INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET APPRAISAL STAGE

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized b Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 13-Feb BASIC INFORMATION INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET APPRAISAL STAGE U) 1. Basic Project Data.U, Country: Vietnam Project ID: P Project Name: Coastal Resources for Sustainable Development Project (P118979) Task Team Leader: Binh Thang Cao Estimated Appraisal Date: 18-Jan-212 Estimated Board Date: 26-Apr-212 Report No.: ISDSA636 Managing Unit: EASVS Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (9%), General public administration sector (1%) Theme: Financing (In USD Million) Financing Source Other environment and natural resources management (5%), Infrastructure services for private sector development (3%), Environmenta I policies and institutions (2%) Amount BORROWER/RECIPIENT 11.7 International Development Association (IDA) 1. Local Sources of Borrowing Country 6.2 Total Environmental Category: Is this a Repeater project? No 2. Project Objectives B - Partial Assessment The project development objective is to improve the sustainable management of coastal fisheries in Project Provinces. 3. Project Description o The project comprises the following four components: (A) institutional capacity strengthening for sustainable fisheries management; (B) good practices for sustainable aquaculture; (C) sustainable management of near-shore capture fisheries; and (D) project management, monitoring and a evaluation. Component -Z) A: Institutional capacity strengthening for sustainable fisheries management (est. US$5.3 million). This component would support three.n activities: (a) integrated spatial planning of coastal areas; (b) upgrading of Vietnam fisheries database; and (c) selected policy research. o Component B: Good practices for sustainable aquaculture (est. US$48.1 million). This component would support good aquaculture practices - (GAP) through: (a) improved bio-security management; (b) improved seed quality management; and (c) improved environmental management. Component C: Sustainable management of near-shore capture fisheries (est. US$52.2 million). This component would support: (a) comanagement of near-shore capture fisheries; and (b) rehabilitation of fishing ports, landing sites, and fish markets. Component D: Project management, Monitoring and Evaluation (est. US$12.3 million). This component would support: (a) project management; and (b) monitoring and evaluation. 4. Project location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis (if known) The project will be implemented in 8 provinces: Ca Mau and Soc Trang (Mekong Delta Cluster); Khanh Hoa, Phu Yen, and Binh Dinh (South Central Cluster); and Ha Tinh, Nghe An, and Thanh Hoa (North Central Cluster). While the project activities will be implemented in a very large area in diverse locations, co-management of local fishery resources under Component C may involve management of fish habitats and some spawning grounds that mostly have economic values. Screening for the presence of rare/endangered species and their habitats will be conducted for each community co-management area. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Douglas J. Graham (EASVS) Pilar Larreamendy (EASVS) Josefo Tuyor (EASPS) Tuan Anh Le (EASVS) Son Van Nguyen (EASVS) Page 1 of 5

2 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered? Explanation (Optional) Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.1 Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.4 Forests OP/BP 4.36 Pest Management OP 4.9 No O Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11 No Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.1 No Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 No a Projects on International Waterways OP/BP No Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.6 No II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues 1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant andlor irreversible impacts: Environmental Assessment (OP 4.1) The project's overall environmental impacts have been assessed to be positive. It is anticipated that the project would yield positive impacts on the livelihoods of fishing communities and smallholder aquaculture farmers (including ethnic minorities) in the project area and on the sector's capacity for sustainable management of coastal resources through co-management at local levels. Local beneficiaries would have better access to information, training, sustainable technologies, improved infrastructure and associated support services, and opportunities for additional incomes. Local communities will assume collective rights and responsibilities related to near-shore fishery resources and will be enabled to apply these in ways to sustain their long term livelihoods. Negative impacts are assessed to be limited, localized, manageable and reversible and can be avoided or minimized through proper design and application of mitigation measures. The main environmental issues associated with the project include: (1) improper use and management of chemicals and antibiotics in aquaculture; (2) ineffective management and improper treatment of solid wastes and wastewater resulting from aquaculture; and (3) civil works impacts (i.e. increased localized level of dust, noise, disturbance to traffic and community, safety risks, water pollution risks ) during construction of new infrastructure or rehabilitation of existing facilities (i.e. upgrading of fishing ports, landing sites, fish markets, etc). Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.4) Although the project will not have a direct impact on critical habitats, it triggers the Bank's policy on Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.4) as some of a its activities will be implemented in coastal areas. Under Component B where fisheries co-management arrangements are introduced, it could involve the management of some spawning grounds of aquatic species. The impacts on natural habitats should be positive rather than negative. Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12) The project will bring about socioeconomic benefits to fishing communities, and smallholder aquaculture farmers, including ethnic minorities in the project area. The social impact assessment of the project is positive overall. Adverse social impact is limited, primarily due to small-scale acquisition of land for upgrading of existing small-scale infrastructure financed by the project (i.e., small access roads, landing sites, fishing ports, and fish markets). Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.1) There are a number of ethnic minority (EM) groups (i.e. Khmer, Hoa, Tay, Nung, etc.) present in the project area. In particular, the coastal areas of Soc Trang and Ca Mau provinces have more EM living compared to other project provinces. Free, prior and informed consultations with potentially affected ethnic minority peoples during the Social Assessment (SA) as part of project preparation indicated that there is a broad support from the potentially affected EM communities given to the project. The SA also showed that the project's impacts on local communities including EM are positive overall because the project is expected to improve their access to sustainable farming technologies, reduce aquaculture disease risks, and improve management of coastal resources, thereby help sustain local livelihoods. However, in some specific circumstances where high populations of EM are present (i.e. Soc Trang's coastal areas), a few ethnic minority households may be affected by the project's land acquisition required for upgrading of infrastructure activities. 2. Describe any potential indirect andlor long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: Long term impacts of the project are expected to be positive such as improvement in the livelihoods and sustainability of fishing communities and smallholder aquaculture farmers (including ethnic minorities) and the sector's capacity for sustainable management of coastal resources through co-management at local levels. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. During preparation of the project feasibility study, the project has evaluated and excluded all investment proposals that go against the project development objective of sustainable fisheries management. To minimize the potential adverse impacts, the project has also considered alternatives to the investment proposals prepared by the provinces, prioritized them based on the anticipated positive and negative impacts, Page 2 of 5

3 and developed screening checklists to exclude all investment proposals or elements of proposals that may cause large-scale (or irreversible) social and environment impacts such as (i) subprojects that use land of national parks, natural reserves, world heritage, historical/cultural sites, nationally protected landscapes, biosphere conservation sites; (ii) subprojects that cause conversion of forests including mangrove forests, watershed protection forests, waves/wind shield forests, etc., to fishponds or other land uses; (iii) subprojects that cause conversion of two-crop rice field land with high productivity; (iv) aquaculture on sand subprojects using 1 ha of land; and, (v) subprojects having project sites in more than one province. O U a) a 4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard policy issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. Environment: As part of project preparation, MARD, with the help of a consultant, has prepared an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) to guide the project in screening, assessing and mitigating environmental and social impacts during project implementation. The ESMF is in accordance with the Bank's safeguard policies and requirements as well as with the Vietnamese laws on environmental impact assessment and other environmental laws. The framework covers guidelines for (1) safeguard screening; (2) impact assessment and development of mitigation measures, including the Environmental Codes of Practice (ECOP) for small scale construction and dredging operation; (3) safeguard documentation preparation and clearance, (4) safeguard implementation, supervision, monitoring, and reporting, (5) institutional strengthening and capacity building programs for the PMU staff as well for the relevant provincial Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DONRE); and (6) institutional arrangements and budget. Regarding safeguard screening, a negative list of subprojects has been prepared, which will be excluded in the menu of eligible subprojects. These subprojects in the negative list are those that would have negative impacts on natural habitats (see # 3 above). In addition, the project will not be supporting any activities related to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The ESMF also requires that for each type of infrastructure activities, the implementing agencies will have to prepare standard mitigation measures in the form of ECOP to mitigate construction and operation related impacts. The ECOP will be part of the infrastructure subproject's Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and will be included in the bidding and contract documents and closely monitored by supervision engineers. Since the first year infrastructure subprojects are small, the implementing provinces will prepare relevant ECOPs for each type of infrastructure activities, include them into the bidding and contract documents and ensure effective implementation of these ECOPs. The ESMF had been disclosed locally in local language and the English version through the Bank's InfoShop before the start of appraisal. Social: Involuntary resettlement: To minimize the impact of involuntary resettlement, the project would try to avoid acquisition of land by exploring various technical design options. However, where it is unavoidable, compensation including assistance to the affected people will be made in accordance with the project's RPF which was prepared by MARD in compliance to Bank's OP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement). Voluntary land donation is not encouraged and not expected under the CRSD. The safeguard screening will help exclude all activities that would result in large-scale impacts on land acquisition or resettlement. For the infrastructure subprojects to be implemented in the first year, the implementing agencies have carried out screening and confirmed that the upgrading of those schemes will not require land acquisition because it will take place on the existing structures. In the following years, if there are subprojects identified involving land acquisition, a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) will be prepared for each subproject according to the project' RPF. All RAPs are subjected to Bank's prior review and approval prior to implementation. O a).u) Ethnic Minorities: To ensure EM peoples continue to be consulted during project implementation as well as they would receive equal benefits from the project, an Ethnic Minority Policy Framework (EMPF) has been prepared by MARD in accordance with Bank's OP 4.1 (Indigenous Peoples) and it will be adopted during project implementation. The main purpose of the EMPF is to engage EM in the project area in subproject planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation as well as to guide the preparation and implementation of Ethnic Minority Development Plans (EMDPs) for subprojects identified during project implementation. EMDPs will include budget, implementation and monitoring arrangements to mitigate negative impacts on local EM and to ensure that they would receive socioeconomic benefits from the project in a way that is culturally appropriate to them. In the first year, the project would focus on staff training to prepare EMDPs which will be implemented in the following years. According to this implementation schedule, project activities will not be implemented in EM areas in the first year. Screening of the infrastructure subprojects planned for the first-year confirmed that no EM households will be affected by the project's land acquisition in the first year. Both RFP and EMPF had been disclosed locally and through the InfoShop before the start of appraisal. Fisheries co-management: Participatory fisheries co-management is a powerful approach to solve and prevent conflicts among resources users and give voice to the poor in the decision-making process. The project would facilitate the establishment of participatory fisheries comanagement in about 14 selected communes in the project area to enable local fishing communities to take more responsibilities in solving their own local problems (depleting fisheries resources). Communities will be empowered and provided with necessary resources to make their own decisions through developing a feasible, collective action plan on the sustainable use of coastal resources. Although the co-management can bring about long-term positive impacts on local livelihoods and environment, it may result in short term impacts on the poor or ethnic. The impacts may not be significant for the better-off but could be more serious for the poor and vulnerable groups. To anticipate and mitigate the impacts, necessary resources will be provided to each co-management group to mitigate any unintended adverse impact. In some provinces like Soc Trang, public land will be allocated to the poor and landless fishers to develop other income generating sources. The project will coordinate with the government's initiatives to ensure that a comprehensive approach for EM will be conducted to generate additional income for the poor and EM. To ensure co-management will be implemented properly during project implementation, a co-management guideline has been prepared to define the key guiding principles for co-management approach supported under the project. These principles have been consulted with potentially affected groups during the SA. Before the project becomes effective, based on the guiding principles, MARD will prepare a comanagement manual (part of the project's Operational Manual) to elaborate in detail the co-management approach and the consultation processes which potentially affected communities could take part in designing rules and measures to prevent them from being adversely Page 3 of 5

4 affected and in implementing and monitoring the activities that may affect their livelihoods. Such a co-management manual would be consistent with the core principles of the process framework described under Bank's OP 4.12 and will be subjected to public consultations before it is officially used to guide the preparation of commune specific co-management plans. In the first year, no co-management plans will be implemented. In the start-up period, the project would focus on assisting fishing communities get organized (i.e. establishing fisher organizations) and providing training to project staff to handle proper consultations with local communities. This implementation schedule will allow time to build capacity at local levels as well as to assist local communities in the preparation of their own co-management plans using the stakeholder analysis to define the types of support relevant to them. Implementation arrangements: The Project Coordination Unit (PCU) established by MARD and the project Provincial Project Management Units a) (PPMUs) established by the project provinces would be the executing agencies. Each of them will appoint one Environmental and Social U) Safeguard Officer to be responsible for the project safeguards. The project will provide training to build capacity of the PCU, PPMUs and DONREs on implementation of the ESMF and related monitoring activities. A technical assistance team will also be recruited to assist the PCU.n in managing project implementation, including environmental and social safeguards. An independent agency will be recruited to monitor compliance throughout project implementation. Capacity: The Borrower possesses adequate capacity for assessing the project's environmental and social impacts, and proposing mitigation.. measures, given their extended experience in previous IDA funded projects. Training has been provided and will continue to be provided to project staff for implementing the EMPs, RAPs, and EMDPs prepared during project implementation. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Public consultations were carried out under the Social Assessments (from April to June 211) and the Environmental Assessment (in October 211). Key participants included fishing communities and smallholder aquaculture farmers in the project area, central and local authorities, as well as mass organizations. The consultations aimed to explore the potential social and environmental impacts of the project so as to, on the basis of the findings, inform project design/intervention strategy, as well as develop appropriate safeguards instruments. The draft RPF, EMPF, and ESMF have been circulated to concerned ministries and project provinces to receive additional comments before finalization. During project implementation, the PCU and PPMUs will maintain consultations at local levels with the project affected people to allow them to participate in the design and implementation of the activities taking place in their area. All EMPs, RAPs, and EMDPs will be prepared in consultation with the affected people. All the safeguards documents will be disclosed locally (i.e. at the PCU and PPMUs' offices, DARD's offices, Commune People's Committees, and through Vietnam Development Information Center (VDIC) and Bank's InfoShop. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of submission to InfoShop For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors C-) Resettlement Action PlanlFramework/Policy Process U) Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? 15-Dec Jan Dec-211 o) Date of receipt by the Bank 7-Dec Jan Date of submission to InfoShop 28-Dec Indigenous Peoples Development PlanlFramework Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of submission to InfoShop 8-Dec Jan Dec-211 If the project triggers the Pest Management andlor Physical Cultural Resources policies, the respective issues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of the Environmental Assessment/Auditior 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 Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? [ X ] No [ ] NA [ ] OP/BP Natural Habitats If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of other (non-critical) natural [ ] No [ ] NA [ X] habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank? OP/BP Indigenous Peoples Page 4 of 5

5 If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been reviewed and approved by [ x] No [ ] NA [ the Regional Social Development Unit or Sector Manager? OP/BP Involuntary Resettlement If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the [ X ] No [ ] NA [ plan? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information C-) Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop? [ X ] No [ ] NA [ Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a form and language [ x No NA[ that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? -) AII Safeguard Policies o Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities been prepared for [ No NA[ - the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project cost? [ XI No [ ] NA [ Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of safeguard [ X] No [ ] NA [ impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same [ X ] No [ ] NA [ been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? Ill. APPROVALS Task Team Leader: Binh Thang Cao Approved By: Sector Manager: Name Jennifer J. Sara (SM) Date: 13-Feb-212 ) Page 5 of 5