Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (Initial) Section I - Basic Information Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 10/06/2003 A. Basic Project Data (from PDS) I.A.1. Project Statistics Country: BRAZIL Project ID: P075379 Project: Rio de Janeiro Sustainable Integrated Ecosystem Task Team Leader: Alvaro J. Soler Management in Production Landscapes of the North-Northwestern Fluminense (GEF) Authorized to Appraise Date: April 30, 2004 IBRD Amount ($m): 0.00 Bank Approval: December 16, 2004 IDA Amount ($m): Global Supplemental Amount ($m): 6.73 Managing Unit: LCC5C Sector: General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector Lending Instrument: UNIDENTIFIED (??) (80%); Other social services (10%); Sub-national Status: Lending government administration (10%) Theme: Other environment and natural resources management (P); Civic engagement, participation and community driven development (P); Biodiversity (P); Land management (P); Climate change (P) I.A.2. Project Objectives (From PDS): The project aims to increase and sustain smallholder agricultural production and productivity and assist in the sustainable use of natural resources, by promoting the adoption of sustainable land and water management, at the microcatchment level, with full involvement of the farming community. The global objectives of the project are threefold: (i) to address threats to biodiversity of global importance, (ii) enhance carbon sequestration in the agricultural landscape, and (iii) reverse land degradation in public and/or fragile lands. These objectives would be achieved primarily through promoting the adoption of an integrated ecosystem approach in rural areas compatible with the GEF Operational Program on Integrated Ecosystem Management (OP 12), and by directly addressing the identified threats and constraints that are preventing the adoption of ecosystem approaches in Rio de Janeiro, which are also identified in other parts of Brazil, particularly in the Atlantic Forest ecoregions. I.A.3. Project Description (From PDS): I.A.3. Project Description (From PDS) The proposed project would be implemented over five years and would have a base cost of US$ 8.3 million. The project direct beneficiaries will be the farmers' families living in the five priority watersheds, encompassing 22 municipalities of the North-Northwestern Fluminense (NNWF) regions of Rio de Janeiro State. The project would have four components: 2 ISDS Component 1 - Planning for Sustainable Land Management (US$ 2.5 million, 5.5% of total project cost). This component is oriented toward policy formulation and action planning, all key elements needed in the development of a dynamic framework for rural and environmentally sustainable decision-making to be supported under the project. The component consists of three subcomponents: (i) Development of Policies, Regional Plans and Regulations: would support studies, workshops and public consultations to define the policy, legal and regional planning framework for ecosystem management in the NNWF; it would include the development of watershed management strategies, formulation of a proposal for the creation of an environmental services fund and support to the implementation of Serra do Mar biodiversity corridor in the NNWF; (ii) Local Land Management Planning: would support activities that would orient intervention efforts and the regulation of conduct by rural producers regarding preservation of natural resources and management of ecosystems as landscapes. Activities under this subcomponent would include: (i) formulation of Microcatchment Implementation Plans (PEM) in critical and/or unique microcatchments identified from project watersheds; (ii) participatory preparation of Terms of Adjustment of Conduct for Responsible Natural Resource Use for each microcatchement, establishing principles and standards applicable to the conservation, management and sustainable use of natural resources; and (iii) strengthening of environmental vigilance and enforcement activities, including the promotion of community participation in legislation enforcement. Component 2 - Incentive System for Sustainable Land Management (US$ 37.0 million, 83.0% of total project cost).This component aims to provide incentives for small farmers and other relevant ecosystem managers at the microcatchment, municipal and watershed levels to move from existing conventional and unsustainable smallholder agriculture to sustainable livelihood activities which enhance biodiversity and carbon sequestration in the agricultural landscape. It would finance technical assistance, investments and targeted research demands identified in the WMSs and PEMs. The component comprises activities for: (i) Financial Incentives for Sustainable Agriculture: to provide appropriate technical assistance and supporting incentives (goods, small works, extension services) to rural producer and stakeholder groups leading to adoption of improved production and environmental management practices within selected microcatchments; and (ii) Support to Adaptive Management Practices: would support the adaptation of existing soil management practices and/or adequate technological solutions to unsustainable land use issues identified by the farming community at the microcatchment level. Component 3 ­ Organization and Capacity Building for Sustainable Land Management (US$ 3.3 million, 7.4% of total project cost). This component would include training, education and community engagement efforts to facilitate the creation of environments favorable to the formation and strengthening of rural organizations for self-management of natural resources. The component consists of two subcomponents: (i) Community Organization: would support diagnostic studies of the existing community organizations and facilitate the development and implementation of community self management activities; and (ii) Training and Environmental Education: . Under this subcomponent, training and environmental education efforts will be carried out among beneficiaries and relevant intersectoral and extension staff to enhance local capacities and increase support for sustainable natural resources management. 3 ISDS Component 4 ­ Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (US$ 1.9 million, 4.2% of total project cost). The component comprises activities for: (i) Participatory Management of the Project: would finance the establishment and implementation of a Project Management Unit under the aegis of the State Secretariat of Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development (SEAAPI); (ii) Monitoring and Evaluation: would support technical assistance and operating costs for project monitoring and evaluation; and (iii) Project Dissemination: would support the design and implementation of an information dissemination strategy for the project. I.A.4. Project Location: (Geographic location, information about the key environmental and social characteristics of the area and population likely to be affected, and proximity to any protected areas, or sites or critical natural habitats, or any other culturally or socially sensitive areas.) The project is located in North and Northwestern Fluminense (NNWF) regions of Rio de Janeiro State. The project would be implemented in five watersheds (total of 6,579 km2) representative of the four major ecosystems of global significance in the Atlantic Forest biome situated in the NNWF. These ecosystems are: (i) floodplain forests; (ii) tropical semi-deciduous forests; (iii) tropical moist broadleaf forests; and (iv) coastal ecosystems. This richness of the NNWF can be perceived in the extraordinary wealth of its ecosystems characterized by a number of distinct natural aquatic and terrestrial habitats, endemic biodiversity. In addition to forest habitats, this region holds one of the best-preserved restingas of Brazil ( Jurubatiba), which also support important endemics. The Jurubatiba National Park is considered a refuge for species already extinct in other regions of Rio de Janeiro where restingas are degraded or have already disappeared. The NNWF holds an important portion of Serra do Mar Corridor, a subregion of the Atlantic Forest with the greatest concentration of i) endemic species for many groups and ii) threatened species of birds. The Corridor presents one the most important network of protected areas of the Atlantic Forest, including Desengano State Parks located in the NNWF that harbor an extremely high concentration of endemic and endangered species. Selection of target watersheds and microcatchments. Targeting of project watersheds and their priority microcatchments is based on the application of criteria that combines social and environmental considerations. Watersheds selection criteria include: environmentally sensitive or critical areas, particularly those which are highly vulnerable to erosion; land use patterns; presence and size of sites considered as national conservation priorities; presence of Protected Areas; natural vegetation cover; rural poverty; percentage of rural population; and the percentage of small producers among all producers. Microcatchment selection criteria will be developed in further state of preparation. Key stakeholders are small farmers and rural poor (especially women and youth). More specific information and precise estimates will be obtained upon completion of the social assessment to be undertaken as part of the on-going Block B phase. B. Check Environmental Classification: B (Partial Assessment) Comments: Based on the assessment of potential impacts presented below (see Section II.D.1.a), the project is proposed for a Category B designation. It is being designed to ensure compliance with the 4 ISDS requirements of the Bank umbrella policy on Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01). Despite the largely positive or neutral project impacts anticipated, submission of an EA and respective EMP was considered prudent to ensure conformity with the aforementioned Bank policy. The borrower will submit a first draft EA by November 2003 (and a final by February 2004). The approval of this draft EA will be a condition for negotiation. C. Safeguard Policies Triggered (from PDS) (click on for a detailed desciption or click on the policy number for a brief description) Policy Triggered Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01) Yes No TBD Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04) Yes No TBD Forestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36) Yes No TBD Pest Management (OP 4.09) Yes No TBD Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) Yes No TBD Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) Yes No TBD Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Yes No TBD Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37) Yes No TBD Projects in International Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP 7.50) Yes No TBD Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, GP 7.60)* Yes No TBD Section II - Key Safeguard Issues and Their Management D. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues. Please fill in all relevant questions. If information is not available, describe steps to be taken to obtain necessary data. II.D.1a. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts. Environmental Assessment: The project would be very positive from an environmental standpoint and few of the proposed project activities are likely to have potential environmental impacts would mostly be those financed the financial incentive program for sustainable agriculture (Component 2) that would be implemented to promote packages of improved environmental management and sustainable agricultural practices, such as organic agriculture, eco-tourism, small-scale processing of farm products, traditional crafts, as well as of mitigation measures to arrest and revert reverse on-farm and off-farm erosion and sedimentation. The impacts of the majority of these packages would be positive or neutral: for example, from the introduction of on-farm soil conservation and soil stabilization measures, and re-vegetation and reforestation of riparian forests utilizing native species. In any case, environmental impacts are expected to be localized and preventable through responsive mitigation measures. Environmental screening and evaluation procedures as well as proposing mitigation measures will be built in the management of the financial mechanism to be adopted under Component 2 (see Section 4 below). Natural Habitats. The proposed project would support natural habitat conservation and improved land use planning and management by integrating into existing national and regional rural development programs the conservation of natural habitats and the rehabilitation of degraded natural habitats, within the context of integrated ecosystem management. Project activities would not significantly modify or degrade natural habitats. In terms of policy dialogue, the project would 5 ISDS assist GOP with strengthening the state and local institutions in the rural and environmental sectors, providing them with enhanced capacity to guide and monitor the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. Forestry. The proposed project would support the adoption of conservation measures: e.g. reforestation, natural forest regeneration, measures to support the implementation of the Serra do Mar Biodiversity Corridor in the NNFW, and sustainable production systems, including agro/silvopastoral systems to lower the impacts of agricultural and livestock production on the functionality of project watersheds. The project M&E system would track compliance for monitoring project implementation. This would also apply to investments in forestry-related activities that may require attention to forestry management standards. Social Assessment. Based on a preliminary analysis carried out during Block B preparation, a key social issue is the organization of communities in support of the adoption of improved environmental management objectives and approaches. Currently, a socio eocnomic survey among stakeholders is being undertaken within the 5 project watersheds. Associated social assessment (SA) will be carried out as part of project preparation with the following objectives: (a) to evaluate existing patterns of the project watersheds, natural resource and land ownership, management, access, and use among different groups and institutions in the proposed project area; (b) to identify stakeholders, who should be involved in preparation, implementation, and evaluation and to obtain their inputs on project scope and design; (c) to identify potentially negative impacts of proposed activities on vulnerable groups in the population, low-income producers, women, and rural youth and design measures to prevent or mitigate these impacts; and (d) to identify opportunities to build the capacity of local governments, producers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). II.D.1b. Describe any potential cumulative impacts due to application of more than one safeguard policy or due to multiple project component. No cumulative or long tem impacts are foreseen. II.D.1c Describe any potential long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area. No cumulative or long tem impacts are foreseen II.D.2. In light of 1, describe the proposed treatment of alternatives (if required) Not required II.D.3. Describe arrangement for the borrower to address safeguard issues Environmental Assessment: Mainstreaming of EA procedure and responsibility for EA and institutional arrangements. Mitigation measures will be integrated into the screening, evaluation, approval, and monitoring procedures for small investments/"sub-projects" supported under Component 2. Depending on the nature and magnitude of their potential impacts, "sub-project" proposals would be classified into a specific category of impact (for example, no adverse impacts, low impacts, or moderate impacts), so as to determine related requirements to reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts. Screening and approval procedures would be incorporated into the project design. They will be 6 ISDS built in the management of the financial instrument to be adopted under Component 2 (that is, integrated into sub-projects screening, evaluation, and monitoring procedures), so that mitigation measures proposed are cost-effective and are not overly burdensome. The EMP will also include specific responsibilities for EA and institutional arrangements, as well as provisions for strengthening EA capacity within SEAAPI and establishing mechanisms to monitor implementation and measure impacts. Social Aspects. The expected outputs from the Social Assessment include: (a) participation plan developed to support the involvement of local organizations of farmers and rural poor (especially women and youth); and (b) target activities for small and medium producers, women, youth and other key stakeholders. II.D.4. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Key stakeholders are small farmers and rural poor (especially women and youth). More specific information and precise estimates will be obtained upon completion of the Aocial Assessment. The interest of these key stakeholders would be primarily represented through their participation in preparation of the Watershed Management Strategies (WMS) and in preparation and collective implementation of associated Microcatchment Implementation Plans (PEM). The PEMs would be implemented in critical and/or unique microcatchments identified from the 5 project watersheds. More specifically, the project would bring economic and social benefits to the target population mentioned above, particularly through the provision of appropriate training, technical assistance and supporting incentives to rural producers and stakeholder groups leading to adoption of improved production and environmental management practices. Both training and implementation support for beneficiary stakeholders would emphasize the mechanisms, entitlements, obligations and skills implicit in fully participatory development. Project operational procedures would rely upon demand-driven mechanisms in order to ensure a participatory mode of operation. E. Safeguards Classification (select in SAP). Category is determined by the highest impact in any policy. Or on basis of cumulative impacts from multiple safeguards. Whenever an individual safeguard policy is triggered the provisions of that policy apply. [ ] S1. ­ Significant, cumulative and/or irreversible impacts; or significant technical and institutional risks in management of one or more safeguard areas [X] S2. ­ One or more safeguard policies are triggered, but effects are limited in their impact and are technically and institutionally manageable [ ] S3. ­ No safeguard issues [ ] SF. ­ Financial intermediary projects, social development funds, community driven development or similar projects which require a safeguard framework or programmatic approach to address safeguard issues. F. Disclosure Requirements Environmental Assessment/Analysis/Management Plan: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank 11/14/2003 Date of "in-country" disclosure 2/13/2004 7 ISDS Date of submission to InfoShop 2/16/2004 Date of distributing the Exec. Summary of the EA to the Executive Not Available Directors (For category A projects) Resettlement Action Plan/Framework: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank Not Available Not Available Date of "in-country" disclosure Not Available Not Available Date of submission to InfoShop Not Available Not Available Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank Not Available Not Available Date of "in-country" disclosure Not Available Not Available Date of submission to InfoShop Not Available Not Available Pest Management Plan: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank Not Available Not Available Date of "in-country" disclosure Not Available Not Available Date of submission to InfoShop Not Available Not Available Dam Safety Management Plan: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank Not Available Not Available Date of "in-country" disclosure Not Available Not Available Date of submission to InfoShop Not Available Not Available If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why. Signed and submitted by Name Date Task Team Leader: Alvaro J. Soler Aug 27, 2003 Project Safeguards Specialists 1: Judith M. Lisansky/Person/World Bank Sep 30, 2003 Project Safeguards Specialists 2: Katia Medeiros (FAO/CP) Sep 30, 2003 Project Safeguards Specialists 3: Approved by: Name Date Regional Safeguards Coordinator: George Ledec Aug 28, 2003 Sector Manager/Director Abel Mejia Sep 30, 2003