COMBINED PROJECT INFORMATION DOCUMENT/INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET (PID/ISDS) APPRAISAL STAGE APPRAISAL STAGE . Report No: XXX Date Prepared/Updated: 24-April-2018 I. BASIC INFORMATION A. Basic Project Data Country: Sudan Project ID: P161304 Parent Project ID: P129156 Project Name: Additional Financing Sudan Sustainable Natural Resources Management Project Region AFRICA Estimated Appraisal Date: April 25, 2018 Estimated Board Date: June 14, 2018 Practice Area (Lead): ENR Environment & Lending Instrument: Investment Project Natural Resources Financing GEF Focal Area Land Degradation and Climate Change Adaptation Sector(s): General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (60%), Forestry (40%) Theme(s): Environmental Polices and Institutions (20%), Other Environmental and Natural Resources (30%), Land Administration and Management (30%); and Climate Change (20%) Recipient The Republic of Sudan Implementing Agency Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Physical Development (MoENRPD) Financing (in USD Million) Financing Source Amount Recipient (in kind and cash) 0.00 Global Environment Facility (GEF) 5,504,586.00 Financing Gap 0.00 Total Project Cost 5,504,586.00 Environmental Category B-Partial Assessment Decision Review Note: Is this a Repeater project? No . . 1 B. Introduction and Context Country Context Sudan is situated in north east Africa with a coastline bordering the Red sea. It is the third largest country in Africa with a population of 39 million, according to World Bank 2014 estimates. The government administrative structure is composed of a federal government, 18 states and 176 local government councils. The federal level has a national assembly and Council of States composed of two representatives of each state. Each state has its own constitution, and local governments are governed by the Local Government Act (LGA) enacted by the federal government. The federal and state constitutions as well as LGA stress the principle of autonomy at various levels of government and the need for mutual respect of this autonomy. Sudan has been in conflict for most of its independent history. While the defining conflict between the north and south was largely resolved by the secession of the latter to form the Republic of South Sudan in July 2011, several other conflicts continue at various stages of intensity, stalemate, or resolution. Most of these conflicts involve competition over ownership and access to natural resources, and are between pastoralists, agropastoralists and settled farmers (including commercial farms). This contributes to a localized conflict-prone environment where violence easily erupts in the context of weak institutions. The South’s secession has had fundamental repercussions on Sudan as evidenced by significant stresses in the macro-fiscal situation and the structure of the economy. The most important and immediate impact was the loss of oil revenue, made all the more critical as the secession was preceded by several years of oil-export driven growth, extravagant public investments, and expanded public employment. The legacy of the civil war, limited infrastructure and the inequitable distribution of public goods and services, continues to present obstacles to strong and inclusive growth. Sudan's arrears to several bilateral and multilateral creditors, including International Development Association (IDA), severely limit the country's access to concessional development finance. Sectoral and Institutional Context Sudan faces environmental challenges due to its geographic location within the fragile Sudano- Sahelian and sub-Saharan African zones. Short variable erratic rainy seasons, arid lands, and poor sparse vegetative cover contribute to the country’s vulnerability. In addition, the soils are highly susceptible to wind and water erosion. The steady increase of both human and livestock populations puts pressure on natural resources, and has resulted in desertification, land degradation, water pollution, soil erosion and nutrient loss and deterioration of biodiversity across large tracts of the country. Occasional floods, such as the flood in August 2013 which affected more than 300,000 people, further exacerbate the precarious environment. Like in other Sahelian countries, livelihoods in Sudan depend heavily on soil, water and vegetation resources. It is estimated that agriculture (crops, livestock and forestry) contributes 35-40% of GDP (with livestock accounting for 50% of the production) and employs more than 80% of the total population. Traditional farming accounts for 60-70% of the agricultural output and is largely subsistence production based on shifting cultivation and livestock rearing. The wildlife of Sudan presents a rich base of biodiversity of high value. The country is also rich in mineral resources. Oil discovery and oil export had fueled unprecedented growth in the last decade and fed massive public investment, although not in a sustainable way. Agriculture and livestock are thus essential to the country’s growth and economic diversification and overall macroeconomic stability especially with the dwindling revenues from oil. Employing over 80% of the total workforce, investments in these two key sectors also provide space for creating jobs and improving livelihoods especially in rural areas, attracting potential private sector 2 investments in soil, land and water management, as well as in human development. Unplanned, non-sustainable and poorly managed use of land and water along with natural climate variability and frequently occurring droughts, has exacerbated the problems. Rainfall in some areas of the country has been steadily decreasing over the last 40 years, and the Sahara Desert is advancing at a rate of about one mile a year, dwindling the availability of grazing land and water. Forest ecosystems throughout Sudan have been deforested and degraded due to fire, uncontrolled grazing, overcutting, and encroachment by agriculture. Increasing pressure on land by the expansion of mechanized and rain-fed farming, as well as overgrazing, have restricted access to rangelands and increased vulnerability of farmers and pastoralists. In addition, the greatest damage to wildlife has been inflicted by habitat destruction and fragmentation from farming and deforestation. The degradation of the country’s natural resources has caused serious negative impacts on agricultural productivity and the livelihoods of the poor, particularly those that depend on livestock and rain-fed agriculture. Additional challenges resulting from increasing vulnerability to climate change elevates the need for ensuring that sectoral planning and interventions in these sectors cater to strengthening adaptive capacity and resilience of both the sectors and the dependent rural communities to climate induced natural disasters. Policy and investment responses are fragmented and inadequate. Federal, state and local governments and their constituencies are overwhelmed by the scale and complexity of the problems confronting production and conservation landscapes. Attempts within most tiers of government to address these problems have generally been ineffectual in the face of the following challenges: (a) lack of sufficient financial resources; (b) unclear and overlapping mandates of institutions responsible for various components of the rural landscape; (c) insufficient technical capacity in these institutions; (d) insufficient knowledge and updated data to address such complex issues; (e) absent or weak land-use planning; (f) limited research capacity; (g) weak regulatory compliance and enforcement; (h) weak community involvement in prevention and restoration activities; (i) insufficient attention to alternative livelihood issues; and (j) insufficient attention to transparent governance, corruption, and local participation. The different challenges are interwoven and require integrated solutions. The fragmentation of institutions, information, and incentives weakens the ability of government institutions and the communities that they serve to address the issues in a strategic and integrated manner. C. Proposed Global Environment Objective(s) Project Development Objective(s) of AF remains the same as of the original project: “To increase the adoption of sustainable land and water management (SLWM) practices in targeted landscapes�. Key Results Key outputs of the Additional Financing will include: a) the reforestation and rehabilitation of 5,800 ha of forest areas; b) 3,600 ha of gazetted forest areas; c) the rehabilitation of 9,000 ha of rangeland areas; d) the development of 5 water management plans; e) providing training on formulation, monitoring and implementation of policies for SLWM to at least 60 personnel; f) providing training to 200 personnel on rendering extension services on SLWM; and g) design and implementation of communication strategy for the newly added States. . D. Project Description 3 The proposed Additional Financing would increase the adoption of sustainable land and water management practices in targeted landscapes in Sudan. It will finance the costs associated with scaling-up project activities to enhance the impact of the SSNRMP that forms part of the GEF-5 Sahel and West Africa Program (SAWAP) supporting the Great Green Wall Initiative. It will involve expanding the project pilot areas to three new additional states - the Northern, River Nile, and North Kordofan States which have similar climatic conditions to Kassala, Gezira and White Nile States, where the project is currently being implemented. The ongoing project and the AF will build on various donor initiatives related to the project scope, including Capacity Development Project for Provision of the Services for Basic Human Needs in Kassala supported by Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the World Bank Sustainable livelihoods for displaced and vulnerable communities in Eastern Sudan. The AF grant will (i) scale up soil, land and water management (SLWM) interventions from the original target of 104,000 ha to add an estimated 60,000 ha in the three new States; (ii) promote community participation in rehabilitation of degraded lands and forests, including establishment of wind shelterbelts; (iii) support range and pasture development (in North Kordofan); and (iv) further identify and scale up priority community based interventions aimed at strengthening adaptive capacity to climate induced natural disasters including developing and disseminating knowledge and awareness on climate change; supporting climate resilient livelihoods alternatives; and strengthening implementation of national and state level climate adaptation policies and reforms. Over all, enrichment planting, natural regeneration, sand dune stabilization in the above mentioned new project areas would contribute to increasing the resilience of rural communities. The AF will coordinate with the Butana Integrated Rural Development Project by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and GEF; and two adaptation projects on Resilience in the Agriculture and Water Sectors; and Sustainable and Climate Resilient Rain fed Farming and Pastoral Systems (GEF-UNDP). The project will also coordinate with a program Capacity Development Project for Irrigation Scheme Management in River Nile State funded by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and two projects financed by International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Seed Development Project and Integrated Agriculture and Marketing Development Project. The AF will identify and scale up priority community based interventions aimed at strengthening adaptive capacity to climate induced natural disasters including developing and disseminating knowledge and awareness on climate change, supporting climate resilient livelihoods alternatives; and strengthening implementation of national and state level climate adaptation policies and reforms. The proposed project contributes to the Land Degradation (LD) Focal Areas, specifically to Strategic Objective 3, LD-3: Reduce pressures on natural resources from competing land uses in the wider landscape and will contribute to achieving outcome 3.2: Integrated landscape management practices adopted by local communities. The project will directly address land degradation challenges in the targeted areas by promoting community-based sustainable land and water management practices and building/supporting existent enabling environments for sustainable natural resources management. Addressing these activities following the landscape approach will help to reduce pressure on natural resources from competing land uses. The project will also aim at promoting conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks in forest, and other land use, and support climate smart agriculture (Focal Area objective CCM-2). The target for this focal area will be Outcome B: Policy, planning and regulatory frameworks foster accelerated low GHG development and emissions mitigation. 4 In addition, the project will aim at promoting conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks in forest, and other land use, and support climate smart agriculture (Focal Area objective CCM-2). The target for this focal area will be Indicator 4: Deployment of low GHG technologies and practices. The current project closing date of June 30, 2019 will be extended to June 30, 2022 and Board approval is expected in June 2018. Project Components Under the proposed AF, project components will remain the same as in the original project. Additional funds will enhance the adaptive capacity of project beneficiaries including generating and disseminating new knowledge on community and forest resilience to climate induced disasters. Component 1: Institutional and Policy Framework The project will continue to support key institutions involved in natural resources management by strengthening their capacity to formulate, implement and monitor programs and projects geared towards the sustainable management of natural resources, based on a capacity enhancement plan. This support will be used to: (i) develop effective inter-agency collaboration mechanisms at the central and state level; (ii) assist communities in preparing and implementing investments under integrated land management plans; and (iii) manage, monitor, and maintain soil and water conservation structure in collaboration with Village Development Committees (VDCs). For this component, the AF will help address key barriers to information and knowledge access related to broader adoption of SLWM practices at the community levels within the newly selected three states; support mechanisms that promote inclusion and community participation in forest ecosystems and livelihoods resilience; promote social mobilization through group formation and economic empowerment; and promote social accountability. Towards building adaptive capacity of project beneficiaries, additional funds will be vested in further identification and scaling up of priority community based interventions aimed at strengthening response to climate induced natural disasters. The AF will support developing and disseminating knowledge and awareness on climate change; supporting climate resilient livelihoods alternatives; and strengthening implementation of national and state level climate adaptation policies and reforms. It will also support studies and gap analysis of policies and capacity needs for value chain addition of target forest/agroforestry products. The AF will help deepen the work started in the three existing states and address key institutional and policy barriers, through active participation of stakeholders and knowledge generation, to a broader adoption of SLWM practices at the community levels in all six states. Information and knowledge management: effective knowledge management is a lynchpin to achieving sustainable scale-up of integrated natural resources management approaches at community level. Lessons and experiences of implementation are being and will continue to be disseminated and shared through regular events (in country) and through South-South knowledge exchanges in the Horn of Africa Region; knowledge exchange happens through the IGAD Drought Resilience Initiative (IDDRSI) regional platform. Component 2: Community-based Sustainable Management of Rangelands, Forests and Biodiversity This component will focus on soil and water activities through the gazetting of forest reserves; restoration of native vegetation by reforestation, enrichment planting, natural regeneration, sand dune stabilization, and effective implementation of sustainable forest and rangeland management plans. The project so far has been supporting the preparation of integrated land management plans for the gazetted Wad Bugul reserve in the Butana area in the Rufaa locality of Gezira State, Telkuk Forest Reserve in 5 Kassala State, and the rangelands of Aum Rimta including sites such as Al Baja and Um Jar in White Nile State. The AF will expand the above activities in the three new States. Specifically: (i) in Northern State it will support the preparation of integrated land management plans for rehabilitation of the shelterbelts in Al Seleim Basin, and establishment of village windbreaks in Al Afad Area; (ii) in the River Nile State, the AF would support the reforestation of River Atbara reserve forests and preparation of a management Plan in Jibal Al Hassania area; and (iii) in North Kordofan State, the AF will support the rehabilitation of Gum Arabic belt and rehabilitation of rangelands. The Project will continue to support strengthening resilience of participating households - this will be achieved through: strengthening the asset base of rural farmers (including natural capital through improved soil fertility and financial capital through increased gains as a result of enhanced yields and value addition); increasing the diversity of smallholder farming systems (through the promotion of mixed cropping-livestock systems and diversification of crops); promoting equity and inclusion of vulnerable and marginal groups (especially women); enhancing local institutions (through support to VDC); and improving the availability of/and smallholder access to climate information (through awareness and training / demonstration activities and through knowledge exchanges). Management planning and subsequent reforestation interventions will facilitate climate resilient outcomes including (i) strengthened ownership through community participation as local labor for planting and maintenance of planted sites; and in the selection of tree species; (ii) matching of native species to site conditions to improve survival and overall resilience to withstand climate induced natural hazards; (iii) supporting priority alternative livelihoods activities targeting vulnerable groups that increase incomes and reduce unsustainable dependence on forests, and (iv) generating replicable lessons and new knowledge on forests and livelihoods resilience to. These plans will be implemented through forest ecosystem rehabilitation and restoration mainly under irrigation with some rainfed areas especially in North Kordofan State. Sustainable forest and rangeland management coupled with support to livelihoods improvement have intrinsic climate resilience and adaptation benefits. Local communities will receive technical assistance to acquire the capacity to conduct the selected activities above, including training to support the organization of communities in associations (cooperatives) around specific NRM livelihood initiatives, awareness on climate adaptive1 alternative livelihoods options. This component will also promote institutional mechanisms for scaling up adoption of efficient water harvesting, and irrigation technologies including enabling environment for private sector and other service providers to participate. Project’s approach to mainstreaming gender consideration is fully consistent with the GEF Policy on Gender Mainstreaming and the World Bank Group’s renewed Gender strategy. The project puts emphasis on greater involvement of women in participation in the planning and decision-making structures (community watershed management teams) and implementation of sub-projects. The PDO indicator on direct project beneficiaries is disaggregated to indicate percentage of women out of all direct project beneficiaries; the same applies to two Intermediate Results indicators in the Project’s Results Framework. Component 3: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation 1 Climate adaptive livelihoods would encompass diversifying household income generating activities including activities that reduce unsustainable dependence on forests resources, that reduce vulnerability to climate induced disasters, and contribute to improving forest quality; raising native trees sp nurseries; increasing access to water harvesting technologies, increasing access to hardy varieties of seeds and livestock. 6 This component provides project management, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and coordination support encompassing procurement, financial management, environmental and social safeguards, annual work plans and organization of supervision missions. The project provides support for operating an M&E system for tracking the project results, including those registered in the GEF tracking tools for Biodiversity, Land Degradation and Sustainable Forest Management. The M&E system currently works in coordination with the SAWAP Program and will continue to receive complementary support from the BRICKS2 project. Under the AF, the project will provide additional resources for this component strengthening the M&E and coordination across the various states in close collaboration with the BRICKS project and also include the Climate Change tracking tool monitoring. Incremental Reasoning. The GEF increment ensures that funds from GEF focal areas incorporate integrated ecosystem management planning, appropriate management and sustainable technologies, and community and Government capacity building. The GEF funds are deployed strategically in select States and zones based on ecological needs and priorities. The Government and the Project have identified target zones for projects’ activities including: a) Atbara locality and a proposed protected area Jebel Hassania in River Nile State, b) East Bara locality and five communities in North Kordofan State, c) Dongola and Seleim localities in Northern State with two communities each. Without the GEF support, these communities and sites would continue facing the prospects of deteriorating desertification, sand dune movement, land and rangeland degradation, deforestation and increasingly devastating floods. Vulnerable communities and IDPs would continue to exploit natural resources without due care of environmental sustainability. GEF resources add value to the baseline activities to achieve global environmental benefits. The project facilitates a variety of sustainable land and water management practices such as soil conservation techniques, crop and rangeland management, agroforestry practices, water harvesting and improved livestock management activities. Theory of change. The project is designed to bring about a broad positive landscape management change by targeting the following outcomes: (i) Integrated landscape management practices adopted by target communities achieved through: - strengthened ownership resulting from community participation in planting and maintenance of planted sites and in the selection of tree species; - generated replicable lessons and new knowledge on forests and livelihoods resilience. (ii) sustained flow of environmental services in agroecosystems achieved through: - increased non-forest incomes and reduced unsustainable dependence on forests; - training programs for extension service providers of the implementing agencies based on their training needs; (iii) improved implementation of environmental policies and regulations in support of SLWM best practices by realizing following activities: - Formation and training of locality level planning teams for the AF in the new states and targeted localities; - Technical Assistance to CSOs/NGOs to support micro-landscape planning and for project implementation by community level structures; - Establishment and maintenance of demonstrations fields; 2 Building Resilience through Innovation, Communication and Knowledge Services 7 - Provision of logistics and equipment to strengthen implementing agencies for coordination, capacity building and extension services; (iv) enhanced carbon stocks and co-benefits from forests and non-forest lands resulting from: - Reforestation and rehabilitation of 5,800 ha of forest areas; - 9,000 ha rehabilitated rangeland areas; - 60,000 ha of land under adopted SLWM practices. E. Project location and Salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis (if known) The existing project locations are East Gazira forest reserves, including the already gazetted Wad Bugul reserve in the Butana area in the Rufaa locality of Gezira State, the Telkuk Forest Reserve in Kassala State, and the rangelands in Aum Rimta locality of White Nile State. The new States that will be included as part of the AF are Northern, River Nile, and North Kordofan States. Fluctuation in rainfalls, land degradation, decline in productivity, deforestation and desertification, accompanied by socio-economic problems are challenges that all the six project locations share. One of the defining characteristics of the rangelands and forest reserves in these locations is the severe degradation mainly caused by encroachment of forest resources for agricultural production and over grazing. . F. Recipient’s Institutional Capacity for Safeguard Policies The country capacity to implement World Bank safeguard policies is weak. As a result, the ongoing project hired a safeguards consultant for ensuring environmental and social sustainability of the project. It is envisaged that the safeguard consultant will provide support to the proposed project. Further, regular training on safeguards will be provided to project implementers at the national and local level. Regular support by Bank’s safeguards specialists will also be used to contribute to strengthen recipient’s safeguards compliance and capacity. . G. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists on the Team Tamene Tiruneh – Environmental Safeguards Samuel Lule Demsash – Social Development and Safeguards II. Implementation Institutional and Implementation Arrangements The institutional and implementation arrangements pertaining to safeguards issues remain unchanged, as the original project’s implementation is fully mainstreamed into Government system. The project is managed and implemented by the existing Government structures coordinated by the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Physical Development (MoENRPD). Under the AF, further devolution of implementation responsibilities to the lower level, i.e. state and locality levels, will be capacitated and supported, since Project implementation modalities have now been well established and would be strengthened to ensure management of implementation of different project inputs and activities. III. Safeguards policies that might apply Safeguard Policies Triggered? Explanation (Optional) Environmental Assessment Yes The SSNRMP is a category B project. Rangeland and OP/BP 4.01 forest rehabilitation activities will have positive environmental and social impacts. However, this 8 policy is triggered because the Project will finance establishment of nurseries, and small-scale irrigation, among others, that would have some adverse environmental and social impacts. The ESMF is prepared to ensure that negative impacts are avoided or reduced with appropriate mitigation measures. Further, the framework suggests some recommendations to ensure sustainability of rangeland and forest rehabilitation activities. Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 Yes Sub-projects in SSNRMP may have minor adverse impacts on protected areas, conservation sites, and critical ecosystems. Sub-projects will be screened based on the ESMF and appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented if any negative impacts are anticipated. Forests OP/BP 4.36 Yes Project will not finance any activities that could result in the clearance of forests of any nature. However, there will be sub-projects, particularly livelihood related activities, which will be implemented in the forest reserves. Hence, it is necessary to reflect this OP/BP in the ESMF and ensure that these sub- projects are screened against this OP/BP and that appropriate preventive or mitigation measures are formulated and executed. Pest Management OP 4.09 Yes This policy is triggered by the SSNRMP, particularly for those activities targeted to improve the livelihood of communities by investing on small-scale irrigation and nurseries. Such investments can encourage the use of agrochemicals (e.g. insecticides and herbicides). The project will promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and safe utilization of pesticides among the targeted communities. Generic IPM procedural guideline is provided in the ESMF. However, the project will not finance the procurement of any agrochemicals. Physical Cultural Resources No Since the project will mainly implement activities to OP/BP 4.11 rehabilitate rangeland and forests, impacts on physical cultural resources are not anticipated. Indigenous Peoples OP/BP No The ESMF provided the baseline context and 4.10 confirms that there are no indigenous peoples. However, the stakeholders’ consultation at different levels including with the vulnerable and marginalized groups as part of the SNNRMP AF ESMF and PF update has informed project design. The project paper has integrated the views, concerns and recommendations of vulnerable and marginalized groups including women and pastoralists. 9 Involuntary Resettlement Yes Under SSNRMP, activities related to rehabilitation OP/BP 4.12 and reforestation sub-projects will not involve land acquisition leading to involuntary resettlement. involuntary land acquisition and displacement of people since they will be implemented in communal rangelands and forest reserves. However, such activities trigger this policy during enclosure of areas for rehabilitation and natural regeneration since it may restrict access and use of natural resources to humans and livestock. If a sub-project is found to cause such restriction to access and use of natural resources, it would be addressed by the guiding principles and mitigation measures described in the updated PF. Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 Yes The project will support the construction of Haffirs (small ponds) which will help to capture and store water, particularly for irrigation. The construction of haffirs and their management requires skill and institutional arrangements. Haffirs may be approved subject to a qualified engineer being responsible for the design and supervision of construction, and the construction being carried out by a qualified contractor, following the guidelines set out in the ESMF. As haffirs do not involve construction of big dams, their potential impacts will be managed by the generic safety Guidelines for small dams provided in the ESMF. Projects on International No None of the project activities will adversely change the Waterways OP/BP 7.50 quality or quantity of water flows to the White and Blue Nile and their tributaries. In addition, since the small investments under the Project are unlikely to affect the overall hydrological balance of any of the international waterways or tributaries, this policy is not triggered under the SSNRM. Projects in Disputed Areas No The policy is not triggered, as the project will not be OP/BP 7.60 implemented in disputed area. 10 . IV. Key safeguards policy issues and their management A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts. Environmental Impacts. Activities under component 2 are expected to have positive environmental by rehabilitating and restoring degraded rangelands and forest ecosystems. The project activities will bring several direct benefits to an estimated 35,000 people living in the three states by improving the sustainability of land and water management practices, introducing agroforestry systems, restoring and rehabilitating rangelands and forest reserves. Benefits are derived from improved ecosystems and overall better managed habitats. Casual labor and other livelihood opportunities will be created to benefit local communities. Potential negative environmental impacts: Activities under Component 1 and 3 will not have any negative environmental impacts. Activities under component 2 such as reforestation and enrichment plantings, legal gazetting of reserves, developing a management plan, legally gazetting rangeland, stabilize sand dunes with appropriate grass species, establish and manage nursery for rehabilitating the rangeland, and develop rangeland management plans will have positive impacts on the environment by rehabilitating degraded environment. Some activities under component 2 aimed at improving livelihood, however, can cause some negative impacts. These adverse impacts will be addressed by environmental and social management plans (ESMP) to be produced based on the guidance provided by ESMF. Training and capacity building to local government staff on the preparation of simplified ESMP and supervision of its implementation would be provided. Potential negative social impacts Sub-project activities including afforestation/reforestation, legal gazetting of reserves, and legally gazetting rangeland may temporarily restrict access for people using the land for grazing animals or for extracting non-timber forest products, such as honey. On the other hand, none of the sub-projects will result in the displacement of people. Mitigation measures for potential negative social impacts have been addressed in the PF which outlined key principles to manage access and use restriction to natural resources, which will be used along with the ESMF. Describe any potential indirect and/or long-term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area. No long term adverse impacts were identified in the prepared safeguards instruments. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse Impacts. Not applicable Describe measures taken by the recipient to address safeguard policy issues. Provide an assessment of recipient’s capacity to plan and implement the measures described. The safeguard performance under the parent project has been consistently assessed as Moderately Satisfactory for the slow progress in implementing GRM as well as insufficiently proper sub-project screening documentation. Also, E&S annual audit was included in the parent project, but has not been implemented. The Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Physical Development has already conducted consultations, to update the SSNRMP ESMF and PF to address potential adverse environmental and social impacts. PIU has a Safeguards Consultant who provides support in the application of the Safeguards instruments in the proposed project states. Going forward, the Ministry should recruit a fulltime Environmental and Social Safeguard specialist to ensure the effective implementation of the requirements of the ESMF and PF. At local level, Community Facilitators, employed by the respective State Project Coordination Unit, are responsible for the application of the safeguards instruments including first line screening of sub project activities. Under the parent project, training on the ESMF and PF was provided to 11 the Community Facilitators, and there was a marked improvement in the application of the ESMF and the PF. Sub-projects were vetted for their environmental and social impacts, and the ESMF screening forms were completed and documented. The hiring of the Safeguards Consultant and Community Facilitators has contributed significantly to the improved application of the agreed safeguards instruments over the last year. Capacity building training on the updated ESMF and PF should be organized to Project Implementation Unit at the state level. Awareness creation on environmental and social impacts of project activities should be organized for participating communities. The ESMF and the PF recommended mitigating measures aimed at ensuring sub-projects are executed in an environmentally and socially sound manner. Mitigation measures suggested in the ESMF are geared towards addressing potential environmental and social impacts arising from project activities such as small-scale irrigation and nurseries establishment. The checklist of impact and mitigation measures for typical sub- projects, in the ESMF, will serve as a guide to develop location-specific mitigation measures during sub- project design. With respect to pest management, the operational policy for pest management will be followed and the use of integrated pest management (IPM) encouraged. Aiming to continue developing capacity for safeguards implementation, training to locality and line ministry staff at the state level (in the new three project states), and other stakeholders on issues of environmental and social safeguards will be continued. The training will largely focus on the processes and procedures of the ESMF and the PF. Topics covered included screening of sub-projects for environmental and social impacts, preparation of environmental and social management plans, community engagement techniques and monitoring and evaluation. During the parent project, Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) showed a very slow progress in implementation. The work to develop and launch this mechanism is underway. Once it is finalized and launched, GRM will be implemented in all six states. Also, E&S annual audit was included in the parent project, but has not been implemented. This will be one of the areas emphasized in the discussions with the Recipient to ensure that this activity is duly delivered. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Stakeholder consultations at all levels from the Federal, three new States and local levels were carried out during designing of project activities as well as updating of the ESMF and Process Framework for the SNNRMP AF exercise with the aim of explaining the objectives and scope of the project as well as to identify, discuss and respond to project issues of concern to different stakeholders. Consultations were undertaken with communities, local government authorities and other stakeholders in all three new states, during January and February 2018. In North Kordofan, the consultation (21-26 January 2018) included 34 officials of which 14 were females, in River Nile State the people participated in the consultation (3-8 February 2018) were 36 officials and 12 are females, while in the Northern State (10-15 February 2018) the people met and consulted amount to 56 composed of a mixture of officials and community members of whom 22 were females. Another consultation was carried out with leaders from the targeted communities at the locality and prioritized administrative units. The discussion included feedback on the current development interventions, lessons learned from previous conflict or dispute resolution mechanisms, and recommendations for addressing grievance raised by the activities of the SSNRMP. A separate meeting was conducted with the international development actors in the area of natural resources to share the project objectives and exchange views on the lessons learned from their interventions in the NRM sector. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes 12 Date of receipt by the Bank March 23, 2018 Date of "in-country" disclosure April 24, 2018 Date of submission to World Bank’s External Website April 24, 2018 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 Date of receipt by the Bank April 2, 2018 Date of "in-country" disclosure April 24, 2018 Date of submission to World Bank’s External Website April 24, 2018 Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? NA Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to World Bank’s External Website Pest Management Plan: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank March 23, 2018 Date of "in-country" disclosure April 24, 2018 Date of submission to World Bank’s External Website April 24, 2018 * 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 4.01 - Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) Yes [ X] No [ ] N/A [ ] report? If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Yes [ X] No [ ] N/A [ ] Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated Yes [ X] No [ ] N/A [ ] 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 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 issues? Yes [X ] No [ ] N/A [ ] Is a separate PMP required? Yes [ ] No [X ] N/A [ ] 13 If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a safeguards specialist or Sector Manager? Are PMP requirements included in project design? If yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? OP/BP 4.11 – Physical Cultural Resources Does the EA include adequate measures related to cultural Yes [ ] No [ X ] N/A [ ] property? Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on physical cultural resources? OP/BP 4.10 - Indigenous Peoples Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework Yes [ ] No [ X ] N/A [ ] (as appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or N/A Sector Manager review the plan? If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design N/A been reviewed and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit? OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy Yes [ X ] No [ ] N/A [ ] framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Yes [ X ] No [ ] N/A [ ] 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 issues Yes [ X ] No [ ] N/A [ ] and constraints been carried out? Does the project design include satisfactory measures to Yes [ X ] No [ ] N/A [ ] overcome these constraints? Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, Yes [ ] No [ X ] N/A [ ] 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 independent N/A Panel of Experts (POE) been reviewed and approved by the Bank? Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) been prepared N/A and arrangements been made for public awareness and training? OP/BP 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 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? OP/BP 7.60 - Projects in Disputed Areas 14 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 referred to in the OP? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the Yes [ X ] No [ ] N/A [ ] World Bank's External Website? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public Yes [ X ] No [ ] N/A [ ] 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 included Yes [ X ] No [ ] N/A [ ] in the project cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project Yes [ X ] No [ ] N/A [ ] include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed Yes [ X ] No [ ] N/A [ ] with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? . V. Contact point World Bank PHWBCP Contact: Tracy Hart Title: Senior Environmental Specialist Contact: Dora Nsuwa Cudjoe Title: Senior Environmental Specialist Contact: Gayatri Kanungo Title: Senior Environmental Specialist, Global Practices GEF Coordinator . Recipient Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Physical Development (MoENRPD) . . . Implementing Agencies Ongoing implementation arrangements in the current project states will be adopted for the three new states – North Kordofan, Northern and River Nile States respectively. 15 The MoENRPD will continue to have overall responsibility for the project’s implementation. Through Memoranda of Understanding (MoU), certain specialized functions will be provided by partner organizations in coordination with MoENRPD. Partner organizations comprise Range and Pasture Administration, Wildlife Conservation General Administration, and Forestry National Corporation. Implementation at Federal Level: The Project Implementation Unit (PIU), based in the MoENRPD, will be responsible for carrying out the daily activities and overall supervision and coordination of the project implementation at all levels, including procurement and financial management. It will report to the PNSC and will be supported by relevant staff from the existing government agencies, hired consultants and others. Implementation at State and Community Level: The State Project Implementation Unit (SPIU) will work closely with all the stakeholders at the State, local and community levels during the project implementation. The SPIU report directly to the PIU based at MoENRPD. The composition of this unit will be tailored for each of the selected States. . . VI. For more information contact: . The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20433 Telephone: (202) 458-4500 Fax: (202) 522-1500 Web: http://www.worldbank.org/infoshop . VII. Approval Task Team Leader(s): Name: Tracy Hart, Dora Nsuwa Cudjoe Approved By: Safeguards Advisor: Name: Nathalie S. Munzberg Date: Practice Manager: Name: Magda Lovei Date: Country Director: Name: Carolyn Turk Date: 16