INTEGRATEDSAFEGUARDSDATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized INTEGRATEDSAFEGUARDSDATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: August 22, I. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Basic Project Data Country: Project Name: Task Team Leader: Report No.: Samoa Project ID: Pl45938 Agriculture and Fisheries Cyclone Response Project Mona Sur Estimated Appraisal Date: August 23, 2013 Estimated Board Date: October 15,2013 Managing Unit: EASNS Lending Instrument: IPF Sector(s): Crops (50%), Animal Production and Fishing (30%), General Agriculture (20%) Theme(s): Other rural development (100%) Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies)? Project Financing Data (in USD miuion) Total Project Cost: 5.12 Total Bank Financing: 5.00 Total Co-financing: 0.00 Financing Gap: 0.12 Financing Source No Amount BORROWER/RECIPIENT 0.12 International Development Association, Crisis Response Window Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Is this a Repeater project? No Is this a Transferred project? No 2. Project Development Objective(s) Total: 5.12 The development objective of the project is to provide recovery assistance to cyclone- affected farmers and fishers through voucher and grant schemes with the aim of restoring their lost production capacity, and to enhance preparedness ofthe agricultural sector to better respond to future disasters. 3. Project Description

2 This project is part of the Government of Samoa's post-disaster response to Cyclone Evan which hit the Island of Upolu in December, Damage and losses due to the cyclone were estimated to amount to approximately US$210 million- or about 30% of Samoa's annual GDP. Damage to agriculture as a result of high winds and flooding was especially severe, and made up the bulk of longer-term economic losses. The cyclone caused an estimated US$33 million in damage and losses to the agriculture, livestock and fisheries sectors. These losses were equivalent to 30 percent of total agriculture sector GDP (crops, livestock, and fisheries) for About 75 percent of the agricultural area in Upolu was either severely or moderately affected, and the crop subsector was hardest hit both in damages and losses. Almost the entire banana and breadfruit crops were lost in the worst affected areas, and coconut plantations sustained significant damage in the form of nut loss. Crop losses were high because the cyclone occurred during the peak production season for fruit trees and the off-season vegetable.harvest. Destruction to root crops was less so, although the quality of taro was affected. Much farm equipment, along with farm buildings, private farm roads, and farm vehicles was damaged or destroyed. While there were no reports of widespread flood and erosion damage to agricultural land, flash flooding in some localized areas on Upolu wiped out or heavily damaged a number of farms. Some livestock producers reported the death of animals and destruction of farm infrastructure, and widespread damage to fences due to fallen trees. Commercial fruit, vegetable, and livestock farms sustained significant damage due to the cyclone. In the commercial and artisanal fisheries sector, boats, canoes, and fishing gear were damaged or destroyed, and some fresh water aquaculture farms also sustained damage. The project will assist farmers and fishers in the severely and moderately cyclone-affected areas repair/replace damaged and lost farm assets, thereby enabling them to restore production capacities. It will also provide support to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries {MAP) to repair and replace its damaged infrastructure and facilities and strengthen the agricultural sector's capacity for disaster preparedness and response. Project activities would be grouped into four components: (a) Cyclone Recovery for Subsistence Farmers and Fishers; (b) Cyclone Recovery for Commercial Farmers and Fishers;( c) Restoration of MAP Facilities and Strengthening the Agricultural Sector's Capacity for Disaster Preparedness and Response; and (d) Project Coordination and Management. Component 1: Cyclone Recovery for Subsistence Farmers and Fishers. The objective of this component would be to restore the production capacity of cyclone affected subsistence farmers and fishers. The component would comprise of: (a) Vouchers for subsistence farmers: Vouchers would be issued to project beneficiaries for procuring a range of eligible farm items including, inter alia, planting material and breeding livestock, fertilizer, farm tools and construction materials from any registered supplier participating in the project. Beneficiary households in areas severely affected by the cyclone would receive a higher value of vouchers thati those in moderately affected areas. (b) Vouchers for subsistence fishers: Vouchers would be issued to eligible fisher households in the same severely and moderately affected areas for procuring a range of agreed items, including, inter alia, cast nets, goggles, spears and canoe repair materials. Vouchers would. be issued for fishing equipment only in villages with Community Based Fisheries Management Plans. Fishing households in villages without these management plans would be issued with vouchers for agricultural items only, precluding use of project funds

3 for purchase of fishing gear. Component 2: Cyclone Recovery for Commercial Farmers and Fishers. The objective of this component would be to restore the production capacity of cyclone affected commercial farmers and fishers. The component would comprise of: (a) Recovery grants for commercial farmers: Commercial farmers in severely and moderated affected areas whose farm equipment or infrastructure was lost or damaged due to the cyclone would be eligible for recovery grants. These grants could be used to procure materials and inputs including, inter alia, plastic and shade houses, irrigation equipment, construction material, livestock and livestock housing. This would be done through a 70 percent grant, up to a grant ceiling of US$ 4,200 per farmer, following grant program guidelines developed for the project. Project support would be limited to regaining lost capacity only, and not to expand operations. (b) Recovery grants for commercial aquaculturlsts: Commercial farmers involved in aquaculture (Tilapia farming) in the cyclone affected areas who have damaged or lost equipment or infrastructure would be eligible for support under the project. Only enterprises fully operational prior to the cyclone would be eligible for financing through a 70 percent grant, up to a grant ceiling of US$ 4,200 per farmer. Project support would be limited to regaining lost capacity only, and not to expand operations. To be eligible for a recovery grant, ponds/tanks improperly sited from an environmental point of view would have to be resituated on the farm. Component 3: Restoration of MAF Facilities and Strengthening the Agricultural Sector's Capacity for Disaster Preparedness and Response. The objective of this component would be to support the repair of essential MAF facilities that were damaged during the cyclone, establish systems for the regular collection and updating of agricultural production information, develop a standard methodology for collection and analysis of damage and loss data for the agricultural sector and strengthen capacities of both farmers and sector institutions in disaster preparedness and response. (a) Repair of damaged MAF facilities: Facilities and equipment owned by MAF's Crop Division (CD), Animal Production and Health Division (APHD) and Fisheries Division (FD) that were destroyed or damaged in the cyclone would be repaired or replaced. This would include repair of the boundary fence, plastic tunnels and shade houses at the CD headquarters in Nu'u; chainsaws for fence clearance; replacing veterinary drug supplies used in the immediate post cyclone period; replacement of lost marker buoys that delineate fish and shellfish sanctuaries; repair of the Aquaculture workshops and FD's research vessel; replacement of giant clams in fish reserves and of lost fish aggregating devises. (b) Strengthening the agricultural sector's capacity for disaster preparedness and response: The project would support Technical Assistance to strengthen the capacity of the sector to respond more effectively to future natural disasters, through training programs to assist farmers improve preparedness and protect their assets when extreme events are forecast; establish improved systems for the regular collection and updating of agricultural production information; enhancing MAF's ability to assess damages and losses following a natural disaster and target support io those most affected; develop systems for assessing the biological and ecosystem impact of natural calamities on fisheries and designing effective rehabilitation programs; and procurement of a boat trailer

4 to facilitate removal of boats in Apia when extr.eme weather events are forecast. Component 4: Project Coordination and Management. This component will support effective implementation and management of the project through: (a) Staff and technical assistance: engagement of incremental staff (consultants) needed to coordinate and implement the project effectively, including a full-time Project Manager; up to two financial management officers; three project officers; and short-term advisers in project management, information technology, procurement, financial management and environment and social safeguards. Additional support on procurement and safeguards would be provided by the Project Coordination Group for the Samoa Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Project (SACEP). (b) Equipment and operating costs: This would include procurement of up to two vehicles for the project and provision of adequate work facilities and operating expenditure (including vehicle hire where necessary) for MAF and MWCSD to maximize operational effectiveness. (c) Monitoring and evaluation: designing an MIS system for the voucher and recovery grant programs and enhancing MAP's M&E systems to track implementation progress and results. 4. Project location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis ' (if known). The Project would be implemented over a period of two years covering the whole country, although direct assistance to beneficiaries would be confined to those living on Upolu in the areas designated as severely or moderately affected by Cyclone Evan in the Damage and Loss Assessment (DaLA) undertaken by the Government of Samoa. The project will target all subsistence and commercial farmers in the severely and moderate affected districts of Upolu. The agricultural areas in Upolu are concentrated on the coastal plains and rolling slopes which extends up to 300 meters above sea level, with most of the high intensity agricultural production occurring below 75 meters above sea level. Upolu still has substantial forest areas with a total area of about 50,000 hectares of primary and secondary forests but these are found only in the higher elevations. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists on the Team Jonas Garcia Bautista, Consultant 6. Safeguard Explanation (Optional) Policies Trieeered? Environmental Yes Environmental Assessment is triggered as some of the project Assessment activities would involve civil works such as the OP/BP 4.01 repair/rehabilitation of damaged farm infrastructure and damaged government facilities. Natural Habitats Yes This policy is triggered because the recovery grants under OP/BP4.04 Component 2 would involve relocation of2 to 3 poorly situated tilaoia oonds. The relocation sites of. these oonds will be

5 carefully screened to avoid sites that would encroach or adversely affect any natural habitats as defined in OP 4.04, or any sensitive environments. Pond designs will also be screened to minimize accidental release oftilapia species into the receiving streams. All other project activities are unlikely to affect any critical or non-critical natural habitats as they will be undertaken within their existing sites. The project will also contribute to the preservation of natural habitats through the restoration ofmaf's fish sanctuary/reserve markers lost during the cyclone. Forests OP/BP No The project will not affect any forests as all construction 4.36 activities will be confined within the existing or original infrastructure sites and farms. Pest Management Yes Pest Management is triggered due to the potential use of OP4.09 pesticides and weedicides by MAF in rehabilitating its farms. While the project will not finance pesticides for beneficiaries of the voucher program or recovery grants there is a possibility that project activities may lead to increased use of pesticides by farmers. 'The client has developed an Integrated Pest Management (!PM) Plan as part of the ESMF for the Samoa Agriculture Competitiveness Enhancement Project (SACEP) following the standards and requirements set forth in OP4.09. The SACEP!PM Plan will also be used for the AFCRP. The project will include measures to strengthen the institutional capacity for Implementing!PM in pr9ject areas. Moreover, the eligible items under the vouchers program have been pre-screened to exclude chemical pesticides. Recipients of the voucher program will also receive leafiets on good agricultural practices including safe handling of pesticides and training will be provided on a voluntary basis. Physical Cultural No Physical Cultural Resources is not triggered. The project and its Resources OP/ sub-projects are not anticipated to impact Physical and Cultural BP4.11 Resources. Indigenous Yes Indigenous Peoples is triggered. The inhabitants in Samoa are Peoples OP/BP indigenous to the islands with customs and traditions that have 4.10 largely remained intact and which are reflected in their current political and economic institutions such the village system and the traditional land ownership system based on customary laws. A social assessment has been conducted and prior informed consultation has been undertaken throughout the cyclone affected areas. There is no need to prepare a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) as the project itself serves as the IPP. Involuntary No There will be no land acquisition, destruction of assets, and Resettlement displacement of dwellings or restriction of access to livelihoods OP/BP under this project. All civil works supported under the project 4.12 would be confined within existing or original infrastructure sites and all rehabilitation activities, including relocation of damaged fish ponds within_l)rivate farm~l will be carefully

6 screened for these impacts. Safety of Dams No The project will not finance construction or rehabilitation of OP/BP 4.37 any dams as defined under this policy. No action is required under this policy. Projects on No Not applicable for Samoa International Waterways OP/BP 7.50 Projects in No Not applicable for Samoa Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60 II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management A. Summary of Kev Srifeguartl Issues 1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: Results of the social assessment indicate that Samoan society is very hierarchical. Given this, the selection of beneficiaries for the voucher program and the recovery grants could be vulnerable to nepotism or political favouritism. The selection process adopted by the project has taken this into consideration and adequate measures are in place. Other than this, there are no potential community impacts as the project will only provide grants to individual households. The Project will not have any large scale and/or irreversible impacts. The Project activities would mostly involve procurement of farm inputs, materials, tools and small equipment by individual farmers. The few infrastructure restoration works to be funded would be in vel)' limited in scale and would not create additional environmental footprints. Commercial farm recovel)' grants will have a ceiling of about $4,200 per farm while the rehabilitation of MAF facilities would involve only minor works. The recent Fruit and Vegetable Baseline survey conducted by MAF under SACEP indicates significant use of pesticides by farmers in Upolu. The project will not fund any purchase of chemical pesticides and instead will promote the adoption of!pm among the beneficiary fanners by distributing pamphlets on IPM among the beneficiaries of the voucher program and conducting trainings. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: There will be no anticipated future activities in the project area other than agriculture. The indirect impact of the project would be positive and beneficial. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. Alternative designs (i.e. paper vouchers and electronic vouchers) have been considered for Component I to enable the Project to, among others, improve tracking and restrict purchases to prescribed items only thereby ensuring that the vouchers are not used to purchase undesirable items such as chemical

7 pesticides. Alternative systems of identifying eligible beneficiaries have also been considered to ensure transparency while maintaining cultural appropriateness. 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 Social and Environmental Assessments conducted by the borrower for the Agriculture Competitiveness Enhancement Project (SACEP) provided inputs to the project design. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has also conducted free and prior informed consultations in the cyclone affected areas to determine farmers' needs and to comply with the requirements of OP The consultations have helped the borrower design a more transparent process of identifying eligible beneficiaries, including the adoption of a definition of what constitutes a household and the appointment of the village verification committee composed of representatives of women, youth and the village mayor and utilizing the village councils in validating the lists of eligible households. The grievance redress mechanism of SACEP has been adopted for the project and included in the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). Other measures undertaken by the borrower include the pre-screening of eligible items to be purchased under the voucher program to exclude environmentally hazardous items such as chemical pesticides and gillnets. The ESMF has been prepared based on the Social and Environmental Assessments. The framework provides detailed procedures for safeguards screening, review and approval of recovery grant proposals as well as compliance monitoring during their implementation. The review and clearing of social and environmental safeguards of project activities would be handled by the existing Environmental and Social Management Officer (ESMO) of SACEP to be supported Project Officers hired under the project and MAF extension staff assigned in project area. The ESMO and the Extension Officers are already familiar with the World Bank Safeguards requirements and have undergone training on the screening and safeguards preparation process under SACEP. The Project Officers, once recruited, will also be trained. The number of recovery grant proposals that would need environmental screening and review is small (about 50) and is not expected to significantly impact on ESMO's and Extension Officers' current workloads. An experienced Safeguards Advisor will also be hired by the project and will provide inputs on a part-time basis. 5, Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. The main stakeholders of this project are the farmers and fishers in the cyclone affected areas. Consultations have been conducted by Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in the cyclone affected areas. The MAF has been conducting IEC in the villages on safeguards under the SACEP. The same arrangements will be adopted for this project. B. Disclosure Requirements Environmental Assessment/AudiUManagement Plan/Other Date of receipt by the Bank August 20, 2013 Date of submission to InfoShop August 22, 2013 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors

8 "In country" Disclosure August 22, Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process Date of receipt by the Bank Date of submission to InfoShop "In country" Disclosure Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework Date of receipt by the Bank Date of submission to InfoShop "In country" Disclosure 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. C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators a/the Corporate Level OP/BP/GP Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? Yes [XI No [ 1 NA I 1 OP/BP Indigenous Peoples Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework (as Yes [ 1 No [X] NA [ 1 appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples? OP/BP Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process Yes [ I No [X] NA [ I framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Yes [ I No [X] NA [ 1 Sector Manager review the plan? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure orin formation Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Yes [X] No [ 1 NA I 1 Bank's Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public Yes [X] No [ 1 NA [ I 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 [X] No [ 1 NA [ 1 responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in Yes [X] No [ 1 NA [ 1 the project cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include Yes [X] No[ 1 NA [ I the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to

9 safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with Yes [X] No[ l NA I l the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? III. APPROVALS Task Team Leader: Name: Mona Sur Approved By: Regional Safeguards Advisor: Name: Peter Leonard W~<-LJ ")_ Date: fn a..,..~{:lll13 Sector Manager: Name: Michel Kerf \.A,.A Date: A~(~J -z i!/z,,;, --- J