INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Report No.: ISDSA767 Public Disclosure Copy Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 26-Jun-2012 I. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Basic Project Data Country: Guinea Project ID: P128309 Project Name: Second Emergency Agricultural Productivity Support Project (P128309) Task Team Leader: Jane C. Hopkins Estimated Appraisal Date: 20-Jun-2012 Estimated Board Date: 29-Jun-2012 Managing Unit: AFTAR Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Irrigation and drainage (40%), Crops (35%), Agricultural extension and research (25%) Theme: Global food crisis response (100%) Financing (In USD Million) Financing Source Amount Borrower 0.00 Global Food Crisis Response Program 20.00 Special Financing 0.00 Financing Gap 0.00 Total 20.00 Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Is this a Repeater project? No 2. Project Objectives The project development objective is to increase smallholder productivity of targeted commodities in the intervention areas. The commodities targeted are rice, maize, cassava and traditional poultry. Public Disclosure Copy 3. Project Description Activities under the proposed project will be organized around the following three components: Component 1: Rehabilitation and improved management of irrigation and storage infrastructures in selected rice producing areas (USD 7.0 million). This component aims at increasing the productivity of irrigated rice production systems in targeted areas through the rehabilitation and improved management of irrigation and drainage infrastructures. Specific objectives include: (i) improved water control through the rehabilitation of degraded works and equipment that will allow abandoned or low yielding perimeters to be used more productively, in some cases allowing double cropping; (ii) enhanced capacity of the water user associations for the management and maintenance of the irrigation infrastructure ; and (iii) improved storage and marketing capacity through the rehabilitation and construction of storage facilities and threshing platforms, and strengthening the storage management and marketing capacity of the farmer groups. Component 2: Access to improved inputs, technical support services and post-harvest equipment (USD 11.0 million). This component aims to improve smallholders’ access to improved inputs, advisory services, and small scale post-harvest processing equipment to increase the yields of targeted commodities and enhance the productivity of value-added activities. It will have two sub-components which are: (i) Sub-component 2.1: Distribution of crop technology packages and poultry vaccines that will consolidate the successful farmer-based seed multiplication system for rice that was supported under the PUAPA-1 by creating a demand for certified commercial seed, and it will broaden its scope to include maize and cassava. The sub-component will also include a vaccination campaign for traditional poultry; and (ii) Sub-component 2.2: Support to improved post-harvest processing (USD 1.5 million), which aims to increase the value-added of agricultural products by improving private small primary processing activities. Component 3. Capacity Building, Project Coordination, and M&E (USD 2.0 million). This component will ensure: (i) the effective management, coordination, monitoring and evaluation of the Project; and (ii) capacity building activities for implementing agencies, including CNOP-G, ANPROCA, BSD and DNGR. The Project will finance: (i) contractual personnel to reinforce technical coordination and fiduciary oversight; (ii) incremental operating costs; (iii) vehicles and equipment for project implementation; and (iv) studies, training, and study tours. 4. Project location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis (if known) The project will intervene in 17 (of 33) prefectures which are distributed across the four agro-ecological zones of the country. The perimeters proposed for rehabilitation are located in 8 of the 17 prefectures: 900 hectares in Boffa prefecture (Lower Guinea); 665 hectares in Tougué prefecture (Middle Guinea); 309 hectares in Mamou prefecture (Middle Guinea); 46 hectares in Pita prefecture (Middle Guinea); 1,100 hectares in Siguri prefecture (Upper Guinea); and 600 hectares of small scale community-based rehabilitations in the prefectures of N'Zerekore, Yamou and Kissidougou (Forest Guinea). The Middle and Upper Guinea sites are in the watersheds of the Senegal and Niger River Basins respectively. Page 1 of 4 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Abdoul-Wahab Seyni (AFTCS) Maman-Sani Issa (AFTN1) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered? Explanation (Optional) Public Disclosure Copy Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01 Yes Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 No Forests OP/BP 4.36 No Pest Management OP 4.09 Yes Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11 No Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 No Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 Yes Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 No Projects on International Waterways OP/BP Yes OP7.50 is triggered because the sites proposed for the rehabilitation works are in 7.50 the Niger and Senegal River Basin watersheds. Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60 No 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 project has been categorized B with four policies triggered: OP 4.01 on Environmental Assessment; OP 4.09 on Pests Management; OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement; and (iv) OP 7.50 on Projects on International Waterways. Activities that are likely to induce adverse environment and social impact/risk are related to the rehabilitation of irrigation schemes and the distribution and use of yield increasing technology packages (improved seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides). In this regard, the ESMF identifies the following categories of risks and impacts to be prevented or monitored during project implementation: (a) site-specific vegetation loss during rehabilitation works; (b) soil erosion as a result of the exploitation of pits and the development of access roads to rehabilitated areas; (c) pollution from fluid and solid wastes during rehabilitation works; (d) pollution of water resources due to inappropriate use of fertilizer and pesticide; (e) increase in invasive plant species and/or salinization of irrigated areas due to inadequate water management; (f) conflicts arising from appropriation of rehabilitated areas; and (g) pressure on resources and infrastructure due to immigration of new farmers. Since the project will intervene on small size plots scattered over 17 prefectures, none of the above-mentioned risks and impacts was found to be significant or irreversible. Furthermore, the amount of water uptake from the Niger and Senegal watersheds for the irrigation of rice lands will Public Disclosure Copy have no significant impact on their ecological flow. Since the project is only financing the rehabilitation of existing small scale schemes and does not finance works that would change the nature or expand the scope of the original schemes, an exception to the riparian notification requirement under OP7.50 was sought and approved by Bank Management. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: The residue of chemical compounds in crops and water resources, as a result of the inappropriate use of fertilizer and pesticide, is a risk but it is manageable. The sensitization activities and supports to be implemented through the Pesticide Management Plan (PMP) will help prevent or lower the occurrence of this type of indirect impact/risk. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. N/A 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 Borrower has prepared an ESMF, a PMP and an RPF to address any potential adverse effects of the project interventions under the Project’s Component 1 (Rehabilitation and improved management of irrigation and storage infrastructures in selected rice producing areas) and Sub-component 2.1 (Distribution of crop technology packages and poultry vaccines), including adverse environmental effects, resettlement, and land take. These safeguard documents (ESMF, PMP and RPF) have been disclosed in country (May 17, 2012) and in the Bank’s Infoshop (June 26, 2012). The approved Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) entails specific measures aiming at preventing the risks and impacts. These are: (i) screening proposed rehabilitation sites (sub-projects) and preparing specific ESIAs and /or RAPs as needed, prior to their implementation; (ii) no category A subproject will be funded under the project; (iii) capacity building of the main concerned institutions (PIU, Ministry of Environment, CRD) for the implementation, monitoring and reporting of the environmental and social mitigation measures. The screening of proposed sub-projects will be conducted by a qualified part-time safeguard consultant. This process is designed to: (i) identify PUAPA-2 activities which may have negative socio-environmental impacts; (ii) determine appropriate mitigation measures for activities with harmful impacts; (iii ) identify activities that require separate EIA; (iv) describe the institutional responsibilities for analysis and approval of results selection, the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, and the separate EIA report preparation; and (v) ensure environmental monitoring during the implementation. In addition, the RPF document outlines the principles and procedures for resettlement and/or compensation of subproject-affected people, and establishes standards for identifying, assessing and mitigating negative impacts of program supported activities. The RPF will also guide the preparation and implementation of resettlement action plans (RAPs) for each individual sub- project that triggers the involuntary resettlement policy. Page 2 of 4 Furthermore, the safeguard documents (ESMF, PMP, RPF) also provide guidance in terms of capacity building of institutional stakeholders (BGEEE, ANPROCA, DNGR, DNSPV, CNOP-G) and farmer organizations, through training and sensitization. Finally, a total budget of about US$ 373,000 has been approved to support the estimated cost of the implementation of the provisions of each of the three safeguards instruments (US$ 121,429 for the ESMF; US$ 40 686 for the RPF; and US$ 211,643 for PMP). This amount has been budgeted in the overall project cost and earmarked accordingly. Public Disclosure Copy A review of the institutional capacities of the implementing institutions revealed that there are substantial concerns about the regulatory framework for environmental and social management at national and local levels. The capacities of the Bureau Guinéen des Etudes et Evaluations Environnementales (BGEEE), the national institution responsible for the enforcement of the safeguard procedures, and the Services National de Protection Végétaux et Denrées Stockés (SNPV-DS), the national institution responsible for phytosanitary regulation remain very weak for the implementation and supervision of mitigation measures. Significant institutional and technical capacity for environmental and social management still needs to be strengthened at all levels. To ensure full-fledged compliance with safeguard provisions during project implementation, a qualified part-time expert will be contracted to support the project coordination institution (ANPROCA) mainly for the screening of sub-projects and the implementation and follow up of the approved mitigation measures. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. The key stakeholders for the processing of the safeguards instruments are the BGEEE, ANPROCA, DNGR, SNPV-DS, the CNOP-G and their federations and unions (representing the farmers), and the local governments (Communes Rurales ). All them have been consulted during the preparation of the safeguards instruments, and they have been updated on the requirements of both the Bank safeguard policies and the National legislation on environmental management as well as on their own responsibilities in the implementation, related recommendations and measures. Furthermore, a workshop comprising key stakeholders was organized in March 2012 to share the findings and approve the recommendations before the Minister in charge of Environment issued the permits (Certificat de Conformité Environnementale). Concerns and recommendations have been reflected in the final design of the projects activities. The final versions of the instruments (ESMF, RPF, PMP) were disclosed in the following local newspapers on May 16 and 21, 2012 : (i) La Lance n° 796 on May 16, 2012; (ii) l’Observateur n° 595 on May 21, 2012 ; and (iii) Le LYNX n° 1049 on May 21, 2012). B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other Date of receipt by the Bank 13-Jun-2012 Date of "in-country" disclosure 17-May-2012 Date of submission to InfoShop 26-Jun-2012 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 13-Jun-2012 Date of "in-country" disclosure 17-May-2012 Public Disclosure Copy Date of submission to InfoShop 26-Jun-2012 Pest Management Plan Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 13-Jun-2012 Date of "in-country" disclosure 17-May-2012 Date of submission to InfoShop 26-Jun-2012 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) OP/BP/GP 4.01 - Environment Assessment Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] OP 4.09 - Pest Management If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a safeguards specialist or SM? Are Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] PMP requirements included in project design?If yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] plan? OP 7.50 - Projects on International Waterways Has the RVP approved such an exception? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Page 3 of 4 Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a form and language Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? All Safeguard Policies Public Disclosure Copy Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities been prepared for Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project cost? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of safeguard Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? III. APPROVALS Task Team Leader: Jane C. Hopkins Approved By: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Name: Alexandra C. Bezeredi (RSA) Date: 26-Jun-2012 Sector Manager: Name Martien Van Nieuwkoop (SM) Date: 21-Jun-2012 Public Disclosure Copy Page 4 of 4