INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Report No.: Date prepared/updated: March 16, 2006 I. Basic Information 1. Basic Project Data Country: Afghanistan Project ID: P098256 Additional Project ID (if any): Project Name: AF: Emergency Horticulture and Livestock Project Task Team Leader: Norman B. Piccioni Estimated Appraisal Date: February 28, 2006 Estimated Board Date: April 26, 2006 Managing Unit: SASAR Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: General agriculture/fisheries/forestry (50%); Agricultural marketing & trade (25%); Agro-industry (25%) Theme: Export development and competitiveness (P) IDA Amount (US$m.): 20.0 ARTF and other donors Amount (US$m.): 35.1 Environmental Category: B Is this a transferred project Yes [x] No [ ] Simplified Processing Simple [ ] Repeater [ ] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) Yes [x ] No [ ] 2. Project Objectives To stimulate perennial horticulture and livestock marketable output in focus areas by improving the incentives framework for private investments and strengthening institutional capacity in agriculture. Specific objectives include: · Improvements in the production capacity of the horticultural and livestock sectors and improvement of market channels for Afghan produces · Involvement of women farmers who will particularly benefit from project activities through the major role that they play in horticulture and livestock production · At a higher level, the project will have a positive impact on broad-based economic growth in focus rural areas by increasing the demand for rural non-farm sector output and from multipliers on farmers' expenditure · On the institution front, project support for the restructuring of MAAHF will help to develop the basis for a strong policy, regulatory and support organization for the agriculture sector 1 · Overall, these benefits will contribute to the Bank's rural poverty reduction goals as well as providing a key element of a counter narcotics strategy by fostering an alternative to poppies and, at the same time, stimulating rural incomes through expanding the rural non- farm sector which encompasses the bulk of the poor. 3. Project Description Project comprises three components: 1) Increasing marketable perennial horticulture output (US$25.9 million) comprising works, goods, services and grants for: (i) rehabilitating existing orchards and establishing perennial tree crop cultivations through TA and grants; (ii) establishing a Horticulture Development Council of Afghanistan (HDCA) and developing MAAHF capacity for policy planning and supporting horticulture producers; and (iii) supporting pilot activities on the private sector green raisin and pomegranate export clusters; 2) Increasing Livestock Output and Productivity (US $22.8 million) comprising works, goods, services and grants for strengthening institutions in livestock-related services in areas not already covered by other projects. This includes: supporting the reorganizing the General Directorate for Livestock Protection and Development (GDLPD); promoting livestock production and marketing initiatives in order to permit import substitution and stimulate exports of animal products; studies with pastoral communities to improve rangelands management; and establishing a public/private partnership in veterinary medicine to ensure a stronger regulatory government role and better profitability and sustainability of privatized field veterinary services; 3) Capacity Building, Implementation and Monitoring & Evaluation Support (US$6.4 million) comprising goods, services and incremental operating costs for developing human and physical capacity in policy formulation, programming development, financial management and procurement, supervising and monitoring and evaluating impact. This will enable MAAHF to ensure efficient implementation of the HLP and other projects. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis: The project has a country wide coverage but the different components may focus on different areas. The focus areas for the horticultural component of the project are: · Plains North of Kabul ­ Rehabilitation and replanting of vineyards that were neglected or destroyed during conflict. · Area around Mazar-Al-Sharif ­ In such area farmers are already involved in rehabilitating orchards. The project will support these and establish new activities. · Area around Kandahar ­ This area has the highest potential in terms of grape productivity. Sub-projects in this area are however on hold due to security constraints. The livestock component of the project will focus on the provinces of: Ghazni, Kunduz, Nangarhar, Parwan, Heart, Bamiyan, Mazar-i-Sharif. An additional 6 provinces that are considered for inclusion are: Baghland, Takhar, Kapisa, Wardak, Samangan, Logar. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists on the Team: Asta Olesen (SASES) Arif Rasuli (SASES) Giovanni Ruta (ENV) 2 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) x Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) x Forests (OP/BP 4.36) x Pest Management (OP 4.09) x Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) x Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) x Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) x Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) x Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) x Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) x II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management An Environment and Social Safeguards Framework (ESSF) has been developed to ensure compliance with the World Bank's safeguard policies under the current conditions in Afghanistan and applicable to the HLP. The Emergency Horticulture and Livestock Project has been prepared in accordance with the Bank's OP 8.50 Emergency Recovery Assistance. Environmental and Social Safeguards Framework: Recognizing the emergency nature of the proposed recovery and reconstruction operations, while also ensuring due diligence in managing potential environmental and social risks, an Environmental and Social Safeguards Framework (ESSF) has been prepared. The ESSF has been developed to ensure compliance with the World Bank's safeguard policies under current conditions in Afghanistan and is applicable to the Emergency Horticulture and Livestock Project. The intention of this framework is to: (i) prevent the execution of sub-project that might cause significant and irreversible negative impacts; (ii) decrease or manage potential adverse impacts through modifications to sub-project design, location or execution; (iii) prevent or mitigate cumulative impacts of small scale investments; (iv) enhance positive environmental and social impacts of sub-projects; and (v) prevent additional stress on environmentally sensitive areas. The ESSF includes: (a) tools for screening of sub-projects, including negative lists of characteristics that would preclude project funding for these activities; (b) screening, assessment and clearance procedures; (c) capacity building to ensure effective implementation of the ESSF at the various implementation levels; and (d) requirements of supervision of implementation, monitoring of environmental and social conditions, and independent audits of performance. 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: Given the nature of proposed project activities, no significant adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated. Moreover, no potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts are expected under the HLP. Any potential cumulative impacts would be recognized by detailed monitoring that would be carried out to identify any potential concerns and changing conditions, 3 especially in the initial set of activities to evaluate the impacts and design any additional mitigation measures. On the positive side, the horticulture component of the project will establish 10 tree nurseries and create 5000 ha of new orchards. These interventions would lead to the production of 8 million tree seedlings during three years and 10,000 ha of new orchards in ten years. Also, the project will finance alfalfa seedlings to be grown as a cover crop for fruit trees. This would prevent erosion in the new orchards. To mitigate against unforeseen risks, the ESSF (Appendix 8) has prepared a list of ineligible sub- projects. Examples of such ineligible sub-projects include: · Sub-projects the require pesticides that fall in WHO classes IA, IB or II; · Sub-projects requiring new or expanded irrigation schemes; · Sub-projects that cause involuntary acquisition of land, or the resettlement or compensation of more than 200 people; · Sub-projects that Affects waters in riparian neighbors. Small-scale impacts may arise inadvertently, in the unlikely event that the selection, planning, and implementation of the sub-project interventions and demonstration sites are inadequate. Although, specific sub-project interventions are not known at this point of time (but will be known when locations for sub-projects are selected), attention in the selection of sub-projects should focus on the following potential threats: · Use of pesticide and insecticides that may cause harm to natural resources and human health; · Unsustainable grazing causing land degradation (increased erosion); · Possible effluents from the diary units; · Limited construction activities. The ESSF provides guidelines for controlling negative impacts that may arise as a consequence of specific sub-projects. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: No indirect and/or long term impacts have been identified. However, to mitigate against unforeseen risks, the ESSF (Appendix 8) has prepared a list of ineligible sub-projects. The ESSF also provides a framework for controlling negative impacts that may arise as a consequence of specific sub-projects. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts: The potential environmental and social issues in the project (with particular reference to the OP/BP4.01 Environmental Assessment and OP4.09 Pest Management) should be considered on a case by case basis. Potential impacts are addressed through an Environment and Social Safeguards Framework (ESSF) for the project. 4 The following table identifies potential impacts and solutions adopted in the design of the project. Moreover, a list of sub-projects ineligible for support under the HLP is provided in Attachment 1. Table: Potential impact and solutions adopted in the design of the HLP Project Component Potential impact Solution adopted in the design of the project or in the Environment and Social Safeguards Framework 1. Increasing Application of fertilizers IPM is an integral part of the program. An marketable perennial internationally hired IPM officer will work horticulture output alongside two regional IPM coordinators in farmers' training on IPM. 1.1. Rehabilitation Sub-projects that require pesticides that fall in WHO and expansion of classes IA, IB or II are ineligible (see attachment 1) fruit crop production Forest or natural habitat The project will take place in existing agricultural programs degradation land. Moreover, the tree planting component will actually improve the natural landscape of the country. Land acquisition No land acquisition is anticipated. In case of land acquisition or resettlement involving less than 200 people the guidelines in Attachment 2 should be followed. Increase in water use for No new irrigation scheme or expansion of scheme is irrigation foreseen (new orchards will be established in existing agricultural land). Sub-projects requiring new or expanded irrigation schemes are ineligible as per the list in attachment 1. 2. Increasing Erosion due to Before livestock are purchased, grazing livestock output and unsustainable grazing requirements for the new and projected herd should productivity be estimated, and legal access to sufficient sustainable grazing ensured (code of practice for the 2.2. Livestock mitigation of potential environmental impacts in production and Attachment 4). marketing initiatives Localized temporary Construction activities limited road rehabilitation impacts from construction should follow the relevant elements of the codes of work for the installation of practice for the mitigation of potential Veterinary Field Units, environmental impacts, presented in Attachment 4. cattle feed plant, provintial diary processing facilites, storage network and development of basic transportation. Pollution from diary No major pollution is expected. development Pollution from semi- No major pollution is expected. intensive village poultry industry development intake 5 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: As a result of more than two decades of conflict, exodus of trained personnel, low salaries, and the lack of exposure to new approaches, the Borrower's institutional capacity is generally weak, especially in such specialized areas as safeguard policies. To address this issue, the HLP will establish an Implementation Management Support Team (IMST) within the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Food (MAAHF) which will be responsible for overall Project Implementation including safeguard issues. The IMST will at the same time provide a vehicle for transferring knowledge and skills to the MAAHF. IDA is preparing a Technical Assistance project on capacity building of the National Environmental Protection Agency Environmental (NEPA) and to support the creation of Environment Units in line ministries, including the MAAHF. An Environmental and Social Specialist will be working with the government and IDA teams to help facilitate the application of the environmental framework for Afghanistan. The Environment and Social Safeguards Framework (ESSF) has been prepared also with the objective of facilitating the identification of relevant areas of skill building while providing guidelines for controlling potential negative environmental impacts. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people: The overall responsibility of project implementation rests with the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry and Food. The MAAHF will act through an Implementation and Management Support Team (IMST) which will be headed by a Manager who will be responsible fro the minister MAAHF for overall Project Implementation. This Environmental and Social Safeguards Framework was developed on the basis of an overall Framework for World Bank-funded reconstruction operations which was prepared in consultation with the principal NGOs and development partners participating in reconstruction activities in Afghanistan. Prior to approval of the project by the World Bank Board, it will be disclosed by the Government of Afghanistan in both Dari and Pashto, as well as English, and it will also be made available at the World Bank's Infoshop. It is worth noting that Government of Afghanistan intends to make all project documentation publicly available through the Afghan Information Management System (AIMS). B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Date of receipt by the Bank n.a. Date of "in-country" disclosure n.a. Date of submission to InfoShop n.a. For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors n.a. 6 Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: Date of receipt by the Bank n.a. Date of "in-country" disclosure n.a. Date of submission to InfoShop n.a. Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Date of receipt by the Bank n.a. Date of "in-country" disclosure n.a. Date of submission to InfoShop Pest Management Process: Date of receipt by the Bank February 6, 2006 Date of "in-country" disclosure April 1, 2006 Date of submission to InfoShop March 16, 2006 * If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Cultural Property 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 Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including Yes [ ] No [X] N/A [ ] EMP) report? If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] incorporated in the credit/loan? OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats Would the project result in any significant conversion or Yes [ ] No [X] N/A [ ] degradation of critical natural habitats? If the project would result in significant conversion or Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] degradation of other (non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank? OP 4.09 - Pest Management Does the EA adequately address the pest management Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] issues? Is a separate PMP required? Yes [X] No [ ] N/A [ ] If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a Yes [X] No [ ] N/A [ ] safeguards specialist or Sector Manager? Are PMP requirements included in project design? If yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? OPN 11.03 - Cultural Property 7 Does the EA include adequate measures related to Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] cultural property? Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] the potential adverse impacts on cultural property? OP/BP 4.10 - Indigenous Peoples Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] Framework (as appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] design been reviewed and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit? OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] safeguards or Sector Manager review and approve the plan/policy framework/process framework? OP/BP 4.36 ­ Forests Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] issues and constraints been carried out? Does the project design include satisfactory measures to Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] overcome these constraints? Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] so, does it include provisions for certification system? OP/BP 4.37 - Safety of Dams Have dam safety plans been prepared? Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] Have the TORs as well as composition for the Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] independent Panel of Experts (POE) been reviewed and approved by the Bank? Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) been Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] prepared and arrangements been made for public awareness and training? OP 7.50 - Projects on International Waterways Have the other riparians been notified of the project? Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] If the project falls under one of the exceptions to the Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] notification requirement, has this been cleared with the Legal Department, and the memo to the RVP prepared and sent? What are the reasons for the exception? Please explain: Has the RVP approved such an exception? Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] OP 7.60 - Projects in Disputed Areas 8 Has the memo conveying all pertinent information on the Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] international aspects of the project, including the procedures to be followed, and the recommendations for dealing with the issue, been prepared Does the PAD/MOP include the standard disclaimer Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] referred to in the OP? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to Yes [X] No [ ] N/A [ ] the World Bank's Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a Yes [ ] No [X] N/A [ ] public place in a form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? All Safeguard Policies Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional Yes [X] No [ ] N/A [ ] responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been Yes [X] No [ ] N/A [ ] included in the project cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the Yes [X] No [ ] N/A [ ] project include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been Yes [ ] No [X] N/A [ ] agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? 9 D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Mr. Norman B. Piccioni Feb. 6, 2006 Environmental Specialist: Mr. Mohammad Arif Rasuli Feb. 6, 2006 Social Development Specialist Ms. Asta Olesen Feb. 6, 2006 Additional Environmental and/or Mr. Giovanni Ruta Feb. 6, 2006 Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Regional Safeguards Mr. Frederick Edmund Brusberg March. 16, Coordinator: 2006 Comments: Sector Manager: Mr. Gajanand Pathmanathan March. 16, 2006 Comments: 10