Page 1 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 08/18/2010 Report No.: 56259 1. Basic Project Data Country: Ghana Project ID: P098538 Project Name: Sustainable Land and Water Managment Task Team Leader: Stephen Ling GEF Focal Area: Land degradation Global Supplemental ID: Estimated Appraisal Date: July 19, 2010 Estimated Board Date: November 9, 2010 Managing Unit: AFTEN Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Agricultural extension and research (100%) Theme: Land administration and management (100%) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 0.00 IDA Amount (US$m.): 0.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 8.15 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: BORROWER/RECIPIENT 7.80 Local Communities 0.00 Bilateral Agencies (unidentified) 0.00 Foreign Multilateral Institutions (unidentified) 0.00 Non-Government Organization (NGO) of Borrowing Country 0.00 7.80 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 Project Development Objective / Global Environment Objective: To (a) demonstrate improved sustainable land and water management practices aimed at reducing land degradation and enhancing maintenance of biodiversity in selected micro-watersheds, and (b) strengthen spatial planning for identification of linked watershed investments in the Northern Savanna region of Ghana. Key indicators for PDO/GEO: # Area of land in selected micro-watersheds under new sustainable land and watershed management (SLWM) technologies (ha). # Management effectiveness according to METT score in Gbele Resource Reserve and Wuru Kayero & Wahabu Wiasi corridor sites (score, disaggregated). # Pre-feasibility studies conducted for new large-scale multipurpose water storage investments (number). Page 2 3. Project Description The Ghana Sustainable Land and Water management project will be a five-year GEF grant (from both the Land Degradation Focal Area [US$ 7.15 million] and the Biodiversity Focal Area [US$ 1 million]) to the Government of Ghana. The grant will be associated with the Social Opportunities Project (SOP), a SIL, and linked with (i) the Natural Resource and Environmental Governance Program (NREG III), a multidonor budget support operation which tackles land degradation policy issues in the environment, forestry and mining sectors, and (ii) the Agriculture budget support operation (AgDPO II) which promotes SLWM policy in agricultural land. The Project has three integrated components: Component 1: Capacity building for integrated spatial planning ($1.0m from GEF) This component will provide integrated spatial planning tools to strengthen the capacity of Savanna Accelerated Development Authority and relevant implementing agencies to guide and undertake decision-making for investment across the northern savanna region. Spatial planning will take into account ecological features and watershed functions and is expected to result in the identification of both large-scale water and flood management infrastructure investments, and the community and individually based land and natural resource management programs that should complement them. Component 2: Water & Land Management ($5.95m from GEF): This component will fund technical assistance, equipment, incremental operating costs, and direct incentives (a mixture of inputs and direct payments) to support community flood and land management at the micro-watershed level, including both management of agricultural land and ecological infrastructure. It will also be integrated with labor- intensive civil works investments in small-scale flood & water management infrastructure through the Social Opportunities Project to provide for a comprehensive approach. Subcomponent 2.1: Strengthening capacities of districts and rural communities for micro-watershed and land use planning (0.75m) This subcomponent will (1) strengthen the capacity of district agencies in micro- watershed management techniques, and to conduct a participatory micro-watershed planning exercise; and (2) strengthen the organizational and planning capacity of communities and local government through conducting the participatory exercises. Subcomponent 2.2: Systems and capacity to promote SLWM. ($1.2m) This subcomponent will design systems and put in place local extension capacity to promote SLWM technologies on the ground, specifically encouraging experimentation with the design of incentive packages: # Development of SLWM menu of options, manual & environmental index. An environmental services index will be devised that allocates to each SLWM technology package a composite score related to the basket of environmental services it provides. The level of support available for each option will be linked to this index under a framework based on concepts of payment for environmental services. Page 3 # Develop district extension approaches and incentive structures for promoting SLWM. Packages of incentives will be designed for farmers, conditioned on SLWM agreements signed with individual farmers (and in some cases communities) of their own free will. Output-based incentives for farmers will be included for evaluation as part of the incentive mix, but other forms of support (including training, assistance with inputs and potentially equipment) will also be included. # Build capacity of extension services to develop and support SLWM contracts with local farmers. A SLWM training program and set of training materials for extension service providers will be developed, and a capacity strengthening program will be conducted with extensionists. Subcomponent 2.3: Implementation of SLWM in micro-watersheds ($3.0m) This component will finance operational costs of extension service providers and subprojects (a mixture of inputs in the form of goods and services, and potentially small works for construction of environmentally benign water-harvesting structures) for adoption of SLWM technologies by farmers. Develop, monitor & verify performance under SLWM contracts. Operational costs will be provided for District staff to establish SLWM contracts with participating farmers, specifying the support to be received in return for implementing the technology. District staff will also monitor contract performance on an annual basis. To address risks of collusion, an independent verification of SLWM contracts will be carried out, on a sample basis, to certify District monitoring. Support individual SLWM agreements. This will finance support directly to farmers under SLWM contracts, including demonstration and training, input subsidies and direct incentive payments. Support would be conditioned on improvements in environmental services associated with changes in land use, as measured by the environmental index devised under subcomponent 2.2. The contract period and amount of the payments will be related to the economics of specific SLWM technologies. Linking soft and hard community SLWM investments. GEF activities will complement associated small-scale infrastructure investments through the IDA Social Opportunities Project. Subcomponent 2.4: Management of riparian biological corridors ($1m GEF [Biodiversity window]) This subcomponent will support natural habitat and wildlife management activities focused on maintaining and enhancing key habitat values as part of the broader approach to watershed management. Activity 1: Implementation of Corridor Management Plan in the Western Corridor ($0.6m) The approaches taken in the corridors and wider watersheds will begin with a community-level planning exercise, with emphasis on building of community institutions Page 4 for the establishment of Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs) in the corridors. Direct support will be provided to two sites for: 1. Creation and operationalization of CREMAs 2. Promoting Ecotourism 3. Training of Local Communities 4. Awareness Creation for Wildfire Management Activity 2: Support to Gbele Resource Reserve Management ($0.4m). This will implement selected activities within the Tourism and Waterhole development plans that support project objectives, including: 1. Ecological Studies and Monitoring 2. Training and Capacity building in Fire Management 3. Establishing waterholes for wildlife use Subcomponent 2.5: Monitoring SLWM & environmental services ($0.5m GEF) This component will finance monitoring and evaluation activities that will link local activities to national SLWM objectives, to strengthen their broader impact and replicability. This includes the monitoring of environmental services generated in the project area, monitoring of national SLWM policy implementation, and evaluation of the potential for PES markets to support SLWM investments after the project. Component 3: Project management and coordination ($1.2m from GEF [Land Degradation]) This component will support technical assistance, operating costs and where necessary equipment for incremental project management and coordination activities. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis The project location is within the northern savanna region of Ghana, and more specifically within the sub-watersheds of the main tributaries of the White Volta that flow into northern Ghana from Burkhina Faso, and the wildlife corridors within them, particularly the corridor joining Gbele Resource Reserve with Mole National Park, and then linking these with Nazinga Reserve in Burkhina Faso along the Sisilli River. Most of the project area falls within the Guinea Savanna zone, although activities may extend into a small area of Sudan Savanna in the extreme northeast corner of the country. The Guinea and Sudan Savanna zones are both characterized by a unimodal rainfall regime lasting from April to October, although mean annual rainfall is higher in the Guinea Savanna zone (1000-1200 mm), than in the Sudan Savanna (900-1000 mm) The period between November and March is dry and characterized by the desiccating harmattan winds, rendering the zone prone to bush fires. The mean annual maximum temperature ranges from 33°C to 35°C with a minimum of about 22°C. The length of the growing period is 180-200 days for the Guinea savanna, and 150-160 days for the Sudan savanna. Most of the area consists of a gently rolling plain with average heights between 180 and 300 masl, overlying granitic and gneissic rocks. The soils of these areas, including ground-water laterites and savanna ochrosols, are moderately fertile but erosion is a serious problem. Page 5 Due to challenging agricultural and climate conditions, and limited transport access, poverty is concentrated in the north, which holds 53.7% of Ghanaians living in extreme poverty, but only 17.2% of the population overall. Most inhabitants are food crop producers and the small scale family holding is the basic unit of production. Most individuals have user rights to land which is owned by traditional land owners (Tindanas). Livestock are mostly grazed on communal lands without restriction within a community. Cattle ownership is of importance to socio-economic status, and as a result most owners put an emphasis on herd size rather than quality. There is potential for conflict between settled agriculturists and itinerant pastoralists, mostly Fulani coming from outside of Ghana, although some pastoralists are employed by locals to tend their cattle. Suitable farming land is a major constraint, and increasing population pressure is leading to intensified and unsustainable cropping, as well as other activities such as game hunting and charcoal burning. Intensification without modification of traditional practices is leading to land degradation and soil erosion through depletion of nutrients and loss of vegetation cover (partly due to burning practices). Natural vegetation is also being lost through bushfires, illegal logging and encroachment of forest reserves. Reduced infiltration and siltation of rivers lessen water availability, which in turn increases sensitivity to erosion. All of the north is at high to severe risk of land degradation, and the associated social vulnerability may well be most severe there because: (i) the north is also prone to severe flooding which is not only exacerbated by land degradation, but also reduces the area of reliable agricultural land; (ii) extreme poverty restricts access to alternative livelihoods or more resilient production systems; and (iii) the northern savanna is likely to be one of the regions most impacted by climate change. The Gbele Resource Reserve provides a fairly good example of unmodified Guinea Savanna habitat, with a large number/variety of woody and other species and a grass layer 3 m tall during the rainy season. The fruits of sheanut and dawadawa trees, many species of grasses, used for thatch, brooms and mats, medicinal plants and other edible plant and fruits are important to local people. Gbele also has a rich bird fauna and a study in 2005 showed that there are about 194 species. The reserve contains a number of large ungulates and primates, but densities are lower than the nearby Mole National Park, and many of the most charismatic species, such as large carnivores, elephant and buffalo are absent or extremely rare. The wildlife corridors and other remaining semi-natural habitat areas have a similar composition, but represent various levels of degradation, particularly from hunting, cutting of trees for wood fuel, grazing and over-burning. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Mr George Campos Ledec (AFTEN) Ms Paula F. Lytle (AFTCS) Page 6 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: Although 5 safeguards policies have been triggered, negative social and environmental impacts of activities are expected to be minor. In general, impacts should be positive as the overall aim is to improve land, water and natural habitat management through technologies which also benefit participating communities and individuals. In order to be included in the menu of options for application during the project, an SLM technology will first need to judged to have a clear (and potentially quantifiable) environmental benefit, which will be denoted by its score on an environmental services index. The index will be formulated by an expert panel. OP/BP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment) applies. An Environmental Analysis and Management Plan (EAMP) has been developed and is in place to guide mitigation of potential identified risks. While most SLM activities are not expected to generate any significant adverse environmental and social impacts, some activities may result in mainly site-specific and small-scale consequences, if no appropriate mitigation measures are incorporated in sub-project design. E.g.: (i) Care must be taken to avoid introducing species through SLM techniques that could become invasive or adversely impact soil water balance. Species will be carefully selected for on farm integration based on experience from other similar environments. (ii) Introduction of improved farming systems could encourage increased use of inorganic fertilizers. SLM technologies will therefore incorporate integrated fertility management. (iii) SLM technologies linked to dry season irrigation have the potential to increase water extraction, thus affecting downstream flows. The project will only support interventions that credibly improve overall hydrological services, improving efficiency of irrigations systems and establishing local regulations and enforcement by water users associations. (iv) Fire control can damage natural systems and be counterproductive if applied overly rigidly. The project will therefore support fire reduction and management to more closely approximate natural fire ecologies, rather than outright fire suppression. Page 7 (v) Construction of water points for wildlife could potentially impact surrounding natural habitats and if poorly situated encourage human-wildlife conflict. Guidelines will be provided for their location and design, along with rules for contractors, including sourcing of construction material and provision of access to construction sites. Although unlikely, a PCR chance finds procedure will be put in place for all small works as a precautionary good practice. The EAMP will describe the processes to ensure all these considerations are adequately incorporated in project activities, and also define a negative list of activities that cannot be supported under the project to avoid unintended environmental impact. It has been disclosed publicly in Ghana and the Bank's Infoshop. OP/BP 4.04 (Natural Habitats) and OP/BP 4.36 (Forests) apply. The project will operate in and around natural habitats and in forests. The project is not expected to have any adverse effects on forests and other natural habitats, on the contrary the aim is to improve community-based natural habitat management, including through fire management, as well as improving the productive quality of agricultural land, which should reduce pressures for unsustainable exploitation. OP/BP 4.09 (Pest Management) applies. Introduction of improved farming systems could encourage increased use of pesticides as farmers strive to increase agricultural production, even though the Project will not finance these. A simple Pest Management Plan is therefore incorporated in to the EAMP to explain how integrated pest management techniques will be included within those SLM technologies that may present some risk in this regard. OP/BP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement) applies. No land acquisition or involuntary resettlement is envisaged and no new government protected areas are being established. However, watershed management activities in CREMAs will be community driven, and OP 4.12 has been triggered and a Resettlement Process Framework prepared. With the variety of SLM options that will be available, there are potentials for access to resources to be restricted, possibly resulting in negative impact on livelihoods as the result of community-level choices. Restrictions of access to natural resources are possible through the establishment of CREMA management systems. The process framework describes the community based participatory process by which project components will be prepared and implemented, what mitigation measures will apply and the grievance redress process. The RPF has been prepared and disclosed publicly in Ghana and the Bank's Infoshop. In some cases, communities and tindanas (customary landowners) may determine to set aside as a protective riverine buffer, or community woodlots, requiring tenant farmers to vacate. In such cases, community action will make available other suitable land available for lease to the affected farmers. A broad social assessment was carried out during preparation, and a more detailed social baseline will be established in project areas during implementation. A Resettlement Policy Framework was earlier prepared and disclosed publicly in conjunction with the associated Social Opportunities project which will support civil works and small-scale infrastructure. Page 8 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: This Project falls into Category B. No long-term adverse impacts were identified in the prepared safeguards instruments, the EAMP and RPF. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. Not relevant 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. Ghana has developed institutional capacity for relevant safeguards policies in various sectoral ministries with the satisfactory implementation of safeguards instruments under previous Bank operations, including related projects such as the Community-Based Rural Development Project and the Northern Savanna Biodiversity Conservation project, implemented through the same front-line agencies as will be involved in this project. Whilst lacking direct experience of implementing World Bank projects, the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, through the Environment Protection Agency, oversees national environmental safeguards policies as well as the design of safeguards measures for World Bank projects under other ministries. The EPA has cleared the EAMP and RPF, on behalf of the Government of Ghana. MEST, with support from the EPA, will be responsible for ensuring appropriate inclusion of safeguards procedures in project manuals, reviewing investment plans for compliance and monitoring of safeguards performance overall. Districts and the Forestry Commission offices implementing activities on the ground will be responsible for implementation of safeguards measures reflected in the safeguards documents and various sections of the project implementation manual (PIM) and operational manual. The Technical Coordination Office Unit (TCO) will have responsibility for monitoring the safeguards performance of front-line implementing agencies, as well as ensuring that suitable material is incorporated into training programs. Safeguards issues will be specifically addressed in project reporting formats, and on the basis of work plans, the TCO will identify activities and settings where safeguards issues are a particular risk, and focus its monitoring and oversight activities on those. The TCO will also establish and maintain a complaints and response database, based on the complaints resolution system designed under the safeguards documents. The EPA & SADA will ensure that all project-supported prefeasibility or other planning studies of new large-scale water storage or flood protection investments will include due attention to the potential project specific and cumulative environmental impacts. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. During the preparation of the Project, consultations meetings were organized with District representatives, NGOs and local communities. During the consultations all Page 9 applicable Project procedures were presented and discussed extensively, including the applicable safeguard policies and review procedures. Community activities will be developed and approved through consultative processes for both micro-watershed and CREMA planning. The project will not fund any investment that is not acceptable to the majority of villagers involved, or SLWM agreements not acceptable to all land owners and farmers directly affected. Decisions on the use of funds are made by community members themselves, through a negotiation process, and with information provided by project facilitators and technicians. The EAMP and RPF were publicly disclosed on 29th April 2010, at the InfoShop in Washington. The reports are also publically available from MEST/EPA in Accra. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 04/27/2010 Date of "in-country" disclosure 05/05/2010 Date of submission to InfoShop 04/29/2010 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 04/27/2010 Date of "in-country" disclosure 05/05/2010 Date of submission to InfoShop 04/29/2010 Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Pest Management Plan: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 04/27/2010 Date of "in-country" disclosure 05/05/2010 Date of submission to InfoShop 04/29/2010 * 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: Page 10 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 4.04 - 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? No 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? N/A OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? Yes If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? Yes OP/BP 4.36 - Forests Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional issues and constraints been carried out? Yes Does the project design include satisfactory measures to overcome these constraints? Yes Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, does it include provisions for certification system? N/A 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 form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? Yes 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 Yes Page 11 monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? 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 Stephen Ling 08/04/2010 Environmental Specialist: Mr George Campos Ledec 08/04/2010 Social Development Specialist Ms Paula F. Lytle 08/04/2010 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Sector Manager: Ms Idah Z. Pswarayi-Riddihough 08/05/2010 Comments: