Page 1 Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (Preparation) Report No: AC921 Section I - Basic Information Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 06/22/04 A. Basic Project Data (from PDS) I.A.1. Project Statistics Country: KAZAKHSTAN Project ID: P078301 (Bank) and P087485 (GEF) Project: Forest Protection and Reforestation Project Task Team Leader: Jessica Mott Authorized to Appraise Date: October 25, 2004 IBRD Amount ($m): 25.0 Bank Approval: April 26, 2005 GEF ($m): 5.0 Managing Unit: ECSSD Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan (SIL) Status: Lending Sector: Forestry (80%); General public administration sector (15%); Animal production (5%) Theme: Land management (P); Environmental policies and institutions (P); Rural policies and institutions (S); Other environment and natural resources management (S); Civic engagement, participation and community driven development (S) I.A.2. Project Objectives (From PDS): Project objective . The project objective is to develop cost effective and sustainable environmental rehabilitation and management of forest lands and associated rangelands, with a focus on the Irtysh pine forest, the dry Aral Seabed, and saxaul rangelands. The development objective is both local and global in nature. Outcome indicators. The key outcome indicators will comprise · Land degradation from wind erosion, wind-blown pollution, and loss of tree cover reduced or prevented in · Irtysh pine forest including 48,000 ha of rehabilitated forest (of the total 147,000 ha burned area) and reversal of fire and other degradation trends on the entire 642,000 ha area · Dry Aral Seabed: more than 150,000 ha of current total 2.6 mln ha dry seabed area within Kazakhstan covered by vegetation (from pre-project coverage, project planting, and natural spread) · 6,000 ha of saxaul rangelands: · Capacity and decisions to upscale investment programs for forest lands based improved knowledge of performance, costs, and impacts as demonstrated by decision to scale up post project investment program (aiming by 2025 for some 180,000 ha Irtysh pine to be replanted, 800,000 ha of dry Aral seabed covered by vegetation, 180,000 ha saxaul rangelands in good Page 2 2 condition, and organizational and procedural arrangements facilitating sustainable and cost- effective results applied to management of other forest lands and other public expenditure investment programs) · Increased net present value of timber assets preserved and dust-related health costs foregone · Number of people benefiting through employment or by receiving improved environmental services · Habitat protection and improvement as reflected in population trends of key species in project areas · Improved knowledge of natural resource dynamics and management, active policy development, and capacity for cost effective and results oriented public expenditure on forest lands · Project reputation for integrity and public support for improved forest and associated rangeland management as reflected in public opinion surveys and government budget Output indicators . Implementation will be assessed mainly on the basis of output indicators including: · 48,000 ha of Irtysh pine replanted during project period, and by year 6 unit costs of replanting reduced (from pre-project US$210 per ha) to less than US$200 per ha with survival rate increased from 60% to 85%; knowledge of productivity parameters acquired; and revised arrangements for flexible, performance based budgeting and contracting · 642,000 ha of Irtysh pine under improved fire management: · programs to address illegal logging of Irtysh pine designed and initiated · 59,000 ha of dry Aral seabed planted during project period, with year 6 unit costs reduced (from pre-project US$207 per ha) to less than US$175 per ha with survival rate no less than 55% and a natural spread consistent with doubling in ten years, using revised arrangements for flexible, performance based budgeting and contracting · 30 demonstrations of participatory saxaul rangeland rehabilitation completed, covering a total area of approximately 6000 ha · small demonstration grants to address other forestry issues implemented · expansion of capacity of the Forest and Hunting Committee and associated organizations (e.g., mapping, planning, monitoring, policy analysis, human resource development, and financial management). I.A.3. Project Description (From PDS): Project costs total about US$47 m over six years. Project activities comprise: Component I: Irtysh Pine Forest (US$27 m including contingencies) · Component IA : Improved reforestation through re-establishment of seed production areas, applied research on cost-effective nursery and planting technologies (e.g, greenhouses, containers, seeding), and expansion of program to enable completion of reforestation of 180,000 ha by 2025. 48,000 ha replanted during project period, and by year 6 unit costs of replanting reduced from US$210 to less than US$200 per ha with survival rate increased from 60% to 85%; knowledge of productivity parameters acquired; and revised arrangements for flexible, performance based budgeting and contracting. · Component IB: Development and implementation of improved forest fire management through: (i) effective fire prevention system with bare earth fire breaks and fuel reduced Page 3 3 buffer zones accompanied by public education campaigns; (ii) more effective fire detection system with obsolete towers replaced and new towers where needed; and (iii) improved fire suppression capability through better equipment, fast-attack vehicles, replacement of obsolete fire trucks and improvement of key forest roads. · Component IC: Other forest management including annual program of thinning and cleaning including a 15-year backlog, vehicles for more effective patrolling to reduce illegal activities, feasibility and pilot of support for alternative agriculture on periphery of national reserves, and feasibility of forest processing industries utilizing reserve thinning in combination with production from oblast forests. Component II: Expansion of Saxaul in Kyzyl Orda (US$16 m including contingencies) · Component IIA: Dry Aral Seabed: Vegetative planting. 59,000 ha planted during project period, with year 6 unit costs reduced from US$207/ha less than US$175/ha with 55% survival and a natural spread consistent with doubling the vegetated area in ten years, using revised arrangements for flexible, performance based budgeting and contracting · Component IIB: Participatory saxaul rangelands rehabilitation: herder agreements to enable restoration and development of degraded saxaul rangelands, community management of grazing pressure, and provision of water resources for compensatory rangelands. Thirty demonstrations covering a total approximately 6000 ha. Component III: National Institutional Development and Project Management (US$4 m including contingencies) · Component IIIA : Improvements in policy, legal, organizational, and information framework through: (i) expansion of GIS facility in Almaty for mapping, monitoring, and planning; leading to streamlining of planning procedures; (ii) establishment of a policy analysis unit of FHC in Astana; (iii) HRD plan and in-service training program; and (iv) improved financial management system. · Component IIIB: Competitive grant fund for pilot demonstration investments (e.g. timber usufruct sharing, ecotourism, value addition processing of birch, community involvement in reforestation or environmental education, private plantations, tungai floodplain protection, etc.) · Component IIIC: Project administration and management Implementation. Most of the project activities will be implemented either directly by the Forest and Hunting Committee itself and its subsidiaries, government forest enterprises (e.g. leskhozes), research institutes, or through contracts, depending on the specific activity. · The FHC special reserves will manage the most of the Irtysh component. There will be increasing emphasis on the use of external contractors for reforestation and fire management works, with oversight provided by the reserves. The reserves will also directly acquire improved firefighting and fire prevention facilities. The Irtysh component will also include contracted consultant studies on the feasibility of forest- based industry development, and design of interventions to increase employment in the project area. · On the dry Aral seabed, the initial nursery and field establishment program will be implemented by a former leskhoz under the Oblast forestry agency. As the program develops, other former leskhozes are expected to become involved on a contract basis. Page 4 4 The coordination and management of this component requires further discussions. Government research institutes will carry out the research and development program as well as the monitoring program. · The institutional development component will be implemented partly by FHC in Astana and partly by associated forest planning and monitoring organizations in Almaty, with contractual assistance from specialists where necessary. I.A.4. Project Location: (Geographic location, information about the key environmental and social characteristics of the area and population likely to be affected, and proximity to any protected areas, or sites or critical natural habitats, or any other culturally or socially sensitive areas.) The Project areas are located in (a) two northern oblasts i.e. Pavlodar and East Kazakhstan which are dominated by pine forests that, among others, and protect the city of Semey from sand dune encroachment. The areas is dominated by pine forests, interspaced with grassland, and occasional salt pan and salt lake. It is inhabited by (state paid) forest workers, some other forest workers and farmers; most are ethnically Russian. (b) the southern oblast of Kyzyl Orda with saxaul and tamarix woodlands on the north and south side of the Syr Dara river irrigation system and adjacent dry Aral Sea coast. The project areas are rural and are seasonally populated with mainly Kazakh or Uzbek livestock herders; some parts were abandoned during the transition due to the lack of employment. There are also villages of former fishermen, railway workers, and rice farmers. The project does not include parks, although in January 2003 the Government designated the eastern Irtysh pine forest ( a major target of the project) as two national forest reserves. Unlike national parks, in natural reserves timber harvesting can still take place as sanitary fellings or for thinning immature stands. B. Check Environmental Classification: B (Partial Assessment) Comments: No significant adverse environmental impacts are foreseen. Environmental benefits are fundamental to the project development objective and outcomes. These beneficial environmental impacts include reduced desertification, salt and dust control, reforestation of degraded lands, improved conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in selected ecosystems, and reduced use of potentially harmful pesticides. The reforestation is expected to utilize native species of pine, saxaul, tamarix, poplar, willow, aspen and other. The forest planning and management activities (including fire management strategies) will address natural habitat considerations in both the site-specific and landscape context. The project will help develop more environmentally acceptable pest management strategies, if required during the course of the project. There is a possibility of using a limited amount of pesticides in preparing planting stock in nurseries and in major pest outbreaks, but overall pesticide use is likely to be reduced in favor of biological controls. The Irtysh Forest may have been affected by fall-out of 1949-1962 nuclear tests on the nearby Semipalatinsk testing grounds. Preliminary data indicate that currently the dose contribution of most radionuclides is low. The risks associated with this nuclear contamination and the implications for forest management and related aspects such as soil erosion, fire management, and use of forest products will be assessed in an analysis to be carried out by a multi disciplinary Kazakh team and peer reviewed by an expert from the International Atomic Energy Agency or another internationally recognized center of excellence in issues related to radiation. The study will be part of the environmental assessment. Temporary minor impact (dust, minor soil loss) can be expected from planting activities, building construction and other works. Within the Irtysh forests r oads radiating from each main fire fighting Page 5 5 base within the forest are envisaged, but these would not increase external access. Improvement of shelter and access to water in the woodlands that could increase livestock movement and lead to trampling and some loss of topsoil will be carefully managed with necessary safeguards to prevent environmental deterioration. C. Safeguard Policies Triggered (from PDS) (click on for a detailed desciption or click on the policy number for a brief description) Policy Triggered Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01) Yes Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04) TBD Forestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36) Yes Pest Management (OP 4.09) Yes Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) No Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) No Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) TBD Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37) No Projects in International Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP 7.50) No Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, GP 7.60)* No Section II - Key Safeguard Issues and Their Management D. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues . Please fill in all relevant questions. If information is not available, describe steps to be taken to obtain necessary data. II.D.1a. 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 is not expected to carry significant safeguard risks. In view of possible minor risks the safeguards on forest and pest management are triggered, and safeguards on natural habitats and involuntary settlement may be triggered. Environmental Assessment is triggered as explained above under Section II B. (i) Forest is triggered because the project is intended to affect forested areas. It will be implemented in accordance with the Bank's operational policy. It will support investment in rehabilitation of existing degraded forests and woodlands to restore protective cover and to make these and other forests more productive. The project would not finance plantations that involve any conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats. The project would not finance industry-scale commercial harvesting operations. Any harvesting by local communities or other local entities supported by the project would adhere to a time-bound action plan for achieving a standard of forest management developed with the meaningful participation of locally affected communities, consistent with the principles and criteria of responsible forest management. (ii) Pest management is triggered because the project would help to develop more environmentally acceptable pest control strategies. The possibility of using a limited amount of pesticides in preparing planting stock in nurseries, and in major pest outbreaks. In such cases the possibility of using biocontrol products will be explored before considering chemical interventions. Project preparation will include an evaluation of current patterns of pest management and pesticide use and make recommendations where needed on introducing/expanding integrated pest management tools, Page 6 6 strategies and skills improvement Action plans, including pest management plans will be incorporated into the overall forest management plans. (iii) Natural habitats may be triggered. The project is not expected to convert or degrade critical natural habitats. The process of site selection would include a field visit by a qualified biologist to further confirm that the project would not adversely affect endangered species or habitats. (iv) Involuntary Resettlement may be triggered, since the project may limit access to forest resources which could potentially curtail existing legal or illegal incomes of vulnerable people, at least on a temporary basis. There is no encroachment of human settlements in the project area forests and project itself will not cause involuntary physical displacement of people. The project would not include support for national parks. II.D.1b. Describe any potential cumulative impacts due to application of more than one safeguard policy or due to multiple project component. No cumulative negative impact expected. In the aggregate, the project is expected to have significant positive environmental impacts. The quality of Kazakhstan's natural habitats and forests, and associated environmental services is likely to improve, especially in contrast to the continuing decline which would likely take place in the without project scenario. Similarly, on forest management and social aspects, local people are likely to begin to participate in forest management in a meaningful way, gain more control over their destiny (empowerment and security) and to receive livelihood benefits. The principles underlying the safeguard policies are imbedded in the project’s logical framework. II.D.1c Describe any potential long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area. No negative long term impact expected. II.D.2. In light of 1, describe the proposed treatment of alternatives (if required) The project design integrates provision of environmental services with more classic forest production. This choice reflects the significant economic impacts of the environmental services resulting from the project, particularly those concerning desertification control. The project does not focus exclusively on environmental services because (a) sustainable multiple-use management approaches to the two project areas are possible and appropriate, and (b) economic utilization is likely to be essential to a politically viable and fiscally sound incentive framework for resource management. II.D.3. Describe arrangement for the borrower to address safeguard issues The Borrower will carry out an environmental assessment conforming to Bank procedures and Kazakh environmental regulations. The EA will identify possible environmental impact and the mitigation of risks. The Environmental Management Plan (including a Pest Management Plan) will be included as an annex of the Project Appraisal Document. The preparation work will include drafting guidelines and procedures for the preparation of improved site-specific forest and rangeland management plans in the project areas that would be developed and initiated during the project implementation period. It will also include specialized consideration of legal aspects, pest management aspects, sustainable harvesting considerations, natural habitat considerations, and other environmental issues. A social assessment field survey will be carried out based on a combination of participatory rural appraisal methods, in-depth interviews, focus groups, and secondary data. The social assessment will also include an estimate of the number of affected people and the number of beneficiaries, disaggregated by gender, ethnic affiliation, level of wealth, age, and other social indicators. If the social assessment finds that vulnerable people are likely to be affected by restrictions of access, An Access Restriction Process Framework (ARPF) would be prepared prior to appraisal which would describe the participatory process by which the project was prepared and will be implemented, providing guidelines for designing site specific mitigation measures Page 7 7 on the potential adverse impacts of restrictions of access on vulnerable people and developing an institutional arrangement for the implementation of mitigation measures. II.D.4. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Key stakeholders will include the rural people living in and around the forests, livestock-herder families, forest users, forestry staff, as well as environmental NGOs. Interactions to date include workshops in Astana, and the project areas with environmental NGOs and other stakeholders who are very interested in the project concept, and informal group meetings with villagers and foresters in the proposed project areas. Regional working groups of key stakeholders have been formed in for the two project areas. Project preparation will involve a process of ongoing consultations (with local communities, NGOs, Academic Institutions, and other government agencies) that would elicit the input of key stakeholders and incorporate their views throughout the design period and during implementation. Prior to the departure of the appraisal mission, a Russian version of the EA report will be disclosed within Kazakhstan, and Russian and English versions will be made available in the Bank's Infoshop. E. Safeguards Classification (select in SAP). Category is determined by the highest impact in any policy. Or on basis of cumulative impacts from multiple safeguards. Whenever an individual safeguard policy is triggered the provisions of that policy apply. [ ] S1. – Significant, cumulative and/or irreversible impacts; or significant technical and institutional risks in management of one or more safeguard areas [X] S2. – One or more safeguard policies are triggered, but effects are limited in their impact and are technically and institutionally manageable [ ] S3. – No safeguard issues [ ] SF. – Financial intermediary projects, social development funds, community driven development or similar projects which require a safeguard framework or programmatic approach to address safeguard issues. F. Disclosure Requirements Environmental Assessment/Analysis/Management Plan: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank 10/15/2004 Date of “in-country” disclosure 10/27/2004 Date of submission to InfoShop 10/27/2004 Date of distributing the Exec. Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors (For category A projects) Not Applicable Not Applicable Resettlement Action Plan/Framework: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank 10/15/2004 Date of “in-country” disclosure 10/27/2004 Date of submission to InfoShop 10/27/2004 Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Page 8 8 Pest Management Plan: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank 10/15/2004 Date of “in-country” disclosure 10/15/2004 Date of submission to InfoShop 10/31/2004 Dam Safety Management Plan: Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why. Signed and submitted by Name Date Task Team Leader: Jessica Mott 6/22/2004 Project Safeguards Specialists 1: Janna Ryssakova 6/22/2004 Project Safeguards Specialists 2: Tjaart Schillhorn-Van Veen 6/22/2004 Project Safeguards Specialists 3: Approved by: Name Date Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Ron Hoffer 6/22/2004 Comments Cleared Sector Manager Marjory-Anne Bromhead 6/22/2004 Comments The ISDS has been updated to reflect the more recent developments in the evolving project design. .