Integrated Safeguards Datasheet s1

INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE

I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 11/08/2012 Report No.: AC6829 1. Basic Project Data Original Project ID: P101955 Original Project Name: Improving Livestock Production and Marketing Project - A Pilot Country: Sudan Project ID: P132798 Project Name: Improving Livestock Production and Marketing Project - A Pilot Task Team Leader: Stephane Forman Estimated Appraisal Date: Estimated Board Date: September 26, 2012 Managing Unit: AFTA3 Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Animal production (80%);Central government administration (20%) Theme: Rural services and infrastructure (100%) SPF Amount (US$m): 0 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0 Other financing amounts by source: Borrower 0.30 Multi-donor Trust Fund for North Sudan 1 .80 2.10 Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) Yes [ ] No [X] or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies)

2. Project Objectives The objective of the proposed project is to "improve livestock production and marketing in selected rain fed areas of Central and Eastern Sudan".

3. Project Description The project is structured around pilot activities that address pastoral communities' priority needs in support of livestock production and marketing. Thus, the project intends to demonstrate different ways to deliver services and improve pastoralists' livelihoods. The project has four main components, including:

 Component 1: Livestock development investment fund - The investment fund provided matching grants to finance activities and technical assistance demanded by pastoral communities for increasing productivity and sales of livestock. The selected sub-projects have demonstrated full communities' ownership, i.e. designed and implemented by the target communities and are economically, socially, technically and environmentally sustainable. Examples of subprojects include water point rehabilitation, rangeland development, restocking of small ruminants, stock route demarcation, livestock fattening …  Component 2: Privatization of animal health services and markets - this component has successfully tested two pilot activities: the delegation of animal health services such as vaccination tasks to private veterinarians and the improvement of livestock markets and marketing.  Component 3: Project management and studies - Given the pilot nature of the program and implementation in four states, a Project Coordination Unit (PCU), supported by high level Project Steering Committee (PSC), is coordinating all project activities. The PCU is supported by two Project Implementation Units (PIUs), established in the State Ministries of Agriculture, Animal Resources and Irrigation (SMAARI), one at Singa (Sinnar State) and the second at El Obeid (North Kordofan). Although the project was designed to be implemented in six localities only, it was capable to absorb the new government restructuring (10 localities). This component financed ten technical studies to assist in the implementation of the project activities, as well as to bridge the knowledge gap within the sector. These studies included inter-alia: (i) development of livestock- marketing database, (ii) design for matching grants, (iii) livestock market privatization and development, (iv) privatization strategy for veterinary services in North Kordofan, and (v) assessment of factors contributing to conflict among pastoral, agro-pastoral and farmers.  Component 4: Rehabilitation of demarcated livestock routes - This component provided packages of basic services, using different community driven approaches, to develop and sustain the demarcated livestock routes. Those basic services include veterinary services, regeneration of pastures and production of feeds and concentrate, simple agro-processing income generating activities, training of animal health workers and livestock development workers, and rehabilitation of water points along the route (using LDIF).

Proposed changes: The Project Paper seeks the approval of a grant in the amount of US$ 1.8 million as AF to the Improving Livestock Productivity and Marketing Project TF090693 (P101955), revisions to indicators and targets in the results framework, and extension of the current closing date. There are no changes proposed in the PDO, project components and implementation arrangements. In particular:

 The AF will be used to expand the rehabilitated livestock markets with additional structures and equipment, build new water points and consolidate livestock investment activities through further capacity building. It will be primarily used to consolidate, augment benefits and sustain activities to already participating beneficiaries. The grant will cover the costs associated with: (i) further equipping the rehabilitated markets with the construction of additional structures, such as shades, provision of reliable water sources, electricity supply and fodder lots, (ii) provision of training on business management and technical assistance to ensure that legislations for ownership are in place for private or community structures, (iii) ensuring sustainability of the 28 water points through provision of additional training for the communities and VDCs, and (iv) building four additional water points, and regeneration of grazing areas, which will contribute to enhancing critical access to water and fodder, particularly along key livestock routes, raising livestock production and productivity among pastoralists.  The additional resources will: (i) increase the total number of beneficiaries reached by 10,000; (ii) support the 6 rehabilitate markets with additional small infrastructure and equipment, which is expected to lead to continuous increase of animals sold annually in these markets; and (iii) support the demarcation and rehabilitation of 60 additional kilometers (km) of livestock routes, seeding of an additional 1,400 hectares (ha) of pasture and 400 km more of fire lines opened.  The proposed extension of the closing date is from December 31, 2012 to June 30, 2013.

Therefore, the AF will only focus on scaling up successful activities implemented in the previous phase. No new activities are planned under the Additional Financing, therefore no new safeguards policies are triggered under the AF.

4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis Due to the size of the sector and the numerous issues at stake, the Ministry of Animal Resources, Fisheries and Rangelands has identified two areas in Central and Eastern Sudan to pilot activities to enhance livestock production and marketing. The livestock systems in these areas are representative of the diversity of Sudan's livestock systems, and of the socio economic background in which they operate.

The pilot project is being implemented in the six selected localities of the following four key pastoral states: (i) North Kordofan State (Gebaish, En Nuhud, Elkhewei and Abu Zabad localities); (ii) Blue Nile (Damazin and Tadamon localities); (iii) Sinnar (Singa/Abu Hujar locality); and (iv) White Nile State (Gabalein locality). Blue Nile State, parts of Sinnar and White Nile States are among the poorest regions in Sudan, where tensions and conflicts over land are recurrent. The social structure is very heterogeneous, and the customary institutions weakened by decades of civil wars. Allocation of land for semi-mechanized farming is believed to be the main origin of the conflicts resulting in blocking traditional seasonal migration routes. These states are crossed by cattle from Southern Sudan en route to terminal livestock markets in Khartoum State. A substantial number of sheep for export and domestic markets are produced and traded in North Kordofan State. There is increasing pressure on land and water due to competition between sedentary and transhumant populations, pressure exerted by displaced populations from Darfur, and poor support services provided by local government. As a result, rural communities in the state spend up to 60 percent of their revenues to buy water during the dry season, and rangeland areas are diminishing. The disease burden is heavy because the capacity of the public and private sectors to deliver animal health services is limited.

Localities in the four target states were selected based on the following criteria: (a) important livestock populations (based on estimates), and (b) high frequency and intensity of conflict between transhumant livestock producers and sedentary farmers over land and water. The previous phase of the project supported the completion of a "Study to assess factors contributing to conflicts among pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and sedentary farmers." The results and recommendations of this study directly influenced a restructuring of the project to add one component aiming at demarcating (legally and mapping) and rehabilitating traditional livestock routes to avoid further encroachment of farmers on these routes leading to conflicts for resources access.

In addition, the parent project has not generated any loss of access to natural resources, such as water, by project-affected people and neither will the AF.

5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Ms Desta Solomon (AFTCS) Mr Bedilu Amare Reta (AFTN3)

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: The envisaged project activities are likely to generate potential environmental and social impacts. The environmental and social impacts of the project are mostly related to the project interventions (rehabilitation of livestock markets with additional structures, such as shades, provision of reliable water sources, electricity supply and fodder lots, and equipment, build new water points and consolidate livestock investment activities through further capacity building; building additional water points; and regeneration of grazing areas) and will continue to be small scale, limited, localized, temporary, and easily mitigated through sensible construction management techniques and diligent environmental management practices. No significant irreversible environmental and social impacts from proposed project activities are envisaged and therefore the current category (Category B) for environmental safeguards remains the same. The AF also triggers the same safeguard instruments (OP/BP 4.01) Environmental Assessment and (OP/BP 4.12) Involuntary Resettlement as for the original project. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area:

3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. To mitigate the anticipated impacts, the original project has chosen Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), Resettlement Plan Framework (RPF) and Medical and Veterinary Waste Management Plan (MVWMP) as a safeguard instruments during project preparation. These safeguard instruments, ESMF and RPF has been prepared for Livestock production in Sudan and disclosed publicly on January, 2009 and February 2009 respectively. In addition the ESMF has been approved and nationally disclosed by the Higher Council for Environment & Natural Resources on May 7, 2009. The Medical and Veterinary Waste Management Plan (MVWMP) for the project also prepared under Sudan/MDTF project. Based on the scale and nature of the envisaged project intervention these instruments will continue to be used as an instrument during the AF project implementation period. In addition, under the parent project The EA was completed in October 2010. All the safeguards instruments were prepared, consulted upon, and disclosed in-country. They now must be disclosed in Infoshop. During implementation, environmental checklists were prepared for the smaller civil works and environmental plans were prepared for the water points. None of the works to date have required the preparation of Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs). Based on the scale and nature of the envisaged project intervention the safeguards instruments will continue to be used as an instrument during the AF project implementation period; environmental plans and/or RAPs will be prepared and disclosed as and when necessary.

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 implementation arrangements of the original project are evaluated satisfactory and would continue without any changes. The PCU will continue to work under the policy direction of the Project Steering Committee (PSC), chaired by the Undersecretary of MARFR. The PCU has a safeguard focal point (Environment Specialist) mapped in the Project Implementation Unit of the Eastern Sector and the team can refer to him when needed regarding safeguards issues for the entire project. In addition, PCU staff has been trained on WB requirements for safeguards by the WB safeguard specialist in December 2009. Infrastructures and sub-projects supported though the ILPMP in the previous phase had environmental screening systematically made, following Environment Assessment (EA) recommendations. The EA completion date was October 28, 2010.

During the implementation period starting June 2009, the project has been instrumental in addressing the main challenges within the sector that has not been fully addressed by the Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries, such as pastoral community inclusion in the planning processes, chemical waste management and associated hazards, environmental and safeguards issues. This made the project innovative within the livestock sector. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people.

B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 01/15/2009 Date of "in-country" disclosure 05/07/2009 Date of submission to InfoShop 12/14/2012 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 02/19/2009 Date of "in-country" disclosure 02/27/2009 Date of submission to InfoShop 12/14/2012 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? 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: These documents have never been disclosed in Infoshop. This will be done by mid- December.

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) Yes review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the Yes credit/loan? OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process Yes framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Yes Manager review the plan? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's No Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a Yes 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 N/A been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project N/A cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the N/A monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the N/A borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents?

D. Approvals

Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Mr Stephane Forman 09/13/2012 Environmental Specialist: Mr Bedilu Amare Reta 09/13/2012 Social Development Specialist Ms Desta Solomon 10/23/2012 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Sector Manager: Mr Tijan M. Sallah 09/16/2012 Comments: