Government of Sierra Leone Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security
ESMF for RPSDP_ Additional Financing_ April 2011. Page 63
Government of Sierra Leone Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security
Table of Contents
Table of contents i
List of Acronyms iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives 1
1.3 Purpose of ESMF 2
1.4 Scope of Work 2
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 4
2.1 Project Description 4
2.2 Status of implementation of ESMF 6
2.3 Rationale for the Addendum ESMF 6
2.2 Project Components under Additional Financing 7
3.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 9
3.1 Relevant National Legislation and Regulatory Framework 9
3.2 Other Relevant Institutions 10
3.3 World Bank Safeguard Policies 11
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA 13
4.1 Land Resources 13
4.1.1 Agro- ecological zones 13
4.1.2 Physiography 13
4.2 Climate 14
4.2.1 Temperature and Humidity 14
4.2.2 Evaporation and Water Balance 14
4.3 Drainage and Hydrology 15
4.4 Vegetation 15
4.4.1 Closed Forests and Secondary Forests 15
4.4.2 Savanna Woodlands 15
4.4.3 Mangrove Swamp Forests 16
4.5 Soils 16
4.6 Socio- economic baseline 16
4.6.1 Poverty reduction strategy 17
4.6.2 Population 17
4.6.3 Land tenure 17
4.6.4 Road infrastructure 19
4.6.5 Key agricultural development issues 19
5.0 CRITERIA FOR SCREENING PROJECTS 21
5.1 Description of potential impacts and environmental significance 21
6.0 GUIDELINES FOR MITIGATION 28
7.0 INSTITUTIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND PROJECT APPROVAL NEEDS 34
7.1 Institutional requirements, capacity and needs 34
7.1.1 Ministerial involvement 34
7.1.2 Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency 35
7.1.3 Project Coordinating Unit 35
7.1.4 District Councils 35
7.1.5 Implementing Agencies 35
7.1.6 Community Structures 36
7.2 Capacity building requirements 36
7.3 Awareness Creation 36
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND MONITORING 38
8.1 Management Plan 38
8.2 Monitoring Indicators 39
8.3 Institutional Capacity Strengthening Programme 40
8.4 Summary of ESMF process 41
9.0 CONSULTATIONS, ESMF DISCLOSURE AND GRIEVANCE MECHANISM 42
9.1 Stakeholder consultation 42
9.2 ESMF Disclosure 42
9.3 Grievance redress mechanism 43
9.3.1 Grievance redress committee 44
9.3.2 Grievance redress procedure 45
9.3.3 Procedures for delivery of entitlements 45
9.3.4 Identification of vulnerable persons 46
9.3.5 Time frame 47
List of Tables
Table 1: Regional areas, km 14
Table 2: Characteristics of river basins 15
Table 3: Potential impacts from rehabilitation and provision of new feeder roads 22
Table 4: Potential impacts from provision of rural markets and storage infrastructure 24
Table 5: Potential impacts from use of improved agricultural technologies 25
Table 6: Potential impacts from provision of rural agro based processing facilities 26
Table 7: Potential adverse social impacts/ issues from feeder roads construction 26
Table 8: Mitigation measures for feeder roads 29
Table 9: Mitigation measures for market and storage facilities 30
Table 10: Mitigation measures for improved agricultural technologies 31
Table 11: Mitigation measures for agro based processing facilities 31
Table 12: Mitigation of potential social impacts/ concerns 33
Table 13: Monitoring indicators 39
Table 14: Institutional capacity strengthening programme and proposed budget 40
Table 15: Summary of ESMF cycles and responsibilities 41
List of Acronyms
ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework
EU European Union
FBO Farmer Based Organisation
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GoSL Government of Sierra Leone
IDA International Development Agency of the World Bank
IDB Islamic Development Bank
IVS Inland Valley Swamps
NTE Non- Traditional Exports
MAFFS Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security
MIS Market Information Services
MLCPE Ministry of Lands, Country Planning and the Environment
MLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development
MTI Ministry of Trade and Industry
MWHI Ministry of Works, Housing and Infrastructure
NAFSL National Association of Farmers of Sierra Leone
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
NRS National Road System
NSC National Steering Committee
PCU Project Coordinating Committee
PDO Project Development Objectives
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
RAP Resettlement Action Plan
RFP Request for Proposal
RPF Resettlement Policy Framework
RPSDP Rural and Private Sector Development Project
SAP Structural Adjustment Programme
SLEPA Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency
SLIEPA Sierra Leone Investment and Export Promotion Agency
SLRA Sierra Leone Road Authority
SLSB Sierra Leone Standards Board
Executive summary
Agribusiness contributes both directly and indirectly to alleviating poverty by:
· reducing food costs and supply uncertainties and improving the diets of the rural and urban poor;
· generating growth, increasing and diversifying incomes, and providing widespread employment and entrepreneurial opportunities in both rural and urban areas; and
· inducing productivity gains by smallholder farmers and better integrating them into local, national, and international markets.
The Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) jointly with the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank prepared the Rural and Private Sector Development Project (RPSDP), which was implemented with funds contributed by GoSL, the IDA and other donors.
The additional financing has 3 main components and support to Project management and M&E as the fourth component
Component 1: Improve access to markets through rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads (US$15 million). The project has financed the rehabilitation of 468km of feeder roads. This figure represents approximately 11 percent of a total 4,152 kilometers of feeder roads out of which the condition of close to 70 percent are classified as fair or poor. The additional financing of US$15 million will support the rehabilitation of additional 1,000km of feeder roads in 9 out of the 13 districts. The remaining 4 districts will be supported by IFAD.
Component 2: Support to Cocoa Production and Marketing (US$3million). The project has supported the establishment of three district cocoa cooperatives (coops) with a total membership of 12,688 (Male, 10,256; Female, 2,432). The total area cultivated by the members is approximately 26,000 acres. The coops exported approximately 127 Mt of Grade one cocoa beans between August and December 2010 (first year of operation). Better prices (70 percent of world price) paid by the coops has prompted other buyers to increase their prices giving cocoa farmers a much better income. This will be given additional support under the additional financing.
Component 3: Strengthening Farmer-Based Organizations (FBOs) (US$ 2million). The Project supports farmer-based organizations with improved planting materials and through the matching grants with processing equipment, storage facilities and capacity strengthening. Recommendations from a study on rice marketing currently being undertaken in collaboration with the IFC will be supported. This study is focusing on assessing the current processing, marketing and distribution mechanisms and proposes technically and economically feasible mechanisms to improve them. To minimize the incidence of “elite capture”, the FBOs would further be strengthening through the development of an FBO specific benefit guidelines. Currently majority of the FBOs has business plans, but do not have benefit- sharing mechanisms. The project will support the development of such mechanism and the National Association of Farmers of Sierra Leone (NAFSL).
Purpose of the ESMF
The Project triggered a number of World Bank environmental safeguards policies including OP 4.01 on Environmental Assessment. Although potential impacts are expected to be modest, it is classified as a Category B project and requires the preparation of a form of environmental assessment, including measures taken to manage and mitigate potential impacts.
The World Bank’s environmental and social safeguards policies require that the recipient country prepare an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), consistent with national laws and OP 4.01 and a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) for the development project.
The purpose of the Framework is:
· to provide as much information as possible about environmental and social impacts (including possible land acquisition and resettlement) at the project’s current state of preparation;
· to inform the project planning and design process by comparing the potential impacts of alternative locations, configurations, and construction techniques that are under consideration; and
· to describe the procedures for subsequent assessment of impacts and development of the appropriate impact management instruments when the details of the project become available.
These management instruments are likely to be an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) and Resettlement Action Plan (RAP).
Relevant National Legal and Regulatory Framework
The relevant national regulatory frameworks include:
· The Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991;
· The Land Policy, 2005;
· Environmental Protection Agency Act, 2008 and the Environmental Protection Agency (Amendment) Act, 2010;
· The Local Government Act, 2004;
Other relevant institutions include the following, and mandates and interest in project are:
· Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Food Security (MAFFS),
· Sierra Leone Roads Authority (SLRA)
· Ministry of Works, Housing and Infrastructure (MWHI),
· Project Coordinating Unit (PCU),
· Ministry of Lands MLCPE,
· Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD)
· Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (SLEPA);
· Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).
World Bank Safe guards Policies
The RPSDP has been categorized as B implying that the expected environmental impacts are largely site-specific, that few if any of the impacts are irreversible, and that mitigation measures can be designed relatively readily. The environmental assessment for a Category B project,
· Examines the project’s potential negative and positive environmental impacts,
· Recommends measures to prevent, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts, and
· Recommends measures to improve environmental performance
The Bank’s ten safeguard policies are designed to help ensure that programs proposed for financing are environmentally and socially sustainable, and thus improve decision-making. The Bank’s Operational Policies (OP) are meant to ensure that operations of the Bank do not lead to adverse impacts or cause any harm. The Safeguard Policies are lumped into Environment, Rural Development, Social Development and International Law.
Status of Implementation of ESMF
The safeguards status of the original project is satisfactory even though no site specific environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) was required. Minor issues regarding resettlement were easily dealt with and no land was acquired. The processing facilities are yet to be operational hence there has not been any environmental concerns. The rehabilitation of the feeder roads did not entail the construction of any new road. The works involved clearing of weeds and unsuitable material on existing roads, cumbering, regravelling, and compaction. Other works included construction of culverts and bridges. Site-specific spot checks and screening carried out during implementation found potential impacts to be ephemeral, negligible, and preventable. These did not require ESMPs and were adequately dealt with within government policies and guidelines. Minor social impacts such as the removal of few economic trees and small portions of cassava farms were amicably resolved among the local council, contractors and the affected beneficiaries.
Due to the experience with original project, the expanded scope for feeder roads rehabilitation, institutional changes and review of the original safeguards documents, it was noted that a revision would help to effectively address any concerns that may come up during implementation of additional financing activities and other activities under the original project.
Rationale for the Addendum ESMF
The restructured project has been under implementation for about two years now. Progress of work has been satisfactory and there have been no major issues regarding environmental and social impacts. Feeder road rehabilitation raised a few social concerns in a couple of districts which have been amicably resolved by the different parties involved-communities, district councils, and contractors. Based on this experience and a review of the existing safeguards instruments, it was noted that some important aspects of the ESMF needed to be strengthened. These areas included the institutional arrangements for implementing and monitoring safeguards compliance, the management and mitigation measures and the grievance redress system.
The additional financing will focus on three key areas which include feeder roads rehabilitation, support to FBOs and support to the cocoa sector. As part of the process for preparation of this additional financing there is the need to review the safeguards instruments and how they were applied. This review is also important given the fact that most of the additional financing will go into feeder roads rehabilitation which also coincides with other sub-project activity implementation that may have potential for social and environmental impacts. Thisreview led to the development of a new ESMF.
Project activities and approvals
This document provides the framework for an environmentally sustainable development and implementation of the projects under the Rural and Private Sector Development Project (RPSDP), and is described as an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). The project will seek technical assistance/ approval from SLEPA for activities like road construction projects and use of agro- chemicals while the local administrative authorities give approval for the other minor sub-projects like provision of market infrastructure and basic processing facilities.
The PCU in collaboration with the SLEPA will ensure that all safeguards/environmental requirements of the World Bank and GoSL are adhered to and reported on accordingly by all implementing agencies including district councils, FBOs, SLRA and all contractors.
Description of potential impacts and their environmental significance
The major project activities comprise feeder roads construction, provision of market infrastructure and processing facilities, improved farming schemes/ practices. The potential impacts from construction to operation and maintenance activities are described below. An indication of environmental significance is given in three main groups comprising:
· Minor (standard construction/ operational practices to address such impacts)
· Moderate (standard construction practices to take care of these impacts but mitigation measures may also be required)
· Major (alternatives required otherwise mitigation measures to be adopted with strict monitoring protocols)
The above classification has been used used in the tables for the various project activities, and this is largely subjective. It may be overruled by site specific considerations prescribed by the SLEPA.
Guidelines for mitigation
All significant adverse impacts are considered for mitigation. Specific measures have been suggested when practicable. The mitigation options considered include project modification, provision of alternatives, and pollution control. In cases where the effectiveness of the mitigation is uncertain, monitoring programmes will be introduced.