INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Report No.: ISDSA416 Public Disclosure Copy Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 13-Dec-2011 I. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Basic Project Data Country: Liberia Project ID: P113273 Project Name: LR Smallholder Tree Crop Revitalization Support Project (P113273) Task Team Leader: Oliver Braedt Estimated Appraisal Date: 21-Nov-2011 Estimated Board Date: 22-Mar-2012 Managing Unit: AFTAR Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Crops (60%), Agricultural extension and research (20%), General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (20%) Theme: Rural services and infrastructure (50%), Other rural development (50%) Financing (In USD Million) Financing Source Amount BORROWER/RECIPIENT 0.00 International Development Association (IDA) 15.00 Total 15.00 Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Is this a Repeater project? No 2. Project Objectives The Project development objective would be “to increase access to finance, inputs, technologies and markets for smallholder tree crop farmers in Liberia, and to prepare a long term development program developed for the tree crops sector�. 3. Project Description The Project development objective is “to increase access to finance, inputs, technologies and markets for smallholder tree crop farmers in Liberia, Public Disclosure Copy and to develop a long term development program for the tree crops sector�. The project has three main components, each with sub-components as follows: Component 1: Smallholder Tree Crop Revitalization. Component one has three sub-components focusing on cocoa, coffee, oil palm and rubber revitalization. The activities to be implemented under the component include rehabilitation of existing small farms, new planting, investment in small- scale cocoa, coffee and oil palm processing units, and promotion of improved marketing and value chain system. Rehab./Replanting (ha) New Planting (ha) Total (ha) Cocoa 5,000 1,000 6,000 Coffee 1,500 - 1,500 Oil Palm: farmer-run 300 300 600 Oil Palm: outgrowers 300 300 600 Rubber 1,600 1,000 2,600 Other activities include the establishment and strengthening of farmer-based organizations (associations and cooperatives) at all levels, through provision of training and technical and managerial advice, capacity strengthening of commercial banks to provide financial services appropriate to the needs of smallholder farmers and development of nurseries and seed gardens at the village level. To enhance the Farmer Organizations (FOs) bulking and marketing functions, the project would enhance FOs abilities to access finance from internal and external sources. The component would also support limited infrastructure rehabilitation (approximately 160 km of access roads and related small bridges and drainage structures) wherever it is critical to provide access to groups of farms; and the establishment of small scale processing facilities for the farmers' run plantation -where no modern mills are present. Component 2: Institutional Building and Preparation of Future Large Scale Tree Crop Development Program. The component has three sub components: (a) Institution Building (b) Preparing Future Large Scale Smallholder Tree Crop Development Programs and (c) Project Preparation Facility. The component's main aims are: (i) strengthening the main public and private institutions involved in project planning, coordination and implementation, particularly: the MoA; the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA); the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); institutions in charge of securing access to land (Ministry of Lands, Mine and Energy -MLME; Land commission -LC) and of agriculture research; (ii) preparing a follow-up large scale smallholder tree crop development program; and (iii) contributing to the strengthening and effective performance of the MoA's Program Management Unit (PMU) that serves all projects implemented by the MoA, and of which the project coordination team would be part. The large-scale project will include capacity-building for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the tree crops sector. Component 3 Project Coordination and Management. This component has two sub-components: (a) Project Coordination and Management; and Page 1 of 5 (b) Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), and Knowledge sharing, with the objectives of : (i) ensuring the effective strategic and operational planning and monitoring and implementation of the STCRSP; (ii) ensuring an efficient coordination between the components of the project on one hand and the various sources of funding and implementation partners within and outside MoA on the other hand; and (iii) evaluating the final results and impact of the STCRSP on smallholders. 4. Project location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis (if known) The project activities cover 6 of the country’s 15 counties and involve the private sector, non-governmental organizations, government agencies Public Disclosure Copy and institutions, and farmer based organizations and their federations among others. The project location would be in selected districts in the country’s main tree crop producing counties. Specific beneficiary communities would be identified at a later stage. Though there are similarities among the counties, there could be peculiar variations in socio-economic lifestyles and standards amongst the counties, as well as in their environmental characteristics. This will require both general and specific attention to the social, environmental and safeguards issues. The project would, through the environmental, social and stakeholder analysis/assessment, identify these cases to be addressed during project implementation. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Thomas E. Walton (EASIS) Beatrix Allah-Mensah (AFTCS) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes No Explanation Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01 ✖ An Environmental and Social Management Framework has been completed, reviewed and cleared by the Bank and has been disclosed in country and at the World Bank infoshop. During project implementation, site specific ESMPs will be prepared and implemented after screening to address environmental issues and to mitigate identified impacts. Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 ✖ During implementation, site assessments will be conducted to ensure that no high value conservation areas will be converted and detailed procedures will be developed and will be applied to ensure that vegetation to be replaced by new plantings is not environmentally significant and implications of a possible cumulative effect will not be environmentally significance. Forests OP/BP 4.36 ✖ Significant impacts are not expected from activities undertaken in the proposed project. Every project activity would follow all national laws and guidelines with regard to conservation operations, including obtaining all necessary permits. Pest Management OP 4.09 ✖ The environmental analysis assesses the potential impact of pesticide use. Small amounts of some agricultural chemicals might be used and herbicides may be applied in some areas. EA will include an overall Pest Management Plan and a specific Pesticide Management Plan if required. Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11 ✖ Public Disclosure Copy Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 ✖ The IP policy is not triggered but this will be monitored during implementation and appropriate actions taken if any IP case is confirmed in any of the participating counties. Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 ✖ The policy is triggered due to potential but minor impacts on land acquisition for first phase activities which will include rehabilitation, feeder roads rehabilitation and development of nurseries. These activities are not expected to result in large scale impacts and that through consultations minor impacts can even be avoided. RPF has been prepared, reviewed and publicly disclosed in country and at the WB infoshop. Phase II may require land for new planting. In this phase proper screening and assessment will be carried out guided by the RPF and when required RAPs or ARAPs will be prepared, reviewed, cleared and disclosed in country and at the infoshop prior to implementation of those activities. Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 ✖ Projects on International Waterways OP/BP ✖ 7.50 Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60 ✖ II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues 1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: The proposed project does not envisage any large scale irreversible impacts. Potential adverse environmental impacts are: soil erosion and sedimentation from new planting and replanting operations and from feeder road rehabilitation, air and water pollution from small-scale processing facilities (batch processing units of maximum capacity 60 kg/hour for coffee and cocoa and 1 ton/hour for oil palm), water pollution from excessive fertilizer use, and environmental and health impacts of pesticide use (on cocoa farms only). Old rubber trees removed from plantations may be sold to charcoal and wood chip producers. The overall impact of this should be positive, a reduction of pressure on natural forests, but it will be monitored during project implementation in case there are Page 2 of 5 unforeseen negative impacts. All impacts can be avoided or adequately mitigated through development and implementation of ESMPs for each sub-project. The feeder road rehabilitation works are expected to be within the existing corridor and not likely to affect any adjoining farms or community gardens. Where such farms exist, the contractor will ensure avoidance of destruction and other forms of impacts as much as possible through effective discussions and collaboration. Where impacts cannot be avoided, the appropriate actions as per the RPF guidelines will be undertaken in favor of affected people. Public Disclosure Copy The project would not result in restriction of access to forest resources for community members and would not be expected to result in resettlement or relocation due to large scale land take or large scale restriction of access to sources of livelihood under phase I. It is however, possible that, small pieces of land might be required for the establishment of village nurseries and seed gardens. These activities might have minor impacts on livelihood and restriction of access. However, these would be minimal and localized; mitigation measures can readily be applied or impacts could be completely avoided through effective consultations and negotiations with traditional authorities, farmers and community members. For new plantings under phase II which may require land, all possible actions would be taken to avoid any large-scale displacements. In cases of land acquisition for new plantings, the project would do proper screening, and follow proper land acquisition processes as per OP4.12 and GoL laws where necessary. In such cases, the project would also prepare resettlement action plans (RAPs) or abbreviated resettlement action plans (ARAPs) through effective consultations and alternative considerations to address possible land related concerns, minimize impacts or address any other possible impacts. The RPF sets out the processes for developing a RAP/ARAP. In selecting sites for new plantings, the project would follow the requirements of OP 4.36, avoiding locations where project activities could result in conversion or degradation of critical natural habitat, and giving preference to non-forested land. The indigenous peoples' policy is not triggered. However during implementation, the project will be monitoring and appropriate actions will be taken in case any IP case is confirmed in any of the participating counties. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: The project does not envisage any potential indirect or long term impacts in the future. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. N/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. Since the exact location, nature and number of rehabilitations and new plantings of crops are not known, and the number, location of small bridges and feeder roads to be rehabilitated are also not known, the GoL, through consultants engaged by the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), has drafted an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) to address the potential environmental impacts and social impacts other than land acquisition and resettlement. GoL's consultants have also prepared a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) to give guidance on land acquisition and resettlement. In addition, land acquisition activities will be guided by GoL's policies and recommendations from the study on " Securing smallholder land use rights" instituted by the project. During implementation of project activities, proposed subprojects would be screened according to procedures established in the ESMF and Public Disclosure Copy RPF. Where required as per the RPF, appropriate RAPs or ARAPs would be prepared through a consultative process, disclosed and implemented to address any site specific social impacts. The ESMF requires ESMPs for all subprojects that could have adverse impacts and provides guidance for their preparation and disclosure. The screening procedure in the ESMF would also identify any subprojects for which EIAs would be required by Liberia EPA under the Environmental Protection and Management Law. The RPF elaborates specific information on the land tenure issues as outlined in the report on "securing smallholders land use rights". The report outlines challenges, institutional collaboration and recommended actions for addressing them. Besides, the project will ensure that no large scale displacements occur as a result of land requirement for any project activities under both phases I and II. All relevant stakeholders from community to national level ( including paramount chiefs and NGOs) will be involved in determining land acquisition. This will be guided by the OP 4.12 and the RPF. The RPF also considers that any possible future land acquisition for new plantings will be done in conformity with the requirements of OP 4.12 and guidelines spelt out in the framework. Further details can be found in the report included in the RPF Annex. The ESMF includes a pest management plan that emphasizes IPM but also covers training for pesticide handling. Small quantities of fungicides and insecticides in WHO Class II will be procured for use on cocoa in accordance with OP 4.09 and PMP. Liberia EPA and MoA have in place legal authority to regulate pesticide import and use, and the PMP and PIM will provide for access control and training for pesticide handlers. Impacts on physical cultural resources (PCR) are not considered likely, and OP 4.11 has not been triggered. However, the screening procedure requires a site visit for each subproject, and the screening checklist includes questions on the presence of PCR. ESMPs for any new plantings will include a chance-finds procedure as an additional precaution. The final draft ESMF and RPF have been reviewed by the Bank, and these have been publicly disclosed in country and in the InfoShop prior to appraisal on December 2 and 5, 2011 respectively. During implementation and if required, RAPs or ARAPs, ESMPs and EIAs for individual subprojects will also be reviewed by the Bank and disclosed prior to specific subproject implementation. The implementing Ministry would be Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). However, there would be a Project Management Unit (PMU) which would be directly responsible for the day-to-day operations. The safeguards capacity of MoA is low, but this would be addressed in a number of ways. The capacity in the country and of other Ministries and Liberian based agencies can be tapped as part of the solution. More critically, a number of basic and intermediate training workshops and capacity building programs on safeguards would be undertaken during implementation for selected staff from the Ministry and designated Ministries like Land, Mines and Energy and PMU staff who would be the safeguards focal persons for the project from the county to national project levels. The Bank is already assisting Liberia EPA in strengthening its monitoring and regulatory capacity at central and county levels under the Urban and Rural Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project (URIRP) and would extend this assistance with a focus on tree crops as part of this project. Implementing partners like NGOs and the private sector including representatives of the smallholders would benefit from this training. This approach is to ensure that safeguards issues are integrated as socially and environmentally sustainable activities which highlight their importance as preventive or mitigation measures. It would be considered an Page 3 of 5 important part of implementation of the project itself. The safeguards documents clearly spell out the approach, institutional and implementation arrangements, cost estimates and timelines for the training of all categories of people considered crucial for this capacity building exercise. The relevant people to benefit from this training are identified in the respective safeguards documents -the RPF/ESMF. The training would use the prepared safeguard documents as its basic reference in addition to other relevant documents and experiences from implementing safeguards from other projects funded by the Bank in Liberia. Public Disclosure Copy Capacity for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is not well developed in Liberia. The project will begin to build IPM capacity, and the large- scale project that will be designed in Component 2 will include activities to fully develop IPM in the tree crops sector. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. The key stakeholders in the project besides the participating farmers and communities, are government agencies and staff, especially Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), the Project Management Unit (PMU), District Agriculture Officers (DAOs), Farmer-Based Organizations (FBOs), traditional leaders and community representatives, private sector companies involved in the business of the selected tree-crops, county officials and other individuals including farmers considered key to the project design, implementation and monitoring. Consultations have been widespread with these categories of interests during project preparation in general and development of the safeguards documents in particular. There have been meetings, focus group discussions with a varied group of people, and key informant interviews in all participating counties and in selected districts. Individual farmers participating in the farmer-field schools (FFS) and members of FBOs from participating counties have all made significant input into project design and the development of safeguards documents. In addition to these robust consultations, two stakeholders' workshops were held, one each on the draft ESMF and RPF and the Social Impact Assessment. Among the key issues raised during these workshops are: land access and acquisition, land disputes, challenges facing the tree crops sector, involvement of women and other vulnerable groups. Further consultations were held in a day's workshop to discuss the RPF and ESMF as part of the in country disclosure activities. Where ESMPs and RAPs or ARAPs are prepared during implementation, further disclosure and consultations will be done as part of preparation and implementation. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 24-Oct-2011 Date of "in-country" disclosure 02-Dec-2011 Date of submission to InfoShop 05-Dec-2011 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Public Disclosure Copy Date of receipt by the Bank 24-Oct-2011 Date of "in-country" disclosure 02-Dec-2011 Date of submission to InfoShop 05-Dec-2011 Pest Management Plan Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 24-Oct-2011 Date of "in-country" disclosure 02-Dec-2011 Date of submission to InfoShop 05-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 4.01 - Environment Assessment Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of other (non-critical) natural Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank? OP 4.09 - Pest Management If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a safeguards specialist or SM? Are Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] PMP requirements included in project design?If yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement Page 4 of 5 If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] plan? OP/BP 4.36 - Forests Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, does it include provisions for Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] certification system? Public Disclosure Copy The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] 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 Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? III. APPROVALS Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Oliver Braedt 13-Dec-2011 Approved By: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Alexandra C. Bezeredi (RSA) 13-Dec-2011 Comments: Sector Manager: Karen Mcconnell Brooks (SM) 13-Dec-2011 Comments: I have reviewed the document and approve it. Public Disclosure Copy Page 5 of 5