INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET APPRAISAL STAGE

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 15-May-2012 I. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Basic Project Data INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Country: Nigeria Project ID: P Project Name: Task Team Leader: Nigeria Erosion and Watershed Management Project (P124905) Amos Abu Estimated Appraisal Date: 27-Feb-2012 Estimated Board Date: 08-May-2012 Report No.: ISDSA586 Managing Unit: AFTEN Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Flood protection (40%), Irrigation and drainage (20%), Forestry (30%), General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (10%) Theme: Land administration and management (40%), Other environment and natural resources management (20%), Water resource management (20%), Biodiversity (10%), Climate change (10%) Financing (In USD Million) Financing Source Amount BORROWER/RECIPIENT International Development Association (IDA) Global Environment Facility (GEF) 8.59 Total Environmental Category: A - Full Assessment Is this a Repeater project? 2. Project Objectives No To reduce vulnerability to soil erosion in targeted sub-watersheds. This innovative, multi-sectoral project will finance State-led interventions to prevent and reverse land degradation on a demand-driven basis, initially focusing on gully erosion sites that threaten infrastructure and livelihoods in ready southeastern States. Investments are a strategic combination of civil engineering, vegetative land management and other watershed protection measures, plus complementary community-led livelihood enhancements. Over the course of the 8-year project, State-selected sites in up to 11 total States will phase in as States and their designs become ready. The sustainability of these investments will be reinforced by strengthening institutions and information services across sectors in all three tiers of government, including support to help improve governance, regulatory compliance, environmental monitoring, impact evaluation, watershed and land use planning, and by strengthening the country s capacity to promote and implement climate resilient, low carbon development. 3. Project Description NEWMAP is an 8-year multi-sectoral and multi-scale program that on the one hand targets seven southeastern States with acute gully erosion (Abia, Anambra, Cross River, Ebonyi, Edo, Enugu and Imo), while laying the foundation for scaling out to additional southernand northern states. On the other hand it also focuses on improving livelihoods through sustainable management of natural resources and small-scale development activities. The request for implementation of activities in the north came later during preparation, such that site investments financed under Project will start with the three early mover southern States that have demonstrated the capacity to prepare suitable designs for interventions under Component 1. Additional states in the north and south will receive technical assistance to advance their investment preparations as soon as the project is effective, but investment support will commence only when site designs are ready. In principle, if all states meet site intervention criteria, it is possible that NEWMAP will operate on the ground in up to 11 States. NEWMAP is structured so that states phase in first to technical assistance activities when they are ready, and then second, they phase into investment activities when that technical assistance prepares a given state to a sufficient degree that the state is then ready to implement site interventions with high quality designs to international standards. At the time of the first Mid-Term Review (MTR), if states are successfully implementing project activities and preparation of site intervention designs are advancing, additional financing would be sought to ensure sufficient resources for all participating states. The project's strategic approach to southern intervention sites is to: (i) start with "damage control" to slow the expansion of a targeted set of existing aggressive gullies, thereby reducing the loss to property and infrastructure and helping cultivate community ownership; (ii) leverage the gully intervention to support integrated watershed management and move towards greater adoption of sustainable land and water management practices by local people in the sub-watershed where the gully is located; (iii) improve or protect rural livelihoods in the sub-watershed and carefully implement local Resettlement Action Plans; (iv) strengthen disaster risk reduction and preparedness at state, local, and community levels, (v) underpin these efforts by strengthening relevant institutions and information services, including urban storm water drainage planning and management, planning for Imo-Anambra and Benin-Owena basins, building a better knowledge base, enhancing readiness for climate action, and (v) contribute to improved governance. The size of the sub-watersheds varies from approximately 100 hectares (ha) to several thousand ha or more, depending on the gully system targeted. Page 1 of 5

2 The project's strategic approach to northern intervention sites focuses on securing ecosystem services from erosion management measures in the Sokoto-Rima basin. The approach in the north will need to be developed by the northern states which are getting involved in the operation late given the government's request in December 2011 to involve northern states. The approach will be somewhat different from the approach in the south which hinges upon gully rehabilitation. In the north, erosion and drought threaten production lands and the immediate command areas of important multi-purpose reservoirs (reducing reservoir lifespan). Natural regeneration of vegetation cover could be a low-cost and effective community-driven approach that has brought entire landscapes back into production just across the border in the Maradi region of the Republic of Niger, and would contribute to Nigeria's Great Green Wall Initiative priorities. The Project has four components: Component 1: Erosion and Watershed Management Infrastructure Investments Component 2: Erosion and Watershed Management Institutions and Information Component 3: Climate Change Agenda Support Component 4: Project Management Services These components will finance, among others: (i) the design and implementation of gully site interventions prioritized by States, as well as adoption of sustainable land, forest and water management practices in associated sub-watersheds; (ii) improvement or protection of livelihoods of people affected by erosion; (iii) effective communication and community mobilization, ( iv) improved storm water and watershed planning, and other improved climate resilient development planning; (v) improved meteorological, hydrological, and land management information systems and monitoring, and (vi) technical assistance to improve the regulatory environment. The project s strategic approach is to: (i) start with damage control to slow the expansion of a targeted set of existing aggressive gullies, thereby reducing the loss to property and infrastructure and helping cultivate community ownership; (ii) leverage the gully intervention to support integrated watershed management and move towards greater adoption of sustainable land and water management practices by local people in the subwatershed; while at the same time (iii) improve or protect rural livelihoods and carefully implementing local Resettlement Action Plans; (iv) underpin these efforts with capacity building of watershed and erosion management institutions and information services, including urban storm water drainage planning and management, planning for Imo-Anambra and Benin-Owena basins, and a building better knowledge base, and (iv) contribute to improved governance in targeted areas. Because of the complexities involved, the relatively long project duration and the urgency to start addressing the issue of gully erosion as soon as possible, the project design reflects a framework or programmatic approach to scaling up erosion prevention and land rehabilitation in which: (a) Targeted states will need to qualify before funds can be released for erosion and watershed management works, meeting specific criteria and triggers in the areas of: (i) procurement and financial management, (ii) technical design, (iii) satisfactory social and environmental provisions, (iv) participatory and cross-sectoral decision making including all concerned stakeholders at community, local government and state level, and (v) availability of state and local government co-funding. (b) There will be no pre-determined erosion and watershed management works budget available for any particular state; those states that do well (according to criteria to be developed) will be able to secure more funds, which should stimulate targeted states to meet the required criteria and triggers. (c) Meanwhile, the targeted states will benefit from institutional and capacity-building support and information services, to help meet the criteria and triggers that will give access to investment support for erosion and watershed management works. (d) Some federal activities will indirectly benefit all States, such as by improving the information base and planning capacity. (e) A multi-sectoral Federal Steering Committee will monitor, oversee and guide the project on the allocation of investment funds to the different states. 4. Project location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis (if known) Seven states in southeastern Nigeria -- Abia, Anambra, Cross River, Ebonyi, Edo, Enugu and Imo with four additional states including northern states. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Daniel R. Gross (AFTEN) Thomas E. Walton (AFTEN) Caroline Mary Sage (AFTCS) Joseph Ese Akpokodje (AFTEN) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered? Explanation (Optional) Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01 Yes In component 1, the project will finance the rehabilitation of existing gullies through interventions such as structural land management measures, civil works and vegetative land management measures in pursuance of its project development objective. However, the exact locations and sites could not be ascertained at the time of project preparation. The potential impacts are likely to be small-scale and site specific, typical of category B projects. To successfully identify and manage potential adverse impacts on the environment from project funded activities such as those enumerated above, the borrower will prepare an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). This will be disclosed in-country and at the Banks Info shop prior to project appraisal. However, in view of the Gully Rapid Action for Slope Stabilization (GRASS) sub-component, site specific ESIAs or EMPs for activities that would take place within the first year of the project will be prepared and disclosed once sites are identified and in lieu of commencement of civil works. Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 No N/A Page 2 of 5

3 II. Forests OP/BP 4.36 No N/A Pest Management OP 4.09 No N/A Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11 Yes Some of the intervention activities may lead to the discovery of cultural artifacts. In addition, the identification mission was informed that 2 graves have been swept away by gully erosion in Anambra State. OP4.09 is triggered and measures to be taken to address the issues of physical and cultural resources would be included in the TOR of the ESMF and ESIA. Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 No N/A Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 Yes The project interventions will avoid where possible adverse impacts on people, land and other economic resources and livelihoods. In situations where this cannot be avoided, the borrower will prepare a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) to address the needs of persons who will be affected by loss of economic activities, land acquisition and/or relocation. The RPF will have to be sent to the Bank for review and clearance before it is disclosed publicly in country and on the Bank's info shop prior to project appraisal. In addition, in view of the GRASS subcomponent, site specific RAPs or ARAPs for activities that would take place within the first year of the project will be prepared and disclosed once sites are identified. Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 No N/A Projects on International Waterways OP/BP 7.50 Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60 Yes No Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues The project may support drainage activities on international waterways. Project implementation could conceivably alter flow patterns or water quality, most likely in a beneficial fashion. This triggers the international waterways policy (OP 7.50). On December 22, 2011, the FGN sent the riparian notification that OP 7.50 requires to the Government of Cameroon and the Niger Basin Authority. The Vice President for the Bank Africa Region issued approval to proceed with project processing on March 13, 2012, in accordance with OP 7.50 provisions that apply when no comments have been received after a reasonable time, as is the case with this project, and the likelihood of any adverse impact to the interests of riparian states is low. 1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: The project is expected to have highly positive environmental and social impacts: it will arrest gully erosion at selected locations where the problem is acute; it will develop and establish measures to prevent gully formation in the forms of road and drainage design and environmental guidelines and urban and watershed management planning; and it will restore degraded lands to productive uses and reduce threats to water and soil quality, safety in settlements, and safe and efficient road travel. In addition, it will support the climate change agenda in Nigeria, increasing Nigeria s capacity to promote low-carbon, climate-resilient development. The designs for specific investments under Component 1 are not known at the time of appraisal, consequently an Environmental and Social Impact Framework (ESMF) and Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) have been prepared and disclosed in Nigeria. These include screening processes to determine the appropriate environmental and social instruments to be prepared, approved and disclosed prior to implementation of individual interventions. Effective integration of project management and ESMF implementation should result from the fact that the Federal Ministry of Environment and State Ministries of Environment are the lead executing agencies for NEWMAP. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: One potential adverse environmental impact are landslides or mudflows and flooding and resulting landscape and property damage and injury or loss of life that could result from failure of an erosion management structure installed under Component 1. A second, longer-term impact could be replacement of native plant species by invasive species if incorrect choices are made for revegetation. The greatest environmental risks would probably arise during construction caused by dust, noise, vibration, drainage problems, safety issues, improper use of pesticides, improper disposal of lubricants, poor management of borrow pits and disposal sites. These can be avoided by sound design (e.g., adherence to the engineering design standards in the Good Practice Guidance Note prepared for the project, as well as the reference documents of FAO), good construction practice, effective maintenance, and prompt repair of defects, reinforced by adequate supervision during construction and inspection and enforcement during operation. Other potential adverse impacts are typical of construction projects involving earthmoving, heavy equipment operation, materials transport, interruptions of vehicle traffic, and the presence of outside workers in the affected area. The ESMF requires screening for the presence of physical cultural property at proposed investment sites and includes a chance-finds procedure. Some livelihood activities to be supported under Component 1 could also have adverse impacts, for example from improper waste or effluent disposal, excessive fertilizer use in nurseries or on fields or orchards, improper pesticide use, or soil erosion caused by poor tillage practices; these could affect surface or groundwater quality, public health, and landscape appearance. None of these is individually significant, and all can be mitigated through application of the measures presented in the ESMF (which includes an Integrated Pest Management framework) and implementation of ESMPs and/or standards and codes of practice. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. Each site intervention planned for implementation under the project shall also be screened under the RPF for possible triggering of OP4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement). Civil works for erosion prevention or land rehabilitation could result in land acquisition or the displacement of families or businesses on a temporary or permanent basis. Works such as drainage canals could also result in loss of access to land even when agricultural plots themselves are not affected. Modifications of drainage in the upper watershed or immediate catchment of gullies and Page 3 of 5

4 gully-systems could lead to the creation of zones where restrictions on building construction, pavement, and on agricultural activities could be imposed. Plans involving the displacement of fewer than 200 people will be the subject of Abbreviated Resettlement Plans (ARAPs) while those involving more than 200 people will be subject to full RAPs. Land acquisition for project works or to accommodate resettled families would also trigger the policy even when people are not displaced. Screening will be done early in the planning process by trained State PMU staff in consultation with engineers and others who carry out the site design. Alternatives will be considered to minimize the amount of displacement and the justification for the alternative selected will be set out in the RAP. Consultations with affected people and the participation of affected people and possible host communities are mandatory and the concerns and aspirations of community members shall be taken into consideration in the planning process. Each site approved for support by the project can be eligible for financing only when an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and RAP or ARAP (if required) satisfactory to the Bank have been completed and disclosed. For the first two years of project implementation, RAPs and EMPs will require prior review by the Bank, after which post-review may be authorized at the Bank s discretion. 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. Land acquisition for project works or to accommodate resettled families would also trigger the policy even when people are not displaced. Screening will be done early in the planning process by trained State PMU staff in consultation with engineers and others who carry out the site design. Alternatives will be considered to minimize the amount of displacement and the justification for the alternative selected will be set out in the RAP. Consultations with affected people and the participation of affected people and possible host communities are mandatory and the concerns and aspirations of community members shall be taken into consideration in the planning process. Each site approved for support by the project can be eligible for financing only when an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and RAP or ARAP (if required) satisfactory to the Bank have been completed and disclosed. For the first two years of project implementation, RAPs and EMPs will require prior review by the Bank, after which post-review may be authorized at the Bank s discretion. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. The need for social assessment for each intervention site financed was discussed with the Federal and State Governments. In practice, this would involve preparing a Social Management Plan (SMP) tailored to conditions in each site. The scope of the SMP would be commensurate with the size and population of the site. Large sites affecting large populations (e.g. more than 500 people), would require more intensive investigation and dialogue with the affected community, while simpler, small-scale sites would require only short-term investigations to identify the particular characteristics of the affected community (-ies) and to tailor the SMP to the needs and characteristics of that community. The Federal Government of Nigeria sent the riparian notification required by OP 7.50 in letters dated December 22, 2011 to the Government of Cameroon and the Niger Basin Authority. The Vice President for Africa Region issued approval to proceed with project processing on March 13, 2012, in accordance with the provisions of OP 7.50 that apply when no comments have been received after a reasonable passage of time, as is the case with this project, and the likelihood of any adverse impact to the interests of riparian states is low. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop 14-Dec Dec-2011 If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources policies, the respective issues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of the Environmental Assessment/Audit/or EMP. If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why: 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? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] OP/BP Physical Cultural Resources Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] cultural property? OP/BP Involuntary Resettlement If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] plan? OP Projects on International Waterways Has the RVP approved such an exception? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Page 4 of 5

5 Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] III. Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a form and language Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] 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 Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project cost? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] 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? APPROVALS Task Team Leader: Approved By: Amos Abu Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Name: Alexandra C. Bezeredi (RSA) Date: 15-May-2012 Sector Manager: Name Idah Z. Pswarayi-Riddihough (SM) Date: 15-May-2012 Page 5 of 5