INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET

APPRAISAL STAGE

I. Basic Information
Date prepared/updated: 01/13/2011 Report No.: AC5326
1. Basic Project Data
Country: Zambia Project ID: P102459
Project Name: Irrigation Development and Support Project
Task Team Leader: Indira Janaki Ekanayake
Estimated Appraisal Date: December 14, Estimated Board Date: March 22, 2011
2010
Managing Unit: AFTAR Lending Instrument: Specific Investment
Loan
Sector: Irrigation and drainage (80%);General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector
(20%)
Theme: Other rural development (40%);Water resource management (40%);Rural
markets (20%)
IBRD Amount (US$m.): 0.00
IDA Amount (US$m.): 115.00
GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00
PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00
Other financing amounts by source:
BORROWER/RECIPIENT 23.45
LOCAL: BENEFICIARIES 62.57
86.02
Environmental Category: A - Full Assessment
Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater []
Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery)
Yes [ ] No [X]
or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies)

2. Project Objectives
The project development objective is to increase yields per hectare and value of divers
products marketed by smallholders benefitting from investments in irrigation in selected
sites served by the project.

3. Project Description
Component 1: Irrigated Agricultural Support Services
(US$22.29 million total, including an IDA contribution of US$18.30 million)
The objective of this component is to provide knowledge and skills, and strengthen
capacity of beneficiaries to prepare and operate medium-to-large size smallholder
irrigation schemes on a sustainable commercial basis through the use of partnership
agreements between the Government, communities and the private sector. The project
will support:
(a) Irrigation scheme planning and preparation, including pre-feasibility studies on
25,000 ha and feasibility studies on 20,000 ha, thereby building a large pipeline of
potential investment. Studies will be based on detailed consultations with the
communities on land tenure and land (re)allocation among the three Tiers. The
subcomponent also provides for preparation of detailed environmental and social
assessments and resettlement action plans by a separate consulting company.
(b) Provision of scheme operation and marketing services facilitated by a Transaction
Adviser to help Government structure about seven viable transactions attractive to the
communities and potential private investors. These transactions will refer to the existing
public-private partnership framework, and include irrigation scheme development and
operation and maintenance (O&M), as well as agricultural and marketing services.
(c) Community mobilization and capacity building services by targeting communities
to ensure a fully informed decision-making process has been undertaken to assess trade-
offs between expected benefits and risks. The training program will enable the
establishment of water user associations and producer organizations, and increase the
knowledge capacity of smallholder farmers to negotiate with their commercial partners in
the value chains.

Component 2: Public Infrastructure

(US$95.49 million total, including an IDA contribution of US$66.95 million)
The objective of this component is to provide the bulk water supply and associated
infrastructure required to establish medium-to-large size smallholder irrigation schemes
under the agreed partnership agreements. The infrastructure will be fully financed by
IDA credit and owned by the Government. The project will support:
(a) Irrigation infrastructure to supply water to at least 10,000 ha in seven sites,
including: water storage and diversion, pumping and main supply, and distribution up to
farm gate. Infrastructure will include in-field canals and structures for Tier 1 plots, while
on-farm irrigation equipment for Tiers 2 and 3 will be funded under Component 3.
(b) Supporting infrastructure, including access roads to project sites and service roads
within schemes, electrification, storage facilities, and drinking water points to link
farmers to markets and provide essential access to such services.
(c) Implementation of site specific Environmental Management and Resettlement
Action Plans. IDA credit will be used for implementation activities while compensation-
related resettlement will be funded by the Government.

Component 3: Private and Cooperative Investment

(US$72.20 million total, including an IDA contribution of US$20.40 million)
The objective of this component is to facilitate private and cooperative investment in
productive equipment and assets in and around irrigation schemes, and to stimulate the
establishment of small- scale enterprises. Equipment will be owned by the private
operators and farmers. The will finance:
(a) Improving access to long and short-term financing and investment capital for
smallholder farmers, by providing them with business development services through
technical assistance, networking and linkage facilitation; provision of ICT services
related to agricultural services; and strengthening the rural banking services available and
or located in targeted sites of participating financial institutions.
(b) Investment Support Fund (ISF) to include conditional partial grants for on-farm
irrigation equipment for Tiers 2 and 3, including sprinkler system (Tier 2) and center
pivots (Tier 3) or other appropriate irrigation technologies as recommended by the
technical studies; other on-farm equipment and assets; specialized production inputs;
post-harvest and value-adding equipment and assets; essential inputs for production and
marketing grant for non-traditional activities; and seed capital for small enterprise
development. The fund includes a special window for women, youth and other vulnerable
groups. The ISF grants will finance part of actual costs of goods/ works and services as
applicable.

Component 4: Management and Coordination.

(US$11.05 million total, including an IDA contribution of US$9.35 million)
The objective of this component is to ensure efficient and timely delivery of project
resources in accordance with the project#s objectives and to strengthen the irrigation
sector policy and institutional framework. The component will provide funding for: (a)
Management of the project; (b) Support the policy and institutional framework; (c)
Safeguards issues management and oversight; and (d) Monitoring and evaluation.

4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard

analysis
The project's approach is based on a transparent and participatory decision-making
process whereby entire communities need to become informed partners in a process that
involves the (re-)allocation of land and water resources under a partnership arrangement
between the Government, private operators and communities. The project's design allows
for flexibility in the number and size of the sites, whereby each site will be adapted to the
level of community participation and the scheme's attractiveness to the private sector.
The participatory design process entails the mobilization of long term service providers to
assist the Government and communities, and it requires a high level of certainty
regarding the availability of funding in order to attract the interest of private operators.
Project preparation has extended to appraising the feasibility of the approach with a
reasonable level of confidence. Three potential sites have been proposed at project
preparation stage to confirm the feasibility in principle of the proposed approach. Local
communities have conveyed their agreement on this approach after a number of
information events have been conducted. The specific boundaries and features of the
irrigation schemes within these sites are still to be determined as an output of the
participatory process under component 1 of the Project. Additional sites will be
appraised during the first year of the project.
The treatment of environmental and social issues is consistent with the project's
approach, which provides a framework with sufficient detail to attract private partners,
but flexibility to adjust the final sites and conditions to respond to interests of the private
sector. For that reason, although the general Project area has been identified, the specific
sites will be selected and approved under component 1 during Project implementation
and it is impossible at this stage to prepare the site specific environmental and social
safeguard documents. Accordingly, the environmental and social framework and the
resettlement framework documents are the appropriate instruments in this case. Both
framework documents have been disclosed in country and at the Infoshop. The
Government's project team is well aware of the safeguard requirements, and has
undertaken preliminary assessments (these were done in 2008 prior to the Bank's
involvement in the project and the ToRs for the assessments were not cleared by the
Bank) to inform the project design, such as the review of likely resettlement requirements
for the proposed Mwomboshi site and possible environmental impacts of an eventual
irrigation dam there. It should be noted that the preliminary assessment for Mwomboshi
does not include an analysis of cumulative, downstream, water quality, and other
environmental impacts. Completion, review and approval by the World Bank safeguard
specialists, and disclosure of the final ESIAs and related RAPs will be done prior to
bidding for any works under the Project. Executive Summaries of the ESIAs will be sent
to the Executive Directors for information, per the requirements of OP 4.01.

5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists

Ms Mary C.K. Bitekerezo (AFTCS)
Ms Paula F. Lytle (AFTCS)
Ms Lungiswa Thandiwe Gxaba (AFTEN)

6. Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes No

Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) X
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) X
Forests (OP/BP 4.36) X
Pest Management (OP 4.09) X
Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) X
Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) X
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) X
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) X
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) X
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) X

II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management

A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues
1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project.
Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts:
The project will finance medium-to-large scale irrigation infrastructure and demand
driven subprojects in various sites, some of which may have major environmental
impacts. Technical feasibility studies are scheduled to be carried out during the first year
of project implementation and will include site specific land use and water resources
management plans. The main environmental safeguards issues for the project relate to air
and water pollution, construction waste management, water abstraction and changes to
water outflows from the rivers and associated impacts on downstream human needs and
aquatic habitats, and biodiversity. In addition, the project will also have an impact on
deforestation and land clearing as well as physical cultural resources, such as graves,
through inundation during water impoundment. Most significant impacts from the project
are those associated with construction of dams such as burrowing, soil erosion, as well as
impacts resulting from the impoundment of water, flooding of land to form the reservoir,
and alteration of downstream water flow. Aspects mentioned above may have direct
potential impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and human population in the project sites.
 The project is rated Category A for Environmental Assessment (EA) as a result of
identified potential negative impacts. The project triggers the following safeguard
policies: (1) OP/BP 4.01 for EA; (2) OP/BP 4.04 for Natural Habitats; (3) OP/BP 4.09 for
Pest Management; (4) OP 4.11 for Physical Cultural Resources; (5) OP/BP 4.12 for
Involuntary Resettlement; (6) OP/BP 4.36 for Forests;(7) OP/BP 4.37 for Safety of
Dams; and (8) OP/BP7.50 for Projects on International Waterways.

OP 4.01 is triggered because of direct potential impacts associated with dam

construction and irrigated agriculture development such as soil and water pollution
during construction, construction waste disposal issues, burrowing and impoundment of
water and significant changes to the environment.

OP/BP 4.04 is triggered because unmitigated irrigation development may have an

impact on the remnants of natural habitats, both downstream of the command area, and in
the catchments where deforestation and land clearing activities may be carried out. It is,
however, expected that no environmentally sensitive habitats will be converted under this
project; rather environmental conservation will be encouraged in project sites.

OP 4.09 for Pest Management is triggered due to potential expansion, intensification of

agricultural activities, and diversification into new crops that often require usage of more
frequent and combinations of agro-chemicals. A Pest Management Plan (PMP) has been
prepared for another Bank-funded agriculture project and is being reviewed. The PMP
will be adopted and included in the implementation manual to address pest management
issues that may arise in project sites due to both area expansion under irrigation and
expected increased productivity associated pesticide use.

OP/BP 4.11 is triggered as construction activities may lead to opportunistic finds of

archaeological artifacts and/or may have an impact on graves and other cultural sites.
Chance find provisions will, therefore, be included in construction contracts while
potential impacts on other identified physical cultural resources will be addressed by site-
specific environmental management plans (EMPs).

OP/BP 4.12 is applicable because the project will support the development of water
harvesting infrastructure such as valley dams and reservoirs that include water
distributions, both of which may trigger land acquisition and involuntary resettlement.
Land requirements for purposes of construction of a dam and ancillary facilities may
permanently or temporarily limit access to both public or private land and other assets by
local communities. OP 4.12 is triggered not only when land acquisition is evident but
also where there is no physical relocation and project activities impact assets or restrict
access to other natural resources or negatively impact on livelihoods. Since the scope
and other details of dam and water distribution construction work, including the exact
locations of the infrastructure within each project sites are not yet determined, a
Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) has been prepared and disclosed both in country
(August 23, 2010) and at the Bank's InfoShop (August 30, 2010).
 OP/BP 4.36 for Forests is triggered because of envisaged potential impacts on forest
habitats as a result of dam construction and water collection/ harvesting and delivery
systems. Detailed information on site specific impacts on forests will be provided in the
ESIA to be prepared for the project.

Op 4.37 is triggered because of the proposed size of dams to be constructed by the

project. In compliance with the triggered OP 4.37, a Dam safety panel is being
constituted to provide the necessary oversight. The irrigation dams will be designed by
qualified engineers, and dam safety measures will be incorporated in dam operations
guidelines. Dam Safety plans for the proposed large dam (including an Emergency
Preparedness Plan (EPP)) will be drafted, reviewed, and disclosed. For small dam
construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance relevant oversight procedures are included
in the Project Implementation Manual that has been drafted and is being finalized.

The OP/BP 7.50 is triggered by the Project as it will contribute to building infrastructure
and enhancing the environment for irrigated agriculture in selected high potential sites
across the country during project implementation that may have an impact on riparian
water sources. Irrigation schemes under the proposed IDSP project may be located on
tributaries of the Zambezi and Congo river basins, which are international waterways
flowing through Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi,
Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The Riparian notification
process per the requirements was completed on September 15, 2010. In addition,
supplementary circulars will be sent to riparian states when project sites affect watershed
basin riparian countries.

The project sought an exception to the policy set out in OP 4.76 for Tobacco and was
approved on August 04, 2010 by OPCS. This exception was requested on the basis that:
(a) Burley tobacco is the second largest smallholder crop in Zambia and a large and
sizable number of smallholder farmers are heavily dependent on tobacco as a source of
income; (b) Benefits to smallholders participating in the tobacco value chain in Zambia is
significant; (c) among agricultural exports tobacco exports make up a significant
proportion (0.8 percent of total export share during the month of December 2009); and
(d) given the total annual production fluctuations of fresh leaf between 2005 (44MT) and
2009/10 estimated at 25 and 29MT, any increase in national tobacco production and
marketing in subsequent years may be construed as a direct result of Bank support to
irrigation infrastructure and therefore could be perceived as inconsistent with OP4.76.
The project will not directly encourage the production of tobacco. The only project
subcomponent that may indirectly influence tobacco production is the access to grants for
on-farm irrigation set up. However, the Government of Zambia, through the Project, will
actively encourage farmers to diversify away from tobacco into other high value crops.
Furthermore, other on-going Bank operations such as the Zambia Agricultural
Development Support project, as well as those of other donors, include activities
designed to encourage crop diversification, thus helping to promote greater
diversification of Zambia's agricultural economy.
 An Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and a Resettlement
Policy Framework (RPF) have been prepared for the project because of lack of site-
specific information about the potential scope project, including any adverse
environmental and social impacts before the completion of site-specific technical
feasibility studies which will be carried out during the first year of project
implementation. The ESMF lays out procedures for screening and mitigating impacts
from construction and operation of the irrigation schemes, and includes the following: (a)
checklists of potential environmental and social impacts and their sources; (b) procedures
for participatory screening of proposed sites and activities and the environmental and
social considerations; (c) procedures for assessing potential environmental and social
impacts of the planned project activities; (d) institutional arrangements for mitigating,
preventing, and managing the identified impacts; (e) typical environmental management
planning process for addressing negative externalities in the course of project
implementation; (f) a system for monitoring the implementation of mitigation measures;
and (g) recommended capacity building measures for environmental planning and
monitoring of project activities. The RPF document outlines the principles and
procedures for resettlement and or compensation of subproject-affected people, and
establishes standards for identifying, assessing and mitigating negative impacts of
program supported activities. In addition, the RPF will guide the preparation and
implementation of resettlement action plans (RAPs) for each individual sub project that
triggers the involuntary resettlement policy.

An ESIA and RAP will be prepared for each site before project implementation along
with Environmental Management Plans (EMPs). The ESIAs will provide mitigation
measures for all the potential impacts as a result of the triggering of the above mentioned
safeguard policies.

The ESMF and RPF were disclosed both in country (August 23, 2010) and at the Bank's
InfoShop (August 30, 2010). The ESIAs will be disclosed and consulted upon, and then
finally disclosed both in-country and at the Bank's InfoShop. Executive summaries of the
ESIAs will be submitted to the Executive Directors for information.

2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future
activities in the project area:
The project will create irrigation schemes including small and large water impoundments
which will result in permanent loss of land previously used for cropping, grazing, and
residential purposes. Some natural habitats will be altered as a result of inundation.
Limited vegetation clearing will also occur in preparation for dam construction and on
newly irrigated land.

3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize
adverse impacts.
During the actual site selection process for the dams and irrigation schemes, all
alternatives will be considered and the ESIA studies to be conducted for each of these
sites will present all the alternatives considered.
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.
Borrower capacity for environmental and social safeguards implementation and reporting
is limited. The Bank's safeguards specialists are providing close technical support to
Government during preparation and will continue during implementation to ensure
compliance with all safeguard policies triggered. Capacity strengthening measures are
outlined in the project safeguard documents (ESMF and RPF) and have been fully
accounted for in the project budget.

A safeguard specialist was employed by MACO for handling both environmental and
social issues during preparation of a previous project. The same specialist has been
handling safeguard issues for this project.

5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and
disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people.
The Ministry (MACO) has held a series of consultation and sensitization meetings with
various communities who could be potential beneficiaries from the project. A sample of
stakeholders from the project affected communities was taken on a study tour to an
existing irrigation scheme within Zambia. Consultations and study tours were also
conducted with village chiefs, community members, and tribal leaders. These
sensitization and exchange visits related to project interventions and subsequent
consultations have improved the understanding of the benefits that would be derived by
increased productivity and income and access to better services on an individual,
household, or community level. It also provided an avenue to discuss detailed design
elements with affected communities and incorporate their contributions in the design,
e.g., common needs of community such as drinking water, access roads, and marketing
inputs; improved gender-specific grants and other benefits.

All environmental and social safeguards documents were cleared by the Environmental
Council of Zambia (ECZ) and the Bank. They were disclosed in country on August 23,
2010 and at the World Bank's InfoShop on August 30, 2010. The proposed mitigation
measures and their monitoring plans are an integral part of the project design and costs.
Site-specific ESIAs, EMPs, the PMP, Dam Safety Plans and RAPs will be disclosed once
they are prepared during project implementation. Executive Summaries of the ESIAs
will be sent to the Executive Directors for information. Borrower commitment to
implement the provisions of the safeguards instruments will be included as specific
covenants in the project legal documents, including a dated covenant with respect to
establishment of ESIA and RAP in a form and substance satisfactory to IDA. Signed
entitlement certificates will be issued to people to be resettled under the project.

B. Disclosure Requirements Date

Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other:
Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes
Date of receipt by the Bank 06/28/2010
 Date of "in-country" disclosure 08/23/2010
Date of submission to InfoShop 08/30/2010
For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive
Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors
Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process:
Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes
Date of receipt by the Bank 06/28/2010
Date of "in-country" disclosure 08/23/2010
Date of submission to InfoShop 09/01/2010
Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework:
Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal?
Date of receipt by the Bank
Date of "in-country" disclosure
Date of submission to InfoShop
Pest Management Plan:
Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? No
Date of receipt by the Bank N/A
Date of "in-country" disclosure N/A
Date of submission to InfoShop N/A
* If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources,
the respective issues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of the Environmental
Assessment/Audit/or EMP.
If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please
explain why:
Project will use the Pest Management Plan (PMP) of the agriculture project and will
revise and update as needed during EIA preparation. It would be disclosed both in-
country and the Bank's InfoShop before project implementation. The PMP would be
included in the Project Implementation Manual Safeguards Module.

C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (to be filled in when the
ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting)

OP/BP/GP 4.01 - Environment Assessment

Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? Yes
If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) Yes
review and approve the EA report?
Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the Yes
credit/loan?
OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats
Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation of Yes
critical natural habitats?
If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of other Yes
(non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures
acceptable to the Bank?
OP 4.09 - Pest Management
Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues? No
Is a separate PMP required? Yes
If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a safeguards specialist or Yes
SM? Are PMP requirements included in project design? If yes, does the
project team include a Pest Management Specialist?
OP/BP 4.11 - Physical Cultural Resources
Does the EA include adequate measures related to cultural property? Yes
Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential Yes
adverse impacts on cultural property?
OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement
Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process Yes
framework (as appropriate) been prepared?
If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Yes
Manager review the plan?
OP/BP 4.36 - Forests
Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional issues and constraints Yes
been carried out?
Does the project design include satisfactory measures to overcome these Yes
constraints?
Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, does it include N/A
provisions for certification system?
OP/BP 4.37 - Safety of Dams
Have dam safety plans been prepared? No
Have the TORs as well as composition for the independent Panel of Experts Yes
(POE) been reviewed and approved by the Bank?
Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) been prepared and arrangements No
been made for public awareness and training?
OP 7.50 - Projects on International Waterways
Have the other riparians been notified of the project? Yes
If the project falls under one of the exceptions to the notification Yes
requirement, has this been cleared with the Legal Department, and the memo
to the RVP prepared and sent?
Has the RVP approved such an exception? Yes
The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information
Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Yes
Infoshop?
Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a Yes
form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected
groups and local NGOs?
All Safeguard Policies
Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities 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: Ms Indira Janaki Ekanayake 01/06/2011
Environmental Specialist: Ms Lungiswa Thandiwe Gxaba 01/06/2011
Social Development Specialist Ms Mary C.K. Bitekerezo 01/06/2011
Additional Environmental and/or Ms Paula F. Lytle 01/06/2011
Social Development Specialist(s):

Approved by:
Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Ms Alexandra C. Bezeredi 01/06/2011
Comments:
Sector Manager: Ms Karen Mcconnell Brooks 01/06/2011
Comments: