Ministry of agriculture and ministry of public works smallholder tree crop revitalization support project


Environmental and Social Monitoring Report template



Download 1.2 Mb.
Page24/25
Date02.06.2016
Size1.2 Mb.
1   ...   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25

Environmental and Social Monitoring Report template








Subproject name: ________________________________ Location: _________
Date: ___________________

1. Environmental and Social Impacts

Summary of the environmental impacts of the project that were predicted during project planning.



2. Environmental and Social Impacts observed in the field visit

Summary of the environmental effects which have been observed in the field visit:

Predicted effects and nature of observation;

Unpredicted effects and nature of observation.

Peoples participating in the field visit:


Name

Institution

Position

Sign


























3. Compliance of the environmental and social policy, laws and regulations

Project’s compliance with environmental design specifications, including environmental protection and control, mitigation, reimbursement and comparison measures, if any.



4. Results of the field visit

Results of the ongoing monitoring of specific bio-physical and socio-economic effects, including the comparison of baseline values and monitoring results, if available.



5. Conclusions and recommendations to the project operation

Recommended adjustments to project operations if any, including the rationale for the recommendation.



6. Conclusions and Recommendations to the monitoring program

Recommended adjustments to the monitoring program, if any, including the rationale for the recommendations.



7. Other observations, recommendations and conclusions.

Monitor: ________________________; Signature: _________________; Date: ___________


Reviewed by ESMT on ______________


8. Action to be Taken

Summary of any decisions with action points and person responsible

Sign by Environmental Manager: ___________________ Date: ___________


Terms of reference



Modifications in scope resulting from the contract negotiations (17-18/06/11)
During contract negotiations held in Monrovia between the client and the consultant the following clarifications and modifications were communicated with respect to the scope of the assignment, as initially given in the Terms of Reference for the ESMF:

the component of the STCRSP concerning the county of Lofa will be entirely funded and implemented by IFAD, according to its own procedures, and is therefore no longer to be included in the current ESMF;

a single stakeholder meeting will be organized after submission of the draft reports to ensure proper disclosure of the draft report, ESMF and ESMP; this will be organized by the Ministry of Agriculture at a convenient location, and facilitated by the consultants;

in order to be able to respect the very tight schedule for the field visits and stakeholder consultations in the 7 counties concerned it is understood that the organization of these and prior information of the parties will concerned will be duly ensured by the Ministry of Agriculture;

a zero draft ESMF will be submitted at the end of the first mission of the consultants (day 25).
All other aspects of the methodology, work plan and outputs remain as per the ToR and technical proposal submitted by the Consultant.
Background
The Government of Liberia is exploring the feasibility of a World Bank supported agricultural development project – the Smallholder Tree Crop Revitalization Support Project (STCRSP), with the principal objective of improving the income opportunities of poor farmers by a combination of rehabilitating unproductive farms, undertaking replanting and new planting programs, facilitating future replanting and development programs, and improved financing mechanisms and institutional arrangements. The proposed STCRSP has been identified in response to this request.

The main characteristics of the Liberian tree crop sector at present are the old age of plantations and their low productivity. There have been no significant replanting activities for the last twenty five years due to the war, and a large proportion of the country’s rubber and oil palm plantations are now at the end of their productive life, necessitating replanting. The main constraint to the implementation of a large scale replanting program, particularly for smallholders, is the lack of long term credit. This situation is consistent with the experience in other tree crop producing countries in Asia or Africa, where commercial banks are generally reluctant to provide long term credits to farmers for tree crops mainly due to the crops’ long gestation period (7 years for rubber, 3-4 years for oil palm and cocoa), the perceived high credit risk and the lack of collateral.


The Proposed Project
Proposed Project Description. The proposed project would be the first, preparatory stage of a long term pro-poor growth program focused on developing the tree crop sector. Specifically, it would be aimed at preparing future large scale tree crop replanting and development programs by testing different replanting and new planting models and associated financing and implementation mechanisms, and strengthening the capacity of key public and private sector/civil society institutions involved in tree crop development. At the same time, the proposed project would also seek to have a short term impact on farmers’ revenues by supporting the rehabilitation of both immature and mature smallholder tree crop farms, which would generate additional revenues that farmers could subsequently use towards financing of replanting, thereby at least partially alleviating financing constraints.
The proposed project development objective would be “to increase poor tree crop farmers’ income opportunities by rehabilitating unproductive farms and supporting tree crop replanting and new planting and by supporting preparation activities toward the future development of the tree crop sector and effective smallholder participation”. The proposed project would be the first, preparatory stage of a long term pro-poor growth program focused on developing the tree crop sector. The target group would be poor smallholders in the main country’s tree crop producing counties, with particular attention given to the participation of women.
The proposed project would contribute to national and local revenues through increased foreign exchange from tree crop exports and would directly benefit smallholder households through increased incomes from the rehabilitation of their tree crop farms. It would directly support Government of Liberia (GoL)’s policy for economic revitalization, based on the promotion of export oriented economic growth, through consolidating the role of the private sector, while also facilitating rural development, increasing rural incomes, and contributing to poverty reduction. Furthermore, the proposed project is also aligned with MoA’s priority of achieving a viable and sustainable Tree Crop Sector within the Liberia Agriculture Sector Rehabilitation Program (LASIP) under the framework of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP).
Project Scope.
The proposed project would follow a two pronged approach: (i) rehabilitating existing mature and immature small tree crop farms, which would have a short-term impact by generating additional revenues that farmers could subsequently use towards financing of replanting; and (ii) supporting tree crop replanting and new plantings, using different models and associated financing and implementation mechanisms, while strengthening the capacity of key public and private sector/civil society institutions involved in tree crop development, with the aim of laying out the foundations for future smallholder tree crop development programs. It would be implemented over a period of four years in several districts of the country’s main tree crop producing counties.
Proposed Project Components.
The proposed project would include three components as follows:

Component 1 - Tree Crop Revitalization
Sub-Component 1.1 - Cocoa/Coffee Revitalization. The component would be implemented in the country’s three main cocoa & coffee producing counties, Lofa, Nimba and Bong, as shown below.





Lofa

(ha)


Nimba

(ha)


Bong

(ha)


Total

(ha)


Cocoa Rehabilitation a/

6,000

5,000

1,000

12,000

Cocoa New Planting

1,000

1,000




2,000

Sub-Total Cocoa

7,000

6,000

1,000

14,000

Coffee Rehabilitation

1,000

1,000

500

2,500

Total Cocoa/Coffee

8,000

7,000

1,500

16,500

a/ half the area under high input, half under low input
The component would be aimed at: (i) rehabilitating existing smallholder cocoa and coffee farms, according to two different models: (a) the low model input, consisting in under brushing, reducing the shade, weeding and pruning, without applying fertilizers and fungicides, and (b) the high input model, consisting in the same operations together with the application of fertilizers and fungicides for three years; (ii) supporting new plantings of cocoa as there are good market prospects and comparative advantage for cocoa in northern Liberia; (iii) to a lesser extent, rehabilitating existing smallholder coffee farms, as it would generate much less income than cocoa; and (iv) promoting improved cocoa/coffee marketing and value addition, including small scale processing (into cocoa butter or cocoa liquor and coffee powder) using adapted technologies.
This would include: the development of village nurseries and the maintenance of seed gardens, complementarily with other ongoing initiatives; supporting the organization and strengthening of farmers’ groups (farmers’ associations -FOs- and cooperatives) dealing with bulking, marketing and primary processing; the provision of training and technical and management advice to smallholders and their organizations; the construction (or rehabilitation) of warehouses and installation of solar dryers and procurement of quality control equipment (at section FOs, clan cooperatives and district cooperatives levels); the establishment of pilot processing plants at district level (including access to working capital) at district level; and limited feeder road rehabilitation and related small bridges and drainage structure, wherever it is critical to provide access to groups of farms (indicatively 100 km).

Under the low input model, even 40 to 50 years old cocoa trees can be rejuvenated. The production slightly declines during the year of rehabilitation but subsequent yields are much higher (from 250 kg/ha to 1000 kg of dry beans per ha). The high input model has been extensively applied in Ghana (more than 10,000 farmers) and much higher yields are reported after rehabilitation (up to 1,600 kg of dry beans per ha). The various crop models (rehabilitation with low or high input, replanting, and new planting) could be implemented simultaneously or during subsequent years on the same farm. It would depend on the available labor and financial resources as well as the condition of the trees.


The component would be implemented in partnership with NGOs and nongovernmental service/input providers, under contracting arrangements to be determined during project preparation. Since most cocoa farmers are also coffee farmers, the same implementing agency would deal with these crops jointly. Considering the limited labor requirement, farmers would provide their own labor for the rehabilitation or planting operations. Thus little external financing would be required for rehabilitating cocoa/coffee farms under the low input model (tools package). Implementation of the high input model, however, would require the financing of inputs (mainly fertilizers and fungicides) through credit, that would be extended in kind by specialized input retailers. The supplier would be paid back by farmers in cash or in cocoa beans. The project would support the installation of such retailer(s) and/or the first year credit requirements. Credit and cost recovery mechanisms are still to be determined.
Sub-Component 1.2 – Smallholder Oil Palm Revitalization. The component would be implemented in the counties of Lofa, Bong, Nimba, Grand Gedeh and Grand Bassa, as shown below.






Rehabilitation (ha)

Replanting

(ha)


Total

(ha)


Smallholder Oil Palm Model in northern Counties a/

300

300

600

Smallholder Oil Palm Model in Grand Bassa ( in partnership with Concession)

300

300

600

Total Oil Palm Component

600

600

1,200

a/ Lofa, Bong, Nimba and Grand Gedeh
The smallholder oil palm model in the northern Counties refers to farmer run plantations without processing facilities (Foya plantation district in Lofa, Zleh Town and Debe plantations in Grand Gedeh, and Kpatawee plantation in Bong). It is envisaged that, during preparation, a detailed study on smallholder oil palm revitalization will review whether there are other similar farmer run plantations in Lofa, Bong, Nimba, and Grand Gedeh and will assess their potential for rehabilitation. Based on the outcome of the study, the area for rehabilitation (provisionally estimated around 600 ha) will be updated accordingly during appraisal. The inclusion of the smallholder oil palm revitalization model in Grand Bassa in partnership with a Concession (Libinco) would also need to be confirmed during appraisal.
The component would be aimed at: (i) rehabilitating old smallholder oil palm farms, which would consist in clearing the undergrowth (under brushing), weeding around the trees and between the rows, and applying fertilizers; (ii) supporting replanting of smallholder oil palm; (iii) supporting the organization of farmers’ groups and the provision of training and technical advice to small farmers; (iv) limited feeder road rehabilitation (access roads and related small bridges and drainage structure) wherever it is critical to provide access to groups of farms (indicatively 30 km); and (v) the promotion of small scale processing facilities for farmers’ run plantations where no mills are present and/or facilitate access to small scale processing technology and finance for interested private investors (SMEs), in collaboration with commercial banks and guarantee or equity funds.

The smallholder oil palm revitalization model in the northern Counties would be implemented in partnership with NGOs and private sector service input providers and processors under contracting arrangements to be determined during project preparation. The smallholder oil palm revitalization model in Grand Bassa would be implemented in partnership with the Concession/primary processor (LIBINCO/Equatorial Palm Oil) throughout-grower type arrangements.


Farmers would provide their own labor and only a small grant would be needed for procuring a tools package for oil palm rehabilitation (credit under the out growers model). Replanting would require the financing of land preparation (poisoning and felling old palms) and inputs (mainly seedlings and fertilizers) through credit. The project would finance the provision of extension services facilitation services in support of farmer group establishment and training, credit for land preparation and input provision for replanting, small scale processing facilities and the rehabilitation of small infrastructure. Smallholder credit and cost recovery mechanisms are still to be determined.
Sub-Component 1.3 – Smallholder Rubber Revitalization. The component would be implemented in the counties of Montserrado, Margibi, Bong and Maryland, as shown below.





Montserrado, Margibi, Bong

(ha)


Maryland

(ha)


Total

(ha)


Proposed Operator or Concession

MARCO

SRC

CRC




Rubber Replanting




400

1,000

1,400

Rubber New Planting

300

400

500

1,200

TOTAL Rubber

300

800

1,500

2,600

The component would be aimed at: (i) supporting replanting of existing smallholder rubber farms; (ii) new planting targeting smallholders who already have some rubber plots as well as newcomers in the sector, particularly women and youth; (iii) the provision of training and technical advice to smallholders (including for tapping techniques) and supporting the organization of farmers’ groups in rubber growing areas; and (iv) limited feeder roads rehabilitation and farm access roads development (and related small bridges and drainage structure), wherever it is critical to provide access to participating farms (indicatively 90 km).


The component would be implemented in partnership with Concessions (primary processors) throughout-grower type arrangements. Only the high input model would be supported, and would be based on the use of high quality stumps and of fertilizers during the immature period. Under such model, each participating rubber farm would be developed according the same technical standards as the Concession. Farmers would provide their own labor for replanting and planting operations. Replanting and new planting would require the financing of land preparation, labor (under the high input model only) and inputs (mainly fertilizers) through credit. A grant element would be introduced to lower the establishment cost (planting year), particularly the seedlings costs. Smallholder credit and cost recovery mechanisms are still to be determined.
Component 2 – Institutional Capacity Building and Preparation of Future Large Scale Smallholder Tree Crop Development Programs.
The component would aim at: (i) building and/or strengthening the capacity of the main public and private institutions involved in project planning, coordination and implementation, particularly: the MoA’s Program Management unit (PMU), of which the project coordination team would be part; MoA’s technical divisions at HQ and targeted MoA County offices; the Cooperative Development Agency (CDA) at HQ and county level; targeted County offices of institutions responsible for land allocation and registration, including the Land Commission and the National Archives; and other implementation partners supporting smallholders, notably agriculture research institutions; and (ii) preparing future large scale smallholder tree crop development programs before the completion of the proposed project and building on its lessons learned.
Sub-component 2.1: Institution building. Capacity building of MoA and CDA staff would target technical staff involved in the project planning, coordination and monitoring and evaluation (M&E), both at Headquarters (HQ) and county level. A training of trainers (ToT) approach would be used. A rapid assessment of staff skills and training needs would be carried out. Training would tackle the following domains: economic development and empowerment of FOs/cooperatives; financial management and procurement; policy and project design; agronomic issues related to tree crops; computer literacy; training of FO facilitators. Support to MoA County offices. The project would contribute to the strengthening of the seven targeted County Agricultural Offices (CAC) in order that these effectively exercise their promotion, planning, coordination and M&E role of projects’ activities in their respective county. This would include: field allowances to carry out sensitization or supervision activities; a contribution to procuring the necessary field equipment or transport means (motorbikes); and associate running costs of the CAC office. Support to CDA. Similarly, as the CDA has a key role to play in the promotion of FOs/cooperatives, the project would strengthen CDA’s operational capacity to deliver its services through its current five offices at county level. This would include support for: procuring necessary transport means and office equipment for field offices and associate running costs; and field allowances for HQ and field offices staff in order to deliver training, business development and managerial advice to FOs/ cooperatives. Support to the Land Commission at county level. The project would complement ongoing support received by the Land Commission in order that its county offices could adequately expedite the issuance of land titles or deeds to participating smallholders. That would include: support to carrying out land surveys; and a contribution to the equipment of county offices, operating costs and field allowances. Support to adaptive tree crops research. Proposed activities would be linked to the tree crops sector and could cover: the establishment and maintenance of seed gardens (cocoa & coffee), in collaboration with other ongoing programs; refurbishing facilities for soil testing, germplasm production, biological analyses, etc.; support to adaptive research on tree crops, including socio-economic issues; training of scientists up to Masters or Doctorate level if needed; exchange visits to neighboring countries and regional agricultural research institutions; and scientific coaching and organizational advice through national and international consultants. Support to the MoA Program Management Unit (PMU)20. The project would contribute to the setting-up and effective performance of the PMU, of which the STCRSP coordination team would be part. This would encompass a contribution to the staffing of top managers of the PMU (PMU Manager, Financial Advisor, and Procurement Advisor) and associated operating costs of the PMU.
Sub-component 2.2: Preparing future large scale smallholder tree crop development programs. This would include: (i) the preparation and validation of Master Plans for all targeted tree crops. Plans would detail strategic options for development, scope, detailed activities, operational modalities, costing, as well as phasing. During this process, a national tree crops database including a GIS system would be established to better reflect the current situation of tree crops at national and county levels (acreage, number of farmers, size of farms, status of trees, localization, etc.); (ii) the elaboration and validation of a National Policy/Strategy for Farmers Organizations and Cooperatives development: this would comprise technical assistance from a specialized international consultant, setting up and support to a core country drafting team, and organization of validation workshops; and (iii) the preparation of a large scale smallholder tree crop development program encompassing the following activities: mid-term review of the proposed STCRSP; detailed feasibility studies, notably building upon the strategic options and conclusions of the adopted tree crops master plans; and final evaluation of the STCRSP to make sure lessons learned from phase I would be integrated in the larger scale program.
Component 3 - Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation.
Sub-component 3.1: Strategic Planning and Coordination and Implementation support. This would comprise two main groups of activities: (i) Support to Steering Bodies. That would include: the organization of project launching workshops at county and national level; supporting regular coordination meetings at County level (under the responsibility of the CAC) assembling representatives from all stakeholders involved in the agricultural sector and particularly in tree crops development; an operational support to the National Project Steering Committee; and (ii) Support to the Project Coordination Unit (PCU). The coordination, management, monitoring and evaluation of project activities would be under the responsibility of a specific team, to be established within and reporting to MoA central Project Management Unit (PMU). The team would include a limited number of highly qualified and motivated staff, consisting of a project coordinator, one or two specialists (agronomist or agro-economist, capacity building specialist), finance, M&E, procurement and administration staff, to be selected on a competitive basis. The responsibilities for financial management and procurement, however, would be located under the Project Financial Management Unit (PFMU) in MoF, until the capacity of the PMU is assessed as being adequate. It would encompass: a contribution to the staffing costs of the PCU (Project coordinator; Planning and M&E officer; Institution development officer; Agri-business officer; Information, education, communication and knowledge sharing officer, Accountant; and administrative support staff); the procurement of necessary transport means and of computer/office equipment; staff training and exchange visits; office operating costs of the PCU; the installation of a project accounting and management software and of management control tools; and short term technical assistance in key areas relevant to project implementation.
Sub-component 3.2: Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) and Knowledge Sharing. Under that sub-component, the following activities would be supported: the establishment of the project M&E system to integrated within the overall PMU’s and MoA’s M&E systems; carrying out necessary baseline studies per project site and/or per thematic area; annual participatory planning and evaluation workshops with beneficiaries and other stakeholders at county and district levels; the elaboration of a communication and knowledge sharing strategy for the overall PMU and for the STCRSP; development of various communication and knowledge sharing tools using various medias (newspapers, radio, television, internet, etc.) and targeting different publics (smallholders, private sector, donors, general public, etc.).
THIS CONSULTANCY
Objectives
The objective of this TOR is to develop an environmental and social management framework (ESMF) aimed at ensuring that adverse environmental and social impacts of the Project will be avoided or, where unavoidable, will be mitigated or offset, in response to the five World Bank safeguards policies triggered by the proposed project, namely OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment, OP 4.04 Natural Habitat, OP 4.09 Pest Management, OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement21 and OP 4.36 Forests.
Overview of ESMF Requirements
An ESMF is the safeguards instrument used in projects supported by the World Bank in which the investment components will be implemented by means of multiple subprojects, and those subprojects will be identified during implementation rather than at the time of appraisal. The ESMF will be based upon a clear understanding of the environmental and social issues typically associated with the activities involved in the various types of subprojects which the Project will support, in the context of the general characteristics of the natural and human environments in the Liberian counties likely to be the locations of those subprojects.

The presentation of typical impacts is one key element of an ESMF. The second element is a compilation of the mitigation measures that will be effective in managing the typical impacts, and a compilation of measures to monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and to detect any unforeseen impacts. Together, these mitigation and monitoring measures are, in essence, a generic environmental and social management plan, and they form the basic resource for environmental and social impact management in subprojects.


How the generic mitigation and monitoring measures are used for individual subprojects is determined by the third key element of an ESMF -- a screening procedure for determining the appropriate level of safeguards work needed for each subproject. In other words, how is the information on impacts and management measures in the ESMF to be used to produce the environmental and social management plan (ESMP) specific to a particular subproject. For a proposed subproject involving rehabilitation or replanting on an uncomplicated site, the ESMP will normally be simple: a reiteration of the appropriate generic mitigation and monitoring measures in the ESMF, preceded by a brief description of the subproject and followed by identification of the responsible implementing entities. On the other hand, preparing the ESMP for a subproject involving new planting on a site where significant clearing is needed or where sensitive features such as wetlands might be affected would involve environmental assessment of site characteristics and, perhaps, development of special mitigation measures for that particular location, in addition to or instead of the generic measures in the ESMF. To assist in implementation, the ESMF will provide formats such as checklists for screening, and guidelines for preparing ESMPs.

The ESMF should also take Liberian environmental assessment procedures into account in the screening procedure, especially the Environmental Protection and Management Law adopted in 2003. Because of type and scale, most of the subprojects will not be subject to environmental assessment requirements, but there may be some new planting operations for which that law requires submission of a project brief to the Liberian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Ministry of Agriculture. Upon receipt of a project brief, EPA determines what additional environmental studies are necessary, if any.


Finally, the institutional arrangements for implementing the ESMF have to be specified; these include the responsible organizations, the sequence and timing of activities, cost estimates and budget sources. If capacity-building is needed for implementation, recommendations for it should be part of the institutional arrangements. Ultimately the ESMF and the ESMPs that will be prepared in accordance with it during implementation must serve as guidance during subproject preparation to adjust and if necessary re-design project activities with the active support and involvement of individuals and groups that will potentially be the beneficiaries or otherwise affected by the STCRSP activities.
Scope of Services
To reach the above objectives, the Consultant will undertake a study which will involve the following:
I. Assessment of potential environmental and social impacts
The consultant will:

Conduct fact-finding workshops in each of the project areas and in Monrovia22. The client (MoA) will assist with the physical organization of these workshops. In the project areas, the workshop audience should comprise the main STCRSP stakeholders (e.g. farmers – both tree crop and other, concession holders, plantation growers, processing companies, county council representatives, district committee representatives, women’s groups, clan representatives, NGOs, church groups, etc.). In Monrovia the audience should comprise ‘higher level’ participants (e.g. relevant Government departments, academic & research institutions, donors, NGOs, etc.). These fact finding workshops should also focus on covering any potential problems related to land acquisition, or objections to the potential locations of project sites. The ESMF should address areas of concern raised in the stakeholder workshops.


Identify and assess the typical environmental and social impacts of the types of investments that will be supported by the proposed STCRSP. Explore options for mitigating, monitoring and managing any potentially negative impacts likely to result from the proposed project. In order to supplement observations on the environmental and social characteristics of the participating counties, a thematic literature review should be conducted. The consultant must conduct this work according to World Bank requirements, namely OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment, OP 4.04 Natural Habitat, OP 4.09 Pest Management, and OP 4.36 Forests.
Pest and pesticide management issues relevant to the STCRSP need to be addressed. It will be necessary to review current pesticide practices in the project areas and evaluate the appropriateness of any existing IPM plans, and how the implementation of recommended practices will be monitored in the Project. The relationship of the recommended practices to the regulatory framework would be examined and recommendations provided for the mitigation of risks associated with pesticide use. An appropriate Pest Management Plan in accordance with the requirements of World Bank OP 4.09 would be prepared.
Water quality issues relevant to the STCRSP need to be addressed in the ESMF, particularly in regard to riverine contamination from agricultural & processing operations, impact on ground water portability, and impact on marine environments.
At the level of an ESMF, the dimensions of the study area that could be affected by activities on the ground cannot be determined. Baseline data for the ESMF should be collected at the county level, focusing where appropriate on the regions in which cocoa, coffee, rubber and oil palm are commonly grown. The data should address the following:

Describe relevant physical, biological, and socioeconomic conditions, including any major changes anticipated before any subproject commences.

Take into account major current and proposed development activities within the participating counties that are not directly connected to the project but could be relevant to decisions about project location, design, operation, or mitigatory measures.
The ESMF should contain a risk assessment at the county scale of significant conversion or degradation of critical forest areas, including adjacent or downstream critical natural habitats that might occur due to Project activities. Amongst others, the following topics require attention:

Issues related to the establishment of any new smallholder tree crop blocks and potential impacts on food gardens (a potential question to be asked; are food gardens being abandoned due to the establishment of tree crop blocks and are new gardens therefore being established in areas of critical forest or natural habitat areas?);

Aspects related to the upgrading and improvement of roads that provide access to smallholder tree crop blocks.

Environmental implications of the socio-economic pressures associated with potential scarcity of land for gardens in tree crop project areas.

Which areas of critical habitat and forests should be avoided to ensure inadvertent conversion of natural forests that are critical to wildlife/human?

Identify where tree crops can be safely established that do not convert any critical habitats23.


An analysis should be included of the compliance and possible implementation progress of current or planned environmental management systems being adopted by those tree crop processing or milling companies that are going to be working with the Project, covering those environmental implications which are significantly affected by the implementation of the STCRSP.
The ESMF should include a review of current environmental practices affecting tree crop development, and particularly those affected by implementation of the STCRSP, including forest and habitat protection considerations, pesticide use, soil erosion and watercourse contamination by crop processing and agricultural practices. Practical means to address any negative influences and monitor implementation progress would be developed under the Environmental Management Plan, where appropriate measures are not already in place. Funds have to be included under the consultant’s proposal to undertake limited investigations (e.g. laboratory analysis) that would support the consultant’s assessment of the water quality concerns associated with the STCRSP. The participation of an EPA officer in the sampling process should be included.
The capacities of the government, non-governmental organizations, and other private entities on environmental assessment and monitoring should also be assessed.
Specifically, the social dimensions of the ESMF should consider the issues below in addition to any others mentioned above:

The socio-economic benefit of the project to communities and possible impacts (negative and positive) including improved road network

Influx of labor from neighboring counties or countries as farm hands and associated social dynamics

Increased employment for the youth and impact on rural-urban movement

High levels of expectations from communities, increased demand for more support from the project beyond the capacity of the project

Relationship between farmers and implementing agencies like NGOs, Concessions

Land related disputes, family disputes about ownership and implications for project activities
Typically the ESMF report will have to be structured as follows:

Executive Summary;

Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework (following EPA and World Bank guidelines);

Detailed description of the Proposed Project;

Methodology (describe the techniques used for carrying out the work, source and description of data);

Baseline Data

Typical environmental and social impacts;

Generic mitigation and monitoring measures required to address the typical impacts, assess the likely costs, and identify how they will be funded and by whom (e.g. Government, contractor, etc).


II. Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) Mitigation and Monitoring Measures
The consultant must prepare as a section of the ESMF a template for the Environmental and Social Management Plans that will be prepared for subprojects that will follow, keeping in mind that the primary purpose is to serve as a resource for preparation of the actual ESMPs. The STCRSP’s template must consist of the set of (1) mitigation, (2) monitoring, and (3) institutional measures that will be available during implementation and operation to eliminate adverse environmental and social impacts, offset them, or reduce them to acceptable levels, which should be consistent with the Social Assessment that is being carried out concurrently with this consultancy. The template, which may be looked on as a generic ESMP, should also include/specify the actions needed to implement these measures.
Mitigation: Identify feasible and cost-effective measures that may reduce potentially significant adverse environmental and social impacts to acceptable levels. Includes compensatory measures if mitigation measures are not feasible, cost-effective, or sufficient. Specifically, the template or generic ESMP should:

Summarize significant adverse environmental and social impacts.

Describe, with technical details, each mitigation measure, including the type of impact to which it relates and the conditions under which it is required (e.g., continuously or in the event of contingencies), together with designs, equipment descriptions, and operating procedures, as appropriate.

Estimate any positive environmental and social impacts of these measures.

Provide linkage with any other mitigation plans required for the project.

Identify any protection or preservation activities that may be required during the implementation of the project. This further includes the determination of critical natural habitats and/or critical forest areas within the Project areas.

Provide an Integrated Pest Management Plan. The plan will have to (i) determine the Project’s pest management approach, (ii) analyze its pesticide management practices, (iii) examine the policy, regulatory framework and institutional capacity for pest management, and (iv) propose a monitoring and supervision plan. The plan will also have to contain a list of pesticides going to be used in Project related activities and need to be classified in accordance with World Bank Guidelines on Pest Management.
Monitoring: The environmental and social monitoring during project implementation provides information about key environmental and social aspects of the project, particularly the environmental and social impacts of the STCRSP and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Such information allows evaluation of the success of mitigation as part of project supervision, and allows corrective action to be taken when needed. Therefore, the ESMF identifies monitoring objectives and specifies the type of monitoring, with linkages to the impacts assessed in the ESMF report and the mitigation measures described in the generic ESMP or template. Monitoring should also ensure that STCRSP activities comply with World Bank policies on i) Natural Habitats, Forests, and Pest Management; and ii) Land Acquisition and Resettlement. Specifically, the monitoring section provides:

A specific description, and technical details, of monitoring measures, including the parameters to be measured, methods to be used, sampling approach, frequency of measurements, detection limits (where appropriate), and definition of thresholds that will signal the need for corrective actions;

Monitoring and reporting procedures to (i) ensure early detection of conditions that necessitate particular mitigation measures, and (ii) furnish information on the progress and results of mitigation.
Currently applied monitoring mechanisms for all-important environmental and social aspects need to be assessed (e.g. ISO 14,001). Should current monitoring mechanisms not be satisfactory, adequate measures need to be suggested and put in place. Two examples might be helpful for clarification:

In the case of monitoring water quality aspects, the best practice approach should be used to address and monitor the effects on water quality that might be caused by increased fertilizer use due to Project activities; it is further advisable to build on experiences already gained in the Project areas or other areas in Liberia;

In the case of monitoring palm oil mill and rubber factory effluent treatment, the consultant will need to assess whether the established effluent treatment capacity will be sufficient to deal with the expected incremental crop produced under the project. If not, the consultant will need to suggest measures aimed at increasing effluent treatment capacity. While an independent check of performance may not be required if the palm oil mills and rubber factories are certified through an internationally recognized certification standard, arrangements will need to be made to ensure that the independently audited reports on effluent effects are accessible to EPA. If the palm oil mills and rubber factories are not certified through an internationally recognized certification standard, the consultant will need to suggest measures to monitor effluent treatment, and ensure that the reports are accessible to EPA. In both cases, the consultant will need to verify that the adopted effluent treatment standards are compliant with the World Bank standards, and if not suggest measures aimed at bringing them to compliance.
Capacity Development and Training: To support timely and effective implementation of environmental project components and mitigation measures, the ESMF draws on the assessment of the existence, role, and capability of environmental units on site or at the national agency and Departmental level. If necessary, the ESMF should recommend measures that will improve the effectiveness of such units to allow implementation of impact management and monitoring recommendations, e.g. amelioration of logistical constraints that may inhibit site monitoring by EPA officers and other designated officers from the MOA.
Specifically the Capacity Development section of the ESMF should:

Propose an environmental and social awareness program aimed at STCRSP tree crop stakeholders. The awareness program should be geared toward encouraging practical measures to mitigate environmental impact and be on a scale commensurate with the scope of the STCRSP; and

Propose criteria that can be used for the preparation of a duty statement and selection criteria for the appointment of a Safeguards officer to be responsible for environmental and social safeguards issues for the STCRSP.
III. Screening Procedure
The consultant will develop and explain a step-by-step process whereby proposed subprojects will be screened to determine (a) suitability for financing under STCRSP from the standpoints of environmental and social acceptability, and, once as subproject is determined to be suitable, (b) how the requirements of the ESMF are to be met in preparing and implementing it. For (a) the consultant shall provide a ‘checklist’ that can be used as a decision tool to decide the acceptability of a proposed tree crop block according to criteria for funding under World Bank (and EPA) requirements. For (b) the consultant will describe the review procedure and provide guidelines for desk review and field reconnaissance, ideally in checklist form, and criteria for a determination of whether the subproject ESMP can be a compilation of the relevant generic mitigation and monitoring measures in the ESMF, or whether site-specific measures based on field studies will be needed. The screening procedure should provide guidelines for defining the scope of such field studies.
IV. Guidelines for Subproject ESMPs.
Typically the ESMP reports that will be prepared for subprojects during implementation will have to be structured in a similar fashion to the ESMF report (see above). Much of the material on the overall Project, the policy and legal framework, the typical impacts, and the generic mitigation and monitoring measures can be extracted directly from the ESMF. The subproject description, the description of baseline environmental and social conditions, the results of any field studies, and any site-specific assessment and mitigation measures will need to be prepared anew for each subproject as relevant. In addition the subproject ESMP report will contain:

An environmental and social mitigation plan and Budget;

A monitoring proposal; and

A proposal for strengthening and training of the institutions that will actually be implementing the ESMP for the subproject.


The consultant will develop a format for the subproject ESMPs and include it in the ESMF as an annex.
V. Methodology and Data Collection Instruments/techniques
As part of the reports prepared by the consultant, the consultant should clearly outline:

The sources, accuracy and reliability of data collected; and

Methods and nature of consultations undertaken as part of the study.
VI. Composition, Profile and Expertise of Consulting Team
The actual makeup of the consulting team will depend to an extent upon the range of skills and experience available. However, it is expected that it will most likely comprise of two team members with the following skills, with possible support from other relevant field staff and/or specific specialists as may be required in order for the Consultant to effectively complete all tasks, outputs and deliverables required under this Terms of Reference:
Agronomist / Environmental Assessment Specialist:

Responsible for providing overall team coordination and leadership, the Agronomist / Environmental Assessment Specialist will have:

Compulsory

A post graduate qualification in an agronomic/environmental related discipline, with at least five years of relevant professional experience (or without an a post-graduate degree, at least ten years relevant experience), with at least two of those working in the West Africa region;

Knowledge of and familiarity with the environmental effects of tree crops, ideally including oil palm, cocoa, coffee and rubber, and experience in the management of such impacts;

Detailed knowledge of World Bank Safeguards Policies;

Strong communication skills in spoken and written English; and

A strong track record, with experience and demonstrated skills in preparing environmental and social assessment reports for international development projects.

Preferred

Self motivated, dynamic and able to relate easily in an international and multi-cultural environment.

Previous experience working in Liberia.

Experience with preparing an ESMF for a World Bank funded project.


Social Scientist:

The Social Scientist will be experienced in rural development in Africa and will have:

Compulsory

A post graduate qualification in a relevant social discipline, with at least five years of relevant professional experience (or without an a post-graduate degree, at least ten years relevant experience), with at least two of those working in the West Africa region;

Comprehensive knowledge of rural development issues in Africa;

Strong communication skills in spoken and written English; and

A strong track record, with experience and demonstrated skills in preparing social evaluations for international development projects.

Preferred

Self motivated, dynamic and able to relate easily in an international and multi-cultural environment.

Previous experience working in Liberia.

Experience with preparing an ESMF for a World Bank funded project.
VII. Deliverables
The consultant will be required to produce the following reports/outputs:

A Workshop Report addressing environmental issues;

An Environmental and Social Management Framework Report containing all parts listed under I through IV (above), and satisfying World Bank requirements; and

Summaries papers or brochures of the ESMF report, in English and any local languages considered important by the Social Assessment team.).


VIII. Consultations and Disclosure
In addition to the stakeholder consultations to be conducted at the outset of the engagement, the consultant will support and assist the Ministry of Agriculture in disclosing the final draft ESMF at locations convenient for stakeholders that are interested in reviewing it, and in holding a set of workshops at which the ESMF will be presented to stakeholders and their comments obtained for inclusion in the final document. The final ESMF will include in an annex a list of consultation events, participants, issues raised and responses given.
IX. Administrative Arrangements
The Consultant would ultimately report to the PMU Director but would report on a day to day basis to the PIU Project Preparation Coordinator. He/she would also liaise closely with the World Bank Task Team Leader or anyone appointed by him. The work would be conducted in close collaboration with MoA, other relevant Government agencies both in the field and in Monrovia (e.g. EPA, NGOs, research institutions, etc), and other representatives of the sub-sectors. The Consultants would work with the PIU based within the PMU of MoA, including with the PIU Project Preparation Coordinator, who would provide guidance to the consultants in country and ensure that the consultants’ inputs meet the requirements of Government and those of the World Bank. MOA will provide guidance and logistic support (as defined under the Consultants contract) to the Consultant, who will also receive guidance from the World Bank.
X. Timetable
The assignment is expected to require a total of about four person months,. The total duration of the assignment will be about 14 weeks, which could include about 5-days for desk review, about 12-weeks for field activities (including conducting stakeholder workshops in the various counties), and about 15-days for writing the detailed reports. It is expected that the field work could be conducted with two separate field visits.
The estimated timetable for the assignment will be around the following period:

Desk Review: Late May 2011

Field Visits: Early – mid June 2011

1st draft of report: Mid July 2011

Final draft (incorporating comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Bank): End July 2011

Consultation on final report and future actions to be taken: Mid August 2011.


The reports must present the study’s findings and define proposals for each of the critical issues identified. Particular attention must be paid to ensure that the EMP and draft guidelines for monitoring of the STCRSP are appropriate and endorsed by EPA.
XI. Facilities & Information to be Provided by the client
The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) will designate a suitably qualified and experienced officer to act as counterpart for the study and to assist with liaison and coordination with meetings etc.  The MoA Project Management Unit (PMU) will also provide ongoing support and assistance for the team, especially with administrative issues and required documentation. 
Otherwise, the Consultant will be required to source and fund its own office accommodation, equipment and transport.
In order to facilitate the study, the consultant will be made available with the following documentation concerning the sector and the project:

Aide Memoirs and Working papers produced by the FAO/WB July/August 2010 Preparation Mission and November/December 2010 Pre-Appraisal Mission.

Draft WB Project Appraisal Document (PAD) -including its annexes.

Data from the Ministry of Public Works (Infrastructure Unit), the International Labor Organization (ILO), the World Bank, and Liberia Institute of Statistics & Geo-Information Service (LISGIS), with regards to the road sector (including feeder roads), notably ongoing/planned projects, rehabilitation methods, costs, road maps etc.

Available sectoral background documentation, including; the National Medium Term Investment Program (NMTIP) and a Bankable Investment Project Profile on tree crops prepared in 2006 in the framework of CAADP; the 2007 Comprehensive Assessment of the Agriculture Sector; the 2008 Diagnostic Trade Integrated Study (DTIS); the Liberia Agricultural Sector Investment Plan (LASIP) recently presented at the ECOWAS Business Review Meeting in Dakar on 14 June; the 2008 National Food Security & Nutrition Strategy; a recently prepared National Agriculture Policy; and the draft Agro-Industry Strategy that was discussed on at a stakeholders workshop on 20 July 2010.

Relevant documentation gathered from NGOs and other stakeholders during the Pre-Preparation and Preparation missions, as well as any other document considered relevant by the FAO TTL, the World Bank TTL or the PMU Director.


XII. Safeguards Policies to be used as Guidance and Standards

OP 4.01 – Environmental Assessment

OP 4.04 – Natural Habitats

OP 4.09 – Pest Management

OP 4.36 - Forests




Share with your friends:
1   ...   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page