INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET APPRAISAL STAGE

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Copy Public Disclosure Copy Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 14-Apr-2014 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Date ISDS Approved/Disclosed: 15-Apr-2014 I. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Basic Project Data Report.: ISDSA8150 Country: Kyrgyz Republic Project ID: P Project Name: Pasture and Livestock Management Improvement Project (P145162) Task Team Peter Goodman Leader: Estimated 14-Apr-2014 Appraisal Date: Managing Unit: ECSAR Estimated Board Date: Lending Instrument: 22-Jul-2014 Investment Project Financing Sector(s): Animal production (100%) Theme(s): Rural services and infrastructure (35%), Rural policies and institutions (30%), Other environment and natural resources management ( 35%) Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies)? Financing (In USD Million) Total Project Cost: Total Bank Financing: Financing Gap: 0.00 Financing Source Amount BORROWER/RECIPIENT 0.00 International Development Association (IDA) Total Environmental B - Partial Assessment Category: Is this a Repeater project? 2. Project Development Objective(s) The Project Development Objective is to improve community based pasture and livestock management in the Project area 3. Project Description Component 1 Community Based Pasture Management (US$11.44million): Component 1 will involve Page 1 of 9

2 three sub components: (i) Community Pasture Management and Investment Sub Component; (ii) Strengthening State Pasture Institutions Sub Component; and (iii) Leskhoz Pasture Management Sub Component. Community Pasture Management and Investment Sub Component. This will finance: (i) Legal Support including: Legal training and awareness on pasture legislation for pasture user unions (PUU) and rural communities. (ii) Pasture Boundary Demarcation and Inventorization including: (a) Completion of external pasture boundary demarcation for each PUU, which legally defines the areas under their management; (b) Digitization of registered external boundaries of each PUU, as a basis for community pasture management planning; (c) State level registration of external pasture boundaries previously demarcated and (d) Demarcation of internal pasture areas of each pasture use union as a basis for community pasture management planning, determining land tax and resolving land use disputes. (iii) Strengthening Community Pasture Governance including: (a) Governance assessments, training and advice for PUUs to promote inclusive and transparent decision making; (b) Conflict resolution and training for PUUs; and (c) Capacity building for rayon associations of PUUs on management of inter-pasture committee issues an representation of their member pasture user unions. (iv) Strengthening Community Based Pasture Management including: (a) Community Pasture Management Plan training and advice this will be achieved by training a pool of local pasture advisors who will be contracted by PUUs pasture committees to assist them with community pasture management planning the plans cover all aspects of pasture management from pasture quality monitoring, to setting stocking rates, to investments in pasture improvement; (b) Community based mapping; (iv) Public awareness to raise members awareness of the costs and benefits of pasture investments and the basis for setting pasture fees; (c) PUU performance assessments to inform PUU of their strengths and weaknesses and their progress in meeting the objectives of community based pasture management. (v) Pasture, feeding and livestock improvement grants: including grants for PUUs (averaging approximately US$ US$46,500 / PUU) mainly for pasture road, bridge and watering point improvement microprojects (sub projects) but also for stock handling, fodder and feed improvement and storage or other investments defined in the Project Operating Manual; and repeat training for pasture committees by ARIS in micro-project management. Strengthening State Pasture Institutions Sub Component. This will finance: (i) Pasture Department Capacity Building including: (a) Capacity building for the Pasture Department in national level oversight of pasture management to ensure adherence to the Pasture Law; (b) Employment of young interns to work with the Pasture Department; and (c) Public awareness on pasture reforms. (ii) Rayon Department for Agrarian Development Capacity Building including minor investment in office facilities and inclusion in pasture management related training and public awareness to assist them to support Pasture Department work at rayon level. (iii) Livestock and Pasture Research Institute (LPRI) Capacity Building including: Implementation of selected pasture research projects. Leskhoz Pasture Management Sub Component. This will finance development of legal and administrative arrangements for leskhoz pasture management and initial pasture management improvement activities in only 5 locations including: (i) Legal and administrative support including: (a) Supporting the State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry (SAEPF) to respond to legal queries and draft legislative amendments on management of leskhoz pastures; (b) Advice to SAEPF and the Pasture Department Page 2 of 9

3 to develop a model administrative agreement between pasture committees and leskhoz that would allow pasture user unions to take responsibility for management of leskhoz pastures, building on existing memoranda of understanding between the two organizations. (ii) An inventory of land use, preparation of land use plans and identification of environmentally sensitive areas, in the five pilots to determine which leskhoz areas would be available for grazing and which areas would require environmental risk mitigation measures (ii) Community pasture management plans (including environmental management plans) in 5 locations including: Training and advice for PUUs and leskhoz on inclusion of leskhoz pastures into community pasture management plans including a definition of investment requirements for pasture improvement and environmental management aspects of the plan. (iii) Leskhoz pasture improvement grants to 5 pasture user unions for leskhoz pasture improvement and for environmental protection (such as protecting forests from encroachment from livestock) up to an amount of US$10,000/ pilot. Component 2 Community Based Animal Health and Husbandry Services (US$1.8 million): Component 2 will involve two sub components: (i) Community Based Animal Health and Husbandry Services Sub Component; and (ii) Private Veterinarian Development Sub Component Community Based Animal Health and Husbandry Planning and Investment Sub Component: This will finance: (i) Animal health and husbandry grants to PUUs of US$1000 per PUU to contract a private veterinary services to assist withahh planning and implementation (ii) Supervision of Private Vet Support to AHH Groups and Training AHH Groups (iii) Disease specific specialist advice provided by expert international consultants to oversee the implementation of national disease control strategies in the Project area Private Veterinarian Development Sub Component: This will finance: (i) Private vet training and professional development - further training of private vets on business planning, pharmacology, clinical skills, and disease strategies. (ii) Grants to private vets for equipment, cold chain equipment, drugs and medications and a contribution to the cost of vehicle purchase. (iii) Strengthening rayon associations of private vets, including public awareness of the roles of the associations, advice on legal establishment of rayon associations, and technical assistance and training for rayon associations on organization development, operations and financial planning. (iv) Veterinary student incentive program including internships for 48 young vets to work with public and private vets and scholarships to study veterinary medicine for 4 students. (iv)veterinary chamber capacity building, to support the Chamber in developing tools for assessment, accreditation and professional development of vets and will fund operating costs of the Chamber for a period of two years. Component 3 Project Management (US$1.76million): This will finance overall project management, including coordination of activities by the project partners, work planning, budgeting and financial management, procurement activities, project monitoring and evaluation. 4. Project location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis (if known) All community level activities under the Project will be in all aiyl okmotu in Chui Oblast and Talas Oblast in the north of the Kyrgyz Republic. Page 3 of 9

4 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Public Disclosure Copy Public Disclosure Copy Asli Gurkan (ECSSO) Cesar Niculescu (ECSEN) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered? Explanation (Optional) Environmental Assessment OP/ BP 4.01 Yes This policy is triggered because of potential environmental risks which might be associated with the implementation of activities under Component 1 (community and leskhoz pasture investments for pasture roads, bridge and watering point improvement, stock handling, fodder and feed improvement and storage) and Component 2 (providing grants to PUUs to implement animal health and husbandry (AHH) plans including by contracting private vets, and grants to equip private vets). Also, the TA for the preparation of community pasture management plans should be designed in such a way that it ensures environmental compliance of the plans and of the activities which will be triggered by the introduction of those plans. In order to address the impacts which might be caused by the above activities and to identify appropriate mitigation measures as well as implementation arrangements and institutional responsibilities, an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) should be prepared for the Project. Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 Yes This policy is triggered because: (i) while many of the low elevation pastures near settlements are heavily grazed and ecologically modified, some (particularly the midland high elevation pastures) are likely to be in natural or only minimally altered condition, representing important grassland and meadow habitats in themselves; and (ii) some of the pastures (particularly the leskhoz pastures) are in the close vicinity of natural forests or national reserves. The ESMP should specify that the Project will include an assessment of the ecological status, potential ecological sensitivity and biodiversity values of specific pasture areas and indicate appropriate mitigation measures to maintain these values. Forests OP/BP 4.36 Pest Management OP 4.09 Yes This policy is triggered because of the possibility that some of the community pasture management Page 4 of 9

5 Physical Cultural Resources OP/ BP 4.11 Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 plans could involve weed control activities, possibly including the use of herbicides or pesticides (they are unlikely to include insecticides), and the support to private vets could include financing for acaricides. pest management plan will be required but the ESMP will include an assessment of current pasture weed management and pesticide handling practices and, as appropriate, include measures to improve environmental and health protections in pesticide use and to promote an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach. The Project design and ESMP include resources and training for PUUs on IPM and safe handling of pesticides. OP 4.12 is not triggered for the Project because it is a community based natural resource management project: (i) In particular, internal pasture boundary demarcation to be financed under the project does not trigger OP4.12 because it involves definition of boundaries between community managed pasture land and private or state land it does not involve state acquisition of private land; (ii) Furthermore, proposals for boundary demarcation will be prepared by community based organizations (pasture working groups) including PUU representatives. (iii) Most boundary demarcation disputes are expected to be resolved at community level. Where disputes cannot be resolved at community level, the final decision on disputes may be made by the state boundary demarcation commission - in this case the state is acting as the arbitrator of last resort to define the borders of community managed pasture land and no state acquisition of land is involved. With regard to microprojects, in cases where the PUU proposes micro-projects involving temporary or permanent acquisition of private land, the PUU would be required to seek the land owners agreement and the terms of land acquisition and the land owner must have the right of refusal. This will be clearly stated in the ARIS framework agreement with each PUU. Page 5 of 9

6 Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 Public Disclosure Copy Public Disclosure Copy Projects on International Waterways OP/BP 7.50 Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 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 proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: Environmental: The Project includes support for small civil works for pasture infrastructure New grazing practices may affect pasture species composition and biodiversity New grazing practices on pastures close to forests and potential for encroachment on forests Inclusion of forest fund (leskhoz) pastures, some of which are close to national reserves Potential increased use of pesticides for pasture management and fodder production Potential risk from disposal of veterinary medicines Social: Internal boundary demarcation may lead to societal disputes PUU pasture committees fail to allocate pasture rights more equitably. This is includes the risk of pasture committees not allocating pasture rights more equitably in comparison to the pre-2009 pasture law situation, with former large pasture lessees maintaining their domination of pastures, creating social tensions. There are still existing unresolved 17 disputed cases and conflicts around external boundaries that cause social tensions between pasture user unions and communities. In addition it leads to lower pasture use fee collection rates as neighboring pasture user unions collect fees from pasture users of other PUUs. Lack of defined internal boundaries within each PUU leads to cases when pasture users use pasture land of other users thus causing conflicts and social tensions. Elite pasture users (in particular those who were large lessees prior to the pasture law) fail to pay due amounts for pasture tickets creating social tensions. Weak representation of the interests of various types of pasture users (grazing/ non grazing/ by farm size/ vulnerable groups/ male / female) in the general assembly and PUU pasture committees leading to decisions which do not properly reflect all pasture users needs. Weak accountability of the PUU pasture committee and the general assembly to and awareness of: (i) PUU members; (ii) local government (iii) national government leading to a lack of confidence in pasture committees and creating pressure to abandon the principles of the pasture law. In most cases women are represented either in the PUU pasture committee or general assembly, they are not excluded from PUU pasture committees meetings or trainings, and can become actively involved in PUU management and administration if they wish. Page 6 of 9

7 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: The long term potential impacts are anticipated to be positive, resulting from clearer accountability relationships between the PUU pasture committees and pasture users, clear rules and procedures regarding tickets for pastures, more equitable access to pastures, better pasture and veterinary services for beneficiaries of the project in Chui and Talas. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. 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. Environmental: The Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) will include procedures for screening the risks of proposed subprojects (pasture feeding and livestock improvement microprojects) and identifying mitigation measures. EMPs for sub projects will include annexes with standard environmental clauses and checklists for works contracts and grant agreements ARIS, which is responsible for implementing subprojects including civil works has well established environmental monitoring procedures for subprojects. Community based pasture management plans to include environmental status assessment, identification of risks and mitigation measures. Provision of advice on IPM in relation to pasture and fodder management. Preparation of a limited positive list of pesticides which would be eligible for financing for field trials/demonstrations EMP will include procedures for handling/disposal of materials associated with the veterinary practice, consistent with the WBG EHS Guidelines and WHO guidelines for management of medical waste. PIU to hire environmental monitoring specialist. Social: A social assessment was completed in March 2014, as a basis for the social development aspects to the ESMP. Based on the above assessment, the team will design tools for (i) improving governance of pasture committees; (ii) improving membership awareness on pasture committees and (iii) conflict resolution for key areas of conflict identified. Guidelines for internal pasture boundary demarcations will be prepared during the project (similar to those prepared under the predecessor project AISP) which will define procedures for (i) public disclosure of internal boundary demarcation proposals by pasture working groups (temporary community level groups responsible for preparation proposals on boundary demarcation); (ii) disputes resolution possibly including the use of rayon, oblast and state pasture boundary demarcation commissions. Further assessment (following one existing study) of the extent to which public disclosure and dispute resolution procedures were actually implemented in the field for external boundary demarcation under AISP to inform internal boundary demarcation under PMIP. One of the the Project Implementing Agencies ARIS has significant experience working on Page 7 of 9

8 World Bank safeguards policies. They have implemented the first and second phases of the Village Investment Project (a CDD operation) and have managed five Bank-funded projects. ARIS has laid out in detail Guidelines for Environmental Review of Micro-Projects, which will also be used for Project. Each sub-project will be reviewed for environmental and social risks in line with the OP Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Key stakeholders of this project are the Government of Kyrgyz Republic, the Pasture Department, Veterinary Chamber, Pasture Committees, and Pasture Users in Chui and Talas oblasts. All these stakeholders has been consulted and opinions taken into account during project identification and preparation. These stakeholders will be consulted during the preparation of social and governance assessments, as well as throughout project implementation. Social assessment will be disclosed prior to appraisal at info shop and in-country. B. Disclosure Requirements Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other Date of receipt by the Bank 14-Apr-2014 Date of submission to InfoShop 14-Apr-2014 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors "In country" Disclosure Kyrgyz Republic 14-Apr-2014 Comments: The document disclosed was a environmental and social management plan. Pest Management Plan Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? NA Date of receipt by the Bank NA Date of submission to InfoShop NA "In country" Disclosure Comments: 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: The Project does not require a PMP. A pest management framework is included in the Environmental and Social Management Plan. C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level OP/BP/GP Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? Yes [ ] [ ] NA [ ] Yes [ ] [ ] NA [ ] Page 8 of 9

9 Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated Yes [ ] [ ] NA [ ] in the credit/loan? OP/BP Natural Habitats Would the project result in any significant conversion or Yes [ ] [ ] NA [ ] degradation of critical natural habitats? If the project would result in significant conversion or Yes [ ] [ ] NA [ ] degradation of other (non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank? OP Pest Management Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues? Yes [ ] [ ] NA [ ] Is a separate PMP required? Yes [ ] [ ] NA [ ] If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a Yes [ ] [ ] NA [ ] safeguards specialist or SM? Are PMP requirements included in project design?if yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the Yes [ ] [ ] NA [ ] World Bank's Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public Yes [ ] [ ] 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 [ ] [ ] NA [ ] responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included Yes [ ] [ ] NA [ ] in the project cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project Yes [ ] [ ] NA [ ] include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? Yes [ ] [ ] NA [ ] III. APPROVALS Task Team Leader: Name: Peter Goodman Approved By Sector Manager: Name: Dina Umali-Deininger (SM) Date: 15-Apr-2014 Page 9 of 9