INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 03/15/2012 Report No.: Basic Project Data Original Project ID: P Original Project Name: Rio de Janeiro Sustainable Rural Development Project Country: Brazil Project ID: P Project Name: Additional Financing - Rio de Janeiro Sustainable Rural Development Project Task Team Leader: Marianne Grosclaude Estimated Appraisal Date: February 9, 2012 Managing Unit: LCSAR Estimated Board Date: July 12, 2012 Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (77%);Public administration- Agriculture, fishing and forestry (21%);Agricultural extension and research (2%) Theme: Other rural development (55%);Participation and civic engagement (35%);Other environment and natural resources management (10%) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 100 IDA Amount (US$m.): 0 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0 Other financing amounts by source: Borrower Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies) [ ] No [ ] 2. Project Objectives Current project development objective (formally revised on October 27, 2011): The objective of the Project is to increase the adoption of integrated and sustainable farming systems approaches in specific areas of the Borrower s territory and help re-establish an agricultural productive environment in areas of the Serrana Region affected by the January 2011 natural disaster, thus contributing to the higher-order objective of increasing small-scale farming productivity and competitiveness in those areas. 3. Project Description Although the project structure would remain similar to the original loan, new activities would be included under Components 1 and 2, taking into consideration the lessons learned from the recent natural disaster in the Serrana Region and the new economic context of the State of Rio de Janeiro (State of RoJ). These new activities would aim at

2 expanding and deepening the range of activities to scale up the Project s impact and development effectiveness. The proposed financing would allow the engagement in a longer-term intervention to deepen and expand coordinated agricultural and environmental management. This would be implemented by (i) scaling up existing activities through the expansion of the Project to new micro-catchments and (ii) complementing those micro-level investments with investments at the landscape-level, designed to ensure the integrity of fragile ecosystems and their continued provision of environmental goods and services, including providing a buffer to the effects of natural disasters and reduction of risk to human populations. The scaled-up activities would also strengthen support for small farmers competitiveness so that they are able to seize the new market opportunities emerging in the lead to the major investments planned in the State of RoJ in the coming years. New activities would be included under Components 1 and 2 to reflect the changes mentioned above. These include: a. Under Component 1, subprojects to be implemented by groups of producers covering more than one micro-catchment. While the type of subprojects would remain the same as those currently included in the project (Productive Subprojects and Environment Subproject), the new activities would be implemented on a larger scale (group of micro-catchments) than the current ones (which remain at producer or microcatchment level), and b. Under Component 2, value-chain studies and additional research and partnerships to support investments under Component 1 and enable small rural producers to seize new market opportunities emerging in the State of RoJ. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis While the proposed project area will include seven administrative regions, covering most of the State of RoJ s geographical area (as in the original project), the target area will mainly concentrate in three main territories that include the North and Northwestern Fluminense (NNWF) administrative regions and the Serrana administrative region. These regions represent a total area of about 22,000 square kilometers (50.4 % of the total area of the state). Replication activities will also be carried out in clusters of municipalities located in four administrative regions of the SoRJ, which include: Metropolitan, Coastal Floodplains, South (except Paraty and Angra municipalities), and Paraíba River Middle Valley, representing a total area of about 21,700 square kilometres (49.6% of the total area of state). The original EMF covered all these regions i.e. all rural areas of the state. The scaled-up project would expand to 366 micro-catchments in 72 municipalities (Table 1 below). It would target a total of 47,000 small rural producers directly and 78,000 beneficiaries indirectly. The selection and prioritization of municipalities, as well as participating communities within those municipalities, will be based on production potential, along with environmental and social criteria. Table 1 Beneficiaries and Target Area

3 Original Restructured AF TOTAL Municipalities Micro-catchments Population (Indirectly) 37,000 28,000 50,000 78,000 Population (Directly) 19,000 17,000 24,000 47,000 With approximately 1.6 million inhabitants, an estimated 55,000 families (or 220,000 people) in the NNWF and Serrana regions are classified as rural whose main occupation and source of income is agriculture. Historically, this sector has been characterized by the use of simple technology and low productivity cattle farming, as well as sugarcane and coffee production dominated by boom an bust cycles. These traditional land use patterns have contributed to severe environmental pressure on the NNWF s natural resour base (see Environmental Issues Section below). Combined with low organizational levels among farmers and limited technical assistance, poverty has become one of the most pressing issues for rural households, particularly in the Northwest region. This directly affects an estimated 55,000 people in the rural areas of the NNWF and Serrana regions who live below the poverty line. The landscapes of the North Fluminense administrative region are notable for extensive flooding associated with the river-delta plain of the Paraíba do Sul and the lower reaches of the Imbé, Prata, and Macubu Rivers. These areas are characterized by a comple mosaic of river, lagoon, and marine environments. Further inland, well-drained lands can be found in the form of large tablelands and low-lying hills where most of the region s agriculture occurs (these are defined by gentle slopes with low to moderate susceptibility to erosion). These lowlands extend to the Serra do Mar, a mountainous area characterized by steep slopes that is highly vulnerable to mass movements and falling boulders; large portions of the steep Serra do Mar are covered and protected by the Desengano State Park. In contrast to the North Fluminense, the Northwest Fluminense administrative region is distinguished by the predominance of dry and low hills interspaced by staggered mountain ranges. This region suffers from widespread environmental degradation, including deforestation, which extends up to and into much of the mountainous zone. The situation is aggravated by an irregular and insufficient rainy season that contributes to frequent water deficits. The Serrana Region is located in a mountainous area, with magnificent geographic features, historical landmarks and mild temperatures. In the state of Rio de Janeiro, the Serrana Region holds a significant state portion of the national Serra do Mar Corridor, considered one of the richest biodiversity areas in the Atlantic Forest. This corridor presents one the most important network of protected areas of the Atlantic Forest, including two major parks in the Serrana (e.g. Serra dos Órgãos National Park and Três Picos State Park). The project area in the Serrana and the other four administrative regions (Metropolitan, Coastal Floodplains, South, and Paraíba River Middle Valley) includes ecosystems and climates typical to coastal and inland Atlantic forests. Forests are located through the Paraíba River Middle Valley, which crosses the state from the southern border with São

4 Paulo to the NNWF. Large extents of these inland Atlantic forests have been removed in the past for agricultural use, with a significant portion characterized by unsustainable practices and degraded soils. The recent natural disaster in the Serrana increased erosion in rural landscapes to very high and severe levels, particularly in the seven most affected municipalities. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Ms Judith M. Lisansky (LCSSO) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Forests (OP/BP 4.36) Pest Management (OP 4.09) Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) 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: A Bank review of potential additional financing environmental impacts, in terms of their identification, measurement, interpretation, information, and dissemination, was conducted during two recent Bank missions (in September and November 2011). The project s additional financing is expected to produce significant positive environmental impacts. The most significant positive impacts foreseen include improved soil management and conservation, watershed and biodiversity protection, improved water quality, and restoration of degraded lands. In accordance, with Bank policies, an updated EA and Environmental Management Framework (EMF) were prepared and a final version submitted to the Bank on December 20, 2011, and subsequently approved by the Bank. The EA/EMF specifies the criteria and procedures (including operating rules) that will be used during implementation to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts. The project would remain classified as environmental category B and no additional safeguards policies are triggered. While small changes are proposed in the size of certain types of subprojects in selected areas - from small to medium-sized investments - possibly involving clusters of producer/micro-catchment associations, the type of subprojects will remain the same, and will focus on: a) promoting value added and developing value chains (e.g. coffee, milk, sugarcane, aquiculture, horticulture, and fruit production); b) addressing logistical bottlenecks; and c) the implementation of environmental interventions at landscape level in the disaster (Serrana Region) and other

5 selected priority areas, in order to arrest and revert land and water degradation while supporting market-driven agricultural development. No large-scale, significant, and/or irreversible impacts are foreseen. However, certain subprojects supported (on-farm and off-farm investments) could generate small negative impacts at the local level. Regarding specific project-supported activities, the potential impacts as they relate to each of the safeguard issues are described in the following. OP/BP 4.01 Environmental Assessment. New activities carried out in subprojects supported under Component 1 could generate small negative impacts. These subprojects will involve productive and environmental investments and small infrastructure works for road rehabilitation and maintenance (see types of subproject in the table below). As specific subprojects and their location cannot be identified a priori, based on the demanddriven nature of the Project, precise impacts cannot be anticipated. However, the impacts of any misdirected support for these investments could include soil erosion and water pollution (i.e., sediments, use of fertilizers, or eventually from pesticide use even if not directly procured by the Project). Types of SubprojectsActivities Subprojects to be implemented by groups of producers covering individual microcatchments: 1. Productive subprojects. Support to sustainable agricultural production systems and added-value investments (small and medium-scale agro-processing); value chains development. 2. Environmental subprojects. Support to environmental compliance of small-scale farms, agro-ecological practices, on-farm sanitation, rehabilitation of degraded farm land. 3. Rural roads rehabilitation. Small works and equipment to improve drainage and paving of critical parts of rural roads in the Serrana region and, subsequently, to support natural disaster risk reduction and improved access to markets. Subprojects to be implemented by groups of producers covering more than one microcatchment: 4. Productive Structuring Subprojects: support to improved access to markets and the establishment or strengthening of added-value arrangements (such as cooperatives. Environmental Structuring Subprojects (landscape level interventions): reforestation of degraded lands with native species, including riparian zones; disaster risk reduction measures; natural regeneration of riparian zones (when the state of the riparian stock allows for short to medium term re-growth), etc. OP/BP 4.04 Natural Habitats. The additional financing would not support or lead to the conversion of natural habitats. In fact, it would support a longer-term intervention focusing on sustainable land and soil management and conservation practices in the State rural areas to maximize positive externalities in riparian zones which are important to preserve local biodiversity and the quality of water resources. Hence, this intervention would complement those micro-level investments with investments at the landscapelevel, designed to ensure the integrity of fragile ecosystems and their continued provision of environmental goods and services, including providing a buffer to the effects of

6 natural disasters and the reduction of risk to human populations. On-far investments are expected to take place in areas that have been traditionally dedicated to crop and livestock farming and would not therefore involve conversion of natural habitats. The proposed additional financing would support natural habitat conservation though: (i) promotion of environmentally sound practices which engender agricultural productivity, (ii) restoration and protection of steep slopes and degraded riparian forests (important to preserve biodiversity and the quality of water resources), and (iii) improved land use planning and management for more sustainable use of agricultural lands, and rehabilitation of degraded natural habitats. OP/BP 4.36 Forests. The Project will support reforestation with native species, natural forest regeneration, and environmentally-friendly production practices, hence promoting the transition away from degrading and unproductive agricultural practices while supporting biodiversity conservation and reducing carbon emissions. Examples of activities/practices that could be supported under Component 1 that are related to forests include: environmental licensing and establishing/legalizing private reserves, protecting springs, rehabilitating riparian forests, forest fire prevention, planting native trees, protecting internal roads and corridors, and small-scale plantations on already converted small-farmer lands, preferably with native trees to support the implementation of a state government policy which promotes reforestation through agro-forestry and plantations with native trees. OP 4.09 Pest Management. Although the Project will not finance the procurement of any pesticides or other chemical amendments, small amounts of pesticides will probably continue to be used by a small portion of farmers receiving project support. OP/BP 4.11 Physical Cultural Resources. The Project will finance small-scale works in already established agricultural zones where the likelihood of disturbing archaeological, paleontological, or other culturally significant sites is small. As a result, the Project is not expected to have negative impacts on cultural property, including movable or immovable objects, sites, structures, groups of structures, or natural features or landscapes with archeological, paleontological, historical, architectural, religious, aesthetic, or other cultural significance. OP/BP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement. It is not anticipated that the Project will cause physical resettlement nor nonphysical displacement, however, there is a potential for small-scale and acquisition from planned activities for rural road rehabilitation and maintenance. Small works for rural roads will include improving drainage and paving of critical parts of rural roads in the Serrana region to support natural disaster risk reduction and improved access to markets. OP/BP 4.37 (Safety of Dams). OP/BP 4.37 is not triggered, as the project would not finance the construction or rehabilitation of water retention structures such as dams or reservoirs.

7 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: No significant indirect or long-term or cumulative impacts are foreseen under the Project. Following the EA/EMF procedures, subprojects under Component 1 will be subjected to a rigorous screening process to ensure that maximum socioeconomic and environmental benefits are accrued and that any unintended negative environmental impacts are avoided or minimized, including those eventually associated to secondary or indirect and longterm effects. In addition, the EA/EMF recommends that a cumulative impact assessment be carried out during the mid-term review to take into account eventual indirect and/or long-term and cumulative positive and adverse impacts. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. Not Relevant. 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 EA/EMF specifies the criteria and procedures that would be used during project implementation to avoid or minimize potentially adverse environmental impacts. Key aspects regarding Bank s safeguards included in the EA/EMF are described below. The Borrower institutional capacity to plan and implement safeguard measures is considered adequate. The implementation agency (SEAPEC) has already developed and implemented two EMFs, one for the initial phase of the original loan another for the Rio de Janeiro Sustainable Integrated Ecosystem Management in Productive Landscapes of the North-Northwestern Fluminense GEF Project (Rio Rural GEF, which closed in November 2011). The procedures for environmental screening have been incorporated in the Operational Manual (OM), which also includes procedures for the evaluation, approval, and monitoring of subprojects seeking to be financed under the investment component. Training of key staff from the implementing agency on EMF procedures has been provided under the Rio Rural GEF Project, and additional training is foreseen under the draft EMF, as well as technical training (to both small farmers and extension staff) in various environment-related areas, including integrated production and pest management practices, organic agriculture, and zero-tillage. The specific measures taken by the Borrower to address each of the safeguard issues are described in the following. OP/BP 4.01 Environmental Assessment. The Project is classified as Category B, which is the appropriate classification for a project whose potential adverse environmental impacts on human populations or environmentally important areas are site-specific, reversible, and can be readily mitigated (OP 4.01, paragraph 8). In accordance, an EA and EMF were prepared and a final version submitted to the Bank on December 20, 2011, and subsequently approved by the Bank. The EA/EMF specifies the criteria and procedures (including operating rules) that will be used during implementation to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts. Some of the key aspects regarding Bank s

8 safeguards taken into consideration in the EA/EMF are included in the descriptions of the safeguard policies below. OP/BP 4.04 Natural Habitats. The EMF explicitly forbids any project activities in areas supporting critical natural habitats or inducing conversion. It also ensures that any activity in the buffer zone of a protected area will be designed to help reduce pressure on the protected area itself. Furthermore, the EMF includes criteria for screening subprojects to ensure that they will not cause any negative impacts on protected areas, provides clear guidance regarding unintended impacts on natural habitats, and provides a strategy to ensure close coordination with other activities aimed at conserving the Mata Atlântica in the SoRJ. OP/BP 4.36 Forests. The requirements of OP 4.36 for this project overlap with those of OP/BP Despite the project expected positive impacts, the EMF contains procedures to ensure that all project activities comply with OP 4.36, and with national legislation, which establishes a series of measures to protect existing forests. The EMF provides clear guidance and criteria to ensure that: (i) these small-farmer lands do not contain critical habitats, including adjacent or downstream critical natural habitats; and (ii) small-farming plantation subprojects are designed to prevent potential threats to biodiversity and natural habitats. With regard to plantation size, the following criteria have been included in the EMF: (i) area planted not to exceed 2 hectares; and (ii) area planted not to exceed 20% of total holdings. The EMF also stresses the use of community, micro-catchment, municipal, and territorial development plans as tools to identify, map, and exclude natural reserves from production activities (although degraded lands will be rehabilitated with native species in the permanent preservation areas - Areas de Preservação Permanente). Moreover, one of the key objectives of the project-supported participatory community and individual farm plans stemming from the micro-catchment plan which may include small-scale plantations and forest conservation and rehabilitation activities aims at assisting farmers to support environmental compliance of small-scale farms. The project would treat the issue of Areas de Preservação Permanente and Reserva Legal in a pragmatic manner, helping the farmers to progressively improve the level of environmental compliance. OP 4.09 Pest Management. A section on pest management has been included in the EA/EMF (and also included in the OM) to provide guidance on how to minimize potential negative environmental impacts, as well as on training (under Component 3) in safe pesticide use, handling, storage, and disposal. The Project will also support technical assistance for the adoption of organic agriculture and of proven, economically, and environmentally-sustainable Integrated Pest and Plant Management (IPPM). This approach is designed to reduce input costs and human health risks, and to minimize adverse environmental impacts through the virtual elimination of pesticide use without significantly affecting yields. The IPPM approach will further improve the sustainability of agro-ecosystems by focusing on improving the knowledge and skills of farmers for sound resource management.

9 OP/BP 4.11 Physical Cultural Resources. The EMF includes a framework for screening project activities in relation to potential negative impacts of cultural property. In any case, such impacts will be avoided through the application of subproject eligibility criteria and the safeguards screening system, based on Brazil s well-developed legislative and normative framework, which is under the oversight of the National Institute for Protection of Historical and Archeological Sites (IPHAN). The EMF defines that chance find procedures will be included in the contracts for any subproject involving works, as well as in the Operational Manual, in order to comply with this safeguard and with national legislation on cultural property. OP/BP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement. Since the Additional Financing will be scaled up to include additional beneficiaries but the exact locations for the rural road rehabilitation and maintenance are not yet known, a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) was prepared by the Borrower, approved by the Bank, and publicly disclosed on January 12, Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. There will be an array of national and beneficiary stakeholders in the Project. National stakeholders will include: federal institutions (EMBRAPA, Ministries of Agriculture, Environment and Agrarian Development, and universities); state institutions (Agriculture, Environment, Water Resources, Civil Defense, Education, Health, Public Defense, and various universities); municipal organizations (the State SRD Council, Municipal Secretariats of Agriculture and Environment, and Municipal Development Committees); national and local NGOs; and the private sector. Beneficiary stakeholders will include small-scale farmers and their families, rural women and youth, school teachers, and community leaders. The mechanism for consultations of civil society organizations and stakeholders are mainly workshops, seminars and focus groups organized usually at the regional level. All safeguard documents (EA/EMF report, SA report and Resettlement Policy Framework) are available online on the home page of the State Secretariat of Agriculture and Livestock (SEAPEC) These documents were also subjected to a virtual public consultation process with key stakeholders prior to their finalization and no substantial comments were received by the Borrower. The project includes a complaint mechanism ("Fale conosco") which enables stakeholders to provide feedback and/or channel complaints on any aspect of the project and its implementation. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other:

10 Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank 12/20/2011 Date of "in-country" disclosure 01/30/2012 Date of submission to InfoShop 02/01/2012 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank 12/26/2011 Date of "in-country" disclosure 01/12/2012 Date of submission to InfoShop 02/01/2012 Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Pest Management Plan: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank 12/20/2012 Date of "in-country" disclosure 01/30/2012 Date of submission to InfoShop 02/01/2012 * If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources, 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 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? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? OP/BP Natural Habitats Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats? If the project would result in significant conversion or 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? No N/A

11 Is a separate PMP required? If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a safeguards specialist or SM? Are PMP requirements included in project design? If yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? OP/BP Physical Cultural Resources Does the EA include adequate measures related to cultural property? Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on cultural property? OP/BP Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? OP/BP Forests Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional issues and constraints been carried out? Does the project design include satisfactory measures to overcome these constraints? Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, does it include provisions for certification system? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public 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 responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project 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? No N/A N/A N/A No

12 D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Ms Marianne Grosclaude 03/14/2012 Environmental Specialist: Social Development Specialist Ms Judith M. Lisansky 03/14/2012 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Sector Manager: Ms Ethel Sennhauser 03/14/2012 Comments: