Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (ISDS)
Section I ­ Basic Information
Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: November 29, 2004
Report No.:AC1133
A. Basic Project Data
A.1. Project Statistics
Public Disclosure Authorized
Country: Serbia and Montenegro
Project ID: P084604
GEF Focal Area: OP 8
Global Supplemental ID:
Project: Serbia Danube River Enterprise
TTL: Tijen Ar n
Pollution Reduction Project (under the
BSDP)
Total project cost (by component)*:

US $million
Component 1: Support to Policy and Legal Reform
0.27
Component 2: Investment in Nutrient Reduction
19.54
Component 3: Water and Soil Quality Monitoring,
Awareness Raising and Replication Strategy
Development
1.46
Public Disclosure Authorized
Component 4: Project Management and Impact Monitoring
0.73
Total Cost
22.00
*Cost figures include quantity and price contingencies
Appraisal Date: December 6, 2004
Loan/Credit amount($m):
Board Date: March 29, 2005

Other financing amounts by source:
($m.)
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
8.98
BORROWER/RECIPIENT
0.37
BENECIFIARIES / LOCAL
8.64
COMMUNITIES
Public Disclosure Authorized
SIDA 3.63
INTERNATIONAL NGOs
0.38
Total 22.00
Managing Unit: ECSSD
Sector: General agriculture, fishing and
forestry sector (40%);Agro-industry
(30%);Central government administration
(30%)
Lending Instruments: Specific Investment

Loan
Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency
Yes?
[ ]
No?
[x]
recovery?
Environmental Category: B

Public Disclosure Authorized
A.2. Project Objectives

The development objective of the project is to increase the use of environmentally
friendly practices among eligible enterprises and thereby reduce nutrient pollution of the

---

Danube River. The global environment objective is to demonstrate measures for
reducing reduce nutrient pollution of the Danube River and the Black Sea.

Progress towards achieving these principal project outcomes will be measured in terms of
percentage of selected farms and slaughterhouses implementing nutrient and manure
management plans properly two years after joining the project.

THE COUNTRY ASSISTANCE STRATEGY (CAS) WHICH WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
WORLD BANK BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN MID-DECEMBER EMPHASIZES
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF ECONOMIC
GROWTH. IT STATES THAT "[A]CHIEVING GOAL 2: CREATING A LARGER, MORE
DYNAMIC PRIVATE SECTOR WILL REQUIRE PROGRESS IN A NUMBER OF DIFFICULT
AREAS.... FOURTH, FURTHER PROGRESS ON CLEANING UP AND PROTECTING THE
ENVIRONMENT IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE QUALITY ECONOMIC GROWTH OVER THE
MEDIUM TERM." .

The project will also fulfill the goals of the relevant GEF Operational Program, OP. 8
Waterbody-based Operational Program under the GEF International Focal Area: The
project will be implemented under the GEF Strategic Partnership on the Danube and
Black Sea Basin which was established to support the ICPDR and the Black Sea
Commission in their quest to reducing nutrient pollution in the Danube River and Black
Sea. The project will help Serbia reduce its nutrient discharges into the Danube from
agricultural sources in the long run as they specified in FRY/SAM's Five Year Nutrient
Reduction Plan submitted to the ICPDR. As such, the project will serve the program's
long-term objective to undertake a series of projects that involve helping groups of
countries to work collaboratively with the support of implementing agencies in achieving
changes in sectoral policies and activities so that transboundary environmental concerns
degrading specific water bodies can be resolved.

A.3. Project Description

Component 1: Support to Policy and Regulatory Reform (Total cost: US$ 0.22, of which GEF
funded: US$ 0.21 million):

The objective of this component is to strengthen the policy and regulatory framework that
regulates nutrient run-off and discharge from livestock farms and slaughterhouses, in line
with the European Union Nitrate Directive. In particular, the project will support (i) the
development of a Code of Good Agricultural Practices; (ii) a study to identify nitrate
vulnerable areas in Serbia, (iii) the development of an implementation plan for the Nitrate
Directive; and (iv) the drafting of a law on fertilizers and fertilization.

Component 2: Investment in Nutrient Reduction (Total cost: US$ 17.90 million, of
which GEF funded: US$ 7.09 million)

The objective of this component is to demonstrate cost-effective methods by livestock
farms and slaughterhouses to reduce nutrient run-off and discharge into the Danube River
and its tributaries; and to improve agricultural advisory service capacity to extend
knowledge on these technologies. The project will support a) investments in manure

---

management in livestock farms; b) investments in slaughterhouse animal waste
management; c) the establishment of a Training and Information Center (TIC) on proper
nutrient, manure and slaughterhouse waste management; and d) local advisory units to
raise awareness among farmers and slaughterhouses on proper nutrient / manure and
animal waste management and assist enterprises participating in the project.

Investments in nutrient management in livestock farms will be supported through partial
grants to farms that meet pre-established eligibility and selection criteria. The
investments will mainly consist of the establishment of a farm nutrient management plan
(NMP), construction of proper manure storage facilities and the purchase of manure
spreading equipment. Geographical focus will be on four municipalities, Novi Sad,
Vrbas, Sabac and Po arevac where livestock density and pollution levels are high.
During the first year of project implementation, 8 pig and cattle farms of differing sizes
will be selected for support as demonstration farms. These will be used to refine
practices that are most suitable to local conditions, to demonstrate them to other
interested farmers, and to monitor water and soil quality improvements as a result of the
project interventions. A "grant scheme" will be implemented during project years 2-4
whereby a grant of up to 60% of the total investment cost or US$100,000 will be
provided to cover part of the cost of investments in approximately 150 livestock farms.
The total investment cost per farm may range from US$ 36,000 in small cattle farms to
US$ 440,000 in very large pig farms.

Grant support of up to 30% will be offered to approximately 8 large or very large
slaughterhouses to acquire animal waste separation, treatment and land application
facilities and equipment. Only those enterprises that are capable of meeting meat hygiene
requirements for export to the EU and those that manage risky animal waste1, as certified
by veterinary authorities, will be eligible to grant financing. There will be no
geographical limitation to eligibility other than being in the Danube River Basin. The
total cost of investment at each site will range from US$ 350,000 ­ US$ 450,000
depending on the size of the enterprise. Some enterprises may already have some of the
equipment or facilities in which case the total investment cost will be lower. A manure
management and nutrient management operational manual (OM) has been developed
providing detailed guidelines for the component.

The project will also fund the establishment of a Training and Information Center (TIC)
in the Institute for Animal Husbandry (IAH) which will offer training to agricultural
advisors, farmers, regulators and environmental inspectors on proper manure and
slaughterhouse animal waste management, to conduct applied research and be a national
repository of knowledge on evolving EU regulations in this field. The IAH's own
manure and slaughterhouse animal waste management facilities will be upgrade so that
they can be used for demonstration purposes. An OM detailing investments in activities
by the TIC has been prepared.

Farmers and slaughterhouses will be offered advice on proper nutrient, manure and
slaughterhouse waste management through three Local Advisory Units in the project
1 Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE)

---

region. These units will also evaluate eligibility of interested farms and assist those that
are eligible in preparing investment plans and grant applications. Furthermore, LAUs
will ensure and verify that project investments in selected farms and slaughterhouses are
properly implemented. LAUs will be provided guidance in their activities through a
detailed OM.

Component 3: Water and Soil Quality Monitoring, Public Awareness Raising and Replication
Strategy (Total cost: US$ 1.21 million, of which GEF funded: US$ 0.63 million)

The objective of this component is threefold: To assess the impact of the project
interventions on water and soil quality in the Serbian Danube Basin; to increase local
communities', enterprises' and policy makers' awareness on water pollution from
livestock farms and slaughterhouses and of improvements made through the project; to
devise a strategy to replicate the projects interventions in other parts of the Danube River
Basin in Serbia and beyond. This will be achieved through four sub-components: a)
Capacity Building and Support for Water and Soil Quality Monitoring; b) Public
Information Campaign (PIC); and c) Replication Strategy Development. An OM for soil
and water quality monitoring will be used in the implementation of this component.

Component 4: Project Management and Project Impact Monitoring (Total cost: US$ 0.60 million, of
which GEF funded: US$ 0.54 million)

This component will support project management, including project co-ordination and administration,
procurement, financial management and all reporting. All project outcome and results monitoring will be
carried out under this component as well.

A Project Implementation Unit (PIU) will be established to implement the project and to carry out day-to-
day activities of the project under the overall supervision of the MAFWM. The PIU, on behalf of the
responsible ministries, will provide for project co-ordination and administration of staff, procurement,
financial management reporting and overall project monitoring and evaluation activities for all components.

A Project Steering Committee will be established to provide overall guidance, advice and approval for
project activities, while execution will be responsibility of the PIU.
An OM has been prepared detailing the roles and responsibilities of individual government agencies,
institutions, PSC and the PIU.
A.4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard
analysis:

The project area belongs to the Danube River Basin. Project activities will focus on four
municipalities: two 2 in Province of Vojvodina (Novi Sad and Vrbas), and two in Central
Serbia (Sabac and Po arevac). These are mainly low lying areas with high groundwater
tables. Agricultural production in project areas is well developed. The main problems
associated with the agricultural production in project areas are: overuse of herbicides and
pesticides; increased nutrient pollution of groundwater, local canals and soil due to
nutrient run-off and waste discharge from livestock farms; lack of animal waste
management practices at livestock farms; lack of animal waste management plans and
practices in slaughterhouses. The investments envisaged under the project will be made
on private land by the respective owners. Documentation of land ownership or long-term
agreements for land use will be one of the qualifying factors in the elegibility selection

---

procedure. The investments will not involve any land acquisition, eviction of tenants or
restrictions of access. The likelihood of the project supporting investments that could
affect objects of cultural value is considered highly unlikely. Project activities will not
take place in any sensitive natural habitats.

B. Check Environmental Category A [ ], B [X], C [ ], FI [ ]

Comments:
C. Safeguard Policies Triggered
Yes No

Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) [X]
[
]
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [
]
[X]

Pest Management (OP 4.09)
[ ]
[X]
Cultural Property (draft OP 4.11 - OPN
[ ]
[X]
11.03-)
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [
] [X]

Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20)
[ ]
[X]
Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [
]
[X]

Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [
]
[X]

Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)*
[ ]
[X]
Projects on International Waterways
[ ]
[X]
(OP/BP/GP 7.50)
* By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties'
claims on the disputed areas

---

Section II ­ Key Safeguard Issues and Their Management
D. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues.
D.1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project.
Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts.

Only the Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) applies.
There will likely be no large scale, significant or irreversible impact. Activities could
possibly include small scale negative impact during construction stage if adequate
mitigation measures are not applied. The impacts mainly relate to noise, dust and odor,
although in case of slaughterhouses could also be associated with public and workers
health and safety, in case of inadequate wastewater /sludge/ waste management
procedures.
D.2 Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future
activities in the project area.

No negative impacts are envisaged if project activities are carried out as designed.
Positive long term impacts are envisaged due to introduction of proper slaughterhouse
animal waste management techniques, waste separation and controlled application of
manure on soil. Corresponding reduced loads/ discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus into
water bodies will have overall positive impact on ground and surface water quality.
Application of manure and slaughterhouse animal waste on soil in a sustainable fashion
will reduce need for use of artificial fertilizers and contribute to improvement of soil
quality.
D.3. Describe the treatment of alternatives (if relevant)

In case of deviation from documentation submitted as part of the application the PIU
should instruct the recipient to undertake corrective measures. In case of non compliance
disbursement of funds should not be approved.

D.4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard issues. Provide an
assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described.

PIU will monitor implementation of proposed construction works against the criteria
spelled out in the EMP. Reimbursement of costs will be carried out after the PIU
establishes that the construction and purchase of equipment have been carried out
according to specifications approved as a part of application. The PIU will have a
specialist member designated to ensure compliance with the EMP.

D.5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and
disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people.

Key stakeholders are: farmers; slaughterhouse owners; municipal administration;
provincial secretariate for environment; provincial secretariate for agriculture, forestry
and water management; republic ministry for agriculture, forestry and water
management; republic ministry of science and environment; NGOs; public at large.

---

Public consultation and disclosure process:

·
The EMP and the OM Environmental Chapter were disclosed to the public on
Tuesday November 16, 2004 through i) an announcement in the nationally circulated
newspaper Politika, including an invitation to a public consultation meeting on November
22, 2004; ii) posting on the official website of the Directorate for Environmental
Protection; iii) mailing to the municipal administrations of the four project areas with a
request for posting on bulleting boards.
·
A public meeting was organized in the premises of the Institute for Protection of
Nature of Serbia on November 22, 2004.

---

F. Disclosure Requirements Date
Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other:
Date of receipt by the Bank
11/24/2004
Date of "in-country" disclosure
11/15/2004
Date of submission to InfoShop
11/30/2004

Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process:
Date of receipt by the Bank
Not Applicable
Date of "in-country" disclosure
Not Applicable
Date of submission to InfoShop
Not Applicable
Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework:
Date of receipt by the Bank
Not Applicable
Date of "in-country" disclosure
Not Applicable
Date of submission to InfoShop
Not Applicable
Pest Management Plan:

Date of receipt by the Bank
Not Applicable
Date of "in-country" disclosure
Not Applicable
Date of submission to InfoShop
Not Applicable
Dam Safety Management Plan:

Date of receipt by the Bank
Not Applicable
Date of "in-country" disclosure
Not Applicable
Date of submission to InfoShop
Not Applicable
If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain
why.

Section III ­ Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level
(To be filled in when the ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting)
OP/BP 4.01 - Environment Assessment:
Yes
No
Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report?
x

If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit review and approve the
x
EA report?
Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the
x
credit/loan?
OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats:
Yes
No
Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation of

critical natural habitats?
If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of
other (non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation

measures acceptable to the Bank?
OP 4.09 - Pest Management:
Yes
No
Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues?


Is a separate PMP required?


If yes, are PMP requirements included in project design?


Draft OP 4.11 (OPN 11.03) - Cultural Property:
Yes
No

---

Does the EA include adequate measures?


Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential

adverse impacts on physical cultural resources?
OD 4.20 - Indigenous Peoples:
Yes
No
Has a separate indigenous people development plan been prepared in

consultation with the Indigenous People?
If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and

approve the plan?
If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been

reviewed and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit?
OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement:
Yes
No
Has a resettlement action plan, policy framework or policy process been

prepared?
If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and

approve the plan / policy framework / policy process?
OP/BP 4.36 ­ Forests:
Yes
No
Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional issues and

constraints been carried out?
Does the project design include satisfactory measures to overcome these

constraints?
Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, does it include

provisions for certification system?
OP/BP 4.37 - Safety of Dams:
Yes
No
Have dam safety plans been prepared?


Have the TORs as well as composition for the independent Panel of

Experts (POE) been reviewed and approved by the Bank?
Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) been prepared and

arrangements been made for public awareness and training?
OP 7.50 - Projects on International Waterways:
Yes
No
Have the other riparians been notified of the project?


If the project falls under one of the exceptions to the notification
requirement, then has this been cleared with the Legal Department, and

the memo to the RVP prepared and sent?
What are the reasons for the exception?


Please explain:


Has the RVP approved such an exception?


OP 7.60 - Projects in Disputed Areas:
Yes
No
Has the memo conveying all pertinent information on the international
aspects of the project, including the procedures to be followed, and the

recommendations for dealing with the issue, been prepared, cleared with
the Legal Department and sent to the RVP?
Does the PAD/MOP include the standard disclaimer referred to in the

OP?
BP 17.50 - Public Disclosure:
Yes
No
Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World

Bank's Infoshop?

---

Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a
form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-

affected groups and local NGOs?
All Safeguard Policies:
Yes
No
Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities

been prepared for the implementation of the safeguard measures?
Have safeguard measures costs been included in project cost?
X

Will the safeguard measures costs be funded as part of project
X
implementation?
Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the
X
monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures?
Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the
borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal

documents?
Signed and submitted by: Name
Date
Task Team Leader:
Tijen Arin

Project Safeguards
Nikola Ille

Specialist 1:
Project Safeguards
Jan Pakulski

Specialist 2:
Project Safeguards

Specialist 3:
Approved by: Name
Date
Regional Safeguards

Coordinator:
Comments:
Sector Manager:
Marjory-Anne Bromhead

Comments:

---