toward outcomes of global environmental benefits would help tremendously. Establishing programmatic links between agricultural policies and biodiversity conservation policies could potentially impact millions of hectares of degraded habitat.

57. The National Biodiversity Authority aims to coordinate implementation and efforts related to India’s Biological Diversity Act (2002). The authority has sub-boards located in 29 states and has established nearly 38,000 Biodiversity Management Committees. National Biodiversity Authority has

10 Although NFSA covers coarse grains, purchases typically comprise at least 97% wheat and rice.


representation from agriculture agencies, forestry agencies, and environment agencies. However, this authority has not integrated biodiversity concerns into agricultural policies and initiatives. The potential for such approaches is being demonstrated, but not to the level required to address this barrier.

58. Actual approaches will need to be established through multi-level participatory processes, and approaches will therefore differ by location. However, initial work in the preparation of this proposal suggests several possible approaches. Outcome-based subsidies related to soil organic matter (e.g., a 1% increase), water table levels (e.g., a sustained 50-cm rise), or tree cover (e.g., a 5% increase) would drive the sorts of effort and innovation that are urgently needed for these outcomes. Critically, these interventions would likely simultaneously increase the effectiveness of the subsidies while also either reducing subsidy costs or increasing the value to the recipients for the same cost. Moreover, subsidies could be reconfigured slightly so that whereas a large portion is available for farm-level outcomes, additional outcome-based subsidies are available for outcomes at the village/ landscape level, and possibly higher (e.g., sub-district). This structuring of incentives encourages farmers to coordinate in ways that strengthen communities and achieve the desired scale of outcomes, including enhanced community assets (e.g., biodiversity is typically better assessed at a landscape or sub-district level than at farm level). This project will pursue policy-related opportunities at state and district levels to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of baseline activities and the program’s broader initiatives.

59. Decentralized decision-making for the nutritional guidelines of the Mid-Day Meals Scheme would provide a basis for improving community nutritional education, increase the demand for foods that promote better nutrition, and thereby increase demand for crops that promote agro-biodiversity—especially agro-biodiversity that is locally endemic and adapted. Such approaches generate demand for sustainable land and water management, agroforestry crops, and land-use practices with climate-change benefits. For example, increased demand for locally adapted crops and breeds would reduce over-extraction of surface water for irrigation, a major threat to Gangetic dolphins and gharials. Such a shift would also improve the supply efficiency of the Mid-Day Meals Scheme, reduce post-harvest losses, reduce transportation emissions, and facilitate sourcing from local farmers. Instead, the current system relies on a few crop varieties that are transported and distributed across the country. With a slight policy adjustment, farmers would have a strong market incentive for more sustainable practices, and the demand would help to reinforce local farmer institutions. Local control would also improve ownership, transparency, and accountability, because communities would be more directly involved in the decision-making for their children’s nutrition and their local economies.

60. Locally adapted crops and breeds also require fewer inputs, which often pose threats to biodiversity. For example, diclofenac given to cattle in India caused the deaths of over 90% of several species of endangered vultures in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Asian white-backed vulture, Indian vulture, and slender-billed vulture). Unsustainable agricultural practices pose numerous and varied threats to conservation efforts. Excessive irrigation, erosion, loss of riparian tree cover, siltation, and leachates from nitrogen and synthetic chemicals pose significant risks to aquatic biodiversity.

61. Several benefits could be gained by aligning the National Food Security Act with the National Food Security Mission, the National Nutrition Mission, and biodiversity-related initiatives, particularly by including NFSM-advocated crops in the NFSA (e.g., pulses, which reduce the need for urea fertilization, fix nitrogen, and are generally high in protein and zinc). Likewise, minor shifts in funding criteria for large central programs could significantly alter state-level activities. Numerous policies offer opportunities for very large benefits as a result of relatively easily achievable shifts such as these. This program aims to provide (i) the evidence and road maps needed to make those shifts, (ii) context-specific suggestions for ensuring that the shifts are effective, generalizable, and politically viable, and (iii) technical advice based on lessons learned from other countries.

Barrier 2: Limited examples of highly effective landscape level agricultural production practices

62. India has made solid progress with environmental conservation. For instance, the nation has a very large system of protected areas, extensive programs promoting SFM, and a well-established


network of agricultural extension officers. States such as Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have thousands of hectares under non-pesticide management production systems. However, these efforts are not generally designed or coordinated to deliver cumulative or landscape-level benefits. India continues to strive to set in place working examples of agriculture that more fully integrates environmental concerns capable of informing national and state policies. GoI’s desired long-term solution requires working examples of how agriculture can be successfully transformed to deliver environmental benefits. India has precious few examples of well-coordinated, farm-level efforts strategically aligned to deliver ecosystem-based solutions. Those that exist tend to be highly localized. India’s numerous, specialized centres of excellence rarely demonstrate the multiple environmental benefits that can result from improved agricultural practices. This is particularly absent at locations with high levels of biodiversity value, such as near protected areas.

63. Agricultural support and extension services are not tailored to prioritize the achievement of conservation benefits where they are most needed. Agricultural production tools and approaches are not specifically designed to deliver tangible conservation impacts to support the ecological integrity of protected areas. Current market incentives and extension support services are generally not customized to meet the specific conservation priorities of unique ecosystems. India does not have integrated, replicable examples of farmers working together to build consensus and strategically align individual production practices that are compatible with specific biodiversity conservation objectives. There are no working examples of large groups of farmers strategically coordinating for conservation benefits across broad landscapes, including protected areas and associated buffer zones.

64. Agriculturalists living in or near protected areas have little incentive or access to the tools and financing to shift current practices towards more sustainable models. Farmers are understandably risk-averse when it comes to adoption of new practices that may result in a temporary decrease in production. GoI seeks to reorient governmental market and production supports, extension services, and capacity building to incentivize the adoption of pro-conservation agricultural practices.

65. The most effective way to catalyse transformational change is to empower and motivate decentralized learning. However, extension officers and others tasked with providing insights and guidance to local agriculturalists do not have the full capacity to provide small-scale agriculturalists with the knowledge necessary to achieve conservation benefits. Agricultural extension services generally do not have the tools and capacities to equip farmers with the understanding required to support agricultural production and maintenance of ecosystem services. The agricultural extension architecture at the federal level comprises a network of Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVK) under DARE and Agriculture Technology Management Agencies (ATMAs) under DACFW. India’s extension services are still predominantly modelled as means of input supply. Extension emphasizes production and productivity. Success indicators and targets for extension officers’ performance relate to amounts of inputs dispersed rather than to social or ecological results. Extension services do not generally have the full capacity (e.g., knowledge, staffing and funding gaps) and incentives to monitor impacts to biodiversity, measure soil organic matter, or assess land erosion rates relevant to on-going agricultural practices.

66. The Farmer Field School approach is used in parts of India. However, existing FFS models are generally not designed for the specific purpose of mainstreaming landscape conservation approaches and concerns. These FFSs do not generally integrate conservation objectives related to broader issues such as biodiversity. They are not designed to support farmers in areas of highest ecological value to work towards the promotion of long-term biodiversity benefits. Existing FFS models do not work to coordinate farm-level efforts across an entire ecosystem or landscape. Indian farmers tend to support panchayats, local governance structures that generally ensure inclusiveness and representation. The Ministry of Agriculture reports that farmers usually want tools to strengthen more cooperative approaches, bolster their ability to negotiate, agree on best practices, achieve economies of scale, and improve their collective capacities to conserve shared natural resources. However, agricultural policies and support services have not yet capitalized on these interests, particularly in terms of promoting the delivery and conservation of ecosystems services across multiple farms in or near areas of high conservation value.


67. India has not yet adopted viable models for capturing and upscaling best conservation agricultural practices and embedding them within institutional frameworks. Farm-level evidence on the achievement of conservation objectives has not yet been aggregated into a coherent mosaic with clear justifications for urgently needed policy transformations. Because demonstrations of best practices do not exist at scale, there is little ability to monitor results and to use these results to inform national and state policies that drive agricultural investments. The farmer should be the primary level for testing, evaluating, and reporting on the effects of new practices. Lacking information and experience with integrated, ecosystem-based farming practices, existing policies and associated large-scale investments remain focused on outputs, rather than outcomes. Even if such demonstrations existed, systems are not in place to ensure that evidence from improved agricultural practices is transferred to decision-makers, allowing for lessons learned to be absorbed into policy regimes and subsequently up-scaled.

1.2 Baseline scenarios or any associated baseline projects

Government of India

68. GoI is committed to and invests heavily in the improvement of both environmental conservation and agricultural sustainability. Following is a brief summary of current initiatives and investments. This extensive baseline will be fully detailed during the PPG phase, including relevant national and state actions at priority locations.

69. GoI invests significantly to stimulate agricultural development. The central plan outlay for MoAFW for 2015-16 is approximately US$ 1.6 billion. In addition, the 2015-16 Union budget includes investments of approximately US$ 3.9 billion for the Rural Infrastructure Development Fund, US$ 231 million for the long-term rural credit fund, US$ 6.93 billion for the short-term cooperative rural credit finance fund, and US$ 3.85 billion for the short-term Regional Rural Bank (RRB) refinance fund. The 2015-16 target for agricultural credit investment is approximately US$ 130.9 billion.

70. GoI and private-industry partners recognize that some initiatives are financially and environmentally unsustainable. The 2014-15 central government budget allocated 72,970.3 crore (~$12.16 billion) in fertilizer subsidies. Natural gas prices account for about 80% of urea production costs for non-naphtha factories. (Roughly 80% of India’s urea factories are gas-based.) In 2008, a spike in gas prices caused the central government’s fertilizer budget to jump from 43,000 crore in 2007-08 to 99,500 crore in 2008-09 (~$7.17 billion and $16.58 billion, respectively)—a 214% jump. By end-March, 2015, the central government owed approximately 40,000 crore (~$6.67 billion) in arrears to fertilizer companies, about 75% of which to urea manufacturers.

71. The Central Plan Outlay of the MoEF&CC for 2015-16 is approximately US$ 252 million. Total estimated funding for biodiversity conservation during 2013-2014 in India was approximately USD 1482.68 million spread across 23 Ministries and Departments, and over 77 schemes. There has been a steady increase in the budgetary allocation of MoEF&CC since 1992 under all major heads. From an average annual outlay of US $ 96.55 million in 1992-1993, the outlay in 2013-2014 was US$ 477.59 million. The 11th Plan (2007-2012) approved budgetary outlay for MoEF&CC was INR 100,000 million whereas the 12th Plan (2012-2017) approved budgetary outlay for MoEF&CC is INR 178,740 million, an increase of 78.74%

72. GoI has marshalled extensive resources to address these identified barriers. This includes funding large-scale central programs such as RKVY (the National Agriculture Development Program; 2014/15 budget allocation: 9,864 crore ≈ $1.64 billion), the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA; 2014/15 budget allocation: 33,353 crore ≈ $5.60 billion) the National Food Security Act (NFSA; 2014/15 budget allocation: 102,000 crore ≈ $17 billion), and the Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP; 2014/15 budget allocation: 3,464 crore ≈ $577M). The government also invests directly in more targeted missions, programs, and initiatives.

73. India is widely known for supporting community forest management and conservation. Joint forest management (JFM) now extends to all states with about 120,000 JFM committees involving


about 14.5 million families managing over 20 MHa of forest. Certification is done through the Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM). The JFM system constitutes a strong baseline upon which to build.

74. Short descriptions of the most critically relevant programs are listed below. Additional, relevant programs are listed in the annexes. Not all of these will likely participate as direct partners or co-financiers, but alignment, convergence, and synergies will be sought wherever possible, particularly across MoAFW and MoEF&CC programs.

National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) . (2014/15 budget allocation: US$ 316M) As the primary baseline program for the proposed programmatic approach, NMSA seeks to transform Indian agriculture into a climate-resilient production system through suitable adaptation and mitigation measures in the domain of crops and animal husbandry. NMSA has four primary programmatic areas: (i) rain-fed area development, (ii) on-farm water management, (iii) soil health management, and (iv) climate change and sustainable agriculture—monitoring, modelling, and networking. The proposed GEF program will align with all four of NMSA’s primary program areas. NMSA addresses these areas via research and development activities, absorption of improved technology and best practices, creation of physical and financial infrastructure and institutional framework, facilitating access to information, and promoting capacity building. NMSA will execute the bulk of its current programs between 2010 and 2017, targeting 35 MHa.

National Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (NMIDH) . (2014/15 budget allocation: US$ 367M) The main objectives of NMIDH are: (i) to provide holistic growth of the horticultural sector through regionally differentiated strategies that include research, technology promotion, extension, post-harvest management, processing, and marketing, in consonance with comparative advantages of each state/ region and its diverse agro-climatic features; (ii) to improve horticultural production, nutritional security, and income support to farm households; (iii) to establish convergence and synergy among multiple on-going and planned programs for horticultural development; (iv) to promote, develop, and disseminate technologies through a seamless blend of traditional wisdom and modern scientific knowledge; and (v) to create opportunities for employment generation for skilled and unskilled persons, especially unemployed youth. NMIDH also aims to integrate multi-purpose tree species into the mission’s elements in order to contribute, inter alia, to GHG sinks and livelihood diversification.

National Livestock Mission . This mission was launched in 2014-15 to ensure quantitative and qualitative improvement in livestock production systems and capacity building of all stakeholders. The mission comprises four sub-missions on (i) holistic livestock development, (ii) fodder and feed development, (iii) porcine development in the northeast, and (iv) skill development, technology transfer, and extension. This mission is an important baseline for this project’s biodiversity, LD, CCM, and SFM targets, given the contribution of livestock to India’s GHG emissions, land and forest degradation, and land-use changes.

Rashtriya Gokul Mission . (2014/15 budget allocation: US$ 25M) This mission develops, preserves, conserves, and promotes India’s indigenous breeds, including 37 indigenous breeds of cattle. Indigenous cattle in India are robust, resilient, and particularly suited to the climates and environs of their respective regions. They have high heat tolerance, disease resistance, and hardiness despite sub-optimal grazing.

Traditional Agriculture Development Programme (Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Pariyojana) . (2015/16 budget allocation: US$ 50M) This initiative promotes (i) organic farming, (ii) eco-friendly forms of cultivation that reduce dependency on agro-chemicals and fertilizers, and (iii) more efficient and widespread utilization of locally available natural resources.

National Mission for Green India (NMGI) . (2014/15 budget allocation: US$ 13.3M) NMGI aims to address climate change by (i) enhancing carbon sinks in sustainably managed forests and ecosystems, (ii) enhancing the resilience and ability of vulnerable species/ ecosystems to adapt to the changing climate, and (iii) enabling adaptation of forest-dependent local communities in the


face of climatic variability. There are three main objectives of the mission: (i) double the area under afforestation/ eco-restoration in India in 10 years (20 MHa), (ii) increase the GHG removal by India’s forests to 6.35% of India’s annual total GHG emissions by 2020, and (iii) enhance the resilience of forests/ ecosystems.

National Initiative on Climate-resilient Agriculture (NICRA) . (2014/15 budget allocation: US$ 16.7M) Initiated by ICAR in the 2010/11 budget cycle, NICRA aims to enhance the resilience of agricultural production to climate variability in vulnerable regions by (i) enhancing the climate resilience of Indian agriculture via improved production and risk management technologies, (ii) demonstrating site-specific technological packages on farmers’ fields for adapting to current climate risks, and (iii) enhancing the capacity-building of scientists and other stakeholders in climate-resilient agricultural research and its applications. The project comprises (i) strategic research on adaptation and mitigation, (ii) demonstrations on farmers’ fields of technologies to cope with current climate variability, (iii) sponsored and competitive research grants to fill critical research gaps, and (iv) capacity-building for various stakeholders.

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) . This act aims to enhance the security of the livelihoods of rural poor by guaranteeing 100 days of wage employment to a rural household whose adult members volunteer for manual work. In addition to generating employment, MGNREGA also works towards asset creation in rural areas, both for community benefit and individual livelihood support. MoAFW targets the agricultural sector with schemes and programs that typically benefit individual farmers, though there are certain interventions that collectively benefit farming communities. Thus, MGNREGA has a high degree of convergence with agricultural initiatives and with the sorts of labour-intensive capital investments that will be supported by certain initiatives within this proposed GEF projects (e.g., earthworks for reduced erosion). MGNREGA also has a functional system for direct payments to rural households.

National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) . This institute manages the plant genetic resources of the country in collaboration with various institutions of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and state agricultural universities.

National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources (NBAGR) . This institute has the mandate of identification, evaluation, characterization, conservation, and utilization of livestock and poultry genetic resources of the country

National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Insects (NBAII) . This institute acts as a nodal agency for collection, characterization, documentation, conservation, exchange, and utilization of agriculturally important insect resources for sustainable agriculture.

National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) . This statutory and independent body is responsible for the implementation of the National Biodiversity Act (2003).

National Mission on Agricultural Extension and Technology . This mission consists of four sub-missions on agricultural extension, planting material, agricultural mechanization, plant protection, and plant quarantine.

National Mission on Strategic Knowledge on Climate Change . As one of the eight national missions that form the core of the National Action Plan, the NMSKCC seeks to build a dynamic knowledge system that informs and supports national actions aimed at ecologically sustainable development.

National Agro-forestry Policy . This mission provides guidance on related MoAFW activities, specifically via policies that promote land-use systems that integrate trees and shrubs on farmlands and rural landscapes to enhance productivity, profitability, diversity, and ecosystem sustainability.

International Agency Baseline


75. India has a very large and complex international agency baseline. ADB, DFID, KfW, USAID, GIZ, and many other bilateral/ multilateral agencies make sizeable contributions to India’s environmental, rural development, and agricultural initiatives. Many of these projects and investments will become part of the project’s co-financing strategy. An indicative set is listed in the budget outline above and full details will be described during the PPG phase.

76. The World Bank’s investment program for agricultural and allied sectors in India has an estimated value of approximately US$ 3.33 billion (active projects) and US$ 510 million (in pipeline) including both grants and loans. The bulk of this effort focuses upon increasing productivity. Key Bank contributions to environmental protection and biodiversity conservation focus on developing effective systems and institutions to enable more efficient environmental management and reduced degradation of resources, including management of: (i) coasts, (ii) industrial pollution, and (iii) natural resources (particularly water), ecosystems, and biodiversity. Key Bank projects such as Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Sustainable Livelihoods and Adaptation to Climate Change focus on innovative approaches and strengthened systems.

77. IFAD has been present in India since 1979. India is the largest recipient of IFAD’s assistance with a permanent seat on the Executive Board. So far, 30 loans have been disbursed, covering investments of US$ 876 million, and US$ 2.5 billion have been mobilized for projects. The present IFAD portfolio includes 10 projects with a total lending of US$ 455 million, directly affecting approximately 9 million rural poor people. The IFAD Country Strategy 2011-2015 focused on reducing poverty of the rural poor, in particular vulnerable groups such as small and marginal farmers, tribal communities and women, with a strategic focus on increased access to agricultural technologies, inclusive natural resource management, increased access to financial services, and increased access to value chains.

78. UNDP supports GoI in meeting national development objectives and commitments under multilateral environmental agreements. Key areas of intervention are climate change (mitigation and adaptation), sustainable natural resource management (conserving biodiversity and addressing land degradation), and integrated chemical management (phasing out of ozone depleting substances and reducing persistent organic pollutants). Recent and current projects total around US$ 45 million (funded variously by AusAid, UNDP internal funds, and the GEF).

79. The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) is the official bilateral development assistance coordinating agency for the government of Japan. It is chartered with assisting economic and social growth in developing countries and promoting international cooperation. JICA finances numerous projects in India, including: Capacity Development for Forest Management and Personnel Training Project, Orissa Forestry Sector Development Project, Rajasthan Forestry and Biodiversity Project, Rajasthan Forestry Development Project, and the Afforestation and Pasture Development Project along Indira Gandhi Canal Area. JICA’s recent investments in the natural resources management sectors in India total approximately US$ 2.2 billion. The JICA-supported Rajasthan Forestry and Biodiversity Project (Phase 2) is an important baseline project.

80. FAO is well positioned to provide support for programming designed to facilitate convergence between agriculture and conservation, which is one of FAO’s five strategic objectives (Strategic Objective 2). FAO is a global leader in SLM and CSA expertise and project support. For example, FAO assisted GoI in designing and implementing policies and practices that reduced pesticide consumption in India by over 870 billion tons between 1990 and 2012 (estimated savings of $26 billion) while also maintaining historical trends in increased grain production. FAO has extensive experience with the design and implementation of approaches such as Farmer Field Schools and has developed numerous relevant tools, including (i) a Common Vision for Sustainable Agriculture to guide policy discussions such as those proposed in this project, (ii) the Sustainability Assessment for Food and Agriculture Systems, which provides guidance and tools (including a newly released mobile app) for tracking and reporting numerous dimensions and indicators of sustainability, (iii) RuralInvest software for value-chain development, (iv) the Monitoring Food and Agriculture Policy tool, and various other tools.


81. FAO India has initiated a technical co-operation program (TCP) to support the Forest Survey of India to upgrade its forest assessment and monitoring practices. Through this TCP project FAO will introduce internationally tested tools and technologies for preparing better plans and programs for mainstreaming biodiversity in forest and production landscapes. These would include codes of practice for SFM, integrated forest fire management strategies, revisions to reforestation strategy to incorporate SFM options such as local species/NTFP producing species. The new systems will feed into this proposed project.

82. As the UN’s centre of expertise for forestry, FAO is leading the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 and administers the Forest and Landscape Restoration Mechanism. FAO is also the secretariat for the Organic Research Centres Alliance (ORCA) and, as convener of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, prepares the State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Thus, FAO is very strongly positioned to guide the technical elements of the proposed project.

83. FAO-India supports progress in the areas of forestry, natural resource management (e.g., land, waterways, forests, crops, genetic diversity), food security, and the integration of conservation in productive landscapes. FAO-India played a critical role in the forestry and biodiversity conservation sectors by helping GoI set up the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) in 1982 and the Forest Survey of India (FSI) in 1981. FAO India developed and supported the implementation of “Smarter Smallholders”, a GEF-funded project designed to promote community-based climate adaptation in groundwater-irrigated agriculture in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. That project showed the benefits of smallholders working cooperatively to improve ground water management by applying innovative tools such as community operated weather stations, crop water budgeting, soil monitoring, crop monitoring, and better cropping patterns to achieve water conservation goals. Similar approaches can be applied to work with groups of farmers on larger landscapes to achieve convergence between a wider variety of objectives, including BD, SLM, SFM, and CCM. FAO-India has initiated a program to support FSI in updating its forest monitoring and assessment methodologies and capabilities and has supported WII to build capacities of PA managers of UNESCO World Natural Heritage sites in the Asia Pacific Region.

Civil Society Baseline

84. Numerous CSOs work across the agricultural and natural resource management sectors, offering a rich array of potential execution partners. For example, BAIF Development Research Foundation helps provide sustainable livelihoods to the rural poor through climate-resilient agriculture, management of natural resources, livestock development, watershed development, and mixed systems of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and livestock management. PRADAN promotes the livelihoods of rural poor people via socio-behavioural, technical, and managerial initiatives. PRADAN promotes self-help groups (SHGs), forest-based livelihoods, natural resource management, livestock development, and micro-enterprises. The Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) in Hyderabad is a professional resource organization that establishes models of sustainable agriculture in partnership with NGOs, CSOs, and policy-makers to scale up successes. CSA’s works on various aspects of land-use management, including sustainable production, green enterprises, and farmers’ institutions. The Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF) improves the knowledge and conservation of India’s unique and ecologically diverse wildlife heritage, in part, by conducting research on resource uses and related effects on wildlife and ecosystems. NCF uses this knowledge in collaboration with local communities to design locally appropriate conservation strategies.

Relevant GEF Programming

Project Title GEF Investment

Period Agency Project Objectives and Activities

Conservation and Management of Pollinators for Sustainable Agriculture

US$ 8,510,682

2013 - 2018

UNEP and FAO

To harness the benefits of pollination services provided by wild biodiversity for human livelihoods and sustainable agriculture, through




through an Ecosystem Approach Countries in Brazil | Ghana | India | Kenya | Nepal | Pakistan | South Africa

an ecosystem approach in selected countries

Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement

US$ 11,500,000

2009 - 2014

World Bank

To develop and promote news models of conservation at the landscape scale through enhanced capacity and institution building for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation outcomes

Mainstreaming Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plant Diversity in Three Indian States

US$ 4,935,000

2008 - 2015

UNDP This project strengthened the long-term conservation and sustainable use of India’s medicinal plant diversity, particularly of its globally significant species. The project mainstreamed conservation and sustainable use objectives into forest management policy and practice at the national, state, and local level in three Indian states: Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Uttarakhand. The project worked with at least 400 species of medicinal plants, including at least 80 globally significant species, several of which are critically endangered.

Strengthening the Enabling Environment for BD Conservation and Management in India

US$ 246,000

2012 - 2017

GEF-SEC

To provide assistance to India in meeting its national reporting requirements to CBD, including revision of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and preparation of the fifth National Report for Biodiversity and second National Report for Biosafety

Integrated Management of Wetland Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Water and Food Security

4,246,575 2013 - 2018

UNEP Enhanced management effectiveness of wetlands of national and global importance through strengthening their management partnership, economic case and mainstreaming at landscape level

Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity Conservation and Utilization in Agricultural Sector to Ensure Ecosystem Services and Reduce Vulnerability

3,196,347 2015 - 2020

UNEP To mainstream the conservation and use of agrobiodiversity for resilient agriculture and sustainable production to improve livelihood and access and benefit sharing capacity of farmer communities across four agro-ecoregions of India.

Developing an Effective Multiple Use Management Framework for Conserving Biodiversity in the Mountain Landscape of the High Ranges, Western Ghats

6,363,600 2014 - 2019

UNDP To protect biodiversity of the High Range Mountain Landscape (HRML) of the southern Western Ghats in peninsular India from existing and emergent threats through building an effective collaborative governance framework for multiple use management.

Integrated SLEM Approaches for Reducing Land Degradation and Desertification

US$ 4,900,000

2014 - 2019

World Bank

To scale up sustainable land and ecosystem management practices in selected semi-arid areas and to improve the monitoring of land degradation and desertification. Land users adopting sustainable land management practices as a result of the project; Streamlining of reporting on national indicators on land use/land use change. At least five States start using the online database/MIS built through project; Establishing a national knowledge exchange platform (community of practice) with at least 10 SLEM best practices disseminated using the knowledge platform




India Ecosystems Service Improvement Project

US$ 24 million

2015 - 2020

World Bank

To strengthen the institutional capacity of the Department of Forestry and community organizations. Components and activities include: to enhance forest ecosystem services and improve the livelihoods of forest dependent communities in Central Indian Highlands; Strengthening capacity and skills of government institutions for effective delivery of forestry and land management programs; Improving forest quality and productivity; and, Scaling up of integrated sustainable land and ecosystem management (SLEM) approaches for reducing land degradation and desertification.

1.3 Proposed alternative scenario with a brief description of expected outcomes and components of the project

Proposed GEF Alternative

85. The agricultural sector largely determines natural resource use and management in rural India. GoI recognizes the critical importance of transforming agricultural practices to become more sustainable. As a result, India has a substantial baseline and existing capacities upon which to build. However, the realities of population and poverty mean that India must be fundamentally concerned with issues related to food security and livelihoods. The resulting institutional framework, policies, and incentives are generally designed to promote increased agricultural production with little integration of fundamental conservation challenges.

86. The best conservation-oriented agricultural practices are urgently needed across critical “high conservation priority” habitats. India does not have a strategic program to incentivize landscape-level approaches to agricultural land uses that conserve water, land, forest, and wildlife resources in protected areas, buffer zones, and key biodiversity areas. Where sustainable agriculture is being demonstrated, agricultural investments and activities require better alignment with environmental priorities. In the existing scenario, agricultural policies and resulting incentives are too often applied with a standardized “one-size-fits-all” approach. Models of sustainable agriculture must show the benefits of aligning agricultural practices with ecosystem-based approaches, but best practices are rarely captured and collated for efficient delivery to user groups. This includes effective monitoring tools to inform cross-sectoral decision-making. These practices are largely absent in the existing scenario, leading to the erosion of ecological integrity.

87. GoI intends for this GEF investment to shift the existing scenario by leveraging enormous governmental resources and baseline initiatives to achieve an out-sized catalytic change. The project’s overall objective will be realized through the implementation of two components. The first component will address constraints in the enabling environment. The first component will set in place the tools required to strengthen the country’s enabling environment to enhance the capacity of the agricultural sector to deliver BD, SLM, SFM, and CCM benefits. The first component will help coordinate national, state and local approaches, including facilitating the adoption of appropriate fiscal and market incentives to promote or conserve diversity on-farm and across productive landscapes. The project will assist GoI in prioritizing efforts through the identification of high conservation-value areas where practices associated with unsustainable agricultural practices threaten ecological integrity. Strategically directing attention towards priority landscapes will help increase efficiency, innovation, and impact.

88. The second component will demonstrate on-the-ground conservation improvements designed to drive higher-level changes. Under the second component, the project will work in high conservation priority landscapes to demonstrate replicable “best practices”. Interventions will be designed to show


how ecosystem-based agricultural improvements can deliver social, production, and ecological benefits.

89. The project’s two components are well integrated to improve the environmental effects of agriculture in India, making certain policy reforms and on-the-ground action align to deliver impact and sustainable results. Component 1 facilitates a documented, shared understanding of sustainable agriculture in India across multiple sectors. That shared understanding is the basis for transitioning the policy environment at national and state levels to generate common metrics of success, prioritized areas to focus policy initiatives, and convergence of currently disparate policies. Component 1 also shifts agricultural policies from an output focus to an outcome focus. Together, these initiatives under Component 1 facilitate improved land-use practices that generate BD, LD, CCM, and SFM benefits via on-the-ground practices under Component 2. In turn, the efficacy of those policies and practices feed back into policy-making through the project-supported improvements in monitoring of environmental indicators. Both components are designed to integrate with and bridge gaps between national, state, district, and local institutions and priorities.

90. By project closure, global conservation objectives will be fully mainstreamed within the productive landscape in locations where biodiversity conservation is of highest concern. Partnerships between agencies at both the national and state level responsible for agricultural production and conservation will be much better coordinated to identify, engage, and monitor cooperative conservation practices effectively. Decision-makers will have the tools required to generate agricultural policies that more fully reflect environmental concerns and innovative practices. This will positively affect hundreds of millions of dollars in annual investment that currently impact millions of hectares of productive lands. Priority conservation landscapes across India will benefit from heightened levels of response, intervention, and innovative policy support.

91. The project will provide an evidential basis for transformational policy change. Decision-makers responsible for India’s agricultural and environmental sector will have the tools required to activate a new way of doing business. This new way of doing business will result in substantially addressing the sustainability of the agricultural sector and the ecological integrity of India’s most important ecosystems. The final results will positively impact high conservation value landscapes and be amplified to inform the India’s broader agricultural policy framework. This will ensure sustainable, transformative change across India’s agricultural landscape.

Project Objective

92. The project objective is to catalyze transformative change for India’s agricultural sector to support achievement of national and global environmental benefits and conserve critical biodiversity and forest landscapes.

Expected Outcomes and Components

Component 1: India’s agricultural sector mainstreaming BD, SLM, CCM and SFM across landscapes of highest conservation concern

93. Component 1 will address Barrier #1 (Agricultural sector does not fully integrate environmental concerns). The component will establish the tools required for policy-makers to mainstream biodiversity conservation, land degradation, sustainable forest management, and climate change mitigation solutions within the agricultural sector and across priority landscapes.

Output 1.1 Multi-sectoral platforms for sustainable agriculture established and operational

94. The project will facilitate the creation of national, state, and project site level coordination bodies. The MoAFW will be responsible for facilitating these activities. These coordinating bodies will support project design during the PPG phase and subsequent implementation. The coordinating bodies will serve as working groups. They will be tasked with providing active review and support for project activities. The bodies will be inter-sectoral. Each national, state, and project site level group will have representation from agencies and decision-makers responsible for issues required to


implement an integrated approach to mainstreaming conservation within agriculture. This will include stakeholders responsible for biodiversity conservation, agricultural production, forestry, and social services.

95. Throughout project implementation, the coordinating bodies will evolve into an institutional mechanism to coordinate implementation of the Green Landscape Conservation Strategy and associated programming at the national, state, and landscape levels. The working groups will help ensure that these documents and adopted actions reflect the best national and international principles and practices. The Ministry of Agriculture will serve as the lead agency responsible for facilitation of project catalysed institutional and policy improvements. The Ministry of Agriculture will take responsibility for assisting the Green-Ag coordination bodies evolve into a multi-sectoral platform for sustainable agriculture at the national, state, and district levels. These platforms will be serving as an institutional mechanism tasked with coordinating on-going implementation of the Green-Ag Strategy and associated programming by project close. Specific details including draft terms of reference will be elucidated during the full project development phase.

96. The working groups will provide a foundation for building broad-scale awareness, knowledge, and up-scaling of project success. The working groups will be the beneficiaries of a formal awareness-building program. As a technical support team, the groups will help ensure project activities fully reflect national, state, and local conservation and production priorities. The working groups will be instrumental in providing the political will and knowledge required to implement project actions successfully. The coordinating bodies will help to inform the Project Steering Committee. The working groups at all levels will benefit from the support of the project’s technical staff. Membership and terms of reference for the working groups will be designed during the PPG.

Output 1.2 Critical landscapes for conservation agriculture interventions identified and prioritized nationally

97. The project will catalyse the generation of a national Green Landscape Assessment. The assessment will identify and prioritize locations across India that most urgently require mainstreaming of conservation within agricultural practices. The ultimate aim will be to increase GoI’s efficiency and effectiveness in directing investments in Green-Ag to locations where interventions are most needed. The assessment will assist decision-makers at all levels to prioritize and coordinate investments to address specific concerns. The assessment will identify locations of highest biodiversity value across India that face immediate agricultural threats. Priority locations for action may be indicated, inter alia, by the presence of protected areas, globally significant species, key biodiversity areas, biodiversity hotspots, Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Sites, or primary forests.

98. The assessment will generate the basic data required to inform the Green Landscape Conservation Strategy. For each priority Green Landscape, the assessment will identify the scope of agricultural effects on conservation issues such as globally significant biodiversity, land degradation, sustainable forest management, and climate change mitigation. The assessment will review social factors related to poverty alleviation, gender, social vulnerabilities, and food security. The assessment will provide decision-makers at all levels with a much clearer understanding of the nexus between conservation objectives, production targets, and social needs.

99. The assessments will be completed at two scales. A broad scale national assessment will be augmented by a narrower and detailed assessment for each of the project states. GoI has provisionally identified five states for initial project activity, though additional sites might be added during the project’s preparation or implementation. During the PPG phase, a trial Green Landscape Assessment will be conducted to narrow activity location selection within the five states. Identified “Green Landscapes” within each of these five states will be the focus of Component 2’s on-the-ground conservation investments. The initial PPG assessment will help inform the national Green Landscape Assessment.

100. By project close, GoI will have the capacity required to identify priority landscapes for Green-Ag interventions. The assessment and associated map will be linked to the National Green


Landscape Strategy, Tool-Box, monitoring, and other project-emplaced tools designed to mainstream conservation practices within agriculture at priority locations. The assessment will then be linked to the project-developed, user-friendly, electronic knowledge base. The knowledge base will be organic and adaptive, growing in sophistication and coverage as additional information and tools come on line.

Output 1.3 National and state level agricultural policy frameworks mainstream and support achievement of global environment benefits

101. National and State level policies and missions listed under the baseline analysis must be changed to better integrate sustainable agricultural practices required to achieve GEBs. As noted, the financial and regulatory impacts of this existing policy baseline are immense. However, the baseline does not currently fully integrate conservation issues while largely determining the direction of India’s agricultural sector at national, state and district levels. A wide-range of agricultural policies and investments currently determine how agriculture operates across the nation. During project implementation conservation gaps in baseline policies and missions such as the National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture, the National Biodiversity Authority, the National Mission for Green India, National Livestock Mission, National Agro-Forestry Policy, and National Mission on Agricultural Extension and Technology will be addressed.

102. The project will support the generation of a Common Vision for Sustainable Agriculture. The vision will enable the GoI to mainstream conservation and achievement of GEB’s across the policy platform that currently determines the direction and impact of the nation’s agricultural sector. The project will build capacities and tools required to incorporate global environmental outcomes such as biodiversity conservation, land degradation, sustainable forest management, and climate change within India’s agricultural sector. The Common Vision will make certain critical government programs and policies will be altered across the agricultural sector to better mainstream a broad range of environmental concerns. This will include indicators and monitoring related to the achievement of GEBs and specific mechanisms for implementation. Policies related to agriculture, SFM, SLM, CCM, and biodiversity conservation will be much more fully integrated. The process of generating the Common Vision will be used to inform and improve existing agricultural policies and programming at the national level. The Common Vision will be lead by the MoAFW and supported through the multi-sectoral platforms established under Output 1.1. The national vision will establish agricultural policy improvements at the national, state, and district level.

103. A full assessment of the existing policy framework as it relates to agricultural development and environmental concerns, challenges, and opportunities will be completed during the PPG phase. This will be used to inform and help establish a foundation for final project design and implementation. During the PPG phase, more specific policy based supports will be identified. These will cover identification of proposed adoption of appropriate fiscal and market incentives to promote conservation oriented agriculture. This may include facilitating: outcome-based payments land users for increasing soil organic content in 1% increments; groundwater management committees for increasing groundwater levels in 1m increments; community forestry and grazing organizations for achieving biodiversity targets for sustainable forest management in grazed areas (e.g., populations of targeted species); and, farmers and pastoralists for achieving or maintaining sustainability certification (e.g., with components for biodiversity-smart, climate-smart, pollinator friendly, or organic production). This may include setting in place coordinated policies to promote necessary shifts towards organic farming and improve linkages between protected area administrations and agriculture, e.g., co-management of protected areas and agricultural practices within and proximate to protected areas.

104. The Common Vision will describe and drive policy changes may transition the payments of subsidies and entitlements from payments to producers to direct payments, including asset-based support, to intended beneficiaries (e.g., smallholder farmers). MGNREGA has demonstrated many of


the benefits of this sort of direct payment scheme on a large scale, and there are numerous benefits to shift other payments to a similar system (e.g., increased efficiencies, reduced leakages, improved transparency and accountability, faster payments to beneficiaries, reduced opportunities for beneficiary fraud, reduced opportunities for benefit-related exploitation, etc.). Such a transition takes advantage of trends in governmental programs (e.g., death and disability insurance schemes) that increasingly rely on direct debits and payments to individual bank accounts rather than routing payments through intermediaries. Moreover, recent shifts within the fertilizer industry also suggest that industrial and ministerial stakeholders would likely support this shift. The impacts to high conservation value landscapes and the broader agricultural sector could be significant.

105. Effort may include crafting a National Agricultural Sustainability Index reflecting the on-going, outcome-based performance of relevant agro-ecological and rural policies, as well as national and state-level dashboards (executive summaries) of more regularly updated critical indicators. The new dashboard will allow policy-makers to track the extent to which various interventions are associated with targeted outcomes. FAO’s existing tools for Sustainability Assessments for Food and Agriculture Systems provide a strong foundation for this work.

106. The project will take an integrated approach between Component 1 (national, state, and district level policy improvements) and Component 2 (on-the-ground action). This will be predicated upon making certain conservation advances are sustainable and designed to continue and expand after project close. As noted below, this will include making certain that financial support is identified and emplaced to maintain action and best practices after the project implementation period. Policy and institutional improvements will inform and be fully informed by on-the-ground actions implemented under Component 2. Pathways for achieving this level of coordinated effort will be fully described during the PPG.

Output 1.4 National Green Landscape Conservation Strategy and policy adopted and under implementation

107. The Government of India recognizes that it is critical to improve agricultural practices that are currently degrading high value biodiversity conservation and forest landscapes. The project will support the generation of a Green Landscape Conservation Strategy and policy. Informed by the Common Vision (Output 1.3), the Green Landscape Conservation Strategy will direct the improvement of agricultural practices across prioritized Green Landscapes. Again, these are high-value conservation landscapes where improved agricultural practices are most urgently needed to address biodiversity conservation and forest degradation drivers. The strategy will help define and categorize Green-Ag, including a common vision for sustainable agriculture. The strategy will generate indicators and tracking tools to help measure performance of agricultural sector activities based upon achievement of social, productivity, and conservation objectives. Indicators will measure production and help monitor the integrity and value of ecosystem services. FAO’s suite of tools for Sustainability Assessment for Food and Agriculture Systems provides a foundation for this work.

108. The strategy will detail how Green Landscapes will benefit from incentives to encourage farmers to adopt better practices. The strategy will describe how best to support re-alignment of specific programs and investments such as fertilizer payments and crop production subsidies. The strategy will recommend and support the drafting of concrete proposals for transitioning from current approaches that align subsidies with outputs and short-term productivity to new approaches oriented toward outcomes and long-term sustainability. This will include review of how subsidies are allocated in terms of productivity, recipients, and results.

109. The strategy will describe and facilitate collaboration. This will utilize and strengthen the multi-sectoral platforms established under Output 1.1. Policy reforms may set in place pathways for the NMSA and agricultural research and education institutions to ensure better knowledge flows between, policy, practical research, and on-farm practices. Place based investments will strengthen the linkages between ICAR/ State Agriculture Universities (SAUs)/ NGOs and agriculture extension


system. Place based improvements will engage these institutions to benchmark current farmer practices, identify gaps in farmer practices, undertake on-farm trials to address those gaps, train Extension Officers to implement newer practices, and conduct impact studies to assess the impact of the interventions. At the national level, the strategy may facilitate the operationalization of NMSA’s planned inter-sectoral platform, leading to strengthened national-level convergence between different missions, sharpened incentives for sustainable agriculture, and reduced drivers of unsustainable agriculture.

110. For instance, strategy implementation and adaption will be linked to the project-emplaced monitoring program for Green Landscapes. This will ensure evidence-based decision-making that is adaptive with on-going strategic improvements. As systems become increasingly sophisticated, they will allow decision-making to evolve to suit circumstances. The aim will be to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of decision-making structures, including the allocation of support systems provided by GoI and directed towards the conservation of priority landscapes. The project-emplaced Green Landscape monitoring program and generated information will enable stakeholders to mainstream biological diversity conservation priorities into existing district and sub-district planning processes. The Green Landscape Conservation Strategy and associated policy improvements will be linked to and informed by on-going demonstration efforts implemented under Component 2. Precise mechanisms and linkages (e.g., project emplaced information sharing, conservation monitoring, institutional responsibilities and coordination at national, state, and district levels, etc.) will be described during the full project development phase.

111. By project close The Green Landscape Conservation Strategy and policy will be fully operational. A key element of the Green Agriculture Strategy and policy will be to identify and secure funding resources from the Government of India and other sources to insure strategy implementation and operationalization. This will include making certain financing is in place for on-going continuation of monitoring, capacity building, and institutional support for described agriculture programs. The MoAFW will take the lead in terms of developing the Green Landscape Conservation Strategy and Policy. With project support, the MoAFW will be tasked with working with and coordinating the cooperation of diverse government, private and CSO stakeholders, e.g., MoEFCC. Institutional structures and financing will be secured for long-term implementation of project-emplaced successes. This will include elevating and tasking the Green Landscape working groups established at the national and state levels with supporting oversight and implementation of the Green Landscape Strategy.

Output 1.5 Conservation agriculture “best practices” captured and disseminated

112. The project will support GoI to generate a Green-Ag tool box. This will be an inter-sectoral intervention toolbox to address the specific concerns of the identified Green Landscapes. The toolbox will collect and collate best national and international practices related to sustainable agriculture. The toolbox will be informed by and will inform the activities of Farmer Field Schools to be established under Component 2. The intervention toolbox will be comprised of physical interventions, policy improvements, and recommendations for better institutional frameworks at Green Landscape level. This will be closely integrated and informed by Output 2.5 (monitoring and lessons learned). A plan to generate and operationalize this learning cycle will be completed during the PPG phase.

113. The final product will become a reference tool. The product will be put into both electronic and print format suitable for use by decision-makers, extension officers, protected area managers, agricultural scientists and policy makers, foresters, and farmers. The toolbox will have a large digital component to support capacity building across sectors. These digital tools will be designed to facilitate access by decision-makers and farmers. The digital knowledge base will serve as a platform for farmer-to-farmer interaction and learning. The tool may be utilized by national and state level training agencies such as the ICAR, State Agriculture Departments and Universities, National Institute of Rural development and Panchayati Raj, Wildlife Institute of India responsible for training forest officers and scientists in PA management, the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, Indian Institute of Forest Management and NGOs.


114. As a web-based knowledge base, the toolbox will facilitate sharing of experiences and learning on a continuous basis across and between different levels. This dialogue will improve communication between different levels and inform policy formulation. As the knowledge base of “best practices” for Green Landscapes evolves and grows sophistication, the electronic knowledge base will allow stakeholders to access, learn, and contribute to the toolbox.

Output 1.6 National monitoring program established to inform decision-making for conservation agriculture

115. The project will establish a Green Landscape monitoring program that includes indicators for both production and ecosystem health. The monitoring program will generate feedback loops, with information gathered at each of the identified, priority Green Landscapes supplying inputs to the national and state knowledge base.

116. Monitoring will be designed to help harness national, state and district level enabling environment improvements with on-the-ground results. The project emplaced adaptive learning cycle will make certain on-going monitoring of farm level implementation and the achievement of GEBs generates data/information to inform higher level agricultural policy reforms.

117. Monitoring will feed into a national level platform to be nested within the MoAFW. This program will help make certain that agriculture decision-making at all levels is generating and benefiting from information pertaining to the ecological impacts of decision-making and investment. Monitoring will complement on-going Government efforts to improve the evidence basis for agriculture and natural resource management. This will include linkages and capacity building directed towards select national research institutes to monitor and analyse such domestic policies.

118. The project will draw upon various digital platforms on agriculture and rural livelihoods being shown across the country to improve knowledge management within the MoAFW and facilitate digital inclusion of on-farm services. This will be fed through and collated by an electronic reporting system easily accessible using basic information sharing platforms (e.g., smartphones). Monitoring from the results of project interventions at each of the implementation sites will strengthen the capacity stakeholders to make evidence-based decisions. The tracking system will allow for nearly real-time information sharing. This knowledge base will allow resource managers, decision-makers, and on-the-ground stakeholder to better understand the impacts of their actions relative to the successful achievement of global conservation objectives.

119. Proposed monitoring methodologies and linkages will be more fully described during the PPG. The Green Landscape Conservation Strategy will contain a full set of indicators. Monitoring will be tailored to fit the needs of individual Green Landscapes, delivering information directly to farmers and extension workers. Monitoring will incorporate achievement of indicators related to environmental, social, and economic issues. This will include setting in place the capacity to monitor and electronically capture information related to climate change, sustainable forest management, land degradation, and biodiversity conservation. The indicators will allow for assessment of issues pertaining to livelihoods, food security, gender, and productivity. Monitoring at the national and state levels will be informed by placed-based interventions. The monitoring system will simultaneously track higher-level indicators for national programming.

Component 2: Improved agricultural practices demonstrating the delivery of tangible BD, LD, CCM, and SFM benefits

120. Component 2 will address identified Barrier #2 (Limited examples of highly effective landscape level agricultural production practices). The project will set in place demonstrations for improved agricultural practices at priority Green Landscapes. The result will include delivery of replicable models showing how better agricultural practices can result in sustainable social, economic, and ecological benefits.

Output 2.1 Target green landscapes fully assessed and demarcated with support of State and District level multi-sectoral platforms


121. As noted, GoI has identified five priority states for this project’s investments. During the PPG phase, an initial Green Landscape assessment will narrow implementation site selection within each of these five states. The assessment process conducted under Component 1 will help to lay the groundwork for the national Green Landscape identification and prioritization process. During project implementation, a full assessment of each location will be conducted. This will include identification of existing conservation challenges and opportunities related to agriculture and generation of GIS layers to support landscape conservation approaches, monitoring, etc., particularly for issues related to BD, SFM, CCM and LD. Implementation sites will represent a wide sweep of various nationally relevant challenges. Each location will have the capacity to deliver substantial benefits for biodiversity, sustainable forestry, and climate change mitigation. Each of these locations is challenged to deliver these benefits primarily due to land degradation resulting from unsustainable agricultural practices. Selected areas will represent opportunities to improve agricultural practices to deliver site-specific environmental benefits. Representative sites will be areas with global biodiversity values. This may be indicated by existing designations such as buffer zones to existing protected areas, critical corridors for wide ranging species, Key Biodiversity Areas, high conservation value forests, Ramsar sites, Important Bird Areas, locations that are critical to the recovery of IUCN red-listed species, and Vavilov Centres of endemism.

Output 2.2 Green-Ag Farmer Field Schools established

122. The project will emplace Green-Ag Farmer Field Schools within each of the identified implementation Green Landscapes. The FFS models will be used as a mechanism to facilitate greater cooperation amongst individual farmers, develop strategic approaches for farming practices to support maintenance of ecosystem-services, deliver information regarding best international principles and practices, incentivize adoption and testing of these practices, generate information to inform decision-making at the state and national levels, and create replicable models.

123. Most farmers in rural India are primarily concerned with food security and sustainable livelihoods. The FFS model will build capacities for farmers to improve their production methods to address these fundamental concerns. This will include supporting better capacity for farmers to access specific advisories, agricultural inputs, production aggregation, marketing, and linkages with financial institutions. The FFSs will also generate approaches to address issues of gender, such as via the creation of women’s cohorts within FFS structures. Depending upon each site’s challenges, FFSs will address issues of inclusion, such as for scheduled castes and tribes (SC/ST), including via minimum representation and codified inclusion in bylaws.

124. The Green-Ag FFS model will provide the additionality required for farmers to innovate and adopt practices aligned with the delivery of BD, SFM, CCM, and LD benefits. For instance, FFS at each unique implementation site will be tailored to respond to the needs of site-specific biodiversity conservation concerns. At the same time, Green-Ag FFS emplaced at each Green Landscape will be linked at state and national levels via knowledge-sharing and monitoring tools emplaced under Component 1 as well as opportunities for direct FFS-to-FFS exchanges.

125. The FFS model will build the capacities for rural extension officers. Supporting ecosystem services at each implementation site will require convergence of extension services, building capacities for the generation and delivery of knowledge that integrates production and environmental demands. For instance, Green-Ag FFS will incorporate field officers responsible for issues such as protected area management, wildlife conservation, forestry, and agricultural issues. These existing officers too often work in isolation. Through the FFS, field-level officers will work together to support FFS participants to apply integrated approaches. A major constraint currently is the lack of adequate numbers of extension officers to respond to farmers’ demands. The Green-Ag FFS model will help to increase the delivery efficiency of extension services by (i) facilitating demand-driven services and (ii) generating a more coordinated approach, allowing individual extension officers to work with groups of farmers as opposed to individual farmers.

126. The FFS modalities will be more fully described during the PPG phase. The curriculum and approaches used to establish Green-Ag FFS will build upon an extensive existing baseline. FAO has


developed a global set of tools and experiences that will be brought in to support improvements to the FFS system. For instance, FAO generated tools such as “Rural Invest” will be used to assist farmers to develop business management plans predicated in part upon sustainable agriculture practices. Organizations such as Digital Green have established a framework for using technology to facilitate and motivate linkages and efficient delivery of FFS materials. Digital Green uses short, farmer-produced videos posted online and shown via village screenings to facilitate farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing and collaboration.

127. The FFS model will also be used as a platform to generate individual Green Landscape Conservation Strategies (Output 2.3). The strategies will help individual farmers work cooperatively to determine, apply, and monitor best practices required to achieve ecosystem-based results.

Output 2.3 State-level Green Landscape Conservation Strategies implemented

128. A state-level Green Landscape Conservation Strategy will be designed and implemented at each project site. A key element of each lower level GLCS will be to coordinate the efforts of government agencies individually responsible for agriculture and environmental conservation at each of the identified priority conservation landscapes. National, state and district level MoAFW representatives will lead these initiatives supported by the State and District multi-sectoral platforms established under Output 1.1. The strategies will serve as mechanisms to coordinate agricultural and conservation approaches. The strategies will be driven by stakeholders integrating the support of established FFSs. Depending on the needs of individual sites, each Green Landscape Conservation Strategy will serve as a means to generate cooperative management between protected areas and associated productive landscapes. These conservation plans will become the fundamental basis for strategic management of the productive and protected landscapes. They will provide the basic parameters for prioritized investments and activities. The strategies will be harmonized between implementation sites so that they can begin to form the basis for indicators for improved agricultural management that can be monitored and up-scaled nationally. Each Green Landscape Conservation Strategy will be developed by the local working group established under Component 1. Strategy development and implementation will be coordinated through the Green-Ag FFS program to promote greater self-determination by community members regarding their priority needs. The strategy will refer to and coordinate with the National Green-Ag program. The Green Landscape Conservation Strategy will serve as a platform for monitoring. Indicators and progress reporting will connect to national and state level indicators and the monitoring platform established under Component 1.

129. The strategy will identify and assess conservation challenges related to the nexus of agriculture and the maintenance of ecological integrity. The strategy will identify forests and lands and associated ecosystem services that are critical to sustainable agriculture over the long term. Strategic development and implementation will promote more coordinated and informed responses to conservation challenges, including necessary support for wildlife and agricultural experts to collaborate closely to generate a strategic, landscape-based approach.

130. These strategies will address important factors affecting livelihoods, production, food security, and gender. The process of generating Green Landscape Conservation Strategies will build the capacities of extension workers to respond to demand-driven extension, facilitation of outcome-based assistance, and biodiversity-smart and climate-smart agriculture. The strategy will help generate a community-level framework for the long-term sustainability of interventions, self-reliance, and pro-activeness at village levels. The strategy will describe the best agricultural practices to test and eventually up-scale within the individual landscapes. These practices will support national and global BD, SFM, LD, and CCM objectives. The suite of interventions will inform and be informed by the Green-Ag Tool Box. This will be more fully detailed during the PPG phase. Illustrative interventions to be applied based upon the challenges faced at each Green Landscape may include:

Climate Smart Agriculture: The project will demonstrate the effectiveness of improved CSA at the landscape level. The project will build upon FAO’s global experience on CSA implementation. This will include assisting farmers to demonstrate the co-benefits of tools such as improved tillage, alternative cropping patterns, better agricultural land management, and


reduction or alteration of chemical inputs. This will result in co-benefits that improve resilience for both agriculturalists and associated ecosystems.

During PIF development, numerous approaches were identified. These will be expanded and modified based upon the requirements of each unique landscape. Examples include support for mitigation-focused management practices in LULUCF (e.g., through improved forest management across multiple scales). This may include mitigation-focused management practices in agriculture, such as: reduced CH4 emissions from rice from better water management such as alternate wetting and drying; reduced CO2 emissions from burning of crop residues; reduced NOx emissions from fertilizers through integrated nutrient management, such as urea deep placement (UDP), whereby urea briquettes placed near roots can reduce urea use 50-60% and significantly increase yields, and; increased soil organic matter (and soil organic carbon) from reduced tillage and improved residue and manure management. The project will work to be certain policies to maintain and enhance carbon stocks from LULUCF and agriculture (e.g., subsidy shifts to incentivize activities that build SOC); and strengthening accounting and MRV in LULUCF and agriculture (e.g., through adoption of FAO’s Collect Earth suite for improved analysis and use of satellite data for LULUCF policies, management, and MRV). Given that the project will use a participatory approach that is guided in large part by local priorities, specific interventions will be detailed at the PPG Phase.

Sustainable Forest Management: The project will implement programs that are designed to show the potential cumulative positive impact of landscape-level interventions for productive agricultural and forest lands. During full project design, an assessment of best practices and needs will be conducted. This will include building upon community forest management principles and practices. The strategies may recommend forest conservation as well as agroforestry as tools to conserve habitat, address land degradation, and contribute to CCM.

As part of the GLCS at both national and state levels, the project will identify and conserve high-conservation-value forested landscapes. Forested landscapes will be prioritized—particularly with respect to threats from agricultural practices—for integration with broader conservation efforts at national, state, and district levels. SFM activities will differ by location, but will include approaches such as participatory Farmer Field Schools to improve land-user capacities to adopt forest-beneficial practices; strengthened institutions for integrating forest considerations into community-based landscape management; the integration of communities into broader land-use planning; capacity-building for coppicing, including improved species selection for community growth of fuel-wood plots; improved management of dedicated fodder crops to reduce forest forage; penned livestock or rotational grazing, especially in dryland forests; local alternatives to reduce the rate of timber and wood use for fencing, including live fencing, communal herding/ corralling, etc. The project will improve mechanisms for monitoring forest loss, forest degradation, and land-use change. (See also Output 1.6 for the SFM policy linkage.) During the PPG phase, consideration will be given to utilizing Collect Earth, a suite of software tools developed by FAO’s Forestry Department in collaboration with Google to improve land-use monitoring and analysis using publicly available satellite imagery and data. SFM monitoring will strengthen ground-up feedback to improve evidence-based decision-making and policy adjustments at national, state, and district levels.

Sustainable Land Management: Many of the preliminarily identified implementation sites suffer from extreme land degradation, which affects biodiversity, water quality, erosion, and productivity. Land degradation is generally driven by unsustainable agricultural and forestry practices and is accelerated by climate change. The Green Landscape Conservation Strategy for these areas may set in place a number of innovative interventions. For instance, in areas such as the ravines in Madhya Pradesh, maximization of land use for agriculture is causing increased erosion and adverse impacts to important freshwater resources. In these locations, improved tillage, minor land forming, and barrier plantings may be appropriate interventions recommended in the conservation strategy.


Agriculture Investment Programs: A very important element of each strategy will be the identification of how government agricultural support programs can be realigned to provide incentives for more conservation oriented agricultural production. This will include a full assessment and description of the current suite of incentives related to things such as input subsidies, price support, and marketing/sale of agricultural products. The strategies will describe how farmers and other stakeholders at each Green Landscape perceive how these entitlements can be reoriented to help farmers reduce investments risk and increase incentives for adoption of conservation oriented production.

Local and Traditional Knowledge and Agro-biodiversity: Individual Green Landscape strategies may identify local and traditional agricultural knowledge that will support achievement of conservation objectives. The project will assist communities to develop and implement production methods to encourage the use of agro-biodiversity as a tool to enhance conservation and maintain agro-biodiversity. Many of these traditional species, varieties, breeds, and associated practices evolved with the associated ecosystems. They are generally better adapted to local conditions, require fewer inputs to generate high-value production, and increase biodiversity benefits. FAO has extensive global experience establishing mechanisms to both conserve agro-biodiversity and promote farming methods in line with broader conservation priorities. The strategy may consider the use of formal certifications as protected sources of these indigenous breeds. This may identify outcome-based compensation with reference to criteria such as number, health, and genetic conservation of the indigenous livestock breed. Certain areas may work towards designations as Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Sites.

Community-managed access agreements: The strategy may identify and operationalize opportunities and relevant technical assistance for communities to reduce pressure on forests and protected areas. This may include innovating formal use rights to these areas. The approach may build upon the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwelling Communities (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (2006) and the Panchayats (Extension of Scheduled Areas) Act (1996), which aim to recognize and vest NTFP, forest, and occupational rights. The strategy will review opportunities to shift open-access to community-managed access complemented by related changes in policy. This may be linked to performance criteria such as habitat quality.

Organic Production: As noted in the baseline, India is moving forward with organic production models. The conservation strategy may identify opportunities to support organic production by farmers as a mechanism to enhance ecosystem services and promote CCM. This may include generating subsidies and market support measures as a profit-based incentive to adopt ecologically friendly organic production. The project may also strengthen value chains for organic production that yields significant conservation benefits.

Green Landscape Certification Program: The strategy will encourage the establishment of a Green Landscape Certification Program. This may include assisting communities to identify opportunities for value-added processing as well as stronger and greener value chains. The program will certify producer organizations and cooperatives as biodiversity friendly and will work through and build upon existing organic certification schemes (e.g., the Participatory Guarantee System) when possible. Working through community organizations, the program will use FFSs, Farmer Water Schools, Farmer Climate Schools, etc. to expand the adoption of sustainable land management practices that incorporate principles of integrated pest management (IPM), climate-smart agriculture (CSA), and agroforestry. The content of these initiatives will be driven largely by local priorities, but will include, for example, water conservation, range management, soil management, selective seed-saving, balanced rations for cattle (improving milk production while addressing the source of 60% of India’s agricultural GHG emissions in CO2e), etc.

The certification program may be linked to the reception of government financing incentives. The project may consider reward-based certifications. For instance, issuance to all FFS graduates a “paryarvana mitr” (nature’s friend) certificate. Farmer Facilitators and Farmer Resource Persons will also be provided certificates acknowledging their skills and credentials. The farmer-


to-farmer extension will also be supplemented with farmer-developed materials for sharing farmer experiences and credible knowledge between farmers and communities, especially via information and communication technologies.

Protected Area Co-Management: In Green Landscapes proximate to protected areas, co-management agreements might be recommended by the strategy as an appropriate intervention to improve alignment of management objectives between protected and productive landscapes. Some existing protected areas benefit from limited co-management planning, linking conservation objectives with productive landscape activities. This may include the existence of Joint Forest Management Committees.

Land Use Planning: The strategies will generate capacities for spatial and land-use planning to ensure that land and resource use is appropriately situated to maximize production without undermining or degrading biodiversity, for improving and changing production practices to be more biodiversity friendly with a focus on sectors that have significant biodiversity impacts (e.g., agriculture, forestry, tourism, extractives) and to leverage various financial mechanisms (e.g., certification, payment for environmental services, access and benefit sharing agreements) to help incentivize actors to change current practices that may be degrading biodiversity.

Green Value Chains: The project will examine opportunities for the use of value chains to enable family farmers and particularly poor households to participate in and benefit from emerging markets. Such value chains will be developed, strengthened, or greened jointly with stakeholder groups based on a sound analysis of local challenges, natural resources, market potential, farmers’ individual circumstances, etc. This includes ensuring that new value chains do not jeopardize farmers’ food security and sustainable production systems.

131. The process of strategy generation and implementation will build capacity at multiple levels to maintain and strengthen different productive systems and their elements, including agricultural practices based on local and traditional knowledge that allow continued evolution and adaptation, such as adequate herd sizes, seed systems, movement of useful materials, and access to ex-situ materials. The strategies will help strengthen capacities and linkages for agricultural development, extension, research, in-situ conservation.

132. The Green Landscape Conservation Strategies will support and inform horizontal and vertical integration of local institutions. This will reinforce connections or collaborations with other villages, integration of processes and records with block- and district-level practices, formal recognition of local charters and bylaws, etc. Additionally, the formation of a functional platform for engaging private-sector stakeholders will provide a framework for greening associated value chains and market linkages.

Output 2.4 Green-Ag demonstrations implemented

133. The project will implement a suite of interventions at each Green Landscape. The FFS cohorts established under Output 2.2 will receive venture capital from the project to trial improvements at each location. The interventions will be described and comport with each Green Landscape Strategy. Demonstrations will inform and be informed by the project emplaced toolbox and monitoring platforms. Each of the implementation sites will become a testing ground for the application and up-scaling of best practices across the nationally identified Green-Ag landscapes.

134. Each of the project’s building blocks is designed to make certain substantial changes at field level. National and state level reforms to strategies, policies, institutions and finances will be directed to enhance operationalization within each Green Landscape. The national Green Landscape Tool-Box will provide the knowledge base required for farmers at each Green Landscape to access and apply improved agricultural methods. The Green-Ag FFS will provide a platform for organizing farmer efforts and delivering improved means of production. Individual Green Landscape Conservation Strategies will help to identify and prioritize interventions. However, the ultimate indicator of project success will be the application of on-the-ground improvements to deliver benefits measured not only


based upon production improvements but also the delivery of global conservation benefits related to BD, LD, SFM, and CCM.

135. Interventions will be described in the Green Landscape Conservation Strategy. Interventions will be scaled at a level that will generate ecologically meaningful benefits. Depending on the priority landscape, interventions described by the strategy may be organized based upon forest ecosystems, protected area buffer zones, key indicator species, watersheds, or other fundamental ecosystem marker. Specific interventions will be specified in greater detail during the PPG. Some site-specific funding might be related to the completion of business plans linked to the Green Landscape Conservation Strategy. FFSs will help farmers generate and implement business plans that support improved livelihoods, production, and the achievement of conservation benefits. The project may consider providing bridging financing to incentivize farmers to adopt best practices. This will be linked to national, state, and Green Landscape conservation strategies.

136. The capacity-building benefits of trial implementations will be cross-sectoral. Initial trials will engage and integrate field-level agencies responsible for diverse landscape designations, including protected areas, forests, community lands, and private agricultural lands. Implementation of best practices will have additional benefits of building the foundations and practices of good governance. This includes participation, representation, transparency, effectiveness, efficiency, responsiveness, and accountability. Implementation will emphasize the inclusion of women and potentially under-represented or vulnerable groups (e.g., scheduled castes and tribes—SC/ST), which might be reflected in minimum representation and codified inclusion in bylaws.

Output 2.5 Lessons Learned monitored, captured, up-scaled and mainstreamed within national, state, and district policy frameworks

137. As noted, a project priority will be making certain on-the-ground activities fully inform and are informed by national, state, and district level policies. The project will be designed to integrate Component 1 and Component 2 related activities. For instance, on-the-ground action will be linked to national, state, and district level policy and institutional improvements envisioned under Output 1.1 (multi-sectoral platforms), Output 1.3 (national and state policy revisions), Output 1.5 (monitoring), and Output 2.3 (state-level Green Landscape Conservation strategies). As discussed in Output 1.3, the PPG period will be used to more completely assess existing policy challenges/opportunities and generate a coherent project to ensure integration of Component 1 and 2 activities and results. Clear pathways connecting on-the-ground action to advance more sustainable policy and institutional responses will be designed. By project close, lessons learned from on-the-ground activities will be fully informing policy improvements. This will include a national annual reporting mechanism to be described during the PPG. This reporting mechanism will relate how on-the-ground progress is being made to implement national policies and how implementation is impacting achievement of GEB indicators embedded within national, state, and district level agricultural policies and programs.

138. Lessons learned and applied at each of the centres of excellence will be up-scaled, ensuring that best practices are adopted and applied nationally throughout the agricultural and conservation sectors. This will include ensuring that lessons learned at the field level are applied to inform and improve state and national level agricultural policies. This requires strong linkages between the activities of Components 1 and 2. Tools, experiences, lessons and other information from Component 2 will inform Component 1’s activities, such as the national monitoring program, toolbox, and conservation strategies. The results of field-level monitoring and other monitoring protocols will feed into Component 1’s Green Landscape Monitoring Program. To further amplify up-scaling and replication, the national and state working groups established under Component 1 will receive regular seminars and briefings to ensure that a representative cross-section of organizations is fully engaged and aware of the project’s activities and successes. A marketing and awareness plan will be described during the PPG and completed during the early project implementation phase. Part of this effort will involve working with GoI to identify funding to support continuation and up-scaling of project-emplaced successes. This will be closely linked to the enabling environment activities implemented under Component 1.


1.4 Incremental/ additional cost reasoning and expected contributions from the baseline GEFTF, LDCF, SCCF, and co-financing

139. Without GEF support, several large programs and policies with significant environmental consequences and very large government agricultural investment packages would likely continue to incorporate only limited considerations of globally significant environmental impacts. Areas of highest conservation value (e.g., protected areas) would continue to be highly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of unsustainable agricultural practices. Existing agricultural policies and programs would continue to measure success and progress according to outputs rather than outcomes. Actions and investments at the farm level would not reflect best international principles and practices related to sustainable land management, sustainable forest management, and/or climate change mitigation.

140. The project will support GoI’s efforts to capitalize on national best practices and integrate global best practices. Policies and institutional structures will be modified to enhance conservation of biodiversity, reverse land degradation, drive sustainable forest management, and improve mitigation of climate change. This will include ensuring that decision-making is better informed at all levels of governance to understand the contributions and the impacts of agriculture on achievement of India’s globally significant environmental commitments. To transform policy into action, the project will support the generation of replicable models for improved conservation and management of the highest priority productive landscapes. Ecosystem-based approaches to agricultural development will be designed and implemented with rural stakeholders to enhance ecosystem integrity.

141. The project will be designed to stabilize and improve ecosystem integrity across priority ecosystems of India. The proposed GEF project will address the barriers that have slowed the formation of the inter-sectoral platform. GEF-supported activities will facilitate incorporation of private-sector actors into the inter-sectoral platform. The project will seek convergence and synergies between related programs, national missions, and private-sector development. The proposed project will magnify the benefits from such horizontal coordination by building multi-level capacity (e.g., state, district, block, etc.) for vertical coordination as well. Current land-degrading activities within productive agriculture, rangelands, and forests will be phased out and replaced by sustainable land management. Climate change will be addressed by applying climate-smart agricultural principles and practices to replace existing high-net-impact farming and forestry practices.

1.5 Global environmental benefits and adaptation benefits

142. The project’s global environmental and adaptation benefits related to BD, SFM, LD, and CCM will be generated using an integrated, ecosystem-based approach. At the national level, unsustainable agriculture is a major contributor to environmental degradation. The project will result in the re-orientation of investment in the agriculture sector to be strategically aligned with the achievement of global conservation objectives at priority landscapes both within and proximate to the nation’s uniquely valuable system of protected areas. As noted, these policy adaptations will be amplified and mainstreamed with India’s agricultural policy framework at national, state, and district levels to positively impact the national agricultural landscape. New institutional frameworks will be in place at the national, state, and local levels to better coordinate strategic approaches integrate conservation more fully within the agriculture. As the first concerted effort to mainstream the achievement of global conservation benefits fully within the national agricultural policy framework, the project will generate a transformative shift in the way agricultural initiatives are funded, practiced, and monitored. Agricultural decision-makers will have the tools required to address key drivers of threats to biodiversity in areas of highest priority. This will positively impact the conservation of hundreds of thousands of hectares of priority landscapes across India. The impacts will be focused on delivery of BD, CCM, LD, and SFM as the productive agricultural sector becomes more fully engaged in directing agricultural support services towards ensuring that agriculture actively promotes long-term conservation.

143. The project’s field-level efforts will work across five target landscapes. Each of these locations represents a unique ecosystem that hosts a wide array of globally significant species. The project intends to improve the farming practices of thousands of farm households at each location. A


preliminary assessment indicates that each site will require a different set of tools: Rajasthan dry land agriculture and grazing and Great Bustard conservation; Chambal areas land degradation and freshwater ecosystems; Mizoram shifting agriculture, forestry and related GEBs including Clouded leopard habitat; Orissa cultivation, including rice production, with elephant and tiger habitat conservation; and, Uttarakhand SFM and Himalayan agriculture to improve conservation of tiger, elephants and other species associated with Corbett. Again, details regarding these targeted landscapes, sustainable agriculture interventions, strategic monitoring and baseline information will be further detailed during the PPG phase.

144. As noted, the project will use a participatory, strategic, and informed approach. This will be guided in large part by local priorities. The project will closely work with communities and farmers in each of the selected sites for interventions to promote application of climate smart agricultural practices. Specific interventions beyond those included in the PIF will be detailed at the PPG Phase and further refined within national and state level strategy instruments such as the GCLS. These approaches will be designed and implemented with full reference to GEF programming directions.

145. Following are indicative numbers; more specific targets and quantifiable impacts will be identified during the PPG phase.

5 states adopt and operationalize conservation strategies for at least 1.5 million hectares of priority biodiversity and forest landscapes that fully incorporate biodiversity conservation indicators

A total of 1.17 million hectares within 5 protected-area biospheres showing biodiversity conservation improvements as a result of more sustainable agricultural and SFM practices

Habitat improvements at five ecosystems evincing measurable reduction of agricultural and forest degradation threats and impacts to globally significant species (TBD at PPG, e.g., Great Indian bustard, Bengal tiger, Asian elephant, Gangetic dolphin, and Clouded leopard.)

Farmers across 100,000 ha utilizing and conserving genetic diversity of at least 10 globally significant traditional and/or endemic plant and animal species or varieties. (TBD at PPG.)

At least 400,000 hectares of currently degraded productive landscapes under SLM

At least 350,000 hectares of high conservation value forest lands under SFM.

At least 26.9 Mt CO2e sequestered or avoided through improved agricultural practices (estimate excludes expected wider benefits from policy changes)

146. Fit with GEF Biodiversity Priorities: The project will benefit protected areas in the way envisioned under Program 9 of the GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy. The project will assist the Government of India to prioritize investments in agriculture to deliver global environmental benefits at locations of highest conservation value. India’s protected areas regimes provide habitat for the greatest concentrations of the nation’s remaining globally significant biodiversity. The project’s target protected each house important flagship and indicator species such as tigers, bustard, elephant, and dolphin. Hundreds of thousands of people live in and around protected areas. These people are largely engaged in agriculture, both within and outside of protected areas.

147. BD-4, Program 9 thinking captures this situation perfectly: “Protected areas are the conservation community’s most successful management response to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity. However, protected areas do not exist as isolated islands of tranquilty where evolutionary processes continue uninterrupted by humans. Rather, protected areas are often located in mixed-use landscapes and seascapes where natural resources are managed or exploited — at times unsustainably — to satisfy human needs for food, water, wood, energy, and minerals. These resource uses often unintentionally degrade biodiversity within and outside protected areas. In addition, production landscapes and seascapes also provide habitat to globally significant biodiversity.


Managing the human-biodiversity interface requires additional and innovative approaches that help maintain the integrity of the protected area estate while ensuring persistence of biodiversity in more expansive geographies.”

148. Agriculture is the main threat to the ecological integrity of these protected areas and associated biodiversity. There are also significant impacts in terms of SFM, LD, and CCM. As noted, current agricultural policies approaches do not generally distinguish whether they are targeting locations of high conservation value or not. Protected areas are an indicator of high conservation value landscapes. By shifting current unsustainable agricultural practices to more environmentally friendly practices, India’s protected area regime and associated globally significant biodiversity will benefit greatly. There are nearly 2.5 million hectares of protected areas within the five demonstration sites initially selected for this project. At least 1.17 million of these hectares will benefit from conservation improvements advanced by the project. This does not include surrounding buffer zones and the additional protected areas that will benefit from project upscaling once the GLCS is in place and other high conservation value landscapes are prioritized for conservation oriented agricultural practices.

149. Fit with GEF Land Degradation Priorities: During the project period, ecosystem-based agricultural enhancements will positively affect millions of hectares of currently degraded, high-conservation-value areas. This will be amplified as lessons learned and policy improvements are mainstreamed to positively impact SLM within the agricultural sector nationally. This result in a substantial reduction in the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Such inputs are largely responsible for losses of soil productivity, pose various threats to biodiversity, and are often net contributors to climate change. CSA and SLM models will promote more judicious water use, improving both the quality and quantity of surface and ground water. The project will support the implementation of sustainable forest management as part of an effort to conserve the ecosystems upon which both productive and protected landscapes depend.

150. Fit with GEF SFM Priorities: While forests and the ecosystem services they provide are critical for sustainable agriculture including pollinators and water provisioning, agriculture is a primary driver of forest loss and degradation in India. As the GEF-6 programming directions state: “The expansion of agriculture is the main driver of forest loss worldwide. The actors involved range from small-scale farmers to large companies.” This is clearly the case in India. The situation is evinced at the Mizoram site where shifting agriculture takes place. Forest degradation is also notable at Rajasthan where severe overgrazing both within and outside of the protected area harms forest health and reduces biodiversity value. Likewise, the protected area regime of Odisha is subject to widespread grazing impacts. The northern arc of the Chambal River includes a band of riparian forest designated as an Alliance for Zero Extinction site and a Key Biodiversity Area, yet the area faces significant threats from the surrounding productive agricultural landscape and disjointed landscape management approaches. There are also indirect impacts to forest health resulting from over-harvest by local agriculturalists. This includes fodder production, fuel-wood consumption. The project, through its investments in generating sustainable flows of forest ecosystem services, including sustaining livelihoods of forest dependent people, will directly result in improving the quality of degraded forests and bringing a larger area under sustainable forest management practices.

151. Aligning with GEF-6 priorities, the project will take an integrated and landscape level approach to improving forest management. The project will promote an enabling environment for integrated planning. Under Component 1, the national Green Landscape Conservation Strategy will prioritize forested landscapes for integration with broader conservation efforts at national, state, and district levels. This will include the identification and monitoring of high value forests at both national and state levels. Under Component 2, the project will build capacity for SFM within local communities, further allying project effort with GEF priorities. For instance, participatory Farmer Field Schools will strategically improve land-user capacities to adopt forest-beneficial practices. This will cover tools and approaches such as: management of forests for ecosystem services; improved community-based livestock management; coppicing, including improved species selection for community growth of fuel-wood plots; improved management of dedicated fodder crops to reduce


forest forage; and, local alternatives to reduce the rate of timber and wood use for fencing, including live fencing and communal herding/ corralling.

152. The project will improve mechanisms for monitoring forest loss, forest degradation, and land-use change and integrate these between Component 1 and 2. During the PPG phase, consideration will be given to utilizing Collect Earth, a suite of software tools developed by FAO’s Forestry Department in collaboration with Google to improve land-use monitoring and analysis using publicly available satellite imagery and data. SFM monitoring will strengthen ground-up feedback to improve evidence-based decision-making and policy adjustments at national, state, and district levels. As noted in these responses, the project will mainstream consideration of gender issues and vulnerable groups into the proposed landscape approach to forest management, highlighting the links between ecological and social vulnerabilities.

153. Fit with GEF CCM Priorities: The project is fully aligned with CCM-2 Program 4 to achieve relevant CCM global environmental benefits relevant to both enhancement of carbon stocks in forests and the support for climate smart agriculture. Interventions will generate critical benefits for climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation and ecosystem health. The project will promote and foster accelerated adoption of innovative and management practices for GHG emission reduction and carbon sequestration through improved soil management practices, fertilization methods and precision agriculture measures. Mitigation-focused management practices in agriculture will reduce CH4 emissions from rice, reduce CO2 emissions from burning of crop residues, and reduce NOx emissions from fertilizers. Mitigation-focused management practices in LULUCF will be achieved through better forest management across multiple scales, supporting efforts to diversity livelihoods and build capacity for SFM.

154. Demonstrations and upscaling of ecological restoration of degraded landscapes including community forests and rangelands will deliver tangible sequestration benefits. Proposed policy reforms will develop incentives to innovate mitigation practices in forest, agriculture and land management. This includes subsidy shifts to incentivize activities that build SOC. The project will strengthen accounting and MRV. This will be accomplished through improved monitoring and adoption of innovative tools such as FAO’s Collect Earth suite for improved analysis and use of satellite data for LULUCF policies, management, and MRV. A key project element will be working to maintain crop and animal genetic diversity. The protection of Crop Wild Relatives will be advanced through innovative approaches such as Farmer Field Schools at high conservation priority landscapes with particular emphasis upon women cohorts.

155. Preliminary estimates from FAO’s Ex-Ante Carbon-balance Tool (ExACT) indicate that this proposed project will avoid or sequester 26.9 Mt of CO2e over the seven-year project period and a 20-year capitalization period. This will be accomplished through a variety of interventions. More precise figures for CCM benefits will be determined during the PPG period, once stakeholder consultations have clarified site-specific interventions. This will include figures for benefits derived during the seven-year project cycle and estimates for longer-term post-project benefits.

1.6 Innovation, sustainability, and potential for scaling up

156. Innovation: The proposed project will be designed to be highly innovative in its focus on integrated landscape management. This will include creating an improved management regime designed for maintaining ecosystem services at scale. The project will generate and adapt improved CSA technologies. The project will work to improve soil, water, and forest management in a more unified way to deliver cumulative impact. This will be a “first” in regards to the strategic convergence within the agricultural sector to achieve BD, LD, SFM, and CCM benefits while simultaneously improving livelihoods and food security. The project is also unique in its aim to support farmer-managed natural regeneration of land productivity. This will be done through an innovative community-based approach designed to address past challenges related to disconnect between “good policy” and “poor implementation”. Innovative institutional arrangements will include multi-agency and funding program (mission) platforms. Key innovations include the reorientation of subsidies


(outcome-based direct payments to land users) and the reorientation of governmental performance metrics from outputs to outcomes.

157. The proposed investment includes multi-sectoral approaches to transformative policy, capacity, practice and knowledge regime changes and legislation at national and state levels to address key drivers of threats to biodiversity and biodiversity loss, deforestation/loss of tree cover, land degradation and unsustainable land management linked to agricultural and allied sectors, unsustainable livestock management, and climate change. A key innovation entails an organic agriculture certification program that would for the first time, incorporate biodiversity criteria into the certification process, enabling large numbers of farmers and hectares to come under certified, biodiversity-friendly management. The engagement of robust private sector partners such as Fab India and Organic India will anchor the market-based and value chain elements.

158. Sustainability: The project will aim achieve sustainability at all levels. The project will be designed to remove the key barriers to degradation vulnerabilities. Rehabilitation and agricultural improvements will rely on conserving biodiversity and natural ecological functionality. The persistence of these improvements will be enhanced through a hand-over strategy to be carried out as a phased transition that will be completed well prior to project close and endorsed by the project’s steering committee. Institutional sustainability will be integral to project’s success. One of the fundamental aspects of this project’s design is that it will positively affect institutions at national, state, district, and local levels. Institutional, policy, and regulatory frameworks will be refined during PPG and the project’s implementation. Direct capacity-building will take place through training programs designed to be launched during project implementation and carried forward post-project by strengthened institutions. Indirect capacity-building will result from implementation of various project activities. Much of the project’s efforts are focused on providing institutions with the tools required for long-term institutional integrity and coordinated efforts. The project will be designed to respond to stakeholders’ informed priorities, including those of governmental agencies. GoI is eager to use this project do the heavy lifting required to design and implement a more efficient and effective BD, SLM, SFM, and CCM program. GoI’s aim for this project is to improve environmental sustainability on all fronts.

159. Scaling-Up: This project aims to reach a concentrated effort at a level and scale not seen in other projects and programs in India. The project is designed to reflect national, state, and local priorities, making the project highly relevant at multiple scales for numerous stakeholders, particularly vulnerable groups. The project will also maximize the utilization of existing institutional frameworks. Both of these approaches will facilitate replication and up-scaling. The premise for this project is the need to build replicable land-use models for ecosystem-based management. This will be critical to the final project design. Both of the project’s components are designed to generate replicable models for this aim. The proposed investment will be fully designed to drive replication and up-scaling. The results of project demonstrations at each prioritized Green Landscape under Component 2 will inform the national support tools generated under Component 1. This includes policy improvements, priority place-based investment locations, the intervention tool box, and the monitoring program. GoI will subsequently promote the application and use of best practices to the system of Green Landscapes identified through the project’s national assessment and prioritization efforts. The results will be a national platform of investments, policies, and interventions based upon a strategic national platform to incentivize agricultural practices in locations of highest biodiversity value designed to maintain ecological integrity.

160. The project will be designed to incorporate several tools to ensure replication, including mainstreaming lessons learned in national, state, and local decision-making. Knowledge management tools and other devices to facilitate and motivate replication will be established. Lessons learned will be captured for wide-scale replication. There will be replicable models for financing and governance to support improved practices. For instance, GEF financing will enable MoAFW to sharpen and focus NMSA guidelines by integrating this project’s approaches. States must subsequently adhere to NMSA guidelines in order to access NMSA funds. The same is true of several other related baseline programs and initiatives. Thus, mainstreaming ecosystem-based approaches within national guidelines will help ensure strong incentives for national replication.


2. Stakeholders

Will project design include the participation of relevant stakeholders from civil society and indigenous people? (Yes.) If yes, identify key stakeholders and briefly describe how they will be engaged in project design/preparation.

161. The principle of stakeholder inclusion is fully integrated within the initial project design and will be carried forward through the PPG and implementation phases. This includes tools such as intersectoral working groups at all levels and FFS models with gender specific cohorts. The project will promote participation of a wide range of relevant stakeholders including government agencies, civil society (e.g., NGOs, self-help groups, and producers’ groups), the private sector (e.g., Fab India, Organic India), relevant financial institutions (e.g., National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development—NABARD), women, indigenous people (scheduled tribes), and identified vulnerable groups (e.g., scheduled castes). As part of FAO’s standard practices, a gender and social analysis will be undertaken during the PPG phase and will form the basis for appropriate plans, activities, monitoring, and safeguards to be defined in the project document. Key elements will be incorporated in the results framework.

162. Participatory processes will include: (i) regular meeting of the PSC and advisory committees, (ii) multi-stakeholder consultation workshops at national and state levels, and (iii) direct consultations with stakeholders via individual and focus-group meetings. A grievance processes will be incorporated into the project’s management plan and structure.

163. Indigenous Peoples: India is a highly diverse nation. Many of the selected project sites have indigenous communities. Both FAO and the Government of India place a high value upon the unique cultural and environmental needs of indigenous peoples. Both FAO and the GoI are very sensitive to these issues. This is reflected in the Government of India’s programs specifically designed to support indigenous peoples. During the PPG phase, special effort will be made to identify indigenous groups, formally evaluate the project’s potential impacts upon indigenous peoples, and incorporate the opinions and values of indigenous peoples within the project design. This will include both analysis and engagement designed specifically to meaningfully involve indigenous stakeholders during the PPG and implementation phases. Details will be fully elaborated during the PPG phase. This will include extensive stakeholder engagement to be certain issues related to indigenous peoples are fully reflected in final project design. The PPG phase will include the application of the FAO guidelines on “Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.”

Stakeholders Relevance

National Government

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare (formerly the Ministry of Agriculture) formulates and administers the rules, regulations, and laws related to agriculture at the Federal level in India. The ministry comprises three departments: (i) DACFW, which is responsible for agricultural policy-making and programs, (ii) Department of Agriculture Research and Education (DARE), which oversees the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), and (iii) Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (DAHDF).As the nodal GoI agency for this project, DACFW will oversee the project’s design, implementation, and coordination. As a key member of the Project Steering Committee, DACFW will support impact and progress monitoring, information dissemination, mainstreaming, and national replication/ up-scaling of project successes.The project will also coordinate closely with DARE and DAHDF for implementation of various project components.

Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC)

MoEF&CC is responsible for the administration of the national parks of India and for planning, promoting, coordinating, and overseeing the implementation of environmental and forestry programs and policies. MoEF&CC also administers and supervises the Indian Forest Service (IFS).MoEF&CC will play a key role in the project as a member of the



Project Steering Committee and, as host ministry of India’s GEF Operational Focal Point, will facilitate coordination with GEF Secretariat and with other projects in India’s GEF portfolio.

State Governments

State Governments of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Odisha, and Mizoram

Laws governing agriculture are framed by the individual States. State-level departmental counterparts (e.g., forestry and agriculture) have contributed significantly to the preliminary design of this project. As key members of the project’s state-level advisory committees, state governmental representatives will continue to guide the “national-to-local” and “local-to-national” translations for policies and practices.State governments will also be responsible for ensuring full coordination and cooperation with relevant sub-state entities.

International Development Agencies and Donors

International Donor Agencies Several international agencies work closely with GoI on issues related to conservation, development, and agriculture—e.g., UN agencies, World Bank, JICA, ADB, DfID, USAID, KfW, GIZ, etc. These agencies have numerous projects of various sizes, at different stages of implementation, and of differing levels of relevance to the proposed project throughout the different project sites.Given the substantial state-level discretion associated with agriculture and natural resource management, this project will coordinate with these other agencies predominantly at the state levels. Additionally, the project will share knowledge and coordinate with these other agencies to refine and ensure alignment on proposed policy initiatives.

NGOs and Civil Society

Specific NGOs/civil society organizations to be identified during the PPG phase. Indicative agencies could include national level NGOs such as BAIF, PRADAN, CSA, as well as specialized sectoral agencies such as NCF, WWF India, etc.

FAO envisages extensive partnerships with NGOs and civil society organizations. Indicative roles for these will include community interface and mobilization (e.g., via established self-help groups), implementation support, coordination support at project sites, participation in advisory roles when required, and ensuring involvement of women and vulnerable groups (e.g., scheduled castes/ scheduled tribes).

Academic and Scientific Organizations

Specific academic and scientific organizations to be identified during the PPG phase.

FAO envisages extensive partnerships with technical agencies, research partners, and organizations that are well positioned for execution assistance. Many of these organizations have existing governmental coordination mechanisms via local KVKs, which are intended to translate agricultural research into practical application.Indicative organizations include:

Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI) Arid Forestry Research Institute (AFRI) G B Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development

(GBPIHED) Wildlife Institute of India (WII) National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA) The National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) The M S Swaminathan Research Institute The Centre for Ecological Sciences Indian Institute of Science State agricultural and veterinary universities, etc.

Private Sector

Specific private sector organizations to be identified during the PPG phase.

FAO anticipates partnerships with the private sector across a number of project components (e.g., those related to commodities, organic markets, value chains, relevant technologies, formal credit mechanisms, insurance and risk management/ mitigation products, virtual extension services, etc.)

Communities



Local communities in project areas (to be identified during PPG phase)

Local communities in project areas will be primary stakeholders. Initial scoping and prioritization discussions have been held at indicative project sites. The project will continue to use a highly participatory, location-specific approach. Communities will continue to play a central role in the project’s design, implementation, and evaluation. Special attention will be given to scheduled tribes, scheduled castes, and other vulnerable groups (e.g., poor, marginalized, children, elderly).

164. Institutional Arrangements: A Project Steering Committee (PSC) will manage the project. This committee will be chaired by Department of Agriculture and Cooperation (DAC) and co-chaired by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). The PSC will be an inter-ministerial/ agency and inter-sectoral committee meeting twice a year to approve the Annual Work Plan (physical and financial) and review the project status/ progress. The PSC will also involve national and international agencies working in the sector as per the requirement of the project. The partnership and funding arrangements will be further explored and agreed upon during the PPG phase. The membership of PSC and the need for setting up subsidiary committees will be reviewed and finalized during wider stakeholder consultations at the PPG stage. The day-to-day project operations will be guided and monitored by National Project Director from DAC. The Project Management Unit will be housed in DAC. FAO will be the GEF agency for this project.

165. State Technical Committees (STCs) chaired by a senior state government official will manage field level implementations. The membership of this Committee will include officials from various concerned departments, district administration and other agencies working in the field of agriculture and allied sector. This Committee will emerge as a forum of government and non-government agencies working in the region on agricultural matters to ensure the effective implementation and scaling up of GEF interventions. The membership of STCs and the partnership arrangements will be reviewed and finalized during wider stakeholder consultations at the PPG stage. The need/ nature for setting up state PMUs will also be decided at the PPG stage.

166. Partnerships, particularly on the state-level, will be key to the successful design and delivery of this project. These partnerships will be in the form of baseline cofinancing and delivery of project outputs and activities. Regarding cofinancing, the project will be designed as any GEF project – to provide catalytic incremental financing to complement a robust baseline of relevant programs and projects. This includes first and foremost State Government programs but also includes other GEF agency and other civil society baseline investments and initiatives. Examples of these are provided under the section headings for “Project Sites” (Section 1) and “Coordination” (Section 5). The project design team will build upon preliminary discussions held with key potential partners such as the WB, IFAD, UNDP, and Bioversity International with the intent to ensure that GEF-financed activities complement and leverage relevant investments, and utilize their relevant areas of expertise, experience, and country presence. Such partners will be involved in project delivery. PPG consultations will explore the mechanics of working together most effectively in a way that maximizes state government ownership and value added from key GEF agency and civil society partners.

3. Gender Considerations

Are gender considerations taken into account? (yes)

167. The Government of India and FAO are both dedicated to making certain issues of gender are fully incorporated within project conceptualization, design and implementation. The project integrates gender related issues consistently throughout the proposed approach.

168. In rural India, women often have added responsibilities in farming communities. However, these women and particularly women headed households often lack equitable access to decision-making, empowerment, and capacity building opportunities. The Government of India and FAO are both fully dedicated to improving the status of women. This includes a fundamental dedication to


making certain issues of gender are fully incorporated within project conceptualization, design and implementation. Social and environmental safeguards will be completed during the PPG phase to flag and address gender challenges.

169. The project will be designed with gender related issues consistently embedded and reflected throughout the proposed approach. During the PPG phase, specific mechanisms for women engagement and involvement will be detailed. The project will include the design of capacity building and decision-making pathways to insure equitable participation by both genders. The Green Landscape Conservation Strategy and other national level policy improvements under Component 1 will have sections dedicated to issues of gender. As noted under Component 2, the Farmer Field Schools and other ground-level interventions will be designed with gender specific functions and cohorts. These will serve as a tool to make certain women are full participants in developed strategies and investments.

170. Data collection and monitoring programs under both components will include gender analysis. This will be modelled through relevant project monitoring that disaggregates indicators based upon gender. These indicators will to make certain positive project impacts and benefits accrue to women and women headed households.

4. Risks

Description of Risk

Impact/Probability

Rating (Low: 1 to High: 5)

Mitigation and Contingency Measures

Unsettled land-use and land-tenure issues in or near protected areas may reduce the legitimacy of policy initiatives or enforcement in those areas.

Impact: 3Probability: 3

The project will set in place a high degree of community engagement in planning; focus on incentives for win-win solutions, minimizing reliance on enforcement, exclusion, etc.; and, help to clarify transitional (medium-term) land-use and land-tenure arrangements, including dispute-resolution mechanisms, even as long-term aims are negotiated.

The current level of commitment and interest to work on multi-sectoral approach on sustainable agriculture diminishes.


This project is designed with the full support of both primary Ministries (MoAFW and MoEF&CC). During PIF design, extensive meetings were held at both the national and state levels with responsible representatives. The level of commitment to this project and general project design has been excellent to date and is expected to continue through-out implementation. This will be insured through an approach that continues to be highly inclusive and facilitates full engagement by multi-sectoral stakeholders.

Government financial support for continuing programming will be insufficient


The Government of India has substantial resources. The risk is associated with the need re-direct this financing towards support for more sustainable agricultural practices. Again, the level of risk is considered to be low based upon existing government signals that there is a very strong willingness and desire to redirect financing based upon project demonstrated improvements. However, execution will depend upon sustained political support. This will be addressed by fully engaging key decision-makers throughout the project’s design and implementation fabric.

Land users return to unsustainable practices based on price volatility for agricultural commodities


The project will be structured to support income diversification to reduce the influence of commodity price fluctuations; increase incentives for sustainable land management (e.g., benefit-sharing, outcome-based subsidies, etc.); and, community and government engagement for improved clarity on limitations on appropriate/ permissible land uses, particularly within protected areas.

Community-level resistance to change (e.g., perception that changes in subsidies or payment methods will result in reduced benefits, harms, risks, etc.)


At local levels, this project will use a highly participatory process that strengthens or establishes local institutions to ensure that local initiatives are locally driven and reflect good governance (e.g., inclusion, representation, transparency, consistency, effectiveness, accountability, and dispute resolution). In recognition of the short time-horizons in which many intended beneficiaries need to see benefits, special efforts will be made for each initiative to identify opportunities


Description of Risk

Impact/Probability

Rating (Low: 1 to High: 5)

Mitigation and Contingency Measures

for short-term benefits that transition to medium- and long-term benefits. Extensive, proactive communications will increase awareness and attempt to address concerns before and during the program’s initiatives.

Resistance from private-sector interests that potentially stand to lose revenues


As with other constituent-based risks, the first line of mitigation is inclusion. Identified private-sector stakeholders will be included when possible and appropriate (at different levels) to lessen such risks and identify opportunities for growth. Value chains have been identified as one of the main crosscutting issues of this project, such that proactive efforts are being made to identify opportunities to build and strengthen the full length of affected value chains (and even creating additional value chains). Local institutions will provide a basis for private-sector stakeholders to interact and negotiate directly with communities (which comprise the program’s primary constituency).

Climate Change Impact: 4Probability: 5

Although appreciable climatic changes are unlikely to occur over the course of implementation, on-going climatic trends are one of this project’s primary inducements. The project directs significant resources toward climate change, leading to substantial co-benefits for mitigation and adaptation. The project’s approach will enable stakeholders at the national and local levels to put into place a straightforward strategic process to understand their vulnerabilities to climate change and to develop an action plan to deal with those vulnerabilities. This process and stakeholders’ capacity to sustain it will be the key to the project’s success. This will include promoting the conservation of ecosystem services to increase resilience.

5. Coordination

171. The proposed project is designed to enhance and generate synergies with India’s current portfolio of GEF investments. Prior to creating this PIF, FAO held extensive discussions with government, UN agencies, NGO partners and others to be certain the proposed project will generate synergies. All parties have agreed to work in unison to create a programmatic approach to jointly support advancement of GEF objectives. The proposed project will take the imitative to be certain tools are emplaced to help harmonize and coordinate relevant GEF initiatives. This will include the creation of bi-annual meetings between managers of all relevant GEF projects facilitated through the proposed project management and implementation team. The project will also organize formal, annual progress reporting seminars. These seminars will be used as a tool to inform stakeholders of project progress and intended future activities. This will serve as a mechanism to enhance replication and further galvanize cooperation.

172. The project will work particularly closely with the following programs:

The UNEP-implemented project “Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity Conservation and Utilization in Agricultural Sector to Ensure Ecosystem Services and Reduce Vulnerability” (2016-2021; GEF financing: USD ~3.2M; GEF ID: 5137) aims to mainstream the conservation and use of agricultural biodiversity for resilient agriculture and sustainable production to improve livelihoods, access, and benefit-sharing. The project’s primary components include: (i) adaptive management for conservation and use of crop agrobiodiversity fore resilient agriculture and sustainable production, (ii) strategies and policies for sustainable conservation and use of crop diversity, and (iii) institutional frameworks and capacity development. The project will operate in four agro-ecoregions: (i) the western Himalayas, (ii) the Northeast and the eastern Himalayas, (iii) the western arid and semi-arid region (Rajasthan and Gujarat), and (iv) the central region (Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra).

The UNDP-implemented project “Developing an Effective Multiple-Use Management Framework for Conserving Biodiversity in the Mountain Landscape of the High Ranges, Western


Ghats” (2014-2020; GEF financing: USD ~6.36M; GEF ID: 4743), which is working to protect biodiversity of the high-range mountainous landscape of the southern portion of the Western Ghats from existing and emergent threats by building a collaborative governance framework for multiple-use management.

The Rajasthan Forestry and Biodiversity Project (Phase II; 2011-2019; JICA funding: JPY 15,749M, USD ~134.8M) contributes to the environmental conservation and economic development of Rajasthan by enhancing forest area, improving livelihood opportunities of forest-dependent people, and conserving biodiversity through a joint forest management approach. The project’s major components include (i) poverty alleviation and livelihood improvement, (ii) afforestation, (iii) agroforestry, (iv) water conservation, (v) biodiversity conservation, (vi) capacity-building, training, and research, and (vii) community mobilization. The project covers 650 villages (340 desert, 250 non-desert, and 60 around wildlife sanctuaries) in 15 districts (10 desert, 5 non-desert) and within 2 km of seven wildlife sanctuaries throughout Rajasthan (Keoladeo, Kumbhalgarh, Fulwari Ki Nal, Raoli Todgarh, Sitamata, Bassi, and Jaisamand).

173. The project will also benefit greatly from lessons learned in the following recently concluded projects:

The World Bank/ GEF project “Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement” (2009-2015; GEF financing: USD 11.83M; GEF ID: 2444), which developed and promoted models of conservation at the landscape scale through enhanced capacity and institution-building for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation outcomes.

The World Bank-UNDP-FAO program “Sustainable Land and Ecosystem Management (SLEM)”, (2009-2015; GEF financing: USD 27.28M; GEF ID: 3268), which promoted sustainable land management, biodiversity conservation and use, and maintenance of ecosystems’ capacities to deliver goods and services in the context of climate change.

6. Consistency with National Priorities.

Is the project consistent with the National strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions? (yes x /no ). If yes, which ones and how: NAPAs, NAPs, ASGM NAPs, MIAs, NBSAPs, NCs, TNAs, NCSAs, NIPs, PRSPs, NPFE, BURs, etc.

Relevant International Agreements Ratified by India

Convention/Agreement Signed

Convention on Biological Diversity 1992

Nagoya Protocol 2011

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) 1976

Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992

Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2002

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2001

Convention to Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitats [Ramsar] 1981

World Heritage Convention on Nature and Culture Sites under UNESCO 1977

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 1994

Biodiversity Conservation

174. India is has shown a strong and sustained commitment to upholding the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The Indian National Biodiversity Action Plan (NBAP) identifies threats to and constraints in biodiversity conservation and sets out necessary actions to address them. The project is designed to respond directly to NBAP priorities. Examples include the following:


Section 3.1 states that solutions must be found to address habitat fragmentation, degradation, and loss.

Section 4.1 focuses upon strengthening and integration of in situ, on farm and ex situ conservation. The NBAP calls for conservation of national bio-geographic zones, critical ecological systems and genetic resources through in situ, on farm and ex situ efforts.

Section 5.1 directs attention towards the need to identify hotspots of agro-biodiversity under different agro-ecozones and cropping systems and promote on farm conservation; provide economically feasible and socially acceptable incentives such as value addition and direct market access in the face of replacement by other economically remunerative cultivars; and, develop mutually supportive linkages and increased coherence between in situ, on farm and ex situ conservation programs.

Section 5.9 identifies the need to build national capacities for biodiversity conservation and appropriate use of new technologies.

175. The project will contribute directly the several NBSAP National Biodiversity Targets for 2020. These include: measures are adopted for sustainable management of agriculture, forestry and fisheries; genetic diversity of cultivated plants, farm livestock, and their wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained; strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity; and, a significant proportion of the country's population, especially the youth, is aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably

Climate Change

176. The proposed project is consistent with India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) in general, and specifically with the following National Missions under the NAPCC and the corresponding State Action Plans for Climate Change (SAPCCs). The National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) by virtue of its emphasis on key dimensions of water-use efficiency (water-pumping emissions), nutrient management (CH4 for NH3 production; NOx emissions), and livelihood diversification (reduced deforestation and land degradation). The National Mission for a Green India (NMGI) by linking mitigation objectives with extensive co-benefits for adaptation, biodiversity conservation, sustainable land management, and livelihood improvement. Specifically, this proposed project will contribute to the following NMGI targets: (i) increasing forest/tree cover to the extent of 5 MHa and improving the quality of forest/ tree cover on another 5 MHa of forest/ non-forest lands, (ii) improving the ecosystem and provisioning services of forests and other ecosystems, and (iii) increasing forest-based livelihood income of about 3 million households. The National Water Mission, through initiatives aimed at water conservation and water use efficiencies (water-pumping emissions). The National Mission on Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change (NMSKCC), by integrating critical aspects of knowledge management into programming and strengthening the policy-related linkages between climate change, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable management of land and forests.

177. The project will support the associated Green India Mission (GIM) that reflects Government of India’s 12th Five Year Plan (2012-2017) priorities. This will be achieved by pursing: (i) significantly reduced rate of decline in NDVI in buffer zones of targeted biospheres; and (ii) halted decline in NDVI in core zones of targeted biospheres.

Land Degradation

178. The proposed project is aligned with India’s current draft National Action Programme (NAP) to Combat Desertification, Land Degradation and Drought of 2015-2030. The document recommends adoption of sustainable land management practices, diversification to high value agriculture for food and nutritional security, focus on small and marginal farmers, regions lagging behind such as dryland/ rainfed areas and Eastern India and empowerment of women in agricultural sector. With about 32% of its land affected by land degradation, India is strongly committed to


implementing the UNCCD. India actively participates in international events on desertification and is currently the Chair of the UNCCD Regional Implementation Annex for the Asia and the Pacific region. This proposed project is aligned with those efforts and initiatives, which include several of the aforementioned programs and: National Initiative on Climate-resilient Agriculture (NICRA), Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP), National Water Policy, National Watershed Development Project in Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA), the National Programme on Organic Production (NPOP), National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem (NMSHE), National Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (NMIDH), National Livestock Mission (NLM), Watershed Development in Shifting Cultivation Areas (WDSCA), and Integrated Nutrient Management (Soils).

Sustainable Forest Management

179. India strongly supports SFM. For example, the Forest Conservation Act (1980, amended 1988) reduced forest conversion rates from about 150,000 ha per year to around 30,000 ha per year, which helped increase forest cover in India from about 64 MHa in 1981 to about 69 MHa in 2011. The National Forest Policy (1988) has further built on those successes to strengthen conservation of natural heritage by preserving remaining natural forests and associated genetic resources. The National Forest Policy aims to increase forest cover through afforestation, elimination of clear-cutting, agroforestry, substitutions for commercial and fuel woods, improved forest inventories, prioritization of wildlife corridors, and significant national investments. The act has further support from the National Afforestation Program, the National Agroforestry Policy, the National Guidelines on Joint Forest Management (1990), the National Conservation Strategy, the Policy Statement on Environment and Development (1992), the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management Planning Authority (CAMPA, 2009), the National Bamboo Mission, and the National Green India Mission. The Forest Rights Act (2006) provides tenurial security for sustainable production in and around forests, community-based forest management, and prioritized conservation of critical wildlife habitats. These acts and policies are also supported by numerous specialized institutions, such as the Arid Forestry Research Institute (AFRI), Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI), Central Forestry Board, Forest Survey of India, Botanical Survey of India, Centre for Environmental Education, and Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE).

180. As an example of GoI’s continuing commitment to SFM, the Steering Committee for India’s 12th Five-year Plan (2013-2017) emphasized the importance of joint forest management (JFM): ““[…] JFM also needs to be evolved into a higher platform ‘JFM Plus’ where the livelihood promotion of the communities, especially women Self Help Groups (SHGs) formed for such activities, gets increased importance in the conservation and development of forests. To achieve this, JFMCs are required to be adequately and strategically revitalized and empowered.” Forest management responsibilities also extend to the state level. This proposed project is aligned with these national and state initiatives and priorities, including strong support for aligning JFM, sustainable use, and conservation objectives.

Agricultural Priorities

181. The project aligns with the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture, including priorities related to Rainfed Area Development, On Farm Water Management, Soil Health Management, Climate Change and Sustainable Agriculture - Monitoring, Modelling and Networking (CCSAMMN). The project is consistent with the imperatives and strategies in the National Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (NMIDH), the National Initiative on Climate-resilient Agriculture (NICRA), the National Agro-forestry Policy, the National Water Policy, the Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP), the National Watershed Development Project in Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA), the National Programme on Organic Production (NPOP), National Livestock Mission (NLM), the Watershed Development in Shifting Cultivation Areas (WDSCA) as well as the Integrated Nutrient Management (Soils). The project will contribute to meeting the target under the National Rural Livelihoods Mission to cover 70 million rural poor households, across 600 districts, through self-managed Self Help Groups (SHGs) and federated institutions and support them for livelihoods collectives.


Aichi Targets

182. Following is a summary of expected contributions to Aichi Targets. The final project document completed during the PPG phase will reflect a more refined accounting of Aichi Target alignment and contributions.

Aichi Strategic Goal Project Contribution/Alignment

Goal A: Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstream biodiversity across government and society

Aichi Target 1: Stakeholder awareness of the values of biodiversity and potential steps for conservation and sustainable use will be built through the project’s capacity building, training, and awareness activities.Aichi Target 2: The project will assist stakeholders with target achievement by integrating biodiversity within national and local agricultural development and conservation plans.Aichi Target 3: The project is specifically designed to improve existing agricultural subsidies that negatively impact biodiversity conservation.Aichi Target 4: The strategic approaches set in place through project action will increase the sustainability of existing agricultural production methods

Goal B: Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use

Aichi Target 5: The project will help reduce the loss of natural habitats through improved planning, use, and conservation of forests.Aichi Target 7: The project is designed to direct agriculture towards ensuring conservation of biodiversityAichi Target 8: The project will assist farmers to change practices and reduce amounts of chemical inputs used across the priority productive landscapes

Goal C: To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity.

Aichi Target 13: Agrobiodiversity conservation will be instrumental to project success

Goal D: Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building.

Aichi Target 14: The project is designed to help maintain and restore the ecosystem services upon which the local stakeholders depend. This will include fully taking into account the needs of women and indigenous/local communities.Aichi Target 15: The project will build climate change resilience and mitigation by improving the integrity of currently degraded ecosystem services

Goal E: Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services

Aichi Target 18: Traditional knowledge will be an important element of improved agricultural practices across priority landscapes

7. Knowledge Management

183. The capture and management of knowledge is fundamentally important to this project. A specific output will be designed under Component 2 for this purpose. Information will be fed into the national monitoring program, the tool-box, and inform adaptation of national and state level Green Landscape Conservation Strategies and related programming. The project will generate a specific marketing strategy to make certain lessons are captured and disseminated effectively. This will include generating management templates, training materials, and other educational resources. The project will initiate an annual lessons-learned workshop to share advances with associated stakeholders, projects, and government agencies. The project’s technical team will be tasked with working to make certain best international principles and practices are reflected in all project activities and outcomes. This site will serve as a knowledge repository and function as an organic monitoring, assessment, and reporting tool. The site will provide stakeholders with information regarding best practices and the results of on-going/implemented project activity.


PART III: APPROVAL/ENDORSEMENT BY GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT(S) AND GEF AGENCY(IES)

A. RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT11 OF GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT (S) ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT(S):

(Please attach the Operational Focal Point endorsement letter(s) with this template. For SGP, use this SGP OFP endorsement letter).

NAME POSITION MINISTRY DATE (MM/dd/yyyy)

Mr. Susheel Kumar Operational Focal Point: Additional Secretary

Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India

B. GEF AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATIONThis request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies12 and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for project identification and preparation under GEF-6.

Agency Coordinator, Agency name

Signature Date(MM/dd/yyyy)

Project Contact Person

Telephone Email

Gustavo MerinoDirector; Investment Centre Division; Technical Cooperation Department, FAOViale delle Terme di Caracalla (00153)Rome, [email protected]

14 April 2016 Trevor Self +39 06 570 5575

[email protected]

Jeffrey Griffin (Mr.) Senior Coordinator, FAO GEF Coordination UnitEmail: [email protected]

Tel: +39 06 5705 5680

[email protected]

C. ADDITIONAL GEF PROJECT AGENCY CERTIFICATION (APPLICABLE ONLY TO NEWLY ACCREDITED GEF PROJECT AGENCIES)

For newly accredited GEF Project Agencies, please download and fill up the required GEF Project Agency Certification of Ceiling Information Template to be attached as an annex to the PIF

11 For regional and/or global projects in which participating countries are identified, OFP endorsement letters from these countries are required even though there may not be a STAR allocation associated with the project.

12 GEF policies encompass all managed trust funds, namely: GEFTF, LDCF, and SCCF


https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/webpage_attached/GEF%20Project%20Agency%20Certification%20Template.docx

https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/webpage_attached/GEF%20Project%20Agency%20Certification%20Template.docx

mailto:[email protected]



https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/webpage_attached/OFP%20Endorsement%20of%20STAR%20for%20SGP%20Dec2014.docx

https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/webpage_attached/OFP%20Endorsement%20Letter%20Template-Dec2014.doc


Documents

· Web viewAgriculture is at the core of Indian society. More than 50% of the population is engaged in the agricultural sector. As a nation of smallholder farmers, over 70% of individual