INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET
APPRAISAL STAGE
I. Basic Information
Date prepared/updated: 06/09/2005
Report No.: AC1643
Public Disclosure Authorized
1. Project Statistics
Country: East Asia and Pacific
Project ID: P079610
Project Name: Livestock Waste Management in East Asia Project
Task Team Leader: Weiguo Zhou
GEF Focal Area: International waters
Global Supplemental ID:
Estimated Appraisal Date: June 1, 2005
Estimated Board Date: December 20, 2005
Managing Unit: EASRD
Lending Instrument: Specific Investment
Loan
Sector: Animal production (90%);Sewerage (10%)
Theme: Environmental policies and institutions (P);Rural policies and institutions (P)
IBRD Amount (US$m.):
0.00
IDA Amount (US$m.):
0.00
Public Disclosure Authorized
GEF Amount (US$m.):
7.00
PCF Amount (US$m.):
0.00
Other financing amounts by source:
BORROWER/RECIPIENT
16.51
FOREIGN MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS (UNIDENTIFIED)
0.50
17.01
Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment
Simplified Processing
Simple []
Repeater []
Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery)
Yes [ ]
No [X]
2. Project Objectives
Public Disclosure Authorized
The Project?s development objective is to reduce the major negative environmental and
health impacts of rapidly increasing concentrated livestock production on the open waters
of and thus on the people of East Asia. Its global environment objective is to reduce
livestock induced, land-based pollution and environmental degradation of the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand.
3. Project Description
The proposed Project takes a comprehensive approach to integrate technological
solutions, regulatory enforcement, capacity building, and regional synergy for
achievement of the Project objectives. The Project would be integrated into the
Governments? mainstream programs and based on existing institutional mechanisms. The
project will support activities under the following four project components to be
implemented over a period of five years.
Public Disclosure Authorized
Component 1: Livestock Waste Management Technology Demonstration
This component would finance consultant services, training, goods and civil works
related to the development and construction of cost-effective and replicable livestock
waste management systems and facilities and the implementation of effective waste
management approaches in areas with a high concentration of intensive pig farms. Its
goal is to demonstrate technically, geographically, economically and institutionally
workable solutions to reduce regionally-critical livestock waste pollution caused by
industrial livestock production under the different political and social situations of the
participating countries. The livestock waste management strategies promoted under this
component will focus on reducing excess nutrients (nitrates and phosphates in particular)
and human health risks. The methods to be used would include (a) reducing, through
better feeding practices, the volume of nutrients emission; (b) getting the nutrients back
into the crop cycle; (c) processing and packaging the nutrients for export to other areas
for crop use; (d) converting the nutrients to plant-available forms; (e) destroying the
nutrients; and (f) taking measures to minimize potential transmission of pathogens,
antibiotics and their resistance strains from livestock to human being. Specific activities
of the component would include: selection of demonstration farms and villages, technical
design, and implementation.
The demonstration activities would be supported by training and extension to provide
(a) farmers with the essential skills and technical support needed to improve their on-
farm manure management practices and (b) capacity building. Activities would be
specified in the detailed master capacity building development plan to be prepared by
each participating country. This component would comprise two subcomponents i.e.
Technology Demonstration, and Training and Extension.
Component 2: Policy and Regulatory Development
This component would finance consultant services, training and goods to support setting
up a policy and regulatory framework for environmentally sustainable development of
livestock production in each country that will induce further policy reforms and
encourage farmers to adopt improved manure management practices. This will be
achieved through: (a) the development of a replication strategy; (b) the review and
revision of existing regulations; (c) the commitment to master planning of livestock
production (at national and provincial levels) to direct the geographic focus of future
intensive livestock production; (d) the development and introduction of codes of practice
or best waste management practices; and (e) the development and introduction of
livestock waste recycling and discharge standards. Specific policy packages will be tested
in sub-national jurisdictions and testing experience will feed back into the policy and
regulatory development subcomponent. Code of Practices or Best Management Practices
will be tested in synergy with Livestock Waste Management Technology Demonstration
component, which will promote cost-effective and replicable technical options. This
component will also support awareness raising activities, focusing on policy measures
and environment and public health issues associated with inadequate manure
management. This will focus the attention of national and local governments on livestock
waste policy and regulatory enforcement and facilitate further assistance with this
challenge from the World Bank and other donors. This component would comprise three
subcomponents i.e. Policy and Regulatory Development, Policy Testing, and Awareness
Raising.
Component 3: Project Management and Monitoring
This component would finance consultant services, training, office equipment and
incremental operating costs to support efficient project management by supporting the
establishment of a national Project Management Office (PMO) in each participating
country as the secretariat of and reporting directly to the respective National Steering
Committee. The PMO, comprising a Project manager supported by competent staff,
based on existing administrative structure and physically located within the main
implementing agency of each participating country, would be responsible for day to day
Project administration. Replication potential of alternative livestock waste management
technologies as related to farm scale, affordability, operational capacity, material
availability, and compatibility to the waste handling methods of the local farm
communities would be assessed to achieve widespread replication of the tested manure
management practices throughout the three participating countries
The component would also support effective Project monitoring and evaluation of the
social, economic, environmental, human health risks and other changes brought about by
the Project, and the dissemination of Project outcomes within respective participating
country. Monitoring on human health risks associated with the project will focus on
measures taken to minimize potential transmission of pathogens, antibiotics and their
resistance strains from livestock to human being. Specific activities would be detailed in
Project monitoring and evaluation plans to be finalized at appraisal. This component
would comprise two subcomponents i. e. Project Management, Project Monitoring and
Evaluation.
Component 4: Regional Support Services
This component would finance consultant services, training, workshop, office
equipment and incremental operating costs to provide (a) capacity building support to
strengthen the participating countries? institutional capacity in Project implementation
and (b) regional coordination and facilitation support to ensure regional coordination and
achieve cross-country synergies, and regional replication.
This component would respond to the participating countries? need for an easily
accessible source of support for capacity building including support for (a) decision tools
development, (b) evaluation of Project activities and outcomes, and (c) development of
training modules and packages. This component would focus on regional coordination,
facilitation amongst the three participating countries and the dissemination of Project
outcomes, decision support tools, technical guidelines and standards within the three
participating countries and to other countries bordering the South China Sea. This
component would comprise two subcomponents i.e. Capacity Building Support, and
Coordination and Facilitation Support.
4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard
analysis
Component 1 will support demonstrations on selected farms/villages. The first group of
demonstration farms/villages have been selected according to selection criteria agreed
with the Bank, which would be updated periodically during project implementation as
needed and included in the Project Implementation Plan (PIP) of each country. These
farms/villages are located in Ha Tay and Dong Nai provinces in Vietnam, Ratchaburi and
Chonburi provinces in Thailand and Boluo County in Guangdong province of China. The
other farms/villages will be selected in accordance with the agreed criteria that they
should (a) be large sized pig farms in China and Thailand or villages with large number
of confined household-based pig farms in Vietnam; (b) be willing to participate with co-
financing commitment; (c) be located in an area where pig production is the dominant
cause of water pollution; (d) be located in an area where the trend is increasing or steady
in pig production; (e) be located in an area ideally representing a single geographical
catchment area or a micro watershed draining to a single surface stream; and (f) be
located within the identified concentrated livestock production. Investments under
Components 2, 3, and 4 of the proposed project would be made at national and local
levels in each country and at the regional level to support consultant services, workshops,
training, office and monitoring equipments etc.
5. Environmental and Social Specialists on the Team
Ms Chongwu Sun (EASEN)
Mr Quang Ngoc Bui (EASSD)
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
Cultural Property (OPN 11.03)
X
Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20)
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 results of environmental impact assessment indicate that, in general, the proposed
Project will have minimal negative environmental impact. If successfully implemented,
the Project would be conducive to the improvement of the environment. If the
recommended mitigation and control measures, presented in respective national EA
reports, are adopted, the potential short and long term impact of the Project on the
environment should be highly positive. However, if the Project locations are improperly
selected, and/or if the proposed mitigation measures are not implemented, the Project
could have potential negative impact on the natural and social environment, which might
jeopardize sustainable development and effectiveness of the Project in ultimately
reducing nutrient loading to the South China Sea through dissemination of Project
findings within the region. The selected demonstration farms/villages do not involve any
indigenous peoples or involuntary resettlement. Ethnic Minority Development plans and
resettlement plans are required from respective countries in subsequent implementation
years when situations change necessitating the process. No potential large scale,
significant and irreversible impacts are foreseen. Some minor negative impacts on the
environment during implementation/construction phase of the Project in all Project areas
in the three countries would be temporal and of low magnitude with the exception of
permanent loss of some land, agricultural or ?wasteland?, for construction of large
lagoons for aerobic/anaerobic ponds. These may include impact to vegetation due to
temporary land occupation at the construction sites, pollution of waste of daily life at the
construction site and noise and dust of the construction machinery. These negative
impacts could be minimized if the mitigation measures proposed in the EA reports are
implemented.
2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future
activities in the project area:
Several other social and environmental impacts were assessed including (a) gender-based
differences among participating countries, (b) farmers interest in and constraints for
adoption of manure management technologies, (c) outreach and responsiveness of service
delivery, (d) community organizations, (e) potential transmission of pathogens,
antibiotics and their resistance strains from animal to humans, (f) potential air pollution
(toxic gases and odor) as well as greenhouse effect (CO2, CH4) as a result of improper
working of biogas digester systems and composting of livestock manure. To address
these impacts, specific actions were taken by all participating countries. Detailed
monitoring and evaluation plans are under finalization.
3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize
adverse impacts.
Various project alternatives were considered as possible methods to help avoid or
minimize adverse project impacts including (a) exclusively regulation-based approach,
(b) exclusively technology-based approach, and (c) approach to involve all littoral
countries bordering South China Sea. These alternatives were rejected due to
considerable limits of each approach. Incorporated in the current project design, the
following were agreed by all three participating countries as success indicators in
minimizing adverse impacts: (a) higher net income from manure management practices
(e.g. more efficient pig-fish integration, reduced loss of pigs due to better health), (b) cost
savings related to manure management (e.g. reuse of treated water), (c) equal
participation of women, (d) increased welfare (better health for farmers, workers and
neighbors, including in particular children), (e) pollution reduction (water and air quality)
and reduction in nutrition loads, (f) adoption and replication rates, and (g) technical
functioning and durability of schemes. The following additional indicators were used by
neighbors affected by pig production in Thailand: (a) lower frequency of complaints, (b)
higher proportion of neighbors willing to accept pig farms in their neighborhood, (c)
reduced loss of income caused by negative effects from pollution, and (d) more local
workers hired by pig farms (as technologically advanced treatment systems require
educated labor inputs that can not be provided by immigrant workers).
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.
Three safeguard policies were triggered i.e. (a) Environmental Assessment; (b)
Involuntary Resettlement; and (c) Indigenous Peoples. Specific measures have been
taken by all three participating countries to address safeguard policy issues including
preparation of Environmental Assessment report, Environmental Management Plan,
Resettlement Policy Framework, Strategy for Ethnic Minority Development plan, Social
Assessment report and assessment of potential impact on human health risks.
Endorsement/approval letters to endorse their respective EA. RPF, SEMD and commit
the implementation of their EMP, RPF and SEMD are already or will shortly be sent to
the Bank. The institutional capacity between the three participating countries differs
considerably and project preparation and design have taken into consideration these
differences. The agreed institutional arrangements under this project would ensure overall
project institutional arrangement in place with specific project institutional and
implementation arrangement structure, particularly below the national level, various from
one country to another due to different country and local environment and conditions.
The country?s general capacity does exist but requires strengthening. Specific actions
will be taken to strengthen institutional capacity which would include development of a
master capacity building plan in each country, training modules to be developed under
the Regional Support Services component, targeted trainings offered by the Bank?s
country offices etc.
5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and
disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people.
The following key stakeholder groups were established (a) pig farm; (b) neighboring
farms and urban businesses and nearby urban dwellers; (c) government agencies and have
been involved in Project preparation. They will be continuously involved in project
implementation. A draft stakeholder participation plan has been prepared by each
participating country which specified the participation and consultation mechanisms
tailored to facilitate the stakeholder involvement especially the private sector.
Mechanisms for stakeholder-led M&E would allow representatives for various target
groups to assess Project performance, effects, impacts, and appropriateness of
implementation processes and benefit systems. The proposed Project has won strong
support from individual livestock producers, farmer groups, NGOs, and government
authorities at national, provincial and local levels with strong commitment in all
participating Project countries. Two rounds of public consultation for the Project-affected
people have been conducted during the EA work. The following approaches were taken
for public consultation (a) consultation meetings with local residents, communities, local
government representatives, and (b) questionnaire analysis of public opinion
supplemented by interviews. Project related information and the translated safeguard
documentation were disclosed during public consultation processes. The key safeguard
documents including the chapters 7 and 8 of EIA report, PFR and SEMD of each country
have been translated into respective national languages. Translated documents have been
made available to the public at all levels including farm and village level in each
participating country. These documents will also be disclosed at the respective World
Bank Offices in Bangkok, Beijing and Hanoi.
B. Disclosure Requirements Date
Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other:
Date of receipt by the Bank
12/31/2004
Date of "in-country" disclosure
05/23/2005
Date of submission to InfoShop
06/09/2005
For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive
Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors
Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process:
Date of receipt by the Bank
12/31/2004
Date of "in-country" disclosure
05/23/2005
Date of submission to InfoShop
06/09/2005
Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework:
Date of receipt by the Bank
12/31/2994
Date of "in-country" disclosure
05/23/2005
Date of submission to InfoShop
06/09/2005
* If the project triggers the Pest Management, Cultural Property and/or the Safety
of Dams policies, the respective issues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of
the Environmental Assessment/Audit/or EMP.
If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please
explain why:
C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (to be filled in when the
ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting)
OP/BP/GP 4.01 - Environment Assessment
Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report?
Yes
If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit review and approve the EA
No
report?
Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the
Yes
credit/loan?
OD 4.20 - Indigenous Peoples
Has a separate indigenous people development plan been prepared in
Yes
consultation with the Indigenous People?
If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review the plan?
No
If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been reviewed
No
and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit?
OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement
Has a resettlement plan, abbreviated plan, or process framework (as
Yes
appropriate) been prepared?
If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and approve
No
the plan / policy framework / policy process?
BP 17.50 - Public Disclosure
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
No
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
Yes
been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard
policies?
Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project
Yes
cost?
Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the
Yes
monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies?
Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the
Yes
borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal
documents?
D. Approvals
Signed and submitted by:
Name
Date
Task Team Leader:
Mr Weiguo Zhou
05/24/2005
Environmental Specialist:
Ms Chongwu Sun
05/23/2005
Social Development Specialist
Mr Quang Ngoc Bui
05/23/2005
Additional Environmental and/or
Social Development Specialist(s):
Approved by:
Regional Safeguards Coordinator:
Mr Glenn S. Morgan
05/24/2005
Comments: This is a delegated project. No Regional Safeguards Coordinator's approval is required.
Sector Manager:
Ms Hoonae Kim
05/24/2005
Comments: Issues listed in the safeguards clearance memo dated November 24, 2003 have been
satisfactorily addressed.