Page 1 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 05/29/2008 Report No.: AC3712 1. Basic Project Data Country: Peru Project ID: P104760 Project Name: Peru Sierra Irrigation Modernization Project Task Team Leader: Marie-Laure Lajaunie Estimated Appraisal Date: June 2, 2008 Estimated Board Date: December 16, 2008 Managing Unit: LCSEN Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Irrigation and drainage (60%);General water, sanitation and flood protection sector (35%);Agricultural extension and research (5%) Theme: Water resource management (P);Rural services and infrastructure (P) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 20.00 IDA Amount (US$m.): 0.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: Borrower 25.70 Local Farmer Organizations 4.30 30.00 Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies) Yes [ ] No [ ] 2. Project Objectives The Project development objective (PDO) is to increase the value of agricultural production in targeted irrigated areas of the Sierra through improved off-farm and on- farm irr igation infrastructure, irrigation management practices, water users’ organization, a better coordination between the irrigation scheme and the agricultural supply chains linked to it and formalization of water rights. 3. Project Description The proposed lending instrument is a Specific Investment Loan (SIL) of US$ 20 million over a five year period. The overall project cost is estimated at US$ 49 million. It would be implemented through the following components: Component A. Modernization and Rehabilitation of Collective Irrigation and Drainage Systems (Total cost US$14.98 million) This component would support eligible Water Users Organizations to improve their water supply service to farmers. More specifically, it would finance the feasibility Page 2 studies, execution and supervision of infrastructure subprojects in the collective irrigation and drainage systems. Such subprojects could include, for example, canal improvements (i.e. canal lining) and small water regulation reservoirs. It would benefit about 15,000 ha of irrigated area and 16,000 families. In order to encourage improvements in collective irrigation management, including cost recovery, and increase the likelihood of Project sustainability, only WUOs, within the 14 prioritized WUAs, reaching a minimum performance level would be eligible for Project financing under this component. Component C1 will provide capacity building to all 14 prioritized WUAs to reach this eligibility level. Only subprojects meeting a set of criteria would be eligible for Project financing. Those criteria are detailed in the PAD Annex 4 and aim, among other things, at ensuring that subprojects will: (a) contribute to improving water delivery services to farmers in a cost- effective manner; (b) be selected following a participatory process involving the water users and the regions; (c) have acceptable design standards, and (d) comply with environmental and social safeguards. Subprojects will require a financial contribution from WUOs and regional governments. Subprojects should have a total cost below US$250,000 (i.e. small to medium-size physical works). This component would also finance the feasibility studies, works/installation and supervision of works of some 150 measuring devices to be installed at the head of the hydraulic sectors defined in relation with the water user rights that will be formalized under component D1. These activities would be entirely financed by the Project. Component B. On-farm Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement (US$12.96 million) This component would support farmers, located in the 14 prioritized WUAs, in increasing irrigation performance at farm level through the installation of improved on- farm irrigation systems in areas cultivated with, or to be dedicated to, the production of high value agricultural commodities. More specifically, it would finance the feasibility studies, execution and supervision of subprojects including: (a) collective works and equipment at the tertiary level up to the farm intake and (b) works and equipments on the irrigation plots. Only subprojects meeting a set of criteria would be eligible for Project financing. Those criteria are detailed in annex 4 and aim, among other things, at ensuring that subprojects will: (a) contribute to improving on-farm irrigation management in a cost effective manner, (b) have an adequate supply of irrigation water; (c) have acceptable design standards; (d) consider environmental and social safeguards and (e) benefit the production of high-value crops with an identified market (viable business plan). Individual farmers as well as farmers groups will be able to participate in this component (see lessons learned). Farmers’ financial contribution to subproject implementation will depend on the size of the group: the bigger the group, the smaller the financial contribution required from each beneficiary. This is to favor the formation of groups for the later marketing and processing of agricultural production. The region will also participate in subproject financing. This component would improve about 4,000 ha or 1 per cent of the irrigated area in the Sierra and benefit about 4,000 farmers, as the average family property is 0.94 ha. Component C. Institutional Strengthening and Support to Production and Marketing (US$11.21 million) Page 3 Sub-component C.1. Awareness Raising and Capacity building of Water Users Organizations (US$5.71 million) This subcomponent would support three broad types of activities: (a) sensitization of water users in the territory of the 37 WUAs on some key aspects of water management; (b) a comprehensive capacity building program for the 14 prioritized WUAs and (c) the promotion of component A in the 14 prioritized WUAs. The comprehensive capacity building program has three objectives: (a) to help each WUA identify the strategic water management issues in the system and formulate action plans (including investment and training) to address them; (b) to help them achieve eligibility level for Component A; and (c) to help the WUAs and CRs improve water delivery service to farmers and, more generally, to increase their sustainability and the quality of their management. This comprehensive program will be tailored to the specific context of each WUA. Sub-component C.2. Awareness Raising and Capacity Building of Agricultural Producers and Business Groups (US$5.49 million) This subcomponent will include three broad types of activities, all in the territory of the 14 prioritized WUAs: (a) activities aimed at promoting the adoption of improved on-farm technologies; (b) technical assistance to farmers who adopt those technologies and (c) activities aimed at supporting the production and marketing of high value crops. The Project will facilitate the transition of interested farmers and groups to higher value crops and improved on-farm irrigation technologies. More generally, it will attempt to increase the value of the agricultural production by better coordinating farmers with the agricultural supply chains linked to the irrigation scheme, especially around issues such as productivity, reliability of deliveries and quality. This will entail for each irrigation scheme: (a) a diagnosis of the main high value agricultural supply chains; (b) the provision of technical assistance to help farmers and groups to formulate and implement business plans around viable agricultural supply chains; and (c) the promotion of interactions between farmers groups and key stakeholders. This activity will be implemented by PSI with locally contracted agro-business consultants and partners. It will be closely coordinated with other projects/programs in the Sierra, such as Sierra Exportadora/PROSIERRA, Aliados/MARENASS, INIA, INCAGRO and the Dirección de la Promoción Agraria of MINAG (see section C.1.on partnerships arrangements for more details). Component D. Formalization of Water Rights and Extension to the National Water Registry (US$ 7.07 million) This component would finance the formalization of about 200,000 agricultural water rights in the Sierra and their integration into the existing national water rights registry (RADA) in 20 valleys of the Sierra (see PAD Annex 4 and map 2 for the name and location of the valleys). Component E. Project Implementation Support (total cost US$ 2.80 million) This component would finance the administration, monitoring and evaluation (including baseline and impact assessment studies) and auditing of the Project and “strategic sector studies” such as feasibility studies for follow-up projects or in-depth analysis of key topics. It would also support the capacity building of PSI national and regional teams and other key stakeholders in the implementation of the Project, such as regional Page 4 Governments, in conducting, supporting and monitoring field operations financed by the Project. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis While a limited number of the Project activities (sensitization of water users, parts of component C1) will cover the entire Sierra area, in other words the jurisdiction of the 37 WUAs (about 400,000 ha of irrigated land and 400,000 irrigation water users), the majority of Project activities will only concern 14 WUAs selected for their relative level of performance and their potential for the production and commercialization of high value crops for internal urban markets and exports. These 14 WUAs are (corresponding Region in parenthesis): Abancay (Apurimac), Alto Piura-Huancabamba (Piura), Andahuaylas (Apurimac), Callejón de Huaylas (Ancash), Cachi (Ayacucho), Colca (Arequipa), Cusco (Cusco), Huancavelica (Huancavelica), Lagunillas (Puno), Mantaro and Tarma (Junin), Chonta, Condebamba and Mashcon (Cajamarca). These 14 prioritized WUAs cover an irrigated area of about 200,000 ha (about 50% of irrigated area in the Sierra) and 222,000 water users, equivalent to an average irrigated area per farmer of 0.9 ha (see PAD Annex 4, map 1, for the localization of these WUAs). Component A would benefit about 15,000 ha of irrigated land (16,000 families) and Component B about 4,000 ha (4,000 farmers) within these 14 WUAs. From a bio-physical point of view, diversity is the central feature of the Sierra, a region commonly defined as that part of the Andean mountain range with an altitude of over 2,000 meters. Between 2,000 and 4,500 meters, crops and livestock are produced in four ecological zones. At the lowest level, there are the narrow bottom sections of Andean valleys. These have, in general, good alluvial soils, a temperate to subtropical climate and the land is mostly irrigated. Up to 3,200 meters, lower temperate hills and slopes are used mainly for maize and cattle. Between 3,200 and 4,000 meters there are higher hills and the upper valley slopes. Exposed to frosts, the main crops are wheat, barley and traditional Andean grains, as well as tubers. Cattle and sheep are also kept. Finally, at above 4,000 meters are the high altitude punas, used for pasturing sheep, llamas and alpacas. Irrigation in the project area is usually characterized by low water use efficiency due to the wide use of unimproved irrigation technology, deteriorating infrastructure due to poor operation and maintenance and inadequate water pricing. Productivity is low because irrigated areas in the Sierra are mainly used for the production of low-value crops, mostly for self-consumption and yields are low. Excessive use and unsafe handling of pesticides is also a problem in some areas. Soil degradation including soil erosion and nutrient depletion affects some areas, especially the ones located on the slopes of the mountains. Increasing water scarcity is a problem, resulting in water conflicts in some of the areas and insufficient water to irrigate all the command area most years. Sustainable growth in the sierra involves tackling a number of environmental problems. Of these, the three most pressing are land degradation, water pollution (from domestic waste and mining) and the loss of biodiversity, in addition to the above-mentioned Page 5 increasing water scarcity. Land degradation is mostly manifested as soil erosion, fertility loss and the impoverishment of natural pasture.Some 52 percent of soils in the sierra are thought to be affected by moderate to severe erosion and 4 percent from very severe erosion. In the more populated areas of the sierra, a vicious circle seems to operate whereby population pressure leads to land scarcity, land scarcity leads to degradation, and degradation leads to greater population pressure. Irrespective of which agricultural growth opportunities are exploited in the Sierra, the prevention and control of land degradation has to be part of sound agriculture. Peru is one of the world's twelve most megadiverse countries. The Sierra hosts some of the largest national parks and reserves in the Andes (e.g. Huascarán NP and Salinas y Aguada Blanca Reserve). Some of the areas are still reserved zones and all are under strong pressure from people living in the buffer zones. Within Sierra agriculture, there is a highly diversified mix of crops and varieties on small farms. Some crop varieties are unique to the Sierra and practically unknown elsewhere. There are also wild varieties of native cultivars. Modern agriculture may pose a threat to this genetic wealth. The conservation and use of this crop biodiversity is important both in preventing the loss of genetic material for use by future generations and to serving the needs of today’s smallholding farmers. The conservation of biodiversity, including agro-biodiversity, is consistent with the development of niche products, and good though incipient experiences for export these products already exist in the Sierra. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Ms Katia Lucia Medeiros (ACTRT-HIS) Ms Maria Elizabeth Dasso (LCSSO) 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 Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) 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 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: A detailed Bank review of potential Project impacts, in terms of their identification, measurement, interpretation, information, and communication to information users has been conducted in a recent Bank mission (February 2008), concurring with the final step Page 6 of the Project EA preparation. Based on the findings of this mission and the experience of the on-going Irrigation Subsector Project in the Coast (PSI-II), including its recently initiated pilots in the Sierra, on balance, the Project is expected to produce neutral environmental impacts. No large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts are foreseen. Depending on the type of subprojects (on-farm or off-farm irrigation infrastructure improvements) however, it could generate positive, neutral or small negative impacts, the latter in terms of magnitude and significance, mostly temporary. O.P. 4.01â ”Environmental Assessment The Project is classified as Category B because its potential adverse environmental impacts on human populations or environmentally important areas are site-specific, reversible, and can be readily mitigated. More specifically, the works undertaken as parts of component A and B are small to medium in scale. They would consist of community work for the rehabilitation and modernization of existing irrigation schemes, the rehabilitation and construction of small dams (less than 5 meters) and the construction of new water intakes to supply existing irrigation schemes. It is not expected that any subprojects will be classified as category A due to their size or expected impacts. Potential negative impacts (mostly localized and temporary) where on-farm and off-farm irrigation schemes will be rehabilitated and/or modernized, the latter including the possibility of new and small infrastructure works, include the following: (a) soil erosion; (b) partial destruction of landscape including destruction of small spots of riparian vegetation, when existent; (c) surface and ground water pollution, from sediments, pesticide residues and fertilizers; (d) change in the environmental value of lagoons not considered as critical habitats; (e) disrupting hydrological dynamics; (f) damage to historic cultural heritage areas; and (g) noise, toxic waste, dust and air pollution from vehicular and construction activities. Given that the specific location and nature of potential subprojects to be financed under Components A and B would only be know during Project implementation, specific environmental impacts, location and magnitude cannot be ascertained and a framework approach to environment assessment was adopted. According to the EA/EMF revised by the Bank, mitigation measures have been mainstreamed in the subprojects cycle, and would require strict subprojects screening, evaluation, approval, and monitoring procedures to be incorporated into the project design. O.P. 4.09â ”Pest Management This policy is triggered because on-farm irrigation improvement (component B) on an estimated 4,000 ha should lead to the intensification of agricultural production by shifting from low-value crops to higher value crops for exports and internal urban markets, which could lead to increase use of pesticides. A Pest Management Plan has been developed by the Borrower, building upon the one for the PSI II that was recently revised (April 2007) as the project was extending its activities in four pilot areas of the Sierra. The PMP’s preparation studies identified 10 Category Ib and 9 Category II pesticides commonly used in the Sierra, i.e. highly and moderately hazardous pesticides according to WHO classification.The proposed Project (as in PSI II) would not finance the procurement of pesticides. However, these agro-chemicals might continue to be used by farmers submitting on-farm irrigation subprojects in crops which do not involve organic farming. As a result, it was agreed (and included in the EMF and PMP) that irrigation subprojects Page 7 would not be eligible if the concerned crop involves the use of WHO Category I; in the case of WHO Category II, the subproject design and its environmental assessment (informe ambiental preliminar) would describe a proposal for adoption of good practices, requiring the adoption of an IPM strategy to ensure that pest management activities are sustainable and that health and environmental risks of pesticide use are minimized and are of a level that can adequately be managed by the user. In addition, the Project (Component C) would promote training in good practices and IPM information dissemination. More specifically, in case of farmers using WHO Category II pesticides, the Project will provide more intensive training on pesticides management and distribute protection equipment to the farmers and would promote alternatives such as biological control, through strategic alliances with large agricultural exporters and/or national with national research and extension institutions. O.P. 4.04â ”Natural Habitats It is expected that the large majority of investments will take place in areas that have been traditionally dedicated to agriculture and will therefore not involve conversion of natural habitats. This Policy was triggered because a few subprojects including the rehabilitation, improvement or construction of small regulating reservoirs located upstream of the irrigation schemes could potentially lead to the inundation of high value ecosystems. Three types of activities could be financed on small regulating reservoirs: (a) rehabilitation of existing dykes, without any changes in its height; (b) increasing the height of an existing dyke or (c) construct new dykes. In all cases, dykes would be of small size, less than 5 meters in height. In addition, in areas where the Project would support rehabilitation/modernization of existing water intakes, there might be partial de- characterization of landscape including destruction of small spots of riparian vegetation, when existent, and downstream aquatic ecosystems. The Project’senvironmental management rules will explicitly forbid any Project activities in areas supporting critical natural habitats. Any activity in the buffer zone of a protected area would be designed to help reduce pressure on the protected area itself. The EA/EMF includes strict screening procedures, incorporating mechanisms to mitigate these potential adverse impacts, as well as a negative list of locations considered as critical natural habitats, to exclude those sites from project financing (see section 3 below). OP 4.11â ”Physical Cultural Resources This policy was triggered because of the prevalence of archeological and culturally significant sites and artifacts in the Sierra Region. The Project will finance small-scale works in already established agricultural zones where there is little likelihood of disturbing archaeological, paleontological, or other culturally significant sites. In any case, such impacts will be avoided through application of the subproject eligibility criteria and the safeguard screening system, and inclusion of “chance find” procedures in the contracts for any subproject involving works. The EMF includes these screening procedures, incorporating mechanisms to mitigate these potential adverse impacts, including a negative list of locations considered as culturally significant sites, to exclude those places from project financing (see section 3 below). OP/BP 4.12â ”Involuntary Resettlement Contrary to what was foreseen at the identification stage, the Project does not trigger OP/BP 4.12 because it involves no taking of land or other assets and requires no physical Page 8 relocation of populations. The subproject eligibility criteria and safeguard screening process would exclude any subproject that could involve such impacts. OP/BP 4.37 - Safety of Dams This policy was triggered because (a) some of the irrigated areas that will be improved depend on dams for their water supply and (b) some subprojects may include the construction or rehabilitation of small dams (less than 5 meters of height). For new small dams, the EMF incorporates generic dam safety measures designed by qualified engineers; for existing dams, provision for conducing dam safety reviews by independent dam safety specialists have been included. OP/BP 4.10â ”Indigen ous Peoples Since individual subprojects will only be identified during Project implementation, and because the Bank’s screening process indicates that Indigenous People are likely to be present in the Project area, but their presence cannot be determined until the subprojects are identified, the Borrower has prepared an Indigenous People Planning Framework (IPPF). The IPPF provides for the screening and review of subprojects in a manner consistent with Bank safeguards policy. When subprojects screening process indicates that Indigenous Peoples are present in the area of the subprojects, an Indigenous People Plan (IPP) will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Bank policy. The generic Terms of Reference for this IPP have been included in the IPPF. The IPPF has been prepared based on a social assessment made for six of the 14 WUAs targeted for irrigation infrastructure improvement: Ayachucho (Ayacucho), Juliaca (Puno), Colca- Chivay (Arequipa), Mantaro (Junin), Mashcón (Cajamarca) and Chonta-Cajamarquino (Cajamarca). The Borrower also developed a participatory and inclusive consultation process that accompanied the IPPF in four areas of the Project: Mantaro (Junin), Colca- Chivay (Arequipa), Juliaca (Puno) and Ayacucho (Ayacucho). Finally, the Borrower prepared an IPP as a reference to all the areas of intervention. For this IPP the area of Colca-Chivay (Arequipa) was selected for the report. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: No significant indirect or long tem or cumulative impacts are foreseen. However, as mentioned, subprojects supported under Components A and B would go through a strict screening process to ensure maximum socioeconomic and environmental benefits are accrued and any unintended negative environmental impacts are avoided or minimized, including those eventually associated to secondary or indirect and long term effects. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. One alternative considered for the project was to work intensively in the Sierra but continue with some activities in the Coast, mainly on WUOs strengthening.This alternative was rejected by the GOP who considered a priority to generate additional socioeconomic benefits in the country by concentrating resources in the Sierra, as the Coast already benefited from phases I and II of PSI. Page 9 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. O.P. 4.01â ”Environmental Assessment In accordance with this classification, an environmental assessment (EA), including an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) or Marco de Gestión Ambiental, has been prepared by the Borrower and reviewed by the Bank. The EA and EMF specifies the criteria and proceduresâ ”including operating rulesâ”that will be used during Project implementation to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts.The EA also includes a preliminary negative list of locations considered as critical habitats, within the jurisdiction of the 14 WUAs, so as to exclude those sites from project financing (a final list will be provided and submitted for Bank negative will be provided and and submitted for Bank review before Project effectiveness). For a brief description of the project environmental procedures, see PAD Annex 10. O.P. 4.09â ”Pest Management A Pest Management Plan has been prepared by the Borrower, building upon the one for the PSI II that was recently revised (April 2007) as the Project was extending its activities in four pilot areas of the Sierra. O.P. 4.04â ”Natural Habitats The EMP is explicitly forbidding any Project activities in areas supporting critical natural habitats. It also ensures that any activity in the buffer zone of a protected area would be designed to help reduce pressure on the protected area itself. The EA/ EMF includes strict screening procedures, incorporating mechanisms to mitigate these potential adverse impacts (for a brief description of these procedures, see PAD Annex 10). The EA has identified the locations and types of natural habitats in the 14 project supported irrigation districts, and a preliminary list of critical habitats, including Ramsar sites and Protected Areas managed mainly for strict protection and ecosystem conservation – National Parks and National Sanctuaries (“Santuarios Nacionales”). The final version of the Operational Manual (foreseen for January 2009, i.e. prior to Project effectiveness) will include the Project’s final/complete negative list of locations considered as critical natural habitats, so as to exclude those sites from Project financing. This final list is being finalized by the National Institute for Natural Resources (INRENA) and would stem from the provisional list of “Ecosistemas Frágiles y Ã? reas Prioritarias para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad en el Perú”. OP 4.11â ”Physical Cultural Resources The EMF includes screening procedures, incorporating mechanisms to mitigate potential adverse impacts on physical cultural resources and inclusion of “chance find” procedures in the contracts for any subproject involving works. As mentioned above, the EMF (and the Operational Manual) includes a preliminary negative list of locations considered as culturally significant sites, to exclude those places from project financing. The final version of the Operational Manual (foreseen for January 2009, i.e. prior to Project effectiveness) will include the Project’s final/complete negative list of locations. OP/BP 4.12â ”Involuntary Resettlement The Project does not trigger OP/BP 4.12 because it involves no taking of land or other assets and requires no physical relocation of populations. The subproject eligibility criteria and safeguard screening process would exclude any subproject that could involve such impacts. Page 10 OP/BP 4.37 - Safety of Dams For new small dams, the EMF incorporates generic dam safety measures designed by qualified engineers; for existing dams, provision for conducing dam safety reviews by independent dam safety specialists have been included. OP/BP 4.10â ”Indigenous Peoples Since individual subprojects will only be identified during Project implementation, and because the Bank’s screening process indicates that Indigenous People are likely to be present in the Project area, but their presence cannot be determined until the subprojects are identified, the Borrower has prepared an Indigenous People Planning Framework (IPPF). The Borrower conducted free, prior and informed consultations with potential affected communities during the preparation stage of the Project. The IPPF provides for the screening and review of subprojects in a manner consistent with Bank safeguards policy. When subprojects screening process indicates that Indigenous Peoples are present in the area of the subprojects, a rapid social assessment and Indigenous People Plan will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Bank policy. The generic Terms of Reference for this social assessment and IPP were included in the IPPF. It is important to highlight that the IPPF was prepared based on the results of six social assessments of the 14 WUAs targeted for irrigation infrastructure improvement, they are: Ayacucho (Ayacucho), Juliaca (Puno), Colca - Chivay (Arequipa), Mantaro (Junin), Mashcón (Cajamarca) y Chonta-Cajamarquino (Cajamarca). The Borrower also developed a participatory and inclusive consultation process that accompanied the IPPF in four areas of the project, Mantaro (Junin), Colca - Chivay (Arequipa), Juliaca (Puno), and Ayacucho (Ayacucho). Finally, the Borrower prepared an IPP as a reference to all the areas of intervention. For this IPP the area of Colca - Chivay (Arequipa) was selected for the report. Borrower’s capacity to plan and implement measures described above PSI capacity will have to be strengthened in order to implement the measures described above. The existing EA capacity established within PSI II will be increased with four staff to support subprojects EA review in the Sierra (one at the central level and three at the regional level). It is also foreseen that the Project will hire three social specialists at the regional level. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Main stakeholders in the areas of the Project are: (i) the water users and water users organization associations, informal and formalized groups; (ii) farmers and farmers’ groups (iii) local authorities, mayor and presidents of the regions; (iv) local civil society organizations, NGOs, thematic groups, task force groups, networks and consortiums; (v) women and youth organizations, (vi) think tank and academy sector working in rural development, irrigation and agriculture. The mechanism for consultations of civil society organizations and stakeholders are mainly workshops and focus groups organized by areas of intervention, such as irrigation, agriculture, commercialization, environment, national resources and rural development. Page 11 Consultations can be more productive when the selection of participants focused on areas of intervention and site of action. The EA report, PMP, EMP, SAs and IPPF was subject to public consultation meetings with a broad range of stakeholders in which environmental issues (potential environmental impacts and benefits) have been discussed. The EA is available at: (i) the PSI home page indicated below; (ii) INRENA’s library; (ii) INRENA’s EA Unit (OGATEIRN); and MINAG’s central archive. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 04/08/2008 Date of "in-country" disclosure 04/07/2008 Date of submission to InfoShop 05/29/2008 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? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 03/06/2008 Date of "in-country" disclosure 03/05/2008 Date of submission to InfoShop 05/29/2008 Pest Management Plan: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 03/06/2008 Date of "in-country" disclosure 03/05/2008 Date of submission to InfoShop 05/29/2008 * If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources, 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 Page 12 Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? Yes If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? Yes Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? Yes OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats? No 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? N/A OP 4.09 - Pest Management Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues? Yes Is a separate PMP required? Yes If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a safeguards specialist or SM? Are PMP requirements included in project design? If yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? Yes OP/BP 4.11 - Physical Cultural Resources Does the EA include adequate measures related to cultural property? Yes Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on cultural property? Yes OP/BP 4.10 - Indigenous Peoples Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework (as appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples? Yes If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? Yes If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been reviewed and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit or Sector Manager? N/A OP/BP 4.37 - Safety of Dams Have dam safety plans been prepared? N/A Have the TORs as well as composition for the independent Panel of Experts (POE) been reviewed and approved by the Bank? N/A Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) been prepared and arrangements been made for public awareness and training? N/A The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop? No Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? No All Safeguard Policies Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Yes Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project cost? Yes Page 13 Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Yes Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? Yes D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Ms Marie-Laure Lajaunie 05/29/2008 Environmental Specialist: Ms Katia Lucia Medeiros 05/27/2008 Social Development Specialist Ms Maria Elizabeth Dasso 05/27/2008 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Sector Manager: Ms Laura E. Tlaiye 05/29/2008 Comments: