Page 1 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 08/27/2009 Report No.: AC4258 1. Basic Project Data Country: Botswana Project ID: P095617 Project Name: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project Task Team Leader: Juan Gaviria GEF Focal Area: Biodiversity Global Supplemental ID: Estimated Appraisal Date: July 15, 2009 Estimated Board Date: December 1, 2009 Managing Unit: AFTEN Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (100%) Theme: Biodiversity (50%);Other environment and natural resources management (25%);Rural non-farm income generation (25%) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 0.00 IDA Amount (US$m.): 0.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 5.50 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: BORROWER/RECIPIENT 14.10 14.10 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 [X] 2. Project Objectives The Project's Global Environment/Development Objective is to enhance coexistence between rural communities and key wildlife species in Northern Botswana through proactive Human Wildlife Conflict prevention and skills development for nature-based tourism. The GEF Project will enhance the Department of Wildlife and Natural Parks' (DWNP) overall operational capacity and will assist subsistence farmers in Northern Botswana to mitigate wildlife conflict through proactive prevention strategies. It will further offer local people employment choices and increasing opportunities to benefit from the presence of wildlife. By improving adequate responses to HWC and complementing other development partners' interventions the Project will contribute directly to rural economic and social development and impact positively on biodiversity conservation and ecosystem function. 3. Project Description The Project will comprise three related components. Page 2 Component 1: Strengthened extension service delivery for Human Wildlife Co- existence strategies (GEF: US$ 1.15 million, GoB: US$ 5.8 million). Activities that will be financed under this component include: (i) Training for national and district based staff in strategic and operations management; (ii) Implementation support, community mobilization and training in proactive HWC interventions for DWNP staff; (iii) Implementation support for safeguard policies; (iv) Support for development and provision of training in Management Oriented Monitoring Systems (MOMS) and Decision Support Systems (DDS); (v) Provision of a geo- information-systems (GIS), GPS and related training; (vi) Provision of IT and office equipment as well as vehicles for HWC related extension activities; and (vii) Support to develop a Green Paper and a White Paper on Human-Wildlife-Coexistence strategies. Component 2: Strengthened Capacity of Targeted Communities to implement Human Wildlife Co-existence strategies (GEF: US$ 3.81 million and GoB US$8.31 million. Activities that will be financed under this component include: (i) Training for local community members in Operations Management (i.e for Community Trust Members), MOMs (Management Oriented Monitoring Systems) and DSS (Decision Support Systems); (ii) Support for proactive HEC prevention with demonstration plots and scaling up support for chili-pepper deterrent techniques, including technical assistance and provision of training by experienced service providers, distribution of elephant restraining kits, support for initial chili-pepper cultivation, extension and monitoring;(iii) Support for the piloting and eventually rolling out less conventional prevention strategies like early maturing seeds (sorghum, maize, millet and cowpeas) as a mechanism to support HEC mitigation; (iv) Support for improved kraaling and herding to mitigate livestock-predator conflict particularly caused by lions and the use of herding dogs as additional preventive devices for mid-size predators; (v) The construction of solar- powered elephant restraining fence lines (including solar units) to manipulate elephant spatial use and reduce conflict as well as piloting the use of bees as a means to deter elephants and support for an alternate food/income source; and(vi) Skills development for tourism-related employment, including wildlife guides, chefs, waiters/waitresses, restaurant and/or lodge managers, receptionists and accountant/book-keepers. Component 3: Project management support (GEF: US$ 0.54 million and GoB: US$ 0.86 million). Activities that will be financed under component 3 include: (i) Support for Project administration, including procurement and financial management and related training for DWNP staff; (ii)Logistical support, IT and office equipment for Project coordination; and (iii Development of a communication strategy including the establishment of a permanent dissemination forum, a Project launch workshop, and bi- annually discussions thereafter. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis The three Project sites comprise thirteen villages with a projected population of over 12,000 people (based on 2001 census data with projections to 2011). These villages are located along the three primary and critical wetlands in Botswana. In the Okavango Delta Panhandle these are the villages of Seronga, Beetsha, Eretsha, Gudigwa, and Gunitsoga. Page 3 In the Chobe-Linyanti wetlands these villages are Mabele, Kavimba, Satau, Parakarungu, Kachikau, and Lesoma. In the Makgadikgadi wetlands, these villages are Kumaga and Moreomaoto. Further, the Project areas are in the vicinity to the following protected areas: (i) Moremi Game Reserve and Kwando Wildlife Management Area; (ii) Chobe National Park and Chobe Forest Reserve; and (iii) Makgadikgadi Pans National Park and Nxai Pan National Park. More precisely, Project sites are situated in Wildlife Management Areas (WMA), which were established to serve as migratory corridors for wildlife between the network of parks and reserves. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Mr Jorge E. Uquillas Rodas (AFTQK) Mr Karsten Feuerriegel (AFTEN) 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: Two safeguard policies are triggered by the proposed Project including OP 4.01 (environmental assessment) and 4.10 (indigenous people). Given the demand-driven nature of the Project and the fact that subprojects will be more specifically designed and implemented only after project effectiveness, an Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) have been prepared with relevance to OP 4.01 and OP 4.10. The ESMF and the IPPF have been disclosed in-country and internationally. The Project will support the implementation of these mitigation instruments (see PAD Annex 10). The project will not finance any activity involving involuntary land acquisition, leading to physical relocation or compensation. Rather, it is designed to prevent any of these effects. Therefore, strict screening mechanisms are included to that effect in the project's ESMF and, as a result, no mitigation measure was identified. Page 4 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: No significant adverse impacts on the environment were identified. Also, project activities will not result in any physical resettlement and therefore the Project will not finance any resettlement related activity. It is not anticipated that Project activities will in any manner restrict local people in access to natural resources. Subprojects under component 2, such as Chili pepper deterrents and solar-powered electric wiring for example are targeted to restrain specifically elephant and their design will neither restrict human or livestock movements. Project activities will assist the GoB to enable local populations to continuously engage in subsistence agriculture and livestock activities in Wildlife Management Areas without imposing additional restrictions to natural resources. Furthermore, all Project interventions are voluntary for local people and the result of consultation processes, all of which would continue during Project implementation. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. The Chili-peppered deterrent fences and the solar-powered electric wiring at 2 meters of height are preferred over more expensive structural fences given that the wiring restrains specifically elephants but not human or livestock movements. 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. The Borrower has prepared and adopted an ESMF and an IPPF for the Project. Both will be implemented by DWNP. The ESMF sets out the kinds of eligible subprojects to be financed, arrangements for project coordination and implementation, and environmental and social management requirements. These include environmental assessment requirements, provisions for the active participation of communities, and provisions that ensure that project implementation does not have negative impacts. Due to DWNP's limited experience and capacity to implement the two triggered safeguard policies, provisions for capacity building, training and technical assistance are also included, together with a budget for implementing these provisions and guidelines for annual reviews of the Project. In order to prepare and screen subprojects and ensure adequate implementation of the ESMF and IPPF the DWNP will deploy some 80 staff in the Project areas all of which will need training in environmental and social safeguards as well as implementing the ESMF and IPPF. If required external support will be placed in the PCU inter alia to facilitate the development and implementation of IPPF activities where necessary for screening subproject-supported activities, monitoring the effects on all beneficiaries including Indigenous Peoples, preparing an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP), and addressing any grievances. If need arises, a local NGO with expertise in San culture and issues of wildlife conflict will be subcontracted to assist with IPP implementation. Implementation of the ESMF and IPPF will not require major costs, except for capacity building of project staff dealing with social issues and the cost of preparation of an IPP subproject. All costs required to implement the IPP and/or EMP will be incorporated in Page 5 the relevant subproject budget (Component 2). In any case, US$ 75,000 is allocated in the Project budget for DWNP to procure ESMF/IPPF implementation support and safeguard facilitation respectively (Component 1). Procedures for preparing, screening, approving and implementing subprojects are outlined in the ESMF, together with their monitoring and evaluation. ESMF Annex 1 presents an ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CHECKLIST which is compulsory before any subproject can be considered for approval. The application is complete, if all significant environmental and social issues are resolved, and no further subproject planning is required otherwise a field appraisal is required. When a subproject includes distinct HWC mitigation measures such as physical works or management activities an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) needs to be included with the subproject application. Activities triggering an EMP are listed in the checklist in Annex 1 and Annex 2 presents GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING AN EMP and Annex 3 an example of an EMP for a subproject. An IPP is prepared in a flexible and pragmatic manner, and its level of detail varies depending on the specific project and the nature of effects to be addressed. The IPP includes the following elements, as needed: (i) A summary of the social assessment; (ii) A summary of results of the free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigen ous Peoples’ communities that was carried out during subproject project preparation and that led to broad community support for the subproject; (iii) A framework for ensuring free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities during subproject implementation; (iv)An action plan of measures to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate, including, if necessary, measures to enhance the capacity of the subproject implementing agencies; (v) When potential adverse effects on Indigenous Peoples are identified, an appropriate action plan which includes measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for these adverse effects; (vi) The cost estimates and financing plan for the IPP; (vii) Accessible procedures appropriate to the subproject to address grievances by the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities arising from subproject implementation. When designing the grievance procedures, the borrower takes into account the availability of judicial recourse and customary dispute settlement mechanisms among the Indigenous Peoples; and (viii) Mechanisms and benchmarks appropriate to the subproject for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on the implementation of the IPP. The monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should include arrangements for the free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities. The consultation and participation of Indigenous Peoples will be ensured in formulation of the IPP/subproject to ensure that it adequately deal with their needs, priorities, and preference. Indigenous Peoples will be provided with relevant project information in language(s) and manner suitable to them. Separate focus group discussions will be carried out to assess the subproject impacts and benefits to these groups. Accordingly, Page 6 the IPP/subproject will be prepared in consultation with the beneficiaries. The outcome of social assessment and IPP will be presented in community workshops/meetings. The Project shall make available the following documents to the project-affected indigenous peoples and disclose to the public: (i) A draft IPP, before subproject appraisal; (ii) A final IPP, after completion of such an IPP; and (iii) The revised IPP, following the detailed technical design or change in scope in the subproject. The PCU will establish a quarterly monitoring system to monitor the implementation of IPP(s) against a set of monitoring indicators determined during IPP preparation. A survey of existing socio-economic status and cultural practices of Indigenous Peoples, which will be carried out during subproject feasibility study/design, will be the basis for establishing the baseline data to monitor the project impacts on Indigenous Peoples. The PCU will prepare quarterly monitoring reports, post them on its website, and submit to the Bank for its review. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Community consultations have been important in the preparation of this Project. Project preparation has involved a series of village level meetings following the traditional kgotla format to discu ss local level priorities, experiences and concerns regarding the proposed project design, finance and implementation. These meetings carried out several times in the 13 selected villages involved a call by the Village Chief to all members of the community when the project team or consultants visited the project area. Care was taken to avoid community fatigue especially since the preparation took longer than anticipated. The PC has taken a lead role during the consultations including the preparation of the Social and Environment Assessment, Institutional Assessment, Feasibility Study of Community Investments as well as general consultation required for project design. The consultants contracted for the Social and Environmental Assessment carried out consultations which are documented in their report (see Annex 10). In addition to the village levelœkgotla? meetings, there were District level Workshops which always included village and District level stakeholders. Based on the village and District level consultation a National Workshop is being planned for May 2009 with local representation to discuss the PAD. The National Workshop will allow the project team to present the final PAD for comments in order to secure a feedback mechanism to participants regarding the process which will continue during Project Implementation. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 02/15/2009 Date of "in-country" disclosure 04/03/2009 Page 7 Date of submission to InfoShop 06/04/2009 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 02/15/2009 Date of "in-country" disclosure 04/03/2009 Date of submission to InfoShop 03/31/2009 Pest Management Plan: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop * 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 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 4.10 - 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? Yes The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop? Yes Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a Yes Page 8 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 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 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: Mr Juan Gaviria 04/20/2009 Environmental Specialist: Mr Karsten Feuerriegel 07/22/2009 Social Development Specialist Mr Jorge E. Uquillas Rodas Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Mr Jean-Christophe Carret Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Mr Warren Waters 04/20/2009 Comments: Sector Manager: Ms Marjory-Anne Bromhead 05/15/2009 Comments: