Page 1 Page 2 - 2 - - Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (ISDS) Section I – Basic Information Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: March 12, 2004 Report No.:AC258 A. Basic Project Data A.1. Project Statistics Country: Kenya Project ID: P082396 Project: Kenya Agricultural Productivity Project TTL: Moctar Toure Total project cost (by component): 1. Policy and institutional reforms 6.3 million 2. Support to extension system reform 3.4 million 3. Support to research system reform 25.0 million 4. Support to farmer/client empowerment 5.3 million Appraisal Date: March 1, 2004 Loan/Credit/Grant amount($m): IDA-Credit: 27 IDA-Grant 13 Board Date: May 27, 2004 Other financing amounts by source: ($m.) Managing Unit: AFTS2 Sector: Agriculture (100%) Lending Instruments: Adaptable Program Loan Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency recovery? Yes? [ ] No? [ X ] Environmental Category: C Safeguard Classification: S3 A.2. Project Objectives The project’s development objective is to improve the system supporting generation, dissemination, and adoption of agricultural technology through: (a) reforms in extension to increase pluralism, responsiveness to clients, and participation by private providers; (b) evolutionary change in the existing system of agricultural research to improve accountability and impact; and, (c) increased empowerment of producer organizations to influence the planning, design, implementation, funding and monitoring and evaluation of research, extension, training and capacity building activities . Key performance indicators: Phase I results will be monitored by the following performance indicators: • Increase in awareness and use of recommended varieties; • Increase in farm incomes among immediate project beneficiaries; • Increase in adoption of soil fertility and water management improvement practices among immediate beneficiaries; • Enhanced conditions of the targeted watershed/catchment areas as measured by the adoption of sediment storage measures, and river bank protection measures; • Increase in KARI patented processes and registered varieties; Page 3 - 3 - - • Rates of participation in the various fora created under the project, and reports from participants on the effectiveness of the for a; • Progress in design of the national extension policy and related enactments. The project will contribute to the Bank’s overarching CAS goal of helping to reverse Kenya’s decline in economic growth and equity. The project is closely aligned with Kenya’s ERS/PRSP, which is centered around three pillars: economic growth with macroeconomic stability, equity and poverty reduction, and improved governance. The project supports these goals by contributing to: (i) higher farm incomes through increased adoption of profitable and environmentally sound technologies, particularly among smallholders and subsistence farmers; (ii) raising the productivity of public investments; (iii) improving the climate for private investment in agriculture and for private provision of agricultural services; and (iv) clarifying options and actions to improve the policy and regulatory framework in agriculture. The project will also support the Government’s effort to shift authority and responsibility to local governments as part of the process of decentralization. A.3. Project Description Component 1: Facilitation of Policy and Institutional Reforms The first component will support establishment of the institutional framework required to increase agricultural productivity in Kenya. It will be organically linked to the institutional framework set up by the Government to implement its new Strategy to Revitalize Agriculture (SRA). Activities will include creation of coordination structures and consultative fora, and provision of resources for these entities and the government more generally to develop and/or access the informational base required to guide action. The project will provide resources to the relevant Ministries to capture the lessons being generated by project activities, and to draw on existing national and international experience and knowledge. The coordination and consultative structures will include the following: SRA existing bodies : (i) an Inter-ministerial Coordination Committee (SRA-ICC) composed of Permanent Secretaries of all sector related ministries (Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Development, Cooperatives, Water, Environment and Natural Resources, Local Governments and Lands), to provide coherence and direction to the reform process; (ii) a National Agricultural Forum (SRA-NAF) to ensure that proposed reforms follow a common and coherent overall conceptual framework, KAPP specific organs : (i) a KAPP Secretariat (KS), that provides an overall coordination of the program, while overseeing the Monitoring and Evaluation and Information and Communication functions; (ii) a KAPP Steering Committee (with chief executives and directors of the concerned ministries and agencies) that ensure support functions to the ISC and act as a liaison between the ministries and public institutions and the KAPP; and ( iii ) District Service Units ( DSU ) that act as local KAPP secretariats to coordinate and Page 4 - 4 - - implement targeted pilot interventions that feed into the reform process and capacity building activities in the selected 20 districts. The KS would also facilitate establishment of three consultative stakeholder mechanisms: an Extension Task Force (ETF), a Research Task Force (RTF) and a Farmer/Client empowerment Forum (CF). The TFs eventually will collapse into the NAF once the new agricultural extension and research policy and institutional frameworks are developed. The CF will be duplicated at the district level in a single consultative forum system, which would be the result of representation aggregation processes that occur at division and lower levels. Component 2: Support to Extension System Reform The component will build on achievements made under the NAEP framework by facilitating the development and internalization of a shared vision, strategy and policy that will help establish a new system of national extension service. Activities supported under the project will lead to the formulation and adoption of a new extension policy by 2006. The activities under this component would: (a) clarify and rationalize roles, and functions between public, private and civil society organizations, (b) streamline and develop more effective and responsive public services, (c) enhance capacity among non- public extension service providers, and (d) increase performance and sustainability. This would be achieved through three subcomponents focused on institution building, learning pilots and capacity building. Universities and other education service providers will play a key role in addressing the human capacity needs in the sector. Sub-component 2.1: Facilitation of an Extension Reform Consultative Process . The sub- component will support establishment of an Extension Task Force(ETF) composed of representatives from all major agricultural extension players as well as clients (research, farmers and market agents). It will coordinate the overall extension reform initiative, report to the National Forum and be supported in its activities by the KAPP Secretariat. ETF’s activities will also include: (i) establishment of a live database that would act as comprehensive inventory and institutional assessment of the main extension and education service providers operating in the country, as well as a reference base on the various extension methodologies/approaches used and (ii) organization of learning events including study-tours. Sub-component 2.2: Learning pilots . Pilots will be established in twenty districts to support integrated and targeted extension activities. The pilots would be implemented using participatory assessment of needs and resources, which would be used to develop divisional Community Integrated Plans (CIP) as the planning basis for broader District Integrated Plans (DIP). The CIPs and DIPs would also indicate the extension approaches and demand-driven research activities to be piloted. KAPP will finance pilot extension approaches (10 per year, per district) identified within the context of CIPs and provide investment to nascent business extension providers on a cost sharing and cost recovery basis. Service providers would draw on the existing resources and procedures as much as possible. Page 5 - 5 - - Sub-component 2.3: Capacity building . The KAPP will strengthen district level capacity by providing training support of different kind to public staff, NGOs and CBOs and to the private sector service providers. Training needs assessment exercises will be conducted in each district to define specific plans and curricula (on participatory approaches, public role reorientation, planning-coordination-M&E, institution building, marketing, information and communication, technical and financial related skills). Component 3: Support to Research System Reform The objective under KAPP’s research component will be to reform the agricultural research sector so that it encompasses a plurality of actors and becomes more efficient and accountable . Reforms would: (i) increase the role of end-users in planning of activities, resource allocation, and monitoring of implementation, (ii) promote performance/result based resource allocation, (iii) induce greater collaboration and synergy between and among public and private research institutions; (iv) ensure effective integration of research, education and extension services at local levels; (v) increase the volume of appropriate technologies and knowledge generated and applied. This would be achieved through establishment of a national agricultural research system, pilot collaborative research activities, and further support to KARI. Sub-component 3.1: Facilitation of a consultative process for the establishment of a NARS. A Research Task Force (RFT) will be established, composed of representatives from all major agricultural research actors as well as clients (extension and farmers). The RTF will report to the National Forum and be supported in its activities by the KAPP Secretariat. The Task Force’s initial work program would include: (i) a comprehensive inventory and institutional assessment of all research institutions operating in Kenya, including assessment of technologies generated, methodologies and approaches, and institutional capacity, presented in a report and database (ii) learning through study tours, (iii) a vision for a NARS, including a framework for prioritization and operation and (iv) a roadmap and time-bound implementation plan to move towards the NARS (including a rationalization plan). Sub-component 3.2: Targeted activities to initiate the NARS’ Reform Process. Targeted activities, which will build upon the findings of the inventory (3.1) include: (i) piloting of collaborative research programs across institutions focused on thematic areas of high priority, selected by the RFT (e.g., HIV/AIDS, land and water degradation, market development and trade and rural credit); (ii) developing tools for collaboration (HR, ICT etc.), (iii) targeted capacity building of the scientific community (other than KARI), (iv) development of an operational and sustainable funding mechanism for the entire NARS; and (v) initial investments in the NARS rationalization process. Sub-component 3.3: Support to the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI). The sub-component will finance the implementation of priority research programs in crops (food, horticultural and industrial), animal production and health, land and water management, agricultural biotechnology, socio-economics and biometrics, as well as cross-cutting programs in adaptive research, research outreach and in developing Page 6 - 6 - - sustainable sources of funding for KARI research. Investments will be targeted to support KARI’s transition into a more effective institution with increased field impact and capacity to extend and expand successful methodologies. Reforms and activities will build upon the results of recent external reviews of KARI programs, which will be disseminated widely amongst KARI staff prior to KAPP effectiveness. KAPP would fund activities and investments in the areas of 1) Institutional Strengthening; 2) Research Program; 3) Information Dissemination; and 4) Research and Development Funding. These activities are targeted at: (i) enhancing KARI's ability to demonstrate sizable field impact by addressing shortcomings in its capacity and approaches to extend and up-scale successful technologies; (ii) improving its research planning, review and approval processes to reflect changes prompted by feedbacks from end-users and or emerging challenges and to improve accountability; (iii) revising the quality review and assurance process (iv) paying greater attention to socio-economic aspects within a biologically- dominated research system; (vi) building an adequate ICT infrastructure; and (v) improving KARI’s working environment and the incentive structure for scientists. The consolidation of KARI will need to be progressively consistent with the envisaged integrated rationalization plan of the national agricultural research system and with the new extension policy framework. Thus, the activities under this sub-component would be reviewed annually in order to adjust its content and thrust to KAPP’s evolving agenda. Component 4: Support to Farmer/Client Empowerment The component will help develop institutional and financial mechanisms that will give farmers control over extension and research services and increase their access to productivity enhancing products. As a first step, KAPP will help facilitate direct involvement by farmers in the reform process through client consultative structures at all levels, and provide means for improved access to information on technology and services. In addition, KAPP will provide targeted support to (i) scale-up application of technology innovations through establishment of service enterprise networks and (ii) build capacity of associations and commodity organizations. Training activities to build farmers’ institutional, management and technical capacities are also planned. Sub-component 4.1: Facilitation of client consultative process . Client fora (CF) will be established at national, district and grass root level to guide and support farmer empowerment. In order to strengthen access to information, mass communication tools (radio, print media and newsletters, television programs and websites) will be utilized to target all segments of the client fora. Divisional fora farmer leaders would be supported to enhance their access to a transparent and continuous flow of information. Sub-component 4.2: Targeted interventions for Client Empowerment . The sub-component will support qualified producer organizations to build their capacity to offer services that: (i) help farmers meet registration requirements; (ii) enhance client capacity to meet national and international marketing and certification standards and requirements; (iii) offer market link networking services to client members. On the basis on the Enterprise Plans, the KAPP will also facilitate the scalin g -u p of technolo gy innovations throu g h the Page 7 - 7 - - establishment of 80 client networks and building on their own savings, help make investments that will scale up access to agricultural services for production, agro- processing, marketing and management of finances. Sub-component 4.3: Capacity building . The capacity building sub-component would provide client training aimed at improving production, managing the natural resource base, processing and network marketing skills and developing client fora capacity to access and manage financial resources. Training needs would be assessed using participatory methods and compiled in district training plans. Client fora will be assisted to develop their own network of trainers. Agricultural education institutions that also register as service providers will have opportunity to access funds to deliver training. A.4 Lessons learned and reflected in the project design Poor performance of public systems of research and extension globally has led to a number of lessons of experience that are incorporated in the design of the three phased APL. Separate and poorly linked systems of research and extension yield low returns. The content of extension is impoverished when poorly linked with research, and the applications of research are thwarted when poorly linked to extension. Neither research nor extension achieves high returns, even if well linked, if not attuned to the needs of actual clients; i.e., the farmers. Well functioning systems of generation, dissemination, and adoption of technology require feedback loops through which farmers have a real voice in decisions. Although the public sector must remain active in research and extension, and in funding of both, private firms can be more cost effective and responsive to clients. Producers are more influential and more effectively reached when they are organized, rather than atomized. Subsidiarity must be observed in assigning responsibilities for public entities, and many of the appropriate public functions can be best performed at the local level. Research and extension must address productive systems and natural resource management, as well as specific commodities. Finally, consistent under-funding of agricultural research and extension, especially in Africa, leads to high indicators of marginal returns to investment, but to low measured impact on the ground, as modest efforts are spread very thinly. Each of these lessons has been reflected in the design of the operation and the road map for change envisioned in the Kenyan strategy. An ambitious agenda of reform will lie ahead as these lessons are reflected in the design of programs. The lessons of NARP I and II also influenced the project design, particularly the need for: greater focus on end users, effective monitoring and evaluation, empowerment of regional research entities and greater integration with the broader agriculture sector. In addition, the generally positive experience in implementation of NARP I and II has influenced the proposed arrangements for implementation, and the decision to use the administrative capacity within KARI to best advantage, particularly in the early phase. A.5 Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection A follow-u p p ro j ect to the NARP II to consolidate the g ains made under the two p revious Page 8 - 8 - - agricultural research project phases was considered but rejected. A follow-on project would be poorly able to capture the lessons of experience noted above, and would most likely be characterized by: a) a narrow technological focus compounded by moderate to low adoption rates of outputs; b) a centralized and tightly compartmentalized research system; c) poor ability to retain researchers because of limited career opportunities; d) a sub-optimal use of assets and/or redundant capital investment and; e) poor overall accountability of the entire system. A simple continuation of past support to KARI would not capitalize on the readiness of KARI and other entities to create a more effective research system. Nor would such an operation address the challenge implicit in the ERS and its demands on agriculture. The proposed project incorporates the emphasis on technical excellence embodied in past support under NARP I and II, but moves beyond it to promote institutional change and greater impact on growth and poverty. The selection of an Adaptable Program Loan (APL), instead of a Specific Investment Loan (SIL) was based on the following reasons: (i) institutional development, agricultural technology generation and technology adoption are long-term processes that require sustained effort and support; (ii) development of a pluralistic research and extension system and the establishment of client empowering mechanisms requires flexibility throughout the project life; (iii) the change in culture represented by the project approach requires a period of learning, generalized acknowledgement and refining as these strategies and plans are developed; and (iv) the phases can be identified and triggers designed . The structure of an APL allows the project to devote one phase to each of the reform design, implementation and consolidation objectives with triggers for each phase. A.5 Implementation Partnership Arrangements The KAPP has no formal partnership arrangements with other donors, but partnership through the entities created under KAPP is likely to expand as other donors clarify their approaches to increased support for Kenyan agriculture. The EU has indicated interest to coordinate its future interventions with the KAPP process. Consultative and planning mechanisms between GoK and donors operate at various levels with various degrees of efficiency and success. The Medium Term Expenditures Framework (MTEF) provides the most appropriate framework to implement such objectives as do various working groups on agriculture, food security, agricultural policy, extension and commercialization. KAPP would greatly benefit from a reinvigorated working groups and close organic links to the MTEF processes. Institutional and implementation arrangements Sector-wide oversight Committee . There will be 3 lead institutions: the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Livestock ad Fisheries Development, and the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI). Overall coordination will be under a KAPP Secretariat. Page 9 - 9 - - Project overall Coordination . The KAPP Secretariat will have responsibility for overall project coordination. The core of the current secretariat is composed of an officer from the Ministry of agriculture, the Ministry of Livestock Development, KARI and KENFAP with full time appointments to the secretariat. Due to the demands of the reform agenda, the Secretariat will be staffed, prior to effectiveness and through a transparent selection process, by highly qualified individuals drawn from public services or the job market. The core team would source out from implementing agencies or the market additional and temporarily skills as need arise. The secretariat has been designed to cut across institutions and integrate different institutional agendas into a focused reform strategy. Linking the KAPP secretariat to the Economic subcommittee of the cabinet, an inter-ministerial steering committee and the agricultural sector working group in the Ministry of Planning provides the necessary cross cutting links. Through implementation of the KAPP, the secretariat will seek to improve its own skills in managing reforms, interacting at high levels of Government, networking and successfully lobbying for desired outcomes. Often in the past Kenyan public employees knew what was wrong but had little voice or ability to drive change. The KAPP secretariat will seek to develop skills and opportunities for civil servants and others to contribute to the process of change. Project implementation . The range of issues involved in raising agricultural productivity suggests a natural division of labor among institutions implementing different components. Component 1. The agricultural sector institutional reform component will be implemented by the KAPP Secretariat. Component 2. The extension component will be implemented by the 2 ministries -- Agriculture, and Livestock and Fisheries Development. The institutionalization of an Extension Task Force will bring input from private and civil society service providers, and any others interested in, or able to make a contribution toward improving extension services in Kenya. Universities, commodity organizations, NGOs and private input suppliers are expected to become members of this forum. The Extension TF will be supported by the KAPP Secretariat and resource persons drawn from a range of extension stakeholders. Funds for activities under this component will be coordinated by the KAPP secretariat and the line ministries, but may be contracted out to many different types of contractors, extension and training providers, and universities. Component 3 . The research component will be implemented by KARI under the guidance of the inter-ministerial steering group. A Research Task Force will bring in other research institutes, universities, and private sector organizations interested in agricultural research. The Research TF will also be supported by the KAPP Secretariat and resource persons drawn from a range of research stakeholders Page 10 - 10 - - Component 4 . Farmer and client empowerment will be implemented by the District Agricultural Services Units (DSU) at the district level, and at national level by the KAPP secretariat. Capacity building activities will be ongoing at both levels. District Client Forums will help to determine which organizations are best placed to deliver specific capacity building interventions. Financial Management and Procurement . Financial management and procurement arrangements will be based on the successful procedures put in place by KARI. There will be need to build such capacity in other implementing institutions. However tying the KAPP secretariat closely to KARI should limit the bottlenecks in this regard, particularly if KARI can procure on behalf of other bodies. Flow of funds and accountabilities for financial reporting should piggyback on the existing KARI system for the first phase of the project. However since the project does not fall within a particular ministry it is proposed that separate accounts be set up for the project at the national as well as district levels with appropriate checks and balances and audit trails to meet global accounting standards, and global standards for probity and transparency. A.6. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis: Kenya straddles the equator in East Africa. It has a total area of 58.7 million hectares, including 1.1 million hectares covered by water, and an estimated population of 28.5 million with a growth rate of 3.5 per annum. Eighty-five percent of the population live in rural areas and are dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods. Kenya is characterized by a varied altitudinal profile from the Indian Ocean coastline to over 5000m at Mt. Kenya. Key relief features are the Rift Valley, separating two sets of highland masses to the east (Aberdares and Mt. Kenya) and west (Mau Hills and the Cheranganis). Respectively these provide watersheds to the Ng’iro lowlands running down to the Indian Ocean, and the Lake Victoria basin. Through its influence on climate, altitude is the single most important determinant of ecological potential in Kenya. Rainfall occurrence in Kenya is associated with the lifting of air masses over relief barriers following the seasonal migration of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone. Annual rainfall increases from below 400mm in the lowlands to a high of over 2000mm in the most easterly exposed slopes of Mt. Kenya. Annual rainfall occurs in two wet seasons: a long rainy season lasting from March to May, and a short rains between November and December. The two wet seasons are separated by dry spells whose length increases from about 2 months in the highlands to about 8 months in the lowlands. Mean annual temperatures range from very low (below freezing point) on Mt Kenya to over 30 0 C in the lowlands. Kenya is divisible into seven distinct agro-climatic zones on the basis of the ratio of rainfall to potential evapo-transpiration. Eighteen percent of Kenya’s land area is considered to be hi g h p otential for a g riculture, i.e. the land within immediate vicinit y of Page 11 - 11 - - the central highland masses, and this area supports over 80% of the population. Arid and semi-arid areas cover the remaining 48 million hectares, equivalent to 82% of Kenya’s land area, and have a population of approximately 5 million (less than 20% of the population). Within these areas the inadequacy of moisture critically limits local ecological productivity and socio-economic development. Agriculture’s role in Kenya’s economic growth and development was underlined in the ERS. Agriculture is the single largest sector of the Kenyan economy (over 30% of GDP), and it provides over 70 percent of employment. Agriculture also accounts for an additional 30% of GDP through its contribution to the manufacturing and services sector. Two-thirds of Kenya’s industrial output is agro-industry based, which is why growth in the agriculture sector and growth in GDP have followed parallel trends over the last 20 years. Agricultural and GDP growth has greatly fluctuated over this period, within a trend of a declining share of GDP from agriculture over the last thirty years, and this has been accompanied by increasing pressure on the natural resource base, reduced security of livelihoods and increased poverty. Women form at least half of the workforce, and are probably the majority of the “cheap” labor upon which the sector relies. Agricultural sector reform should therefore include sufficient measures to ensure that women are empowered, giving them access to new technologies and practices, and to extension services. Failure to adopt approaches that facilitate full participation by rural women will result in reform that is at best fragmented and partial. Most groups identified as indigenous according to the World Bank OD 4.30, would not fall into the primary sedentary farmer target group. However, the impacts of agricultural technology changes and research advances would impact these groups in terms of consumption habits, impacts on labor demands within the agricultural sector, activities related to livestock etc. Hence it is important that these potential impacts on indigenous groups within the pilot regions be monitored at the end of phase 1. The project can then make an informed decision, whether any special approach is needed to ensure that such groups are not negatively impacted by project activities, and that they are equipped to benefit from and participate in the project. While targeting the poor is important, it is necessary to recognize the different roles of sub-groups within a community in the context of targeting, monitoring impacts and putting in appropriate mitigation measures. For example, middle income rural poor are an important target group for this project, as they are the ones who have access to capital and are hence better equipped to take advantage of improvements in technology through research and extension. Their catalyst role in reviving the rural economy is important and needs to be kept in mind in this project. The monitoring plan and social analysis will focus on identifying any sub-groups that are negatively impacted by technology change e.g. fall in demand for casual labor, decrease in availability of rental fields etc. It id important for the project to look at these issues in the proposed detailed social analysis during phase 1, monitor such impacts and incorporate appropriate actions to address them to the extent feasible. Page 12 - 12 - - HIV/AIDS has had great negative impact on all sectors in Kenya, but perhaps most on the agriculture sector where the massive loss of both a skilled and an unskilled workforce affects labor supply and therefore productivity. As the bulk of Kenyans live in rural areas, morbidity and mortality in household level leads to decreased acreage of farms, loss of income, increased poverty and food insecurity. The project will be implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development and KARI, and thus will have a country-wide scope. However for phase I most of the field activities will be carried out within the framework of KARI’s research center network located in the following twenty districts identified during pre-appraisal: Makueni, Embu, Meru Central, and Isiolo (Eastern Province); Garissa (North Eastern); Tana River, Kwale, Taita Taveta, and Kilifi (Coast); Siaya, Gucha, and Homabay (Nyanza); Nakuru, Trans Nzoia, and West Pokot (Rift Valley); Kakamega, Butere-Mumias, and Busia (Western); and Nyeri and Nyandarua (Central). The selection of these districts was based on a set of criteria related to: poverty reduction, development projects coverage, agro-ecological potential and agricultural production mainstay, issues of national strategic importance, available capacity, socio- economic indicators. A de-linked but associated GEF-financed project will work in five selected catchments in these districts to promote sustainable land and water management practices for improved agricultural productivity and enhanced ecosystem integrity. Environmental and Social Issues The key environmental and social issues in agriculture in Kenya include: Environment: • loss of natural habitat, • use of inappropriate farming practices, • agriculture/wildlife conflicts, • agro-processing pollution, • misuse of pesticides, and • proneness to climatic fluctuations (especially drought). Social: • resource poor farmers inability to access extension services and inputs, • inappropriate technology and thus poor adoption, • women’s inadequate access and control of production functions, • HIV/AIDS impact production systems and livelihoods, and It would be important to monitor impacts, if any, on indigenous people at the end of phase 1 and incorporate special measures if / as deemed necessary. B. Check Environmental Category A [ ], B [ ], C [ X ], FI [ ] Page 13 - 13 - - Comments: The associated GEF operation has been formally de-linked from KAPP-IDA and will be processed as a separate project. KAPP activities are likely to have minimal to no adverse social and environment impacts. This is because they are largely concerned with enhancing existing agricultural research and extension (R&E) activities, policy development, and learning pilots to test new approaches to agricultural R&E. Hence the classification of C and S3 were agreed upon. The QER and decision meeting confirmed that the project is now transferred and the sector manager will be responsible for (a) clearing and disclosing of any safeguard document, (b) ensuring that social and environment issues are addressed in the project, and (c) ensuring that qualified social and environment staff are included on the team. C. Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes No Environmental Assessment ( OP / BP / GP 4.01) [ ] [X] Natural Habitats ( OP / BP 4.04) [ ] [X] Pest Management (OP 4.09) [ ] [X] Cultural Property (draft OP 4.11 - OPN 11.03 -) [ ] [X] Involuntary Resettlement ( OP / BP 4.12) [ ] [X] Indigenous Peoples ( OD 4.20 ) [ ] [X] Forests ( OP / BP 4.36) [ ] [X] Safety of Dams ( OP / BP 4.37) [ ] [X] Projects in Disputed Areas ( OP / BP / GP 7.60) * [ ] [X] Projects on International Waterways ( OP / BP /GP 7.50) [ ] [X] * By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties' claims on the disputed areas Page 14 - 14 - - Section II – Key Safeguard Issues and Their Management D. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues . D.1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts. None. At the same time, there is the potential for environmental degradation and inadequate natural resources management to affect the project and agricultural productivity, as well as the risk of project benefits overlooking vulnerable groups. In these circumstances, and following best practice, a sectoral environmental and social assessment (SESA) was carried out to establish a framework for more strongly including effective response to environmental and social sustainability considerations in a reformed agricultural R&E system. These broad considerations include safeguards concerns for targeting vulnerable sub-groups, addressing HIV/AIDS, recognizing potential impacts on indigenous peoples, reducing environmental and natural resource/habitat degradation, avoiding future degradation, strengthening pesticide management and the use of integrated pest management. As part of best practices impact assessment will be carried out including social issues. This will focus on identifying project impacts on the range of different sub-groups and stakeholders, ensuring that project activities do not indirectly affect any groups adversely (e.g. impact of technology on demand for casual labor). These issues will be incorporated into the monitoring program as they are identified during the social analysis. D.2 Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area. None anticipated. D.3. Describe the treatment of alternatives (if relevant) Not applicable. D.4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. The borrower carried out the SESA which has been approved in principle by NEMA on the basis of a category B project. However KAPP is classified as a category C which therefore does not require impact assessment and disclosure measures. D.5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Not applicable. Page 15 - 15 - - F. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure Not Applicable Date of submission to InfoShop Not Applicable For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors Not Applicable Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure Not Applicable Date of submission to InfoShop Not Applicable Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework: Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure Not Applicable Date of submission to InfoShop Not Applicable Pest Management Plan: Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure Not Applicable Date of submission to InfoShop Not Applicable Dam Safety Management Plan: Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure Not Applicable Date of submission to InfoShop Not Applicable If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why. Section III – 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: Yes No Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? X If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats: Yes No Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats? X 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: N/A Yes No Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues? Is a separate PMP required? If yes, are PMP requirements included in project design? Page 16 - 16 - - Draft OP 4.11 (OPN 11.03) - Cultural Property: N/A Yes No Does the EA include adequate measures? Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on physical cultural resources? OD 4.20 - Indigenous Peoples: N/A Yes No Has a separate indigenous people development plan been prepared in consultation with the Indigenous People? If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and approve the plan? If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been reviewed and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit? N.B. Most groups identified as indigenous according to the World Bank OD 4.30, would not fall into the primary sedentary farmer target group. However, the impacts of agricultural technology changes and research advances would impact these groups in terms of consumption habits, impacts on labor demands within the agricultural sector, activities related to livestock etc. Hence it is important that these potential impacts on indigenous groups within the pilot regions be monitored at the end of phase 1. The project can then make an informed decision, whether any special approach is needed to ensure that such groups are not negatively impacted by project activities, and that they are equipped to benefit from and participate in the project. OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement: N/A Yes No Has a resettlement action plan, policy framework or policy process been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and approve the plan / policy framework / policy process? OP/BP 4.36 – Forests: N/A Yes No Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional issues and constraints been carried out? Does the project design include satisfactory measures to overcome these constraints? Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, does it include provisions for certification system? OP/BP 4.37 - Safety of Dams: N/A Yes No Have dam safety plans been prepared? Have the TORs as well as composition for the independent Panel of Experts (POE) been reviewed and approved by the Bank? Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) been prepared and arrangements been made for public awareness and training? OP 7.50 - Projects on International Waterways: N/A Yes No Have the other riparian been notified of the project? If the project falls under one of the exceptions to the notification requirement, then has this been cleared with the Legal Department, and the memo to the RVP prepared and sent? Page 17 - 17 - - What are the reasons for the exception? Please explain: Has the RVP approved such an exception? OP 7.60 - Projects in Disputed Areas : N/A Yes No Has the memo conveying all pertinent information on the international aspects of the project, including the procedures to be followed, and the recommendations for dealing with the issue, been prepared, cleared with the Legal Department and sent to the RVP? Does the PAD/MOP include the standard disclaimer referred to in the OP? BP 17.50 - Public Disclosure: N/A Yes No Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop? 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? All Safeguard Policies: N/A Yes No Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of the safeguard measures? Have safeguard measures costs been included in project cost? Will the safeguard measures costs be funded as part of project implementation? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Moctar Toure 03/12/04 Project Safeguards Specialist 1: N/A Project Safeguards Specialist 2: N/A Approved by: Name Date Regional Safeguards Coordinator: N/A Comments: The project has been officially transferred to the Sector Manager responsible Sector Manager: Karen Brooks 03/16/04 Comments: