INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Report No.: ISDSA1419 Public Disclosure Copy Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 05-Nov-2012 I. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Basic Project Data Country: Namibia Project ID: P128511 Project Name: Namibian Coast Conservation Additional Finance (P128511) Task Team Claudia Sobrevila Leader: Estimated 05-Oct-2012 Estimated 20-Dec-2012 Appraisal Date: Board Date: Managing Unit: AFTN2 Lending Specific Investment Loan Instrument: Focal Area: Biodiversity Sector: Forestry (50%), General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (50%) Theme: Biodiversity (30%), Environmental policies and institutions (30%), Climate change (20%), Water resource management (20%) Financing (In USD Million) Financing Source Amount BORROWER/RECIPIENT 5.87 Public Disclosure Copy Global Environment Facility (GEF) 1.93 Total 7.80 Environmental B - Partial Assessment Category: Is this a Yes Repeater project? 2. Global Environmental Objective(s) To assist the Recipient to conserve, use sustainably and mainstream biodiversity of the Namibian Coast. 3. Project Description This additional finance operation will be funded by a US$1.92 million GEF grant and US$5.8 million in co-financing from GRN and other funders and will assist the Government of Namibia to consolidate the results of the first project and build on these achievements to support the implementation of the National Policy on Coastal Management for Namibia (NPCM), scale up the communication and capacity building activities and strengthen the management of coastal protected areas and their buffer areas. This follow-up project has been requested by the Government of Page 1 of 8 Namibia to the GEF and the Bank and a US$ 1.92 million proposal was approved by the GEF Council in June 2012. Overall performances over the last 24 months regarding outcome (PDO) and implementation (IP) are rated as “Satisfactory�. Public Disclosure Copy Coastal management in Namibia is currently on the cusp of success and failure. The NACOMA project has supported essential initial steps towards establishing an effective governance framework, promoting decentralized decision making and protecting key marine and coastal biodiversity. Ongoing support for coastal governance activities through this project are essential to: a) boost the baseline of a developing, yet currently inadequate integrated coastal governance framework; b) strengthen newly proclaimed yet ineffectively managed coastal and marine protected areas; c) support preliminary steps towards mainstreaming the ICZM approach into production sectors; and d) bring new opportunities to integrate renewal energy programs in the National Coastal Policy. In the absence of support, there is a high likelihood of persistent degradation of high-value, unique biodiversity and natural resources and loss of opportunities for sustainable coastal development. The additional finance operation would include the small three interrelated components and an administrative management component that the original project. a) Legal, Institutional, Policy and Planning Framework for Integrated Coastal Zone Management: This component supports strategic studies and consultations to support the implementation of the National Policy on Coastal Management (NPCM). This component will finance: i. Study and proposal for the enabling legislation of NPCM as well as an options’ paper for the NPCM governance and institutional arrangements. The associated participatory consultative process and documentation on the clarification of institutional mandates and enabling legislation of the NPCM will also be supported. ii. Preparation of new guidelines on how to prepare regional and local government land-use plans that incorporate the ICZM approach. At least two regional or local government land-use plans will be prepared using the guidelines. The NPCM has established the criteria to define and apply the Public Disclosure Copy IZCM approach, however it is critical for the project to apply the IZCM concept in land use and development plans within the regional, local and national government sectors. iii. Development and dissemination of methodologies and lessons learned on land rehabilitation, EIAs and good management for the coast that will also feed into the ensuing enabling ICZM legislation. This activity would develop best environmental practices guidelines to incorporate ICZM tools in the productive sector. Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) in coastal towns would be implemented in line with EMA to control poor environmental management practices. Some of these towns are surrounded by PAs, hence the need for uniform improvement in environmental management. iv. Update the state of environment report, the regional Sector Environmental Assessments and sustainable development decision-making tools that incorporate economic valuations, mapping, GIS and environmental scenarios. The state of environment report would update regularly the biodiversity indicators for the coast. b) Targeted Capacity-Building for Integrated Coastal Zone Management: This component supports awareness raising and capacity building activities to promote an integrated coastal zone management approach in development activities. This component would finance the development of education materials and communication and training programs for national, regional and local key policy and decision makers to implement the ICM approach through NPCM. (ie. radio programs, press releases, documentaries, expos, talks, etc..) It would also support the implementation of Page 2 of 8 recommended activities proposed in the Communication and Awareness and, Training and Capacity Building consultancies carried out under the on-going NACOMA project. Public Disclosure Copy c) Targeted Investments in Critical Ecosystems for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use: This component supports the implementation of the two newly created parks, Dorob National Park and NIMPA (Namibian Islands Marine Protected Area). It will also support the development of an integrated land use plan in the neighboring communal conservancies. The project will also support targeted investments identified in the seven management plans completed under the first project, to support sustainable livelihoods activities with the adjacent communities to the parks. The matching grants mechanism used in the first NACOMA project will be used and follow all the rules established in the project EMP to ensure that the activities are in line with the Bank’s Safeguard Policies. d) Project Management: This component supports the functioning of the Project Coordination Office (PCO). This component would support the day to day operation of a project implementation unit responsible for the following functions: a) administration; b) coordination; c) financial and audit management; d) procurement management; e) monitoring and evaluation; f) fundraising; and g) reporting. 4. Project location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis (if known) The project is located in the Namibian coast. It comprises the hot desert sands that meet the icy Benguela current. There are few places left on the planet where one can experience such vast stretches of undeveloped wilderness. Both, the desert sands and the Benguela current have abundant life, the desert as a result of the life giving fogs and the Benguela through the upwelling “cells� and longshore drift. The Succulent Karoo biome of the southern Namib desert has more diversity than any other desert in the world. The waters of the Namibian coast support some of the greatest concentrations of marine life found in the world. This high level of biological productivity is the result of seasonable south to southeast winds which induce upwelling that provides an abundant Public Disclosure Copy supply of nutrients in the upper layers. These nutrients together with sunlight promote blooms of phytoplankton, rich resources of zooplankton and an abundance of pelagic fish such as pilchard, anchovy and juvenile horse mackerel. These fish shoals in turn provide food for large populations of higher predators such as sharks, seals, cetaceans and seabirds. The coastal region has been relatively inaccessible to date, and there have been few opportunities for use of coastal land and resources by residents of coastal regions. As a result, Namibia has an exceptionally low, and geographically very concentrated, coastal population compared to other countries. However, increasing human pressures over the past several years highlight the urgent need for sound coastal planning and management to ensure sustainable and optimal use of coastal areas and their resources in the future. The up-dated definition of the project’s intervention zone, the Namibian coastal zone, is taken from the final draft Coastal Policy: Landward/eastern boundary indicating 10-25 fog days per year and seaward boundary core coastal zone of 12 nautical mile territorial waters and 200nm EEZ. The inland coastal zone boundary is based on the principle that environmental and socio-economic considerations must go hand in hand. The Government of the Republic of Namibia (GRN) is implementing the Project with support from a MET Project Coordination Office (PCO) based in Swakopmund responsible for day to day project management and coordination. A Project Steering Committee (SC) guides MET and its project team in the implementation of the project. It comprises MET (chair) and Ministry of Regional Local Page 3 of 8 Governments, Housing and Rural Development (deputy-chair), Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Ministry of Mines and Energy, Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, Ministry of Work and Transport, Communication, National Planning Commission and Chief Executive Officer Public Disclosure Copy (CEOs) of Kunene, Erongo, Hardap and Karas Region. The Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee (ICZMC) provides inputs and advice to the SC as defined in the financing agreement. It comprises the regional councils of the four coastal regions, coastal focal points from MET, MRLGHRD, MFMR, MME, MAWF and MWT and coastal local authority representatives from Swakopmund, Walvis Bay, Henties Bay and Lüderitz and non-institutional stakeholders and co- opted entities. A Scientific Group (SG) provides scientific input as requested by SC, ICZMC or MET/project team and was put in place to assist in screening matching grant proposals, develop indicators for coastal zone management monitoring mechanisms and to contribute to targeted capacity building efforts. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists George Campos Ledec (AFTN3) Claudia Sobrevila (AFTN3) Paula F. Lytle (AFTCS) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered? Explanation (Optional) Environmental Assessment OP/ Yes While this is an environmental project, the BP 4.01 project has been classified as an environmental safeguard category "B" project, to ensure that the GRN follows the EMP for the project so that on- the-ground activities such as the National Park refurbishing and some small micro-enterprise projects with local communities are implemented in compliance with WB EA Policy 4.01 and similar Namibian EA requirements, and to ensure Public Disclosure Copy that mitigation measures are spelled out for all possible negative impacts prior to implementation of any on-the-ground activities. The same EMP used in the first project will be used for this additional finance operation. Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 Yes The project involves management of natural habitats, including parks. Forests OP/BP 4.36 No Pest Management OP 4.09 No Physical Cultural Resources OP/ No BP 4.11 Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 No Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP Yes A Process framework (PF) has been put in place 4.12 for the first operation to ensure that eligible affected persons are assisted in their efforts to Page 4 of 8 restore or improve their livelihoods while contributing to maintain the environmental sustainability of protected areas included in the Public Disclosure Copy project. This PF was developed in 2010 and does not need revisions as the location of project activities will be the same as for the first operation. The PF provides a description of the institutional arrangements through which the communities will participate in the management of the natural resources and monitoring as well as criteria and procedures to be followed in case restriction of access to marine and terrestrial resources. Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 No Projects on International No Waterways OP/BP 7.50 Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP No 7.60 II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues 1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the Restructured project. Identify and describe any potential l arge scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: The initial design triggered OP/BP4.01 on Environment Impact Assessment. An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) was adopted to address, inter alia, the potential environmental issues of component 3 that supports on the ground activities. The classes of eligible micro-activities under Public Disclosure Copy component 3 together with the list of ineligible activities, identified by stakeholders during project preparation, indicate project-funded activities that are likely to have no adverse impacts on the environment, or minimal impacts that are site-specific, easy to mitigate, and technically and institutionally manageable. These activities will largely focus on biodiversity conservation and rehabilitation, sustainable use of prioritized ecosystems, targeted IEC activities and targeted research activities, all supporting the project’s aim to positively affect the environment. However, as small-scale physical works may be funded by the project, NACOMA is classified as an environmental safeguard category "B" project. As a consequence, an EMP was requested by the World Bank to ensure that the project’s on-the ground activities are carried out in line with World Bank EA Policy OP4.01 and similar Namibian EA requirements, and to ensure that all possible negative impacts are considered and mitigation measures are spelled out prior to the implementation of any on-the-ground activities. OP/BP 4.12 was triggered during project implementation because of restriction of access to natural resources due to the inclusion of new terrestrial protected areas (PA) in the project in November, 2008 and in February, 2009. At the Bank request, the recipient prepared a Process Framework (PF). The PF describes the participatory process by which: (1) the criteria for eligibility of affected persons will be determined; and (2) measures to assist the affected persons in their efforts to improve or restore, in real terms, to pre-displacement levels, their livelihoods while maintaining the sustainability of targeted protected areas. The PF establishes a process and mechanisms by which (1) potentially affected individuals participate in the project activities, in particular the Page 5 of 8 natural resource management process, (2) determines measures necessary to achieve resettlement policy objectives, if any, (3) ensures that these impacts are reflected in the monitoring and evaluation (M & E) system and (4) ensures that no one is worse off from the project. The PF is Public Disclosure Copy implemented through Action Plans which involves (1) a participatory planning approach (including a communication and consultation process) that PAs follow, and which include direct PA beneficiaries but also the larger community that the PA members belong to; (2) a targeting strategy that ensures that #affected individuals#, if any, are identified; and (3) an integrated project M&E system to ensure that no one is worse off by the project initiative of supporting PAs. Already the design of several Action Plans have been initiated (1) one includes the establishment of a more permanent communication program and to expand the Dune Belt Contingency Management Committee (CMC) into a Park Consultative Forum, (2) another takes into consideration communication constraints with the Topnaar Community residing in the Namib- Naukluft Park with the aim to improve the trust relationship with the community and ensuring that the remaining Process Framework activities are completed in time and efficiently, and (3) a further being designed to provides a specific grievance procedure for marine protected areas. The PF, which is dated March 31, 2009, was reviewed by the Bank on June 2, 2009 and disclosed in-country (NACOMA webpage) and in INFOSHOP on June 09, 2009. An updated version has been cleared by the Bank on April 2, 2011 and disclosed in coastal offices of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, the coastal local authority offices and the coastal regional authorities’ offices as well as in INFOSHOP on April 5, 2011. The Environmental Management Framework and the Process Framework remain applicable for the proposed activities under the additional financing. These documents do not require modification, and re-disclosure is therefore not necessary during the preparation of this proposed additional financing. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: Project-funded activities are likely to have neither any major adverse impact on the environment Public Disclosure Copy or on livelihood. If any, environmental and social impacts are expected to be minimal, site- specific, easy to mitigate, and technically and institutionally manageable through the Environment Management Plan (EMP) and/or the Process Framework. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. Non applicable. 4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard policy issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. The recipient has been complying with the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the last five years of the ongoing project. Bank supervision have reported through the ISR that compliance with the safeguard policies is satisfactory. The EMP has been developed on the basis of preparatory stakeholder workshops held during project preparation in Namibia, review of documents relating to the NACOMA project, World Bank EA Policy OP4. 01, and similar Namibian EA requirements, and consultations with key stakeholders on the coast. To ensure that the intent of OP 4.12 is indeed carried out through the Project Participation Plan a specific grievance or appeals process has been included in the PF for terrestrial protected areas and the same will be done for the NIMPA, with an agency identified to receive appeals. This has been prepared in case there is a group of stakeholders that feels its interests are being curtailed by a restriction on access, and that the additional elements of a process framework should be Page 6 of 8 formulated and agreed on. If the complainant is not thus satisfied, he or she would then have recourse to a disinterested agency that has responsibility for protecting the rights of citizens in the area. Bank supervision includes a special effort to determine whether any such situations have Public Disclosure Copy emerged and, if so, whether the Project and the Government has properly handled the situation according to OP 4.12 (last specific safeguard compliance supervision mission carried out in September 2010, showed that everything was regular.) The Government of Namibia, specifically the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, has gained experience with applying safeguard policies for project development based on another recently approved project (the Integrated Community-based Ecosystem Management - ICEMA project), for which an Environmental and Social Assessment and Management Plan, a Resettlement Policy Framework, and a Indigenous Peoples Development Plan were prepared and disclosed by the MET. Adequate technical and legal capacity and expertise exist in Namibia for developing mitigation and management plans, as well as relevant social and environmental monitoring. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Key Project stakeholders are line ministries such MET, MFMR, MME, MAWRD, MWT, MRGLH, and regional and local governments involved in CZM, as well as the private sector around biodiversity hotspots and the respective management committees of the coastal and marine protected areas. Additional key players are research institutions, members of an established CZ scientific group, provide technical input to the SC as well as training institutions, CBOs and NGOs. The mentioned above, stakeholders have taken an essential role in Project design and during implementation of the ongoing project through numerous meetings and workshops, in which Project design wasdecided upon and related decisions took place. NACOMA will continue to engage in effective information dissemination, consultation, and stakeholder participation during implementation of this additional finance operation. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Public Disclosure Copy Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other Date of receipt by the Bank 13-Jan-2005 Date of submission to InfoShop 23-Feb-2005 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process Date of receipt by the Bank 24-Mar-2011 Date of submission to InfoShop 05-Apr-2011 If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources policies, the respective issues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of the Environmental Assessment/ Audit/or EMP. If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why: C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (to be filled in when the ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting) Page 7 of 8 OP/BP/GP 4.01 - Environment Assessment Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] in the credit/loan? Public Disclosure Copy OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats If the project would result in significant conversion or Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] degradation of other (non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank? OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] Sector Manager review the plan? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] World Bank's Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] place in a form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? All Safeguard Policies Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] in the project cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Public Disclosure Copy Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? III. APPROVALS Task Team Leader: Claudia Sobrevila Approved By Sector Manager: Name: Jonathan S. Kamkwalala (SM) Date: 16-Nov-2012 Page 8 of 8