uttar pradesh water sector restructuring project · uttar pradesh, with a population of about 160...

E448UTTAR PRADESH WATER SECTOR

RESTRUCTURING PROJECT

Proposed for World Bank financing by

GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Prepared by

I G HARMOND ASSOCIATES

Consulting Engineers, United Kingdom

FILE COPY

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SECTOR RESTRUCTURING PROJECT

Environmental AssessmentExecutive Summary

Introduction

Rural livelihoods in South Asia are inextricably linked to sustainable natural resourcesmanagement. A key concern in this regard is sustainable water resources planning and management ofdiminishing and inceasingly polluted supplies and increasing demands from multiple sectors. At themulti-sectoral level, issues of integrated and rational water resources planning and management in termsof integrated river basin management, environmentally and socially sustainable river basin planning,inter-sectoral water allocation and water rights, stakeholder participation, improved and shared basinknowledge base, enhanced information-based decision-making, trans-boundary dispute resolution andrationalization of water charges have often been the subject of many papers and deliberations. However,there have been few examples of any of these being undertaken in true spirit in practice in the region, asin much of the developing world. The situation is similar in the region's most important water usingsector - irrigated agriculture - where often-discussed but little-resolved issues include those of reformingand modernizing usually bloated, bankrupt, inefficient, and inflexible sector institutions, putting farmerclients first, integrating and modernizing irrigation & drainage and agriculture & irrigation activities,participatory irrigation management, private sector involvement, land tenure reform, mainstreamingenvironmental and social objectives and safeguards into irrigation systems management, and rational andvolumetric water pricing.

Past experiences of Governments in the region to change the status quo, through their own anddonor-financed programs has had mixed results. There are few good examples of truly main-streamedreform, and in general, there have been scattered and insulated investments with little mainstreaming ofexperiences into Government institutions, little political, bureaucratic and technical commitment to takethe bold measures necessary to drag these institutions into a modern world with redefined roles andresponsibilities. Environmental issues are one of several issues that need urgent attention. All over India,and in large states such as Uttar Pradesh, these problems are systemic and a radical paradigm shift isrequired to help resolve them.

The proposed Uttar Pradesh Water Sector Restructuring Project (UPWSRP) seeks to help developsuch a paradigm shift in Uttar Pradesh at two levels - one for integrated water resources planning andmanagement in a basin context and another for improving the institutional and physical arrangements forirrigated agriculture. The project places itself firmly in a long-term programmatic framework, andlearning from past lessons, focuses on institutional reform with pilot investments to generate lessons tohelp create the enabling environment for the implementation of an ambitious program.

It is expected that environmental objectives and mitigation measures for environmental concernswill be fully mainstreamed into all aspects of the design and implementation of the project and program.This summary describes the Environmental Assessment that has been prepared for the proposed projectand attempts to put the project EA in a strategic program framework. The emphasis is on introducing andanalyzing, from an environmental viewpoint, the project and the programmatic framework; summarizingpotential environmental benefits and concerns associated with the project; analyzing alternatives; andfinally presenting the summary of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) recommendations to bemainstreamed into the project.

S-1

Policy and Institutional Framework

The 1987 National Water Policy of the GOI emphasises the need for integrated water resourcesmanagement in a basin context. Uttar Pradesh has recently (in Dec 1999) promulgated a progressiveState Water Policy that seeks to initiate much-needed radical reforms in the way the water resources ofthe state are managed and the proposed program and project seeks to initiate the implementation of thispolicy in the selected areas. The Policy is also important from an environmental and social viewpoint andincludes references to:

> Adequate provision for ecological, navigational, recreational and other purposes;> Key concern about the quality of water, its protection against pollution and safeguards against

water-related health hazards;> Focus on basic drinking water and sanitation needs;> Consideration of integrated river basin planning as a unit of development;> Focus on data, information and knowledge-base development for decision-making;> A special focus on resettlement and rehabilitation of affected persons; and,> Participatory Irrigation Management.

The GOI and the State also have a significant environmental regulatory framework for assessment ofproject environmental impacts. However, there is a need to strengthen this environmental policy andregulatory framework with respect to the irrigated agriculture sector.

Uttar Pradesh, with a population of about 160 million people (even after the new state of Uttaranchalwas split off), has an economy that is dominated by agriculture (40% of the State Domestic Product and75% of employment). The State leads India in the number of people below poverty line (42%, of whom80% are in agriculture-related activities. The overall State economy is sluggish and the UP IrrigationDepartment, that once made a net contribution to the treasury, is now running deficits of about Rs. 1500crore annually (about US $ 320 m). Appropriate water management coupled with other agriculturalinputs could result in improved yields, increased intensity of cultivation and improved marketing andassociated off-farm employment which can have enormous impact in reducing poverty, increasingincomes and enhancing food security. This, along with substantial reform in irrigation sector institutionswould contribute to an overall improvement in the state's economy.

On the institutional front, there is a conspicuous absence of inter-sectoral apex institutions that canhelp promote integrated water resources management. A result is ususally ad-hoc resolution of issues bycrisis management instead of systematic planning and instiutionalization of decision-making on waterresource in a basin context. There is also an absence of developing country role models for river basininstitutions that have the mandate and capacity for integrated land and water management within ahydrologic unit.

The primary sector institution for irrigated agriculture is the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department(UPID). The UPID is the oldest continuously functioning sectoral department in India. The UPID had arather impressive past in terms of planning, constructing and operating some very complex andspectacular engineering works. The current situation is very different and the symptoms include a lack ofcapacity to adapt to modern times and ways and means of managing irrigation systems, very low moraledue to extremely poor human resources development opportunities (including hiring and firing policies,official incentive structures, career development, training, etc), a change in focus from maximizingagricultural productivity to delivering water, low level of participation of their clients in decision making,rampant corruption and especially a rapidly increasing financial loss. The UPID has little experience inaddressing social issues, including on partnerships in managing the systems with farmers and farmerorganizations. UP has practically no experience in water user associations for operations and

S-2

maintenance of the irrigation and drainage systems. There is currently no R&R policy for the sector inUP (although one is being developed as part of preparation for this project). On the environmental front,there is little in-house capacity or awareness in UPID to mainstream ecological, pollution or other naturalresources management issues in its activities. There is a need to augment staff and training opportunitieson environmental management, access to expertise and other capacity building in order to develop spatialresource management perspectives in a basin framework, developing guidelines for main streamingenvironmental and social objectives and concerns in UPID activities and interact with other relatedagencies and stakeholders.

The flagship agency of the Department of Environment (DOE) in UP is the State Pollution ControlBoard (PCB), which is currently primarily concerned with industrial pollution abatement and even therethe capacity is very limited. There is another WB financed activity on the development of anEnvironmental Management Framework for UP as part of the overall economic, fiscal and governancereforms program package. The involvement of the DOE in UPID activities is minimal at present.

The other key related institutions are the UP Diversified Agricultural Support Project that seeks topromote agricultural intensification, diversification, sustainable cropping techniques, and improvement ofmarket access. The UP Bhoomi Sudhar Nigam is also an impressive institution that has been establishedto reclaim saline-sodic soils of ten districts in Eastern UP under two World Bank projects called the SodicLands Reclamation Project - I & II. The UPSLRP also attempted to rehabilitate and modernize twominors and to pilot participatory irrigation management models.

Overall, there is a complex web of institutions involved in various aspects of irrigated agriculturemanagement. These include the Water and Land Management Institute (WALMI) that provides trainingand support on participatory irrigation management, the UP State Remote Sensing Applications Centerthat has developed competence in satellite imagery analysis, environmental monitoring, etc.

The World Bank has recently chosen UP to be one of their "focus states", and is pursuing a multi-sectoral approach to lending, in which the water sector and irrigated agriculture sub-sectors are key toaddress rural poverty, fiscal and governance issues. The proposed project and program should helpimplement the State Water Policy in the selected basin and strengthen and network the institutionalframework for irrigated agriculture.

Project Description

Regional Setting: The state of UP is home to many significant river systems that are part of the GangesBasin. Based on various poverty indicators, the Ghagra-Gomti basin (figure S1) in eastern UP has beenselected to initiate a water and irrigation reform program. The basin comprises a significant portion ofUP and consists mainly of the Sarda (Mahakali in Nepal), Ghagra, Gomti and Rapti rivers. There aremany issues that are related to sustainable water resource management in this basin, including those oflarge-scale salinisation and waterlogging, low agricultural productivity, drinking water coverage, conflictsover inter-sectoral water allocation and use, wetland management and water quality problems in surfaceand ground waters. The irrigation systems include the Sarada, Sarada-Sahayak and the Sarayu systemsthat are fed by the Sarda and Ghaghra rivers and consist of branches, distributaries, minors and outletsthat lead to watercourses.

S-3

Development Objectives: Thedevelopment objectives of theproposed Uttar Pradesh WaterSector Reform Program (figure inS2) are:

Ghaghra-(i) to increase productivity of Gomti Basin

water(ii) to increase and sustain EA

agricultural productivity, and(iii) to improve the livingstandards of the rural poor

Project Details: Theseobjectives would be achievedby a series of overlappinginvestments. The first projectin this series, UPWSRP[-I],would help create the enabling Figure Si: Ghaghra-Gomti Basin in the State of Uttar Pradeshenvironment for achieving these Note: The map is only intended to be indicative and borders may be in disputeobjectives by:(i) establishing the new institutions required to carry forward the water sector reform process(ii) adopting a riverbasin approach to identifying issues and constraints to development in the sector

starting with the Ghagra-Gomti Basin and formulating a comprehensive environmentally-sustainabledevelopment strategy

(iii) rightsizing and capacity-building to modernize functioning of irrigation and drainage sub-sectorinstitutions

(iv) piloting replicable management options for sustained irrigation and drainage operations(including agricultural intensification and diversification) by both public and private sector entities

(v) piloting replicable management options for sub-basin planning and management(vi) continue preparation of next investment in the program

The proposed project envisages institutional restructuring and reform at the apex level toencourage integrated water management in the State and at the level of the UP Irrigation Department. Inaddition, the project proposes to pilot reforms on the ground in selected sub-basins (the Jaunpur BranchSub-basin [JBS] and the Imamganj Branch Sub-basin [IBS]) on both modernizing irrigation and drainageoperations as well as in integrated sub-basin planning and management (see figure S3). The componentsof the UPWSRP are shown in Table S 1. The overall outcomes are designed to develop the enablingenvironment for the program by initiating and institutionalizing integrated water resource managementconsiderations in a basin context at the State, Ghaghra-Gomti basin and at the JBS and IBS levels as wellas initiating substantial reforms in the irrigated agriculture sector management.

S-4

Uttar Pradesh Water Sector Restructuring Project Draft Environmental Assessment Executive Summary

Triggers for .a

UPWSRP-III a

Triggers for JP S -I /UPWSRP-II _ PWSRP-l

_[_= UPWSRP-1Apex UP Irrigation Piloting Reform Preparation of

Institutions Department Options UPWSRP-11Reform

State Water * in Irrigation and * AssessmentsResources Agency * HR Drainage Operations * Topographic(SWaRA) (Structure, [PROIDO] Surveys

Training. MIS. (Rehabilitation and * Detailed* State Water VRS, etc.) modernization of Irrigation ProjectResources Data & & Drainage, agricultural PreparationAnalysis Center * Business intensification and(SWaRDAC) Process diversification, integration of

Reengineering social and environmental* State Water (Modernization. concerns, water userTariff Regulatory Computerization associations, volumetricCommission ,MSDS. measurements, etc.)(SWaTReCo Training. etc.) in Water Resources

Management [PROWaRM]I(Branch Sub-basin Boards,

integrated water resources /1

. l l ,,, | ~~~~~~management planning and ,3

Figure S2: UP Water Sector Restructuring Program Vision (overlapping investments over $1 billion over 15 years)

Note: The first project, UPWSRP [- I] is about $150 million (ind expected to be implemented over 5 vears

S-5

Uttar Pradesh Water Sector Restructuring Project Draft Environmental Asse.

Table SI: Key Components of the UP Water Sector Restructuring Project

Component Key Activities Key Desired OutcomesA. Apex Setting up apex water institutions in > Initiate and institutionalize integrated waterInstitutions UP: resources planning and management in a basin

) State Water Resources Agency context(SWaRA), and associated State > Develop knowledge base and analytical tools toWater Resources Data & Analysis support more rational water resources decision-Center (SWaRDAC) making

> State Water Tariff Regulatory > Rationalize and Depoliticize water tariffsCommission (SWaTReC)

B. UP Irrigation > Human Resources Development > Modernize department functioning to enableDepartment (Structure, Training, MIS, VRS, more efficient and effective service delivery andReform etc.) integrate of environmental and social objectives

> Business Process Reengineering and concerns into their operation(Modernization, Computerization, > Rightsize UPID and reengineer businessMIS, DSS, Training, etc.) processes to increase effectiveness in a modern

age, improve its bankrupt fiscal situation andimprove client orientation

C. Piloting in Irrigation and Drainage > Sustainably improve rural livelihoods in theReform Options Operations (PROIDO) selected branch basins through improved irrigation

[Rehabilitation and modernization of service delivery, cropping intensification,Irrigation & Drainage, agricultural diversification, participatory irrigationintensification and diversification, management, off-farm activities and access tointegration of social and knowledge and marketsenvironmental concerns, water user 0 Improve public health, access to water andassociations, volumetric livelihoods by piloting integrated sub-basinmeasurements, etc.] planning and managementin Water Resources Management > Generate lessons from irrigation and drainage(PROWaRM) reforms and integrated water planning and[Jaunpur and Imamganj Branch Sub- management planning pilots for mainstreamingbasin Development and Management into the UP WSRP Program and for other similarBoards - JBSDMB and IBSDMB, programsintegrated water resourcesmanagement planning and pilotingincluding wetland management, canalhydro pilot, and rain water harvesting]

D. Preparation > Topographic surveys, studies and ) Improve sustainability and ownership ofof UPWSRP *11 assessments, project preparation Program that can give long-term outcomes of

sustainable rural livelihood improvement

The project is proposed to be implemented as shown in Figure S4. The UPID will implement theUPID reforms and the irrigation and drainage reforms and the newly created SWaRA will initiateintegrated water resources management and SWaTReC be an independent water tariff regulatoryauthority, both supported by the knowledge base and analytical capacity of SWaRDAC. The basinpiloting (see figure S5) will be coordinated by the JBSDMB and the IBSDMB and the irrigation anddrainage work at UPID by the JBSC and the IBSC. The link to agricultural knowledge, input andmarketing issues will be provided by the ongoing Bank-financed UP Diversified Agriculture SupportProject. The overall coordination of the program will rest with the Secretary, UPWSRP reporting to thePrincipal Secretary, Irrigation for UPID issues and the Program Steering Committee on other issues.

S-6

Uttar Pradesh Water Sector Restructuring Project Draft Environmental Asse

UP Water Sector Restructuring Project: JALPANI GIS

ImainganjBranch

Branchi

Drainage

1- ~~~Ghaghra-Gomti Basin

300 0 300 600 KilometersS

FigureS3: Sub-Basins where Reforms are to be Piloted

Progra Ste ng

Secretary,Cmuiuef; Princpal:0>; s: .c _ l:::

FIrrigation Aranemnt

PrQjecS Ad-7A~~es PC1 Secretaryo0 ~sw Wiw

Figure S4: Implementation Arrangements~stat

S-7


RI ve

Sodic I an> J PatchesJ\L|

Branch Drainage Basin _

Figure S5: Irrigation System Basins Considered in UPWSRP

S-8

Uttar Pradesh Water Sector Restructuring Project Draft Environmental Asser

Environmental Scoping

The scoping exercise, largely influenced by consultations and initial spatial knowledge baseassessment (including through multi-agency data collection and an extensive Geographic InformationSystem [GIS] development and analysis), indicated the following key issues to be considered as part ofthe EA for the project:

> Environmental Awareness: generally weak at the UPID and related institutions involved with watermanagement and irrigated agriculture, as well as with client farmers.

> Envirommental Knowledge Base: the environmental knowledge-base is poor, sharing of informationto help get a complete picture of environmental issues in a spatial context is extremely difficult, sharingand communicating information to various stakeholders is limited. No focal point institution to act as aclearing-house of water resources and basin management information.

> Institutional Capacity: the capacity of UPID and local stakeholders in integrating environmentalinformation into decision-making is very limited. Access to expertise and effective partnerships inmainstreaming environmental issues into their functioning is poor, although there is surprising butscattered environmental expertise within UPID.

> Lack of a Basin Approach: a basin approach to integrated water resources management is absentboth at the level of river basins as well as at the irrigation and drainage system level. An integratedconsideration of surface and groundwater quality and quantity, salinization/sodicity of soils, recharge,drainage, flooding and waterlogging, public health concerns on water-related diseases (malaria, etc.)conjunctive use of surface and groundwater, wetland management, fisheries, etc. is absent. Safe watersupply and sanitation coverage is extremely poor in the selected pilot areas. Lack of apex institution forbasin resource allocation and regulation in the State.

> Irrigation and Drainage Systems Reform: limited exposure to integrated pest management,appropriate fertilizer use, soil fertility and nutrient management; low level of recognition of theimportance of drainage; little diversification in crops grown; little modernization in tools and techniquesused. Designs, construction and operations and maintenance operations can be made significantly moreenvironmentally friendly.

L Consultation: Extremely limited consultation in water resources management and irrigation anddrainage activities. Poor consultation culture at UPID. Little role of farmers in decision-making.Negligible experience in water user associations and private sector involvement (except contracting forconstruction and O&M) in managing irrigation and drainage operations.

> Rehabilitation-related: Lack of a clear R&R policy framework; Need to address issues of spoil disposal,materials handling, good construction techniques

Environmental Screening

Although the primary institutional reform focus and the limited physical investments forrehabilitation are not expected to produce major negative environmental impacts, the project has beencategorized as Environmental Category A due to the new nature of investments proposed and due to thefact that the program seeks, through implementation of overlapping projects over 15 years, to change thewater resources development paradigm in the Ghaghra-Gomti basin.

This EA only addresses the environmental issues in the first investment and is intended todevelop a framework for their effective mainstreaming into the project, but places this in a strategicprogrammatic framework. A strategic Basin Environmental and Social Assessment is recommended to beprepared as part of the first investment to help set the framework for the entire program. However, it isexpected that all future investment projects will have their own EAs as necessary.

S-9

Uttar Pradesh Water Sector Restructuring Project Draft Environmental Asses

Consultations

A substantial consultation process, especially over the past year has significantly influenced thedesign of the project and this EA. Consultations since the UP Water Policy was being finalized in 1999and during the initial preparation missions helped in the development of the Terms of Reference for thisEA. Since July 2000, joint consultations were held for determining the social and environmentalconcerns in the villages - about 30 villages were surveyed in the Jaunpur Branch Sub-basin area andabout 33 in the Imamganj Branch Sub-basin area. The consultation tools used included householdsurveys, village profiling, gender analysis, focus group discussions, stakeholder consultations, and districtstakeholder meetings. In addition, UPID staff at all levels were also extensively consulted during projectpreparation. A simplified version of the draft EA report findings were translated into local languages anddiscussed in stakeholder meetings in the JBS and IBS areas.

This consultative process was thought to be extremely useful in highlighting the local issues,institutional issues and local capacity to influence the overall project design. It also revealed the need forgreater environmental awareness, and the need to build a "culture of consultation" at the UPID. The EMPrecommends that this combined social-environmental consultative process be mainstreamed into theproject, and that they preceed any significant rehabilitation efforts in different parts of the two branchsystems selected for piloting reforms.

Environmental Baseline

The EA presents a baseline of environmental parameters at a coarse level for the entire State andthe Ghaghra-Gomti basin and at a finer level for the two branch sub-basin area (JBS and IBS) wherephysical investments will occur. An extensive set of data has been collected and analyzed from a varietyof sources, including at the State and Central government level. The information base has been largelyintegrated into GIS and other electronic formats that form the core of the decision support systemsenvisaged as part of the project. The preparation of the EA has also indicated the poor environmentalawareness in the water resources and irrigation sectors, patchy nature of the data, significant problems ininter-agency sharing of data and limited analytical institutional capacity. Recommendations forstrengthening the environmental awareness, institutional capacity, spatial environmental knowledge base,analytical tools, and institutional coordination have been made in this regard.

Environmental Impacts

An analysis of the proposed project components has been carried out (see summary in Table S2)to determine potential positive and negative impacts to lead to enhancement measures to improve positiveenvironmental impacts and mitigation measures to safeguard against potential negative impacts (asdescribed later in the EMP section). This indicates overall that the project has a number of environmentalconcerns primarily related to the institutional capacity, environmental awareness, knowledge-base andsome mitigation works and proposes a framework to address these issues effectively in the project. Inaddition, the table indicates the potential of the proposed project in enhancing the consideration ofenvironmental issues both in the integrated water resources planning and management area as well as inthe irrigation and drainage sub-sector. Social issues have been covered in the concurrent socialassessment and the key recommendations (also summarized in the EA report) included in the project.

S-io


Table S2: Key Environmental issues in the proposed UP Water Sector Restructuring Project

Component Key Environmental Objectives Key Environmental Concerns> Mainstream environmental and social issues in Basin Planning > Poor capacity to integrate environmental issues into basin

and Management planningP Improve environmental knowledge-base, analytical tools and > Poor environmental knowledge-base and analytical tools and

institutional linkages for environmentally and socially-sustainable capacityintegrated water resources management in a basin framework > Poor basin development plans developed with little inclusion of

Apex Institutions (including wetlands management, conjunctive groundwater-surface environmental issues can exacerbate environmental issues such as

water management, in-stream flow allocation and enforcement for waterlogging, salinization, resource conflicts, stakeholder

environmental and other purposes, water quality management, consultation and participation, flooding, environmental allocation,

appropriate environmental and social assessment framework for etc.projects impacting water resources availability and quality, etc.) > Poor inter-agency linkages to share information and coordinate

> Include appropriate environmental issues in water tariff setting activities> Improve multi-stakeholder environmental awareness and > If only up-front large strategic environmental study is carried

encourage inter-agency cooperation and coordination on out, there may be little ownership, associated capacity-building or

environmental issues be untimely

> Develop and implement simple and effective environmental > Poor capacity at UPID to address environmental issues; also

guidelines for UPID activities poor partnerships

UP Irrigation > Develop Environmental knowledge base and appropriate modern > Environmental concerns will be lost in the focus on water

Department Reform analytical tools to facilitate informed decision-making at various deliverylevels in irrigated agriculture activities from UPID to farmer level > Existing environmental knowledge base, analytical capacity and

environmental awareness in UPID and among farmers is weak;Inter-agency information sharing is weak

> Basin concept downscaled to the level of an irrigation canal and > Basin approaches to manage irrigated agriculture in UP is a new

associated drainage conceptPiloting Reform > Technical knowledge base, analysis and Institutional > Piloting reform options in specific areas could have unknown

Options coordination to achieve environmental outcomes environmental impacts associated with it; future private sector

> Public health benefits due to reduced malaria and other water- operation options could also have environmental problems unless

related diseases due to better water resources management and adequate safeguards are built-inincreased environmental awareness > The lessons learned would not incorporate environmental

performance due to poor baseline, monitoring & analysis

> Selection of physical sub-basins includes environmental > Areas selected poorly

Preparation of parameters > Environmental assessments not carried out to desired quality

UPWSRP -11 > Environmental and social objectives included in the preparatory > Environmental capacity of implementing agencies weak and

activities for UPWSRP-II environmental performance in this project poor, raising concernabout environmental implications of the Program

S-11


Analysis of Alternatives

The analysis of alternatives poses special challenges for projects such as these that focus oninstitutional reform and that are embedded in a programmatic framework. An attempt has been made inthe EA to analyze the project from a number of different perspectives and a summary of the results arepresented in Table S3 and Figure S4. The overall conclusion is that there is little alternative to systematicand systemic reform in the way water resources and irrigated agriculture are managed in Uttar Pradesh.Deep but achievable institutional reforms, a methodology strongly rooted in an integrated basin concept,strong consultation, modern and appropriate tools and techniques for traditional sectors, knowledge-baseddecision-making and principles of transparency, empowerment, subsidiarity and outcome-orientation areessential features in the project design as it has evolved during the preparation process. In the UPID, ifchange from a "vicious spiral" of low staff motivation and morale, ineffective work culture, poor servicedelivery, poor satisfaction of the water user clients, poor collection, an exploding fiscal deficit and poorinvestment in modernization and training is required, there is little alternative to substantially changingthe way business is done. And this is as true from an irrigated agriculture viewpoint as from anenvironmental viewpoint.

Table S3: Analysis of Alternatives at the Component Level* Selected alternative

Type Alternatives Benefits Concerns* Business as usual - no pains! * Business as usual - no gains!

* No focal point for integrated water resourcesmanagement - water conflicts increase acrosssectors and regions

* "Vicious Spiral" of poor performance, poorwater user satisfaction, poor willingness to pay,poor O&M, high staff costs, increasing fiscalburden taking away resources from crucialsectors such as health, education and socialservices to subsidize irrigation

* Antiquated techniques for survey, design,No Project Scenario construction, O&M

* The development of a good environmentalknowledge-base, analytical capacity,mainstreaming of environmental issues intolarge-scale water resources management andirrigated agriculture will be delayed even furtherresulting in continuously exacerbatingenvironmental problems relating towaterlogging, salinization, water quality, watersharing, and social problems of lack ofempowerment, and involvement in decision-making

Irrigation Systems * Focus on only one sector * Limited focus ignores basin settingKApproach

Integrated, multi- * Multiple sector focus; integrated river basin * No integrated basin and sub-basin plansC; sectoral Basin Approach implementation developed yet; institutional capacity is weak

Initial focus on * Irrigated Agriculture sector crucial * Long-term basin planning needs to beco Irrigated Agriculture * Basin approach scaled-down developed for the overall ghaghra-gomti basin

in an integrated Basinframework*

S-12


Only focus on UPID * Focussed development of only one * Irrigated agricultural outcomes would not beinstitution realized without integrated water resources

* Easier implementation planning, regulation and management capacity* Expectations for unbiased integrated water

resources management through a user agency(UPID) would be misplaced

* Inter-agency coordination would continue to bea problem without an apex institution for waterresources planning

* Water tariff setting would be arbitrary ando subject influence; conflicts of interest would._ persist.

._ Additional focus on * Apex institutions created and inter- * Not an easy task to create new apex institutionsState- and basin-level departmental linkages established and help inertial, fragmented agenciesmanagement * More holistic and outcome-oriented than collaborate towards common developmentinstitutions for river focussing on UPID alone; essential for goals.basin planning, tariff reforming the irrigated agriculture sector in * Lack of proactivity within UPID to driveregulation, etc. and UP versus having a small-scale successful reforms and change management to completionlinks with agricultural project. * Level of cooperation with allied departmentsinstitutions* * "Shared vision" multi-stakeholder planning and agencies in determining multi sectoral

and management strategiesLong-term Program * Phased and learning approach possible * Initial physical rehabilitation benefits a smallerApproach* (necessary when dealing with an region.

institutional and physical setup for * Difficult to obtain buy-in from government andirrigation as large and complex as in UP). financing institutions

* Initial focus on institutional reform would * Scope needs to be adaptable and dynamichelp not to divert attention to physicalinfrastructure improvements only.

* More sustainable approach - permanent andlong-lasting changes

* "Root-and-Branch" approach sees next stepafter preceeding one proves successful

Single Project Approach * Can spread benefits over a larger area - * Spread too thin - Unsustainable in terms ofinfrastucture investment inputs "fast- outcomestracked" * Chances of success are low; lessons from past

and ongoing water sector projects indicate thatthis is not a good option for UP as focus wouldshift to mostly- unsustainable infrastructureimprovements over institutional reform.

* V. low institutional and fiscal capacity forimplementation

* Mindset change required - need to demonstratesuccess of new approaches

Rehabilitate and * Large-scale implementation of reforms may * Expensive and does not address fundamentalmodernize overall result in benefits spread over large area. issuesirrigation & drainage . Unsustainable - without structural reform insystems institutions, structurally-rehabilitated

infrastructure will deteriorate backffi . Improper implementation may throw the entire

irrigation system into chaos* Time required for studies (e.g

topographic/remote sensing surveys andanalysis) would be considerable and require avery long and very high-risk project

Adaptable Approach - . More sustainable in the long-term * More difficult to get institutional buy-in fromeo scaling up after piloting * Amenable to a phased and learning areas that are not being covered under first

reform options* approach that would be more sustainable project.. Lessons from piloting reform options in * Slower progress

smaller areas could then be scaled-up* Surveys, feasibility studies and institutional

capacity required for next phase could bebuilt into first project of program.

Surface Water Focus only . Easy to focus on - consistent with current * Lack of shared vision planning and managementapproach with other departments

* Cound focus only on UPID . Need to incorporate planned conjunctive use.

S-13


Conjunctive Surface . Approach would result in a more integrated * There is little integrated assessment of surfaceand Groundwater water resources / basin planning approach and ground water data and analysis.consideration* * Crop water requirements would be better * Operational irrigation rosters would reflect

met and productivity would increase availability and capacity to tap groundwater,. Waterlogging (and associated productivity, changes in cropping patterns, demands, etc.

sodicity and public health problems) wouldbe reduced

Separate Cells * Greater focus and more easily managed as * Poor mainstreaming and assimilation ofan environmental group activities and recommendations into UPID

* High risk of creating an "enclave"a Needs good career development structure

Mainstreamed into . Knowledge transfer and reforms . Lack of expertise and hesitancy of UPID toTeam* permanence more assured bring this in from outside

* Wider acceptance of UPID of * Needs good career development structureenvironmental management

* Would facilitate teamwork and exposure toenvironmental issues

Environmental Management Plan (EMP)Table S4 summarizes the key provisions made in the EMP for the project. Key EMP features include:

> Emphasis on covering all aspects of a project - including expected induced impacts> Continuation of all aspects of the environmental assessment into the project at smaller scales - this

includes substantial consultation, screening and scoping (with screening process for each new activityand new location) baseline data collection and analysis (through spatial knowledge base creation andanalysis), analysis of alternatives (e.g. type of rehabilitation for specific branch, distributary, minor andoutlet), further analysis (e.g. additional studies as required) and access to expertise.

) Integration of social and environmental issues and their integration into the project (e.g. throughconsultation, joint walkthroughs, etc.)

) Emphasis on targeted capacity-building (through an extensive training program, access to consultants,partnership-building and an improved knowledge-base and communication network)

s Emphasis on environmental awareness (at the new apex institutions, the UPID, the DASP, the wateruser clients and others)

) Development of a strategic framework (through a Basin Environmental and Social Assessment andassociated management plan as part of the project for the entire Ghaghra-Gomti basin, where futureinvestments in the proposed program will be targeted)

> Requirement for all new activities to develop an EMP prior to implementation (e.g. rainwaterharvesting, wetland management, etc.)

> Emphasis on the systematic development of an environmental knowledge-base and analysis capacityas well as regular monitoring and evaluation and its integration into decision-making

There will be a cost involved in implementing the EMP and this has to be included in the UPWSRPprogramme budget. A summary of EMP operational costs are estimated in TableS5. A number ofestimates have been made in the development of these costs. General hardware costs like officecomputers, transport, equipment, etc, staff and UPID administration costs are not included in the costsestimate which is primarily concerned with those costs directly attributable to setting up and running theEMP. The project components have considerable flexibility and hence, the EMP cost allocation also hasto be reasonably flexible. The EMP running costs for UPWSRP year two to year four would depend verymuch on progress in year one and future requirements. Some of the year one costs are single outlays sowont be repeated while others will be recurrent expenditures. In broads terms it can be assumed that torun the EMP in year 1 will cost about 22,000,000 and for years two to year five would cost about30,000,000 INR or about 7,500,000 INR per year, leading to a total cost of approximately 53,000,000INR or about US $ 1.1 million. It is estimated that this would provide a reasonable level of comfort inachieving the positive environmental benefits targeted by the project while ensuring compliance withBank, GOI and GOUP safeguards on mitigating negative impacts.

S-14


I Proiect Obiedives II Strateaic ObiedisI

Increased productiviy of water Improving governance and revamping fiscal policyIncreased and sustainable agricultural production Restrurcturing infrastructureImorovements in the living standards of rural Door Strencithenina human resources

Supporti ng rural and urban developmentTackling social an4 environment issues

r Sectoral Reguirements |

| Water sector reform and capacity building at state levelRiver basin planning

Reform and capacity building of the UPIDStudies, designs and implementation of pilot l&D reforms

Studies. and desian of KD improvement worksrDevetopment Proposal

Creation of institutional structuresMulti Sectorai water resources and environmental management

UPID reform and capacity btuidingPloting reform options for l&D operations

Inigated agnculture intensification and diversification programnieFeasibility studies and preparation of activities for the next phase

Human resources develownent

r Alternative AIpproahes | Alternative Development Strategies

i IAtain project objectives lhrough DOA or another agency Strengthen and implement l&D operations through DOA

Invest in public sector restructuring and market forces Establish and implement via agricultural investment vehiclRestructure and privatise the UPID Retain core UPID staff and sell assets

Divide UPID up into smailermanagementunitsand reform Restructure UPID and divide and run in smaller unSReform institutional structures and leave l&D operations Amaigamate UPID with DOA and a form new joint agency

Investment channiell ed throuoh UPID and leave restructu rina Set uo soecial unit within and imDlement through U PIDRehabilitate l&D oaerations and *ivatise as a whole

Evaluate Environmental Implications Screen Alternative Strateglesaof Alternaive Straite le

Retain core UPID staff and sell assetsRestruicture UPID and divide irto smaller urifts

Amaigamate UPID with DOA and brm a new joint agency

DifficLitto secure the necessarv oovemmert aporovalsRetain core UPID s Legally complicated and would involve complex regulation

anrd se | assets IComDlementarv water resources and environmental provisions still reauiredUrnikelv finance could be raised without auarantees and subsidies

Resources dannina and environmental protection provisions fraomentedRestructure UPID and divide Financially attractive wth significant staff advancement benefits

and run in smaller unis Would focus responsibility clearly on UPID as iocal service providersStrong obectiodns likelv from senior management

Improved and laudable approach to irrigated acricuitureArrmalgamateUPID wthDOA Move away from water provision to agriculture environmentally dangerous

and )rm new iont aoeric Dilution af rver basin managementand environmental Drotection princioles wrongBetter coordination and ioint management to ensure effcient aao chemical use |

Reform of UPID abandoned and importance of environment on l&D operations lost*|Using previous approach and Inefficient with concentration on construction not environmental sustainabilky

|imoement throuah UPID unit Without restructurina oaralle! river basin planning DroDosais will not succeedI Shortterm l&D goerations will nd solve UPIDs lono termmnrdblems I

Analysis of project objectives Indicates no measurableenvironmental advantages In purina an alternative strateav

Figure S4: Analysis of Alternatives Flowchart

S-15


Table S4: Key Environmental Issues In the Proposed UP Water Sector Restructuring Project

Component Principal Environmental Enhancement/Mitigation Measures in EMP Key Implementing Institutions (withConsultant assistance as necessary) &

Timeframe1. Major effort at building environmental capacity at SWaRA for river basin planning, Note on Timeframe: All activities

allocation and regulation throughout project except where indicated2. Development of a significant environmental knowledge-base and analytical capacity

on the State and especially on the Ghaghra-Gomti basin at the SWaRDAC to 1. State Water Resources Agency

Apex support the consideration of environmental issues at SWaRA and SWaTReC (SWaRA)Institutions 3. Data-sharing, institutional mechanisms built-in for inter-agency coordination 2. State Water Resources Data and

4. A Strategic Basin Environment & Social Assessment to be conducted as part of Analysis Center (SwaRDAC), SwaRAProject to inform Basin planning, develop knowledge-base, build capacity and and State Water Tariff Regulatorygenerate ownership Commission (SWaTReC)

5. Provision for identified and unidentified Special Studies and access to 3. SWaRDACenvironmental expertise 4. SWaRA: Completed by Year 3 -

6. Promotion of Environmental awareness, communication, etc. (e.g. through website, preparation trigger for next investmentState of Water Environment Report, multi-media events, etc.) in program

7. Encourage extensive environmental training activities within and outside the Apex 5. SWaRAInstitutions 6. SWaRA with assistance from

SWaRDAC7. SWaRA

8. Significant capacity-building (including staffing, training, access to expertise, 8. UPIDpartnerships, etc.) at the UPID to mainstream environmental issues in its activities 9. UPID (with assistance from

9. Build environmental knowledge base for UPID, integrate environmental issues in SWaRDAC)

UP Irrigation the spatial Decision Support Systems to be developed 10. UPIDDepartment 10. Development of Environmental Guidelines for UPID operations 11. UPID, DASPReform 11. Provision for identified and unidentified Special Studies and access to 12. UPID

environmental expertise12. Promotion of Environmental awareness, communication, training, etc. (e.g. through

website, media activities) for irrigation and drainage stakeholders

13. Basin approach decentralized to irrigation and drainage networks 13. UPID, Jaunpur Branch Sub-basin14. Environmental capacity-building at the Jaunpur and Imamganj Branch Sub-basin Development and Management Board

S-16


Development and Management Boards (JBSDMB) and Imamganj Branch15. Safeguards Screening & Mitigation Measures for all piloting activities - frameworks Sub-basin Development and

also to be developed for all relevant new activities that could potentially have Management Board (IBSDMB)

Piloting environmental impacts; Clear procedures in place to screen impacts, implement 14. JBSDMB, IBSDMB

Reform mitigation measures, monitor impacts 15. UPID, JBSDMB, IBSDMB, DASP

Options 16. Pilot environmental reform options in processes and activities (Joint walkthroughs, (detailed screening and mitigationBetter land and water management practices, Integrated Pest Management, nutrient framework to be developed, agreedmanagement, information management) with the Bank and all proposed

17. The Diversified Agriculture Support Project (DASP), another recent Bank-supported activities subjected to it beforeproject is to implement according to its EMP, which will be regularly evaluated for commencement of work)effectiveness 16. UPID, JBSDMB, IBSDMB, DASP

18. Provision for identified and unidentified Special Studies and access to 17. DASP (with Consultant support)environmental expertise 18. UPID, JBSDMB, IBSDMB, DASP

19. Promotion of Environmental awareness, communication, training, etc. (e.g. through 19. UPID, JBSDMB, IBSDMB, DASPmulti-media activities, computer kiosks, demonstration plots, field visits, etc.) forbasin stakeholders

20. Development and evaluation of achievable and substantive triggers on 20. UPID, SWaRAPreparation of environmental performance in UPWSRP-I 21. UPID, SWaRAUPWSRP -11 21. Integrated environmental and social assessment for UPWSRP II that would help

identify all key environmental and social issues

S-17


Table S5: Estimated Costs of EA Implementation

Entity Cost Category D)escription Year I Years 2 to 5

Amount (INR) Amount (INR)

State Water Resources Production of environmentally specific literature 200,000 100,000

Agency (SWaRA) Water environmental public awareness campaign Service 250,000 100,000

environmental steering committee 25,000 100,000

Training 500,000 1,000,000

State Water Tariffs Support for tariff environmental coordinator 50,000 200,000

Regulatory Commission Training 500,000 1,000,000

(SWaTReC)

State Water and Resources Build environmental data base into MIS 100,000 40,000

Data Analysis Centre Build spatial technologies capacity 75,000 125,000

(SWaRDAC) Training 600,000 1,200,000

Ghagra - Gomti River Service environmental cell 250,000 1,000,000

Basin Entity Production of environmentally specific literature 200,000 160,000

Social assessment studies 2,500,000 1,500,000

Additional studies 5,000,000 2,500,000

Service environmental liaison committee 250,000 1,000,000

Training 2,000,000 4,000,000

Irrigation Department Service Environmental Engineer and team 250,000 1,000,000

Project management and dbase additions 25,000 50,000

M&E data measuring items 2,500,000 500,000

MIS and spacial technology additions 100,000 100,000

Maintain disaster preparedness strategy 400,000 400,000

Training 3,500,000 7,000,000

Diversified Agriculture EMP implementation for activities undertaken by DASP for 500,000 3,000,000

Support Project this project

Monitoring & Evaluation Incremental M&E [Note: Most M&E budgeted separately] 500,000 1,000,000

Contingencies 10%: 2,027,500 2,707,500

Total: 22,302,500 29,782,500

S-18

uttar pradesh water sector restructuring project · uttar pradesh, with a population of about 160...

Documents