Public Disclosure Authorized. Public Disclosure Authorized. Public Disclosure Authorized. Public Disclosure Authorized. Report No.

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Report No: I <--Please check for duplicates! Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (Updated) Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 04/12/2002 Section I - Basic Information Report No A. Basic Project Data Country: NIGERIA Project ID: P Global Supplemental ID: P Project: Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Program Task Team Leader: Talib B. K. Esmail Authorized to Appraise Date: April 4, 2002 IBRD Amount ($m): Bank Approval: July 30, 2002 IDA Amount ($m): Global Supplemental Amount ($m): 8.10 Managing Unit: AFTR2 Sector: MC - Community Action Program Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan (SIL) Status: Lending I.A.2. Project Objectives: The program is to be financed by IDA and GEF. The IDA components will have following two inter-related project development objectives: (1) Beneficiaries in the participating states will have planned, co-financed, implemented and will be continuing to operate and maintain environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive multi-sectoral micro-projects. (2) The institutional framework (at federal, state and local government levels) for supporting environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive development will have been strengthened. The GEF Global objective is as follows: (1) Management of the targeted protected areas will have improved, resulting in increased species diversity within these areas; (2) Beneficiaries within the support zones around targeted protected areas will have planned, co-financed, implemented and are continuing to operate and maintain environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive micro-projects. I.A.3. Project Description: The components are as follows: (i) Multi-sectoral Community-Driven Investments. This component will finance direct investments in communities to implement their development priorities, through a series of micro-projects included in Community Development Plans (CDP). The CDPs will be evolved through a thorough participatory process facilitated by Multi-sectoral Implementation Teams (MITs) established by a State Program Support Unit (SPSU) and based in a local government town near the targeted communities. NGOs, may also be contracted by the SPSUs to act as MITs if they have sufficient capacity. Communities of a social unit of 1,000 to 3,000 individuals will produce their CDP within a budget envelop of US$ 50,000 (in equivalent Naira) provided by the program. They will be required to elect a Community

2 Project Management Committee (CPMC) to represent the interests of the community as a whole. The CPMC will be required to register themselves with the local government, open a bank account in a local commercial bank. The CPMC will manage and supervise the implementation of micro-project works (e.g. renovation and rehabilitation of school buildings; construction of new school buildings; construction or rehabilitation of health centers; rehabilitation of rural feeder roads; water supply - bore holes and hand pumps for wells, catchment tanks; alternative energy such as photovoltaic driven water pumps; completion of a partially built electricity distribution network, or rehabilitation of a network and connection to the local Nigerian Electric Power Authority transformer; agro-processing/cottage industries; erosion control measures, improved agricultural and land management practices; drainage; private and public sanitation facilities; solid waste management; markets - constructions of small stalls, construction of shelter for stalls, etc.). Funds will be transferred to the CPMC bank account in tranches for each micro-project by the SPSU. Release of subsequent tranches will require verification by the Local Government Review Committee (LGRC), SPSU and/or MIT that environmental management plans and mitigation measures are being addressed during implementation of works. (ii) Local Government Assessment and Capacity Building. This component aims to build local government capacity for budget formulation, execution and reporting. It will include an initial assessment of the current capacity of LGAs in each of the states involved in the LEEMP, and a ranking of the LGAs with most capacity to participate in the Program. For those LGAs that do not qualify for participation, this component will conduct training to help build their capacity to enable them to participate in the future. (iii) Protected Area and Biodiversity Management Component. GEF will finance the incremental costs of activities which have global benefits, consistent with the goals of the National Biodiversity Strategy. Activities under this component will aim to strengthen institutional and organizational capacity of a number of agencies for effective participatory protected area management in four selected protected areas and their support zones. This component will also support micro-projects for communities living within the support zones of the selected protected areas and promote the involvement of local stakeholders more closely in protected area management (e.g. community woodlots using indigenous species; decentralized nurseries raising saplings of economic trees, indigenous grass species and medicinal plants; agro-forestry using indigenous species; homestead fish products using indigenous species; cottage industries - handicrafts, pottery; bee-keeping and apiculture; snail farming - indigenous species identified by communities; medicinal plants - indigenous species identified by communities). Established and experienced NGOs will be contracted by the National Parks Service to facilitate a participatory planning process to evolve micro-project proposals. The micro-projects will aim to promote sustainable livelihoods while emphasizing the linkages between biodiversity conservation and benefits for communities neighboring the protected areas. Key stakeholder groups will be assisted to establish collaborative mechanisms to support conservation-linked development and reduce unsustainable use of shared resources. (iv) Strengthening Environmental Institutional and Management Support - 2-

3 Services. This component aims to improve the legal framework and build state and local capacity for environmental protection and enhancement of the natural resources management regime. Activities under this component will: (i) carry out an institutional assessment; (ii) harmonize current legislation and regulations to make them consistent with the establishment of the FME; (iii) strengthen enforcement capacity for environmental monitoring, protection and natural resources conservation; (iv) review the existing policy and regulatory framework for protected area management and identify options for promoting more effective and participatory approaches for promoting conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and critical ecosystems; (v) establish state and local level capacity for environmental review and monitoring, including the development of an EA Procedures Handbook, EA checklists, and project specific monitoring requirements; and, (vi) provide intensive training to project staff, state and local government officials in environmental assessment, management and monitoring. (v) Program Management. This component will finance the establishment of the Federal Program Support Unit (FPSU), State Program Support Unit (SPSU), and Multi-sectoral Implementation Teams (MITs). It will also finance the preparation of the EA Procedures Manual, as well as the training of all actors in participatory techniques and environmental and social assessments. Development communication will also be included in this component, as it will create and sustain a dynamic information network between the various levels of stakeholders to achieve optimal project implementation. Components: (i) Multi-sectoral Community-Driven Investments (ii) Local Government Assessment and Capacity Building (iii) Protected Area and Biodiversity Management (iv) Strengthening Environmental Institutional and Management Support Services (v) Program Management. I.A.4. Project Location: (Geographic location, information about the key environmental and social characteristics of the area and population likely to be affected, and proximity to any protected areas, or sites or critical natural habitats, or any other culturally or socially sensitive areas.) The participating states in the first 2 year phase are as follows: Sahelian zone, dry grassland (Northern Nigeria): Katsina, Niger (Kainji Lake National Park) Semi-arid zone, montane grassland (Middle belt): Benue, Bauchi (Yankari National Park, Lame-Burra Game Reserve and Maladumba Lake and Forest Reserve), Adamawa Humid zone, rainforest (Southeastern Nigeria): Enugu, Imo Humid zone, (Southwestern Nigeria): Oyo Delta Region, rainforest (Southern Nigeria): Baylesa B. Check Environmental Classification: F (Financial Intermediary Assessment) Comments: C. Safeguard Policies Triggered -3-

4 Policy Applicability Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) Yes Forestry (OP/GP 4.36) Yes Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) No Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) No Pest Management (OP 4.09) No Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) No Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) No Cultural Property (OP 4.11) No Projects in Disputed Territories (OP/BP/GP 7.60)* No Projects in International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) No *By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties' claims on the disputed areas Section II - Key Safeguard Issues and Their Management D. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues. Please fill in all relevant questions. If information is not available, describe steps to be taken to obtain necessary data. II.D.la. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts. All safeguard issues that may arise during the project will result from community-driven micro-projects financed by both the Multi-sectoral Community-Driven Investments component, and the GEF-financed Protected Areas and Biodiversity Management component. The specific micro-projects that communities will propose in these two components will be demand-driven will be identified by the beneficiaries through a participatory process. The projects are still to be determined. Therefore, an EA process pursuant to OP 4.01 will be integrated into the micro-project cycle. This process is described in the Environmental and Social Management Framework, where multi-disciplinary teams, local governments and state staff will be intensively trained under the Strengthening Environmental Institutional and Management Support Services component in order to assist communities to assess potential environmental impacts during the preparation and design of micro-project proposals. Thus, EA concerns and any necessary mitigation measures will be included by communities in the design of micro-project proposals. Microprojects that will be eligible for financing are likely to have only site-specific environmental and social impacts due to the small scale nature of the activities. Some of the potential impacts of the types of micro-projects that will be financed by the LEEMP include: n Soils - site specific contamination or erosion of soils n Biodiversity - vegetation and habitat loss, disturbance of forest ecosystems n Water - local contamination, blockage of drains n Air quality - local pollution, dust, smoke, etc. n Social - increased refuse, construction accidents Only those micro-projects that could be classified as either Category B or C will be eligible for financing as a general practice, and the most likely safeguards issues to arise will be alteration of natural habitats and/or soil erosion. For this reason, the multi-disciplinary teams will conduct rapid assessments of the critical habitats of the area within which the selected community resides, in order to identify sensitive areas - 4 -

5 that may be affected by the micro-projects, as well as erosion-prone sites and causal factors. This information will be used to help communities select sites for micro-projects that do not significantly impact natural habitats or critical ecosystems. Similarly, these rapid assessments will also endeavor to identify cultural property within the micro-watershed, to avoid impacts on such property. The project has a highly participatory approach to the formation of Community Development Plans. In each participating state, Multi-sectoral Implementation Teams (MITs) will be established and trained to help build capacity in the selected communities for prioritizing development needs, as well as to help communities assess potential environmental impacts of proposed micro-projects, redesign micro-projects so as to avoid these impacts or include mitigation measures and complete the EA checklists that will highlight these potential impacts. These MITs will initiate the process of dialogue and partnership building with the communities, and will help them to establish the Community Project Management Committees that will outline development priorities for investments under the State Program Support Units. To assist communities to prioritize development needs, create micro-project proposals and incorporate environmental assessment into the design of the micro-projects, MITs will follow a participatory process that will include the following steps: prepare a socio-economic profile of the communities within the districts of selected LGAs (this has already been completed for the 6 pilot states as part of the Social Assessment undertaken during preparation); conduct Participatory Rural Appraisal and Planning (PRAP) and baseline studies of the natural resources and sensitive habitats or areas; facilitate the formation of Community Project Management Committees and the election of officers: Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary/Treasurer and Extension workers; help Community Project Management Committees prioritize their development needs and prepare micro-project proposals; on approval and sanction of micro-project proposals from the Local Government Review Committee, CPMCs will open a bank account and prepare other registers and books of accounts; together with the SPSU staff, conduct EA training and education for community members, user groups and the Community Project Management Committees; provide technical support to Community Project Management Committees in designing, procurement, etc. of micro-project activities, as well as quality control checks and supervision; liaise with LGRC to ensure that EA checklists represent potential environmental impacts of proposed micro-projects, are accurate, and include any necessary mitigation measures. The GEF-financed Protected Area Management Component will contract national NGOs to work with communities living in the support zones of the protected areas. The NGOs will facilitate a participatory process involving representatives of the management of the respective protected areas and community members. In this way, key stakeholder groups will be assisted to establish collaborative mechanisms to support conservation-linked development and reduce unsustainable use of shared resources. The protected area management plans will not exclude historic uses of resources in the support zones without identifying mutually acceptable alternatives. The protected area management plans will focus on providing options for sustainable livelihoods to communities within support zones (within the parameters of biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation). Activities proposed in the plans relating to - 5-

6 management and enforcement of protected area boundaries will need to be generally accepted by all the key stakeholders. IDA or GEF funds will not be used to finance any form of land acquisition or resettlement. If acquisition of land is required (e.g. to build a new school or health center), written evidence will need to be provided by the elected Community Project Management Committees that the land has been voluntarily contributed by the community as a whole and that any individuals that are negatively affected by such land acquisition have been adequately compensated by the community. Micro-projects that would be placed on the positive list include: renovation and rehabilitation of school buildings; construction of new school buildings; construction or rehabilitation of health centers; rehabilitation of rural feeder roads; water supply - bore holes and hand pumps for wells, catchment tanks; alternative energy such as photovoltaic driven water pumps; completion of a partially built electricity distribution network, or rehabilitation of a network and connection to the local Nigerian Electric Power Authority transformer; agro-processing/cottage industries; erosion control measures, improved agricultural and land management practices; drainage; private and public sanitation facilities; solid waste management; markets - construction of small stalls, construction of shelter for stalls; community woodlots using indigenous species; decentralized nurseries raising saplings of economic trees, indigenous grass species and medicinal plants; agro-forestry using indigenous species; homestead fish products using indigenous species; cottage industries - handicrafts, pottery; small scale post-harvest infrastructure - groundnut oil expeller units and Shea butter units; bee-keeping - apiculture; soil erosion control; sustainable agriculture using crop rotation, soil moisture conservation and other agronomic practices to increase yields; snail farming - indigenous species identified by communities; medicinal plants - indigenous species identified by communities; development of alternative sources of energy - briquette manufacture, solar and wind energy. In summary, the process for screening micro-projects for social and environmental impacts and compliance with the World Bank Operational Policy is as follows: MITs will be trained in EA so that they can work with communities and assist them in designing or re-designing proposals (using EA checklists and EA Procedures manual) From here the proposals are submitted to the Local Govt. Review Committee which will include staff trained to review proposals from an environmental and social perspective. Both a desk review and field appraisal will be conducted and a determination will be made whether EA should be carried out or not. From here the proposals are sent to the State Level where a TOR for the EA will be developed and prepared, as needed. The state level will also be responsible for monitoring compliance of all micro-projects with environmental and social safeguards. State and local levels review and verify completion of an EA and EMP and approve proposal subject to the integration of recommendations emanating from the EA and incorporation of needed additional EMP implementation costs. -6-

7 With regard to GEF-financed investments one staff in each of the relevant agencies responsible for managing the protected areas -whether the National Park or the Department of Forests in Bauchi State will be trained in EA process. These staff will liaise with the contracted NGOs, National Park authorities and community leaders through an intensive consultatory process to help identify micro-project proposals to be funded by the GEF. The consultations will help identify: (a) potential environmental impacts of the proposed micro-projects; (b) mechanisms for redesign of the proposed micro-projects to avoid the impacts; or (c) identify and help incorporate mitigation measures. Like in the IDA supported activities, EA checklists will be used to facilitate the micro-project prioritization process. Upon prioritization, the proposals will be submitted to the relevant State Environmental Agency or the Environmental Impact Assessment Department of the FME, as appropriate. The proposals will be submitted to the FME only in cases where a microproject may have the potential for significant environmental impact. The relevant State or Federal agency will either request a further EIA and help the NGO, National Park or Community Organization with drafting terms of reference, review and approval of an EMP, or approval for the project based on the EA checklist. The funds from GEF will only be disbursed upon receipt of the necessary clearances. II.D.lb. Describe any potential cumulative impacts due to application of more than one safeguard policy or due to multiple project component. While micro-projects will be small in scope and scale, and their individual environmental impacts limited, cumulatively these micro-projects could have a significant impacts on natural habitats and soil erosion. For example, several micro-projects involving construction of schools, cottage industries, etc. within a community could potentially disrupt wildlife corridors within natural habitats, or have cumulative impacts on runoff and silt loads to streams and rivers. For this reason, an initial rapid assessment will be undertaken to identify natural habitats and erosion-prone sites, so that micro-projects can be designed and sited to take these considerations into account. II.D.lc Describe any potential long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area. No potential negative long term impacts are envisaged as a result of micro-projects financed by the LEEMP. However, if they are not designed properly, micro-projects could cumulatively have a long-term impact on soil erosion and fertility in community areas where the LEEMP will operate. II.D.2. In light of 1, describe the proposed treatment of alternatives (if required) Erosion control and natural resource management is one of the fundamental objectives of the LEEMP, and multi-disciplinary teams will be trained to identify erosion sites and causal factors, as well as the potential for proposed micro-projects to enhance or exacerbate soil erosion. They will work with the communities to educate them about causes of erosion, as well as designing micro-projects that avoid or mitigate erosion, and/or promote natural resource management. II.D.3. Describe arrangement for the borrower to address safeguard issues The project has been designed to integrate the environmental and social -7 -

8 dimensions of community development and management. Mechanisms will be put in place help local communities identify, assess and manage environmental and social impacts associated with community development. This will be achieved through the following interventions: The Strengthening Environmental Institutional and Management Support Services component will build capacity at the state and local level for EA through an intensive 2-4 week training module for 2 to 5 environmental staff from each of the participating states (who will then be seconded to the State Program Support Units). These modules will 'train the trainers', and the trained staff will be supported by the LEEMP to conduct a similar module in each state to train the multi-disciplinary teams, and staff from each participating local government. This component will also provide the state and local government staff and the multi-disciplinary teams with EA Procedures Handbooks and EA checklists for micro-project proposals. Multi-disciplinary teams who will themselves be trained in EA will work with communities to: (a) assess micro-project proposals; (b) identify possible environmental impacts; (c) determine necessary mitigation measures that should be included in proposals; (d) design modifications to avoid potential impacts. The multi-disciplinary teams will assist the communities to complete EA checklists for each micro-project proposal that will help prioritize projects and identify potential environmental impacts and possible mitigation measures. Completed EA checklists will be submitted with micro-project proposals to the Local Government Review Committee ( these committees will include 2-4 local government staff trained in EA under the Environmental Institutional and Management Support Services component). The Local Government Review Committee will first conduct a desk appraisal of the EA checklist and micro-project proposal to ensure that they are complete, followed up with a field appraisal to verify and confirm all of the information provided in the EA checklist. Based on that information, the Local Government Review Committee will either approve the micro-project for financing by the State Program Support Unit, or will send the micro-project proposal to the EA-trained staff at the State Program Support Unit to draft a terms of reference for an environmental impact assessment of the proposed micro-project. With the EIA completed, the multi-disciplinary teams will take the results and work with communities to include an environmental management plan in the micro-project proposal. When that plan is approved by the State Program Support Unit, the micro-project proposal will be approved and funds disbursed. The Local Government Review Committee will periodically audit all micro-projects to monitor environmental impacts and safeguards issues, and the State Program Support Unit will also periodically audit selected micro-projects as well. The State Program Suport Unit will be responsible for the implementation and monitoring of environmental assessments and environmental management plans. With regard to GEF supported investments, one staff each from the relevant agency responsible for managing the protected area in Bauchi and Niger States as well as in the National Parks will be trained in EA processes

9 These staff will liaise with the contracted NGOs, National Park authorities and community leaders through an intensive consultatory process to help identify micro-project proposals to be funded by the GEF. These consultations will help identify potential environmental impacts of the proposed micro-projects, and enable the identification of mechanisms for redesign of the proposed micro-projects to avoid the impacts, or include mitigation measures. Like in the IDA supported activities, EA checklists will be used to facilitate the micro-project prioritization process. Upon prioritization, the proposals will be submitted to the relevant State Environmental Agency or the Environmental Impact Assessment Department of the FME, as relevant. The proposals will be submitted to the FME only in cases where a microproject may have the potential for significant environmental impact. The relevant State or Federal agency will either request a further EIA and help the NGO, National Park or Community Organization with drafting terms of reference, review and approval of an EMP, or approval for the project based on the EA checklist. The funds from GEF will only be disbursed upon receipt of the necessary clearances. II.D.4. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Micro-projects will be determined by the communities, and multi-disciplinary teams will help them assess potential safeguards that could be triggered by proposed micro-projects. The communities are the key stakeholders, and thus will be involved in every step of the process. All EA documents - micro-project proposals and EA checklists, Local Government Review Committees' field appraisal verifications of EA checklists, environmental audits of micro-projects, and any EIAs conducted, will be publicly disclosed and entered into a management information system created by the LEEMP. E. Safeguards Classification. Category is determined by the highest impact in any policy. Or on basis of cumulative impacts from multiple safeguards. Whenever an individual safeguard policy is triggered the provisions of that policy apply. I S1. - Significant, cumulative and/or irreversible impacts; or significant technical and institutional risks in management of one or more safeguard areas I S2. - One or more safeguard policies are triggered, but effects are limited in their impact and are technically and institutionally manageable I S3. - No safeguard issues [XI SF. - Financial intermediary projects, social development funds, community driven development or similar projects which require a safeguard framework or programmatic approach to address safeguard issues. F. Disclosure Requirements Environmental Assessment/Analysis/Management Plan: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank 11/29/2001 Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Date of distributing the Exec. Summary of the EA to the ED (For category A projects) 9

10 Resettlement Action Plan/Framework: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Not Applicable Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Not Applicable Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Pest Management Plan: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Not Applicable Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Dam Safety Management Plan: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Not Applicable Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why. Signed and submitted by Name Date Task Team Leader: Talib B. K. Esmail 4/2/02 Project Safeguards Specialists 1: Kristine M. Ivarsdotter/Person/World Bank 4/3/02 Project Safeguards Specialists 2: Project Safeguards Specialists 3: Approved by: Name Date Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Serigne Omar Fye 4/2/02 Sector Manager/Director: Joseph Baah-Dwomoh 4/2/02 For a list of World Bank news releases on projects and reports, click here