preliminary esia and esmp for the liberian...

GOVERNMENT OF LIBERIA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND

MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS

SMALLHOLDER TREE CROP REVITALIZATION SUPPORT PROJECT (STCRSP)Credit No: IDA Q 7490 Project No: P113273

No: PMU-MOA/STCRSP/ EIA/113273

ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SMALLHOLDER TREE CROP

REVITALIZATION SUPPORT PROJECT

DRAFT FINAL

October 2011

DRAFT FINAL ESIA AND ESMP FOR THE LIBERIAN SMALLHOLDER TREE CROPS REVITALISATION SUPPORT PROJECT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 11.1 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................. 11.2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................1

1.2.1 Objectives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………11.2.2 Project Scope ………………………………………………………………………………………………..11.2.3 Proposed Project Components ……………………………………………………………………………1

1.3 NEED FOR AN ESMF................................................................................................................... 12. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................13. POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK........................................................1

3.1 WORLD BANK SAFEGUARD POLICY...............................................................................................13.1.1 Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01) ……………………………………………………………………13.1.2 Pest Management (OP 4.09) ………………………………………………………………………………13.1.3 Natural Habitats (OP 4.04) …………………………………………………………………………………13.1.4 Forests (OP 4.36) …………………………………………………………………………………………...13.1.5 Physical and Cultural Resources (OP4.11) ………………………………………………………………13.1.6 Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12) ………………………………………………………………………1

3.2 LIBERIAN GOVERNMENT POLICY AND LEGISLATION........................................................................13.2.1 Environmental Protection Act ……………………………………………………………………………...13.2.2 Forestry Legislation and Policy ……………………………………………………………………………13.2.3 Liberia Land Commission Act of 2009 ……………………………………………………………………13.2.4 Other Environmental Legislation and Policy ……………………………………………………………..13.2.5 Liberia Social Legislation …………………………………………………………………………………..13.2.6 Other Relevant International Best Practice Standards …………………………………………………1

3.3 LIBERIAN ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK......................................................................................13.4 LIBERIAN SOCIAL FRAMEWORK.....................................................................................................1

4. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS........................14.1 ASSESSMENT OF PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT...................................................................................1

4.1.1 Physical Features .....……………………………………………………………………………………….14.1.2 Climate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….14.1.3 Soils …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 4.1.4 Hydrology …………………………………………………………………………………………………….14.1.5 Natural Resources ………………………………………………………………………………………….1

4.2 ASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT................................................................................14.2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………..14.2.2 Protected and Sensitive Habitats ………………………………………………………………………….1

4.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT.................................................................................15. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK (ESMF).............................1

5.1 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS...........................................................................................15.1.1 Sub-sector Assessment …………………………………………………………………………………….15.1.2 Component Assessment …………………………………………………………………………………...15.1.3 Other Risks ………………………………………………………………………………………………….1

5.2 POTENTIAL SOCIAL IMPACTS.........................................................................................................15.3 MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS................................................................................15.4 MANAGEMENT OF SOCIAL IMPACTS................................................................................................15.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IMPACT MANAGEMENT PLAN...................................................................1

5.5.1 Environmental and Social Impact Management …………………………………………………………15.6 PROCEDURE FOR SUB-PROJECT SCREENING.................................................................................1

6. PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION.........................................................................16.1 MONITORING............................................................................................................................... 16.2 EVALUATION................................................................................................................................ 1

7. ESMF BUDGET......................................................................................................................... 18. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................... 1

ESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 1S.A. AGRER N.V.

ANNEXESANNEX A: LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................1ANNEX B: DETAILED FIELD STUDY SCHEDULE................................................................................1ANNEX C: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED.............................................................................1ANNEX D: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION REPORT............................................................1ANNEX E: TEMPLATE FOR PREPARATION OF SUB-COMPONENT ESIA/ESMP......................................1ANNEX F: STCRSP PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN.................................................................................1ANNEX G: OPERATIONAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES............................................................................1ANNEX H: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MONITORING REPORT TEMPLATE.....................................1ANNEX I: TERMS OF REFERENCE.................................................................................................1ANNEX J: STUDY TEAM................................................................................................................1

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary Of Environmental And Social Impacts And Mitigation Measures...............1Table 2: Monthly And Annual Rainfall Totals (Mm) For Buchanan...........................................1Table 3: Monthly And Annual Rainfall Totals (Mm) For The Nimba Geologist’s Camp............1Table 4: Functions Of Key Groups And Stakeholders:.............................................................1Table 5: Institutional Tasks And Responsibilities In Management Of Project Impacts.............1Table 6: Verification Of Safeguards Policies Triggered By Subprojects...................................1Table 7: Project Implementation Monitoring Plan.....................................................................1Table 8: ESMF Implementation Budget Estimate (US$)..........................................................1

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map Of Liberia Showing Counties And Neighboring CountriesFigure 2: Map Of Liberian Forest CoverFigure 3: Example Factory Effluent Treatment Flow Diagram Figure 4: Example Environmental Management Improvement Cycle


List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Termamsl Above Mean Sea LevelAEI Alternative Enterprise InternationalAfDB African Development BankARAP Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan ASRP Agricultural Sector Rehabilitation ProjectBBOP Business and Biodiversity Offset ProgramCAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program CAC County Agricultural Offices CDA Cooperative Development Agency CO2 Carbon dioxideDAOs District Agricultural OfficersDDC District Development CommitteesEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEMC Environmental Management CommitteeEMP Environmental Management PlanEO Environmental OfficerEPA Environmental Protection AgencyEPML Environmental Protection and Management Law of the Republic of Liberia EPO Equatorial Oil PalmESIA Environmental and Social Impact AssessmentESMF Environmental and Social Management FrameworkESMP Environmental and Social Management (Mitigation) PlanESMT Environment and Social Management TeamEU European UnionFDA Forestry Development AuthorityFFI Fauna and Flora InternationalFOs Farmer OrganizationsFONSI Finding of No Significant ImpactGIS Geographical Information SystemsGoL Government of LiberiaHa hectareHQ Headquarters IAIA International Association of Impact AssessmentIFC International Finance CorporationILO International Labor OrganizationIS4000 International Standards 4000Km Kilometre(s)LASIP Liberia Agriculture Sector Rehabilitation Programm Metre(s)MARCO Morris American Rubber CompanyMDGs Millennium Development GoalsMLME Ministry of Lands, Mines and EnergyM&E Monitoring and Evaluation,MoA Ministry of AgricultureMoF Ministry of Finance MoGD Ministry of Gender and DevelopmentMoHSW Ministry of Health and Social WelfareMoPW Ministry of Public WorksMoY Ministry of YouthNGO Non-Governmental Organization


Abbreviation TermPCU Project Coordination UnitPFMU Project Financial Management UnitPIU Project Implementation UnitPMU Program Management UnitRAP Rapid Appraisal ProgramRSPO Roundtable on Sustainable Palm OilSIA Social Impact AssessmentSMEs Small and Medium EnterprisesSRC Salala Rubber CompanySTCRSP Smallholder Tree Crop Revitalization Support Project TOR Terms of ReferenceToT Training of TrainersUNICEF United Nations Children Educational FundUNDP United Nations Development ProgramUSAID United States Aid for International DevelopmentUSEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The Government of Liberia is exploring the feasibility of a World Bank supported agricultural development project, in which the principal objective is improving the income opportunities of poor farmers by a combination of rehabilitating unproductive farms, undertaking replanting and new planting programs, facilitating future replanting and development programs, and improved financing mechanisms and institutional arrangements. The proposed Smallholder Tree Crop Revitalization Support Project (STCRSP) has been identified in response to this request.

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

The proposed project will be the first, preparatory stage of a long term pro-poor growth program focused on developing the tree crop sector. Specifically, it will be aimed at preparing future large scale tree crop replanting and development programs by testing different replanting and new planting models and associated financing and implementation mechanisms, and strengthening the capacity of key public and private sector/civil society institutions involved in tree crop development. At the same time, the proposed project will seek to have a short term impact on farmers’ revenues by supporting the rehabilitation of both immature and mature smallholder tree crop farms, which will generate additional revenues that farmers could subsequently use towards financing of replanting, thereby at least partially alleviating financing constraints.

Objective

The proposed project objective is “to increase poor tree crop farmers’ income opportunities by rehabilitating unproductive farms and supporting tree crop replanting and new planting and by supporting preparation activities toward the future development of the tree crop sector and effective smallholder participation”. The target group of the proposed project will be poor smallholders (those owning less than the economic threshold of four hectares (10 acres) of tree crop) in the country’s main tree crop producing counties, with particular attention given to the participation of women and youth. The intent is that this group will receive support to rehabilitate at least two hectares (5 acres) of their current holding.

The proposed project will contribute to national and local revenues through increased foreign exchange from tree crop exports and directly benefit smallholder households through increased incomes from the rehabilitation of their tree crop farms. It will directly support Government of Liberia (GoL)’s policy for economic revitalization, based on the promotion of export oriented economic growth, through consolidating the role of the private sector, while also facilitating rural development, increasing rural incomes, and contributing to poverty reduction. Furthermore, the proposed project is aligned with Ministry of Agriculture’s (MoA) priority of achieving a viable and sustainable Tree Crop Sector within the Liberia Agriculture Sector Rehabilitation Program (LASIP) under the framework of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP).

The objective of this report is to present an environmental and social management framework (ESMF) aimed at ensuring that adverse environmental and social impacts of the project will be avoided or, where unavoidable, will be mitigated or offset, in response to the five World Bank safeguards policies triggered by the proposed project as well as the laws, regulations and procedures of the Government of Liberia.

Methodology

The proposed project (see detail of components in Chapter1.2.3) will follow a two pronged approach: rehabilitating existing mature and immature small tree crop farms, which will have a short-term

impact by generating additional revenues that farmers could subsequently use towards financing of replanting; and


supporting tree crop replanting and new plantings, using different models and associated financing and implementation mechanisms, while strengthening the capacity of key public and private sector/civil society institutions involved in tree crop development, with the aim of laying out the foundations for future smallholder tree crop development programs. It will be implemented over a period of four years in several districts of the country’s main tree crop producing counties.

Thus, this report was prepared on the basis of: A comprehensive review of documents and reports to the proposed STCRSP Analysis of relevant studies and reports on the Liberian Tree Crop Sector as relates to the STCRSP. Engagement of key stakeholders through formal county level and informal village meetings, field

visits to small holder farms, concession plantations and one on one interviews with individuals and groups in Liberia who see themselves potentially affected by, or who can impact on the tree crop sector operations at the local, national or international scale.

Due to the delay in mobilization of the Consultancy and the need to have the report available for the World Bank Review team in early August, the stakeholder consultation was not as comprehensive as the Terms of Reference envisaged. Nevertheless a good stakeholder view has been achieved, which with on farm/plantation field visits, allowed the ESMF team to make a realistic assessment of potential beneficial and adverse impacts of the proposed project on the Physical, Biological and Human Environments in and adjacent to the target communities.

The ESMF team worked without the benefit of two studies: a) the identification of the specific target communities and b) the detailed socio-economic assessment of those communities. These two studies were envisaged in the ToR to have been completed by the time of the ESMF team visited, but had yet to commence, thus the field visit and workshop reports are representative of the broad target areas rather than specific to the likely first communities to participate. This will not unduly reduce the value of this report, as adequate information has been gathered to give a realistic assessment of what might be expected. It does mean though that there may be need for further assessment in some of the future subproject selection process.

Potential Environmental and Social Impacts

The proposed project impacts will be largely beneficial, or at least neutral, though will also be potential adverse impacts. . Where the later occur, they can be avoided by careful management which includes full awareness of the potential for the adverse impact and ‘best practice’ implementation of all activities. This will require all stakeholders to be fully trained and supported as envisaged in the proposed program. The ESMF outlines some possible actions to address minor potential negative impacts. The potential environmental and social impacts are summarized below:

The target group will be poor smallholders - those owning less that 5 hectares (10 acres) of rubber, Oil Palm, Cocoa and/or Coffee – in the main country’s tree crop producing counties, with particular attention given to the participation of women.

Positive Impacts The current levels of incomes are likely to improve when farmers start gaining from abandoned tree

crops (especially older cocoa and coffee farms) and invest in the replanting of new and resilient tree crops. These benefits as clearly articulated in the project objectives, will improve the quality of life of rural farmers and limit their over dependence of subsistence farming. This follows directly from the government’s effort at reducing poverty among the rural poor as articulated in the PRS.

The development of social capital through capacity building of local community groups and associations will positively equip them to dialogue and participate in decision making on their livelihood options and increase their decision-making roles at community and national levels. Increase in capacity building opportunities including training and skills development will enhance not only local communities and farmers in tree crop production for improved rehabilitation and expansion of the sector, but also the Ministry of Agriculture and participating Line and Other Agencies;

Infrastructural developments are likely to take place during and after the implementation of the project components, improving access not only to markets but also to services and facilities.

Smallholders will have developed new husbandry skills and increased farm incomes, and rural labor opportunity will have been enhanced and the country as a whole should be better off;


Improvement in access to land and tenure security as cash crop farmers and communities register their lands and farms;

Creation of opportunities for sustainable income-generation in agriculture through diversification and improvement in tree crop production for rural communities;

Improve local farmers capacities in the production of quality cash crops; Provision of opportunity in small-scale infrastructure in a planned and organized fashion that would

facilitate more efficient uses of economic resources in project counties and communities; Empowerment of local communities to mobilize and build capacities in sustainable community

development through effective delivery of extension services, improved technologies in cash crop farming and agricultural inputs;

Inclusion of women, the youth and migrants to participate in the cash crop sector through the creation of sustainable agricultural sector employment opportunities;

Provision of basic infrastructure including access roads in tree crop production areas which would further improve and facilitate distribution of food crops to market centers; and

Provision of sustainable productivity through input supply and improved access to needed cash crop seeds and technologies.

Potential Negative Social Impacts Soil Erosion and downstream pollution as a result of land clearing for planting/replanting and

improvements to farm access roads; Increased competition over lands to invest in cash crops within the current dualistic land ownership

system in Liberia could create local conflicts over land; Women’s (and youth’s) access to land and land ownership may limit their direct involvement in the

project, though this may differ from one project area to the other, the project could have negative social impacts, in particular on women and youth, if the participatory processes to sensitize communities on the project objectives are not consistently followed.

Food insecurity may occur if project implementation does not fully comply with current food security strategies and link up with ongoing projects to increase food security;

Competitive labor demand for cash crops cultivation may affect the contribution of household labor for food crop farming;

Farmer associations may face elite capture, the vulnerable, powerless and/or marginalized groups especially if women and the youth do not actively participate and benefit from the project;

Social tension and agitation due to lack of adequate flow of accurate project information in a timely manner and dialogue among different segments of society: leaders, youth, women and political associations.

Emissions to air and water as a result of increased processing and value-added initiatives; Potential health hazards as a result of improper handling, storage and use of agro-chemicals used

for pest management;

This Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) has been prepared to address any adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the project. This document covers the most obvious possibilities, but also makes provision for ‘chance finds”. The following table summarizes the potential averse impacts, mitigation measures and indicates the implementing and monitoring agencies.

Table 1: Summary of Environmental and Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Project Activities Potential Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures

Responsible Implementers

(RI)/Monitoring Agency (MA)

Land Clearing and Replanting

Soil Erosion and consequent pollution of adjacent water bodies

Minimize removal of low ground cover during clearingEstablish new ground cover as quickly as possibleWindrow woody vegetation along the contour to act as barrier to down slope sheet erosionMaximize new planting along contourRemove excess wood waste from field –

RE - Farmers, Contractors (if any) MA – MoA CAC


do not remove by burning - to be recycled to other uses (e.g. household fuel, local crafts)

Loss of biodiversity habitat

Biodiversity habit is weak and disturbed in existing plantations but expansion area selection will need to adhere to EPA and FDA laws and regulations as well as OP 4.04 and 4.36.

RE - Farmers, MA – EPA

Loss of farm income during reestablishment of tree crop

Consider intercropping until new tree crop closes canopy

RE - Farmers, Contractors (if any) MA – MoA CAC

Crop Processing

Emissions or air and water

Concession factories and community mills to adhere to EPA laws and regulationsNew value added industry to adhere to EPA laws and regulations

RE – Concession/ Industry Managers MA – EPA

Liquid effluent Containment and treatment prior to discharge to existing water body – maximize recycling of treated water

Solid wasteMaximize the spreading of organic waste in plantations as substitute for inorganic plant nutrients

Use of resources (e.g. petroleum products, water)

Crop Husbandry

Under-brushing, pruning RE - Farmers, MA – MoA CACRemoval of shade trees in

coffee & cocoa

Check with FDA before removal as an indigenous species may be rare and endangered

Pest management

Adhere to PMP re type of chemicals used, and safeguards for storage, handling and applying Introduce and maximize use non-chemical alternatives

FertilizerMinimize use of chemical fertilizer and maximize use of organic mulch by returning solid processing waste to fields

Plant Nurseries (large scale District – not individual small-farmer plots )

Loss of biodiversity habitat as result of land clearing

RI – Nursery ImplementerMO – MoA-CAC

Water for irrigation

Adhere to GoL regulations re extraction from streams and riversGuard against pollution of water body and downstream impacts

Emissions to air and waterLocate water pump with surrounding bund to prevent petroleum leakage to water source

Pest management

Adhere to PMP re type of chemicals used, and safeguards for storage, handling and applying Introduce and maximize use non-chemical alternatives

Fertilizer Minimize use of chemical fertilizer and maximize use of organic mulch

Feeder Roads

Pollution of streams/rivers

PIU guidelines to be part of contract document. These to include: Minimize removal of roadside vegetationReplant quick growing ground cover during or immediately after constructionInstall erosion barriers during construction to prevent stream sedimentation

RI – ContractorMO – MoPW & EPA

Community access hindrance during rehabilitation/construction

Work to be done in collaboration with community leaders and members

Crop Handling and Storage

Dust/noise disruption during construction of Warehouses

Temporary disturbance during construction mitigated by location of

RI – MoAMO - MoA


and ancillary facilities (e.g. Increased traffic and movement of heavy equipment)

facility at perimeter of town/villageLiaise through community leaders to respond promptly to complaintsMaintain all work equipment within the facility at optimal operating conditionMonitor noise levels at sensitive receptors (residential areas, schools, clinics)Use periodic sprinkling to control dust

Health and Safety Accidents

Minimized by training and experience – PIU to conduct periodic training and continual safety reminders to all project participants

RI– FarmersMoA – CAC & MPH

Land Tenure Lack of comprehensive land registry

Land Commission to focus on finalizing Land Sector Policy and rationalize current constraints relating to customary and state land ownership

RI – Lands CommissionMP – MoA PIU

Food SecurityFocus on Tree Crop at expense of Food Crop production during rehabilitation period

Mitigated by encouraging intercropping food crops with tree crops (at least until tree crop reaches maturity)

RI – MoAMO - MoA

Community Expectation Level

High, unrealistic expectation of project support

Maintain effective two-way dialogue through transparency and disclosure, full and frequent information to the public and established arrangement for community liaison and for handling complaints and grievancesSensitize and create awareness for farmers and all community members to understand the goal, objectives, activities and farmers role

RI – MoA PIUMO – MoA - CAC

Adverse Farmer/Implementing Agency Relationship

Labor and Employment

Labor Issues including possibility of migrant and child Labor issues

Address community norms and customs relating to gender, land and ownership rights to improved ability of women and youth to have secure access to landInclusion of advanced husbandry practices and value added initiatives should provide additional employment opportunityInclusion of labor and child rights protocols

RI – MoA PIUMO – MoGD

Gender, Youth and Vulnerability inclusion

Male adult bias at expense of female and youth

Develop and mainstream gender, and youth and vulnerability inclusion strategiesEncourage communities to expand opportunities for females and youth

RI – MoA PIUMO -MoGD, MoY, MoHSW, NGOs & CBOs

ESMP/ESMF Implementation Structure

In order to ensure successful delivery of the project, including the mitigation and improvement measures, it will be necessary for the PMU to put in place appropriate processes and mechanisms, and strengthen the capacity of the implementing agencies and the participating communities to achieve the project objectives in an efficient and sustainable manner. Involvement of the stakeholders at key stages in the development and operation will be a key factor in avoiding challenges and conflicts. There is a requirement to be accountable which necessitates appropriate dissemination of information and transparent policies.

The PIU will need to appoint an Environmental Manager to take responsibility for the implementation of the ESMP. This could be a shared (with another responsibility) position within the PIU, but for clarity and focus it would be best if responsibility was invested in a single position. This appointee would be the point of contact for all issues related to environmental and social impact management of project initiatives and activities. The Environmental Manager would be responsible for liaising with the EPA and participating Line and Other Agencies. Similarly, an Environmental Officer should be designated in each of the target counties with responsibility for day to day issues arising from project implementation, to assist with farmer training and awareness programs and to monitor compliance and progress. The person designated would most probably be


one of the County or District Agricultural Offices but as these offices are currently understaffed, it may be necessary to recruit specialists to fill these posts. In addition, each section within the PIU structure should designate a person to be the point of contact with regard to any environmental issues relating to that sections activities. Collectively these officials will be the project’s Environmental and Social Management Team (ESMT).

Initially, at least, the PIU should appoint a Rural Sociologist to assist with the preparation of the social monitoring program and to build social impact management skills within the County/District level staff who will be responsible for impact monitoring.

Each member of the project management team will be responsible guiding conformity with applicable laws and regulations, and for conducting their work responsibilities in accordance with permit requirements and the ESMP. The environmental management controls that should be used at each of the project development locations to assist in meeting the overall environmental management objectives for the project should include, but not be limited to:

Environmental Awareness Training; Environmental Compliance Reviews and Co-ordination Meetings; and Environmental Compliance Inspections and Documentation.

It is important that the ESMT meet regularly and as frequently as necessary to coordinate prompt reaction to arising issues, evaluate data from the monitoring program and assure efficient implementation of the ESMP. A representative of the EPA should be invited to attend these meetings as well as representatives of other supporting agencies when appropriate (e.g. when specific expertise is required).

Capacity Building

Capacity within the MoA and the other line agencies is generally weak both in terms of personnel and hands on experience in environmental and social impact management and the laws and regulations in place to control/mitigate adverse impacts. As a result, the PIU will need for focus initially on capacity building.

Members of the PIU Environmental and Social Management Team should be the first to receive training in identifying and managing adverse environmental and social impacts with the intent that they will act as trainers in environmental and social awareness to all management staff, and monitor and support local implementation of project initiatives. This may be provided by:

sending employees to specific training courses in Monrovia or elsewhere, employing consultants to hold training courses at the PIU premises, or assisting individuals to

register for Distance Learning Courses from Credited Institutions

Annual refresher courses should be available for members of the committee and specialist training provided when new issues arise.

The PIU Environmental Manager will be responsible for organizing and assisting in training of personnel in all aspects of the EMP creating a general awareness of environmental management throughout the participating organizations, partner organizations and the beneficiary communities. One of the objectives of the program will be to encourage communities to safeguard their own environment and the value of conserving their natural heritage for their present use and the use of future generations. There may be a requirement to continue some aspects of capacity building, in particular of the communities and smallholders, after project completion,

With the assistance of the ESMT, the PIU Environmental Manager will be responsible for identifying and selecting suitable local training resource persons, preparation of standard and specific relevant training modules, liaising with providing agencies and stakeholders to plan training implementation and preparation of training progress reports.

Institutional Arrangements

Annual work plans should be developed in consultation with the relevant participating agencies and stakeholders to indicate institutions and networks that will be required to provide research and development support. The principal actors will include a number of local institutions directly involved in project implementation while


other agencies (partners) will include international and national institutions to provide technical and other support for implementation of the plan.

The PIU will need to collaborate with relevant line agencies (e.g. MoA, EPA), NGO’s and International Agencies to:

Provide expertise in planning, training and field implementation of IPM, and contribute field staff to be trained as Trainers;

Utilize members of participating FOs to facilitate extension and farmer training; Prepare and produce field guides and other relevant information materials; review current policies and adjust/develop policy guidance/oversight to support the implementation

of the project; Serve as technical reviewers for subprojects submitted by FOs for funding under STCRSP;

Monitoring and Evaluation

The key focal areas for monitoring during implementation will be of necessity larger than will be required later when the revitalization process has been completed. During project implementation monitoring in each of the target communities may need to be focused on all of the following:

Activities that lead to soil erosion and water run-off leading to downstream contamination of land and water (e.g. land clearing, replanting, road/bridge rehabilitation, irrigation dams)

Measuring compliance regarding noise, air and the quality of effluent discharge to water bodies in and around the factories and other processing plants

Measuring noise and water pollution as result of project activity Implementation of the capacity building plans within the communities and the support institutions Compliance with Government/World Bank policies and regulations Compliance with mitigation measures Livelihood Impacts Public Consultations and dialogue Land use and management plans and systems including Land Tenure arrangements Conflict resolution mechanisms and procedures Gender, youth and vulnerability involvement and or mainstreaming strategies Community/FO governance and institutional framework Other as become necessary as a result of project implementation evaluation.

The level of monitoring should continue after sub-project completion to confirm sustainability of the processes, but with fewer observations. Perhaps crop husbandry and processing, Livelihood Impacts and innovations based on Capacity Building (e.g. farmers continuing to train other farmers

Table 7 in Chapter 6 sets out the project implementation monitoring plan.

All data collected and observations made during the monitoring program should be evaluated at least annually and measured against project policy and objectives to ascertain whether experience over the preceding period suggest that adjustments to policy, guidelines, standards or procedure (even governing legislation) should be incorporated to improve the effectiveness and the environmental and social sustainability of smallholder tree farms. To this effect each monitoring report should contained a section for observations of data collected (i.e. whether it is as expected or unusual, changes in conditions at monitoring site). Points to be addressed in the annual review will include:

Assessment of the progress in the attainment of the project objectives Assessment of the effectiveness of adverse impact mitigation measures Verification of compliance with environmental legislation and regulations Verification of compliance with social mitigation measures Assessment of gender and youth inclusion Recommendations for changes in implementation policy and practices as necessary for their

continued effectiveness or relevance Determination of the capital investment and operating budgets necessary to ensure achievement of

environmental management objectives


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Government of Liberia is exploring the feasibility of a World Bank supported agricultural development project, the principal objective of improving the income opportunities of poor farmers by a combination of rehabilitating unproductive farms, undertaking replanting and new planting programs, facilitating future replanting and development programs, and improved financing mechanisms and institutional arrangements. The proposed Smallholder Tree Crop Revitalization Support Project (STCRSP) has been identified in response to this request.

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

1.2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project will be the first, preparatory stage of a long term pro-poor growth program focused on developing the tree crop sector. Specifically, it will be aimed at preparing future large scale tree crop replanting and development programs by testing different replanting and new planting models and associated financing and implementation mechanisms, and strengthening the capacity of key public and private sector/civil society institutions involved in tree crop development. At the same time, the proposed project will seek to have a short term impact on farmers’ revenues by supporting the rehabilitation of both immature and mature smallholder tree crop farms, which will generate additional revenues that farmers could subsequently use towards financing of replanting, thereby at least partially alleviating financing constraints.

1.2.1 Objectives

The proposed project objective is “to increase poor tree crop farmers’ income opportunities by rehabilitating unproductive farms and supporting tree crop replanting and new planting and by supporting preparation activities toward the future development of the tree crop sector and effective smallholder participation”. The proposed project will be the first, preparatory stage of a long term pro-poor growth program focused on developing the tree crop sector. The target group will be poor smallholders in the main country’s tree crop producing counties, with particular attention given to the participation of women.

The proposed project will contribute to national and local revenues through increased foreign exchange from tree crop exports and will directly benefit smallholder households through increased incomes from the rehabilitation of their tree crop farms. It will directly support Government of Liberia (GoL)’s policy for economic revitalization, based on the promotion of export oriented economic growth, through consolidating the role of the private sector, while also facilitating rural development, increasing rural incomes, and contributing to poverty reduction. Furthermore, the proposed project is also aligned with Ministry of Agriculture’s (MoA) priority of achieving a viable and sustainable Tree Crop Sector within the Liberia Agriculture Sector Rehabilitation Program (LASIP) under the framework of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP).

The objective of this Consultancy is to develop an environmental and social management framework (ESMF) aimed at ensuring that adverse environmental and social impacts of the Project will be avoided or, where unavoidable, will be mitigated or offset, in response to the five World Bank safeguards policies 1 triggered by the proposed project as well as the laws, regulations and procedures of the Government of Liberia.

1.2.2 Project Scope

1 Reference: OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment, OP 4.04 Natural Habitat, OP 4.09 Pest Management, OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement and OP 4.36 Forests.


The proposed project will follow a two pronged approach: rehabilitating existing mature and immature small tree crop farms, which will have a short-term

impact by generating additional revenues that farmers could subsequently use towards financing of replanting; and

supporting tree crop replanting and new plantings, using different models and associated financing and implementation mechanisms, while strengthening the capacity of key public and private sector/civil society institutions involved in tree crop development, with the aim of laying out the foundations for future smallholder tree crop development programs. It will be implemented over a period of four years in several districts of the country’s main tree crop producing counties.

1.2.3 Proposed Project Components

The project proposed will include three components as follows:

Component 1 - Tree Crop Revitalization

Sub-Component 1.1 - Cocoa/Coffee Revitalization: The component will be implemented in two of the country’s main cocoa & coffee producing counties: Bong and Nimba. The component will be aimed at rehabilitating existing smallholder cocoa and coffee farms2, according to two different models: (a) the low model input which consists of under brushing, weeding, pruning, reducing the shade without applying fertilizers but for cocoa this model will include the application of limited amounts of fungicides and insecticides; and (b) the high input model for cocoa will consist of under brushing, weeding, pruning, reducing the shade and regular applications each year of fungicides and insecticides together with the high application of fertilizers – for coffee no agro-chemicals will be included.

supporting new plantings of cocoa as there are good market prospects and comparative advantage for cocoa in northern Liberia;

to a lesser extent, rehabilitating existing smallholder coffee farms, as it will generate much less income than cocoa; and

promoting improved cocoa/coffee marketing and value addition, including small scale processing (into cocoa butter or cocoa liquor and coffee powder) using adapted technologies.

This will include: the development of village nurseries and the maintenance of seed gardens, complementarily with other ongoing initiatives:

supporting the organization and strengthening of farmers’ groups (farmers’ associations [FOs]and cooperatives) dealing with bulking, marketing and primary processing; the provision of training and technical and management advice to smallholders and their organizations;

the construction (or rehabilitation) of warehouses and installation of solar dryers and procurement of quality control equipment (at section FOs, clan cooperatives and district cooperatives levels); the establishment of pilot processing plants at district level (including access to working capital) at district level; and

limited feeder road rehabilitation and related small bridges and drainage structures, wherever it is critical to provide access to groups of farms (indicatively 100 km).

The various crop models (rehabilitation with low or high input, replanting, and new planting) could be implemented simultaneously or during subsequent years on the same farm. It will depend on the available labor and financial resources as well as the condition of the trees.

This component will be implemented in partnership with NGOs and nongovernmental service/input providers, under contracting arrangements to be determined during project preparation. Since most cocoa farmers are also coffee farmers, the same implementing agency will deal with these crops jointly. Farmers will provide their own labor for the rehabilitation or planting operations. Thus little external financing will be required for rehabilitating cocoa/coffee farms under the low input model (tools package). Implementation of the high input model, however, will require the financing of inputs (mainly fertilizers and fungicides) through credit, which will be extended in kind by specialized input retailers. The supplier will be paid by farmers in cash or in cocoa/coffee beans. The project will support the installation of such retailer(s) and/or the first year credit requirements.

2 Under the low input model, even 40 to 50 years old cocoa trees can be rejuvenated by such medium input rehabilitation as very successfully tested in Ghana since 2002. The production slightly declines during the year of rehabilitation but subsequent yields are much higher (from 250 kg/ha to 1000 kg of dry beans per ha).


Sub-Component 1.2 – Smallholder Oil Palm Revitalization: This component will be implemented using two models: a) an out-grower model in partnership with a Concession/primary processor (Equatorial Palm Oil) in Grand Bassa and b) the Smallholder Plantation in Grand Gedeh in partnership with the NGO Alternative Enterprises International and private sector service input providers under contract.

The component will be aimed at: rehabilitating old smallholder oil palm farms, which will consist in clearing the undergrowth (under

brushing), weeding around the trees and between the rows, and applying fertilizers (potentially higher levels in model a’’ that in model ‘b’;

supporting replanting of smallholder oil palm; supporting the organization of farmers’ groups and the provision of training and technical advice to

small farmers; limited feeder road rehabilitation (access roads and related small bridges and drainage structures)

wherever it is critical to provide access to groups of farms (indicatively 30 km); and the promotion of small scale processing facilities for farmers’ run plantations where no mills are

present and/or facilitate access to small scale processing technology and finance for interested private investors (SMEs), in collaboration with commercial banks and guarantee or equity funds.

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

supporting replanting of existing smallholder rubber farms; new planting targeting smallholders who already have some rubber plots as well as newcomers in

the sector, particularly women and youth; the provision of training and technical advice to smallholders (including for tapping techniques)

and supporting the organization of farmers’ groups in rubber growing areas; and limited feeder road rehabilitation and farm access roads development (and related small bridges and

drainage structure), wherever it is critical to provide access to participating farms (indicatively 90 km).

The component will be implemented in partnership with the Concessions (primary processors) through out-grower type arrangements. Only the high input model will be supported, and will be based on the use of high quality stumps and of fertilizers during the immature period. Under such model, each participating rubber farm will be developed according the same technical standards as the Concession employs. Farmers will provide their own labor for replanting and planting operations. Replanting and new planting will require the financing of land preparation, labor (under the high input model only) and inputs (mainly fertilizers) through credit. A grant element will be introduced to lower the establishment cost (planting year), particularly the seedlings costs.

Component 2 – Institutional Capacity Building and Preparation of Future Large Scale Smallholder Tree Crop Development Programs:

Sub-component 2.1: Institution building. The component will aim at: Capacity building of Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and Cooperative Development Agency (CDA)

staff will target technical staff involved in the project planning, coordination and monitoring and evaluation (M&E), both at Headquarters (HQ) and county level. A training of trainers (ToT) approach will be used. A rapid assessment of staff skills and training needs will be carried out. Training will tackle the following domains: economic development and empowerment of FOs/cooperatives; financial management and procurement; policy and project design; agronomic issues related to tree crops; computer literacy; training of FO facilitators.

Support to MoA County offices. The project will contribute to the strengthening of the six targeted County Agricultural Offices (CAC) in order that these effectively exercise their promotion,


planning, coordination and M&E role of projects’ activities in their respective county. This will include: field allowances to carry out sensitization or supervision activities; a contribution to procuring the necessary field equipment or transport means (motorbikes); and associate running costs of the CAC office.

Support to CDA. Similarly, as the CDA has a key role to play in the promotion of FOs/cooperatives, the project will strengthen CDA’s operational capacity to deliver its services through its current five offices at county level. This will include support for: procuring necessary transport means and office equipment for field offices and associate running costs; and field allowances for HQ and field offices staff in order to deliver training, business development and managerial advice to FOs/Cooperatives.

Support to the Land Commission at county level. The project will complement ongoing support received by the Land Commission in order that its county offices could adequately expedite the issuance of land titles or deeds to participating smallholders. That will include: support to carrying out land surveys; and a contribution to the equipment of county offices, operating costs and field allowances.

Support to adaptive tree crops research. Proposed activities will be linked to the tree crops sector and could cover: the establishment and maintenance of seed gardens (cocoa & coffee), in collaboration with other ongoing programs; refurbishing facilities for soil testing, germplasm production, biological analyses, etc.; support to adaptive research on tree crops, including socio-economic issues; training of scientists up to Masters or Doctorate level if needed; exchange visits to neighboring countries and regional agricultural research institutions; and scientific coaching and organizational advice through national and international consultants.

Support to the MoA Program Management Unit (PMU)3. The project will contribute to the setting-up and effective performance of the PMU, of which the STCRSP coordination team will be part. This will encompass a contribution to the staffing of top managers of the PMU (PMU Manager, Financial Advisor, and Procurement Advisor) and associated operating costs of the PMU.

Sub-component 2.2: Preparing future large scale smallholder tree crop development programs. This will include: the preparation and validation of Master Plans for all targeted tree crops. Plans will detail strategic

options for development, scope, detailed activities, operational modalities, costing, as well as phasing. During this process, a national tree crops database including a GIS system will be established to better reflect the current situation of tree crops at national and county levels (acreage, number of farmers, size of farms, status of trees, localization, etc.);

the elaboration and validation of a National Policy/Strategy for Farmers Organizations and Cooperatives development: this will comprise technical assistance from a specialized international consultant, setting up and support to a core country drafting team, and organization of validation workshops; and

the preparation of a large scale smallholder tree crop development program encompassing the following activities: mid-term review of the proposed STCRSP; detailed feasibility studies, notably building upon the strategic options and conclusions of the adopted tree crops master plans; and final evaluation of the STCRSP to make sure lessons learned from phase I will be integrated in the larger scale program.

Component 3 - Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation.

Sub-component 3.1: Strategic Planning and Coordination and Implementation support. This will comprise two main groups of activities:

Support to Steering Bodies. That will include: the organization of project launching workshops at county and national level; supporting regular coordination meetings at County level (under the responsibility of the CAC) assembling representatives from all stakeholders involved in the agricultural sector and particularly in tree crops development; an operational support to the National Project Steering Committee; and

Support to the Project Coordination Unit (PCU). The coordination, management, monitoring and evaluation of project activities will be under the responsibility of a specific team, to be established within and reporting to MoA central Project Management Unit (PMU). The team will include a limited number of highly qualified and motivated staff, consisting of a project coordinator, one or two specialists (agronomist or agro-economist, capacity building specialist), finance, M&E,

3 The PMU has been established within MoA with the support of various donors including World Bank, USAID, EU, AfDB, etc, with the aim of providing the Ministry with the capacity to manage and coordinate all donor funded projects.


procurement and administration staff, to be selected on a competitive basis. The responsibilities for financial management and procurement, however, will be located under the Project Financial Management Unit (PFMU) in Ministry of Finance (MoF), until the capacity of the PMU is assessed as being adequate. It will encompass: a contribution to the staffing costs of the PCU (Project coordinator; Planning and M&E officer; Institution development officer; Agri-business officer; Information, education, communication and knowledge sharing officer, Accountant; and administrative support staff); the procurement of necessary transport means and of computer/office equipment; staff training and exchange visits; office operating costs of the PCU; the installation of a project accounting and management software and of management control tools; and short term technical assistance in key areas relevant to project implementation.

Sub-component 3.2: Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) and Knowledge Sharing. Under that sub-component, the following activities will be supported: the establishment of the project M&E system to integrated within the overall PMU’s and MoA’s M&E systems; carrying out necessary baseline studies per project site and/or per thematic area; annual participatory planning and evaluation workshops with beneficiaries and other stakeholders at county and district levels; the elaboration of a communication and knowledge sharing strategy for the overall PMU and for the STCRSP; development of various communication and knowledge sharing tools using various medias (newspapers, radio, television, internet, etc.) and targeting different publics (smallholders, private sector, donors, general public, etc.).

1.3 NEED FOR AN ESMF

As noted in the project description above, the proposed project will be implemented in two phases with each phase having a number of subprojects. Locations and other details of the subprojects are yet to be defined This uncertainty at the time the project is being prepared for presentation to the Bank’s Board of Executive Directors, Bank environmental assessment policy requires the borrower to prepare an Environmental and Social Management. Framework (ESMF) which sets out a mechanism for assessment of the environmental and social impacts of all program subprojects, and identifies in general the mitigation, monitoring and institutional measures to be taken during implementation and operation of the program to avoid, minimize or offset adverse environmental and social impacts. This ESMF therefore provides the expected guidelines and defines the procedures whereby environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs) and/or environmental and social management plans (ESMPs) will be prepared and implemented for each STCRSP subproject as and when required.

2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

This report was prepared on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of potential environmental and social impacts related to, or as a consequence of the proposed project. This included:

Conducting a review of studies and reports on the Liberian Tree Crop Sector and other documents and publications relevant to the STCRSP (ref: Annex B: List of References).

Conducting fact-finding workshops throughout the seven counties (see Annexes B, C and D – List of Stakeholders Consulted and Stakeholder Workshop Report) involving representatives of the main STCRSP stakeholders (e.g. farmers – both tree crop and other, concession holders, plantation growers, processing companies, county council representatives, district committee representatives, etc.). In Monrovia the participants were ‘higher level’ representatives of relevant Government departments, academic & research institutions, donors, NGOs, etc. The objectives of these workshops was to identify the environmental and social issues related to the target crops and included issues related to investment, crop production, field management, processing and marketing, as well as producer issues such as access to land, investment and operating capital and availability of labor.

Collection of baseline data at the county level in the cocoa, coffee, rubber and oil palm growing areas. This includes relevant physical, biological, and socio-economic conditions as well as an assessment of anticipated impacts and any non-related current and proposed development activities which could be relevant to decisions about project location, design, operation, or mitigatory measures.

Identifying and assessing the typical environmental and social impacts of the types of investments that will be supported by the proposed STCRSP. This included need and options for mitigating, monitoring and managing any potentially negative impacts likely to result from the proposed project. Potential impacts included


Contamination of the local and downstream environment as a result of soil erosion (particularly during the replanting phase of the project), use and misuse of agro-chemicals, and on-farm processing

The socio-economic benefit of the project to communities and possible impacts (negative and positive) on youth and women, increase in migrant labor, improvement in communication network d road network, and access and availability of land for development.

The impact of the project on availability and accessibility of land and labor.Interests of local communities and stakeholders in the project as well as their expectations of project

benefits. Identifying pest and pesticide management issues relevant to the STCRSP through a review current

pesticide practices in the project areas, an evaluation of the appropriateness of any existing IPM plans.

Identifying and assessing potential wider community impacts as a result of the STCRSP. This includes potential adverse impacts related to riverine contamination from agricultural & processing operations, impact on ground water portability, and impact on marine environments;

Identifying current and planned environmental management systems being adopted by the tree crop processing or milling companies linked to the project beneficiaries, an appraisal of compliance and implementation issues, and consequent environmental implications arising due to the implementation of the STCRSP.

A review of current environmental practices affecting tree crop development, and particularly those affected by implementation of the STCRSP, including forest and habitat protection considerations, pesticide use, soil erosion and watercourse contamination by crop processing and agricultural practices.

Assessment of the capacities of the government, non-governmental organizations, and other private entities on environmental assessment and monitoring.

Assessment of the risk of significant conversion or degradation of critical forest and natural habitats areas within, adjacent or downstream of target counties that might occur due to Project activities. Amongst others, the following topics were assessed:

Issues related to the establishment of any new smallholder tree crop blocks and potential impacts on food gardens (i.e. if food gardens being abandoned to establish tree crop blocks are new gardens therefore being established in areas of critical forest or natural habitat areas);

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

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

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

Identify where tree crops can be safely established that do not convert any critical habitats. Assessment of potential impacts of climate change.

Due to the delay in mobilization of the Consultancy and the need to have the report available for the World Bank Review team in early August, the stakeholder consultation was not as comprehensive as the Terms of Reference envisaged. Never-the-less a good stakeholder view has been achieved, which with on farm/plantation field visits, allowed the ESMF team to make a realistic assessment of potential beneficial and adverse impacts of the proposed project on the Physical, Biological and Human Environments in and adjacent to the target communities.

The ESMF team worked without the benefit of two studies: a) the identification of the specific target communities and b) the detailed socio-economic assessment of those communities. These two studies were envisaged in the ToR to have been completed by the time of the ESMF team visited, but had yet to commence, thus the field visit and workshop reports are representative of the broad target areas rather than specific to the likely first communities to participate. This will not unduly reduce the value of this report, as adequate information has been gathered to give a realistic assessment of what might be expected. It does mean though that there may be need for further assessment in some of the future subproject selection process.

3. POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

The Government of Liberia (GoL) has developed comprehensive legislation for the management of the country’s physical, biological and human environment but is still working on its regulations and administrative structures.


To the extent possible, Liberian laws and regulations will be applied; otherwise international best practice guidelines will be adopted and adapted. However, as this is to be a World Bank funded initiative, should a conflict arise between Bank Operational Policies and Liberian Government policies and procedures, the former must take precedence if the Bank is to continue to be involved in the funding or the project.

3.1 WORLD BANK SAFEGUARD POLICY

The World Bank requires environmental and social assessments for all projects it finances. It aims to prevent and mitigate undue harm to people and their environment in the development process, while at the same time provide a platform for the participation of stakeholders in project design and implementation. The World Bank's Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies are:

1. Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01)2. Natural Habitats (OP 4.043. Pest Management (OP4.09)4. Indigenous Peoples (OP4.10)5. Physical and Cultural Resources (OP4.11)6. Involuntary Resettlement (OP4.12)7. Forests (OP4.36)8. Safety of Dams (4.37)9. Projects on International Waterways (OP 7.50)10. Projects in Disputed Areas (7.60)

The Safeguard Policies obviously relevant to the proposed project are OP 4.01 and OP 4.09. OP 4.04 and OP 4.36 may be relevant if new farm/plantation blocks are promoted. Given that the proposed project focuses on settled smallholder support, it is unlikely that OP 4.11 and OP 4.12 will be relevant. However, as a precautionary measure, provision has been made in the screening process for the possibility of ‘chance finds’ to ensure that neither situation applies. If either of these situations are identified within a proposed subproject site, the ESMP for the subproject will need to include a management plan consistent with OP 4.11 or OP 4.12 to protect them. The other four safeguard policies are not considered to have any relevance for the proposed project.

3.1.1 Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01)

This policy requires an environmental and social impact assessment (EA) of projects/programs proposed for Bank financing to help ensure that they are environmentally sound and sustainable, and thus to improve decision making. This policy is triggered if a project is likely to have potential adverse environmental or social risks and impacts in its area of influence (as may be the case within the proposed STCRSP). EA is a process whose breadth, depth, and type of analysis depend on the nature, scale, and potential environmental impact of the program subprojects. The ESIA process takes into account the natural environment (air, water, and land); human health and safety; social aspects (involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, and cultural property) and transboundary and global environmental aspects. For all Category A projects – those with significant potential impacts -- OP 4.01 requires that the borrower engages independent consultants to prepare a full environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) that includes an environmental and social management plan (ESMP). Another requirement is that primary stakeholders (i.e. project-affected groups and local nongovernmental organizations) need to be consulted about the project's environmental aspects and their views taken into account. These stakeholders need to be consulted at least twice: (a) early in the ESIA process and (b) as part of the review of the draft ESIA report [or in the case of the proposed project the ESMF]. In addition, the stakeholders should be consulted and kept informed about environmental and social related issues that affect them throughout project implementation.

For Category B projects, which have impacts of lesser significance, a less extensive environmental analysis is required, and this often takes the form of a stand-alone ESMP. The borrower or project developer is required to consult project-affected groups including indigenous peoples and local Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) regarding the project, though not necessarily as extensively as for Category A, and from the consultations incorporate views into the final document.

3.1.2 Pest Management (OP 4.09)

Rural development and health sector projects have to avoid using harmful pesticides. A preferred solution is to use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques and encourage their use in the whole of the sectors


concerned. If pesticides have to be used in crop protection or in the fight against vector-borne diseases, the Bank-funded project should include a Pest Management Plan (PMP), prepared by the borrower, either as a stand-alone document or as part of an Environmental Assessment.

This policy is designed to strengthen capacity of the beneficiary country’s regulatory framework and institutions to promote and support safe, effective and environmentally sound pest management (i.e. to promote the use of biological or environmental control and to avoid using harmful pesticides4 . It applies to all projects involving pest management, whether or not the project finances pesticides. More specifically the policy aims to:

Ascertain that pest management activities in Bank-financed operations are based on integrated approaches and seek to reduce reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides (Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in agricultural projects and Integrated Vector Management (IVM) in public health projects).

Ensure that no pesticides in Classes Ia or 1b of the WHO Classification of Pesticides are procured, and that pesticides in Class II are only procured when there are adequate controls and safeguards in effect in the country.

Ensure that health and environmental hazards associated with pest management, especially the use of pesticides, are minimized and can be properly managed by the user.

As necessary, support policy reform and institutional capacity development to (i) enhance implementation of IPM-based pest management, and (ii) regulate and monitor the distribution and use of pesticides.

This policy is triggered whenever the procurement of pesticides or pesticide application equipment is envisaged directly or indirectly by a project and thus will apply to the proposed project where a subproject includes the use of pesticides as part of the revitalization process. Thus pest and pesticide management issues relevant to the project are addressed in this report and a Pest Management Plan (PMP) has been prepared to cover the anticipated project and Bank requirements (see Annex F). As is required, the PMP list the pesticides authorized for procurement under the project.

Public Consultation and Disclosure requirements are those required under the EA policy (OP 4.01).

3.1.3 Natural Habitats (OP 4.04)

This policy seeks to ensure that World Bank-supported development projects take into account the conservation of biodiversity, as well as the numerous environmental services and products which natural habitats provide to human society. The policy strictly limits the circumstances under which any Bank-supported project can damage natural habitats (land and water areas where most of the native plant and animal species are still present).

Specifically, the policy prohibits Bank support for projects which will lead to the significant loss or degradation of any Critical Natural Habitats, whose definition includes those natural habitats which are either:

legally protected (e.g., in one of IUCN classifications I through VI , officially proposed for protection, or unprotected but of known high conservation value.

Furthermore, the Bank expects Borrowers to apply, a precautionary approach to natural resource management to ensure opportunities for environmentally sustainable development. Other (non-critical) natural habitats can only be converted for a Bank supported project when there are no feasible alternatives to achieve the project's objectives and the project’s benefits clearly outweigh its environmental costs. In cases where natural habitat is to be converted, acceptable mitigation measures or offsets, such as compensatory protected areas, must be included within the project.

The Natural Habitats Policy is triggered by any project (including any subproject under a sector investment or financial intermediary loan) with the potential to cause significant conversion (loss) or degradation of natural habitats, whether directly (through construction) or indirectly (through human activities induced by the project).

Natural habitats are land and water areas where most of the original native plant and animal species are still present (see OP 4.04, Annex A for full definition). Natural habitats comprise many types of terrestrial, freshwater, coastal, and marine ecosystems. They include areas lightly modified by human activities, but retaining their ecological functions and most native species.

4 The Guidebook on Pest Management provides further guidance, background, tools and references.ESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 19

S.A. AGRER N.V.

In projects subject to the Natural Habitats Policy, the public consultation and document disclosure requirements are those required under the OP 4.01.

3.1.4 Forests (OP 4.36)

This policy aims to reduce deforestation, enhance the environmental contribution of forested areas, promote afforestation, reduce poverty, and encourage economic development. Indeed, although combating deforestation and promoting sustainable forest conservation and management are important international policy targets, the world's forests and forest dependent people continue to experience unacceptably high rates of forest loss and degradation. As moreover forests play an increasingly important role in poverty alleviation, the World Bank has developed a revised approach to forestry issues.

Success in establishing sustainable forest conservation and management practices depends not only on changing the behavior of all critical stakeholders, but also on a wide range of partnerships to accomplish what no country, government agency, donor, or interest group can do alone. The proposed Forest Strategy suggests three equally important and interdependent pillars to guide future Bank involvement with forests:

Harnessing the potential of forests to reduce poverty, Integrating forests in sustainable economic development, and Protecting vital local and global environmental services and forest values. The forestry policy is obviously closely integrated with the Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04

The policy is triggered by whenever any Bank-financed investment project (i) has the potential to have impacts on the health and quality of forests or the rights and welfare of people and their level of dependence upon or interaction with forests; or (ii) aims to bring about changes in the management, protection or utilization of natural forests or plantations. A provision of OP 4.36 that is particularly relevant to STCRSP is that the Bank does not finance plantations that involve conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats and that it gives preference to siting such projects on unforested sites or lands already converted.

The Bank requires Borrowers to identify and consult the groups interested in forest areas likely to be affected by Bank-financed invest projects in and beyond the forest sector. The disclosure requirements as set out in OP 4.01 apply to all projects affecting forests.

3.1.5 Physical and Cultural Resources (OP4.11)

This policy addresses physical cultural resources which are defined as movable or immovable objects, sites, structures, groups of structures, and natural features and landscapes that have archaeological, paleontological, historical, architectural, religious, aesthetic, or other cultural significance. Physical cultural resources are important as sources of valuable scientific and historical information, as assets for economic and social development, and as integral parts of a people’s cultural identity and practices.

The objective is this policy is to assist countries to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on physical cultural resources from development projects that the World Bank finances. The impacts on physical cultural resources resulting from project activities, including mitigating measures, may not contravene either the borrower’s national legislation, or its obligations under relevant international environmental treaties and agreements.

The Bank will normally decline to finance a subproject that will significantly damage non-replicable cultural property, and will assist only those sub projects that are sited or designed so as to prevent such damage.

3.1.6 Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12)

The World Bank requires that every possible effort is made to avoid impacts on people, land and property, including people’s access to natural and other economic resources. The objective of this policy is to:

Avoid or minimize involuntary resettlement where feasible, exploring all viable alternative project designs.

Where resettlement is unavoidable resettlement activities should be conceived and executed as sustainable development programs, providing sufficient investment resources to enable displaced persons to share in project benefits.


Displaced persons should be meaningfully consulted and should have opportunities to participate in planning and implementation of resettlement programs.

Displaced persons should be assisted in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or restore them to at least in real terms, to pre-displacement levels.

When the policy is triggered and the subproject sites are well known, preparation of a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) is required as a condition of project appraisal. An Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan (ARAP) may be developed where less than 200 persons are affected by the project or where the impacts are minor (no one is physically displaced or loses more than 10 percent of their land). Where subproject sites or specific locations for project activities are not known during project preparation, the policy require the development of a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) which will serve as a guide to further preparation of a RAP or ARAP during project implementation when the later are required.

3.2 LIBERIAN GOVERNMENT POLICY AND LEGISLATION

Complementary to the relevant World Bank Operations Policies is current Liberian Government Legislation and regulations. This includes identification of relevant aspects of the following:

Liberian environmental and forest management laws, regulations and procedures; Other relevant Liberian laws, regulations and procedures related to resource use and conservation

3.2.1 Environmental Protection Act

The EPA Act established an Environmental Administrative Court and provides for a National Environment Action Plan, which builds on local – regional action plans. The Act requires Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) to be carried out for all activities and projects likely to have an adverse impact on the environment, and mechanisms to require restoration of degraded environment. The Act also provides the means for permits, fees and fines.

The Act Adopting the Environment Protection and Management Law of the Republic of Liberia 2003, (GoL, 2003b) hereafter referred to as the Environment Protection and Management Law (EPML) is the principal piece of legislation covering environmental protection and management in Liberia, forming parallel legislation to the EPA Act (GoL, 2003a). It provides the legal framework for the sustainable development, management and protection of the environment by the EPA in partnership with relevant ministries, autonomous agencies and organizations. It also stresses inter-sectoral coordination while allowing for sector specific statutes.

In Section 4 the EPA Act lays down a number of principles guiding the administration of the law, amongst which those key to the proposed Scheme are:

The principle of sustainable development; The precautionary principle; The polluter-pays principle; and The principle of public participation.

Part III of the Law covers provisions for environmental impact assessment, audit, and monitoring; Part IV deals with Environmental Quality Standards for water, air, hazardous waste, solid waste, soil, noise, ionization and other radiation, and noxious odors; Part V covers pollution control and licensing; Part VI provides guidelines and standards for the management of the environment and natural resources including rivers, lakes and wetlands, landscape, forest protection, wildlife, energy and renewable resources, coastal zone and marine environment; Part VII deals with protection of biodiversity, natural heritage and the ozone layer including in-situ and ex-situ conservation of biodiversity, genetic resources, land use planning, natural heritage sites, and the ozone layer; Part VIII covers environmental restoration orders; Part IX deals with inspection, analysis and record-keeping; Part X outlines international obligations; Part XI covers information access, and education and public awareness and Part XII outlines offences.

Part III of the EPML sets out the procedures for complying with Section 37 of the EPA Act. In summary, this specifies that the Developer shall:

Submit an application for an EIA license prior to commencement of all project actives specified under Annex I of the Law;

Publish a Notice of Intent – a concise statement of the nature, location and components of the project/activity to inform stakeholders/interested parties;


Submit a Project Brief to the EPA and relevant Line Ministries containing information on the nature, location, components, design, anticipated environmental impacts (including potential mitigation methods/measures) and other pertinent information as required by the EPA [Depending on whether or not the project/activity is judged to have(or may have) a significant impact on the environment, the EPA will either specify that the applicant prepare an Environmental Impact Study or an Environmental Review. If the project activity will not have, or is unlikely to have a significant environmental impact, the EPA will issue a FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact).

The remainder of Part III sets out: the Duties of the Developer and of the EPA in the EIA process; the Scoping Process guidelines for Environmental Review, EIA study and report, Environmental Impact Statement,

Mitigation Plan and Implementation Strategy, Review of Impact Statement, Public Consultation Process, EPA Decision Process, Environmental Monitoring/Auditing Procedures and Administrative Issues.

Annex I of the EPML lists the type of agricultural projects/activities requiring an EIA. Cultivating natural and semi-natural land areas not less than 50 ha; Water management projects for agriculture (drainage, irrigation); Large scale mono-culture (cash and food crops); Pest control projects Fertilizer and nutrient management Agricultural programs necessitating the resettlement of communities Introduction of new breeds of crops Arial spraying

The STCRSP as proposed would not trigger these as the emphasis is on support to small farmers (i.e. farmers with less than 5 ha) who’s land is currently under tree crops. However, there is the possibility that future sub-projects could trigger the requirement for an EIA. For example:

Change of land use: Cultivating more than 50 ha of natural and semi-natural land areas; The establishment of large scale tree nurseries with large irrigation requirement; Significantly higher inputs of agro-chemicals;

Of relevance will be the EIA requirements for any value-added component. Annex 1 of the EPML list under Food and Beverage Industries lists among others:

Manufacture of oils and fats; and Other agro-processing industries

The EPML also makes over-arching provisions for the management and protection of biodiversity. Section 74 – Management of Rivers, Lakes and Wetlands states that the EPA may prescribe general or specific guidelines for their management, and with specific relevance to the Scheme:

Measures for the prevention or control of soil erosion; The conservation of any vegetation growing in and around a river, lake or wetland;

Section 75 – Protection of Rivers, Lakes and Wetlands goes on to state that: “… no person shall in relation to a river, lake or wetland …

disturb the bed; deposit any substance in a river, lake, or wetland or in or under its bed, which is likely to have

adverse environmental effects on the river, lake or wetland; direct or block a river, lake or wetland from its natural and normal course; and drain any river, lake or wetland.”

Although these principles exist within the EPML, there are not as yet any guidance documents that actually provide quantified targets. Liberia is, however, a signatory of The African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (OAU, 1968) which specifies under Article V – Water that: “The contracting States shall establish policies for conservation, utilization and development of underground and surface water, and shall endeavor to guarantee for their populations a sufficient and continuous supply of suitable water, taking appropriate measures with due regard to -

the co-ordination and planning of water resources development projects;


the administration and control of all water utilization; and prevention and control of water pollution.

Section 40 of the EPML states that the EPA shall, “in consultation with the relevant Line Ministry, establish criteria and procedures for the management and determination of soil quality and minimum standards for the management of soil quality”. To date no such standards have yet been developed. Liberia is, however, a signatory of The African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (OAU, 1968) which specifies under Article IV – Soils that “The contracting States shall take effective measures for conservation and improvement of the soils and shall in particular combat erosion and misuse of the soil. To this end they shall

establish land use plans based on scientific investigations (ecological, pedological, economic and sociological) and, in particular, classification of land use capability)

when implementing agricultural practices and agrarian reforms, improve soil conservation and introduce improved farming methods, which ensure long-term

productivity of the land; control erosion caused by various forms of land use which may lead to loss of vegetation cover.”

Section 80 provides an outline framework for the Protection of Wild Animals and Birds and includes conservation areas. It differentiates wildlife protected areas in section 80 (4) – national park, wildlife reserve, and nature reserve – from wildlife management areas in section 80 (5) – wildlife sanctuary, and community wildlife area – while also stating that the Line Ministry can designate any other area as either as it sees fit.

Sections 83-85 provide for the enabling environment for the conservation of biodiversity, charging the EPA with the responsibility for a wide range of measures from preparing national conservation strategies to selecting and managing buffer zones to protected areas, to issuing guidelines for botanical gardens.

Section 52 – Management of Pesticide, Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Materials, Section 53 – Seizure of Pesticide, Toxic Substance, Hazardous Chemicals and Materials and Section 55 – Importation and Exportation of Hazardous Waste give the EPA power to control the of misuse of these substances through fines, seizure and other legal instruments. The EPA can also issue licenses for the importation of these.

Liberia ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (UN, 1992a) on 8 November 2000; this acts as the over-arching framework for all Government legislation and policy concerning the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and the equitable sharing of its benefits.

The key Government policy with regard to biodiversity is the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) (GoL, 2004) which implements the CBD at national level and comprises two components – the vision statement, the guiding principles, the goals and objectives on one hand and the actions for biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, and benefit sharing on the other. The goals and objectives are developed in consonance with the guiding principles. Those relevant to the current Scheme are

Liberia’s economic development must be based on sustainable use and sound management of renewable and non-renewable resources; and

Ecosystem approach should be seen as critical to comprehensive and effective conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity;”

The NBSAP has an overall goal couched in very general terms, and six specific goals, only the first of which has direct relevance to the proposed Scheme. Goal 1 is “To take appropriate measures to protect critical ecosystems against harmful effects or destructive practices for conservation of biological diversity” and in order to meet this, 16 objectives are elaborated, again those most relevant to the current proposals being:

Manage, conserve, protect and maintain game species and agricultural biodiversity as well as representative samples of forest ecosystems, inland water ecosystems, coastal and marine ecosystems, wetlands, natural heritage sites.

Develop EIA criteria for all programs and projects that are likely to have significant impacts on biological diversity

Leave enclaves of natural forests on higher elevations and along waterways Regulate the introduction of alien species.

The key Liberian legal requirements and standards for protection of the biological environment are: The prohibitions on activities in protected or proposed protected areas as outlined in Sections 8 and

9 of the National Forestry Reform Law 2006 (GoL, 2006);


The prohibition on activities relating to species of fauna protected under the Wildlife and National Parks Act 1988 (GoL, 1988);

Adoption of an ecosystem approach to management of biodiversity as articulated in the CBD, to which Liberia is a signatory and the Liberian National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (GoL, 2004); and

The requirement for “no net loss of biodiversity” as embodied in the principles and targets of the CBD.

The EPML establishes a number of important principles with respect to safeguarding the quality of the freshwater environment. These include:

an intention to establish criteria and procedures for the measurement of water quality for different uses (Part VI, Section 35);

an intention to develop a strategy to identify materials that are dangerous to human health and the environment; and to issue guidelines on handling, storage, transportation, segregation and destruction of hazardous waste (Part VI, Section 37);

Regulations against the discharge of any hazardous substance, chemical, oil or mixture containing oil in any waters or any other section of the environment (Part V, Section 56);

a framework for a system of Effluent Discharge Licenses, regulating the discharge of any effluent or other pollutants originating from the trade or industrial undertaking (Part V, Section 56 and 57); and

legislation against the dumping or discharge of any poison, toxic, noxious or obstructing matter, radioactive waste or other pollutant into any waters of Liberia, which is likely to cause harm to human health or aquatic environment in contravention of water pollution control standards (Part V, Section 61).

Although these principles exist within the EPML, there are not as yet any guidance documents that actually provide quantified targets.

3.2.2 Forestry Legislation and Policy

The Act Adopting the National Forestry Reform Law (NFRL) of 2006 (Amending the National Forestry Law of 2000, As Amended; and Amending an Act Creating the Forestry Development Authority, as Amended) (GoL, 2006), is now the paramount piece of forestry legislation and covers all aspects of commercial, conservation and community use of forests. This law also has a primary role with respect to the wider environment, with Chapter 8 covering Environmental Protection and Chapter 9 covering protected forests and protected areas for wildlife.

The categories of Protected Forest Areas are still those contained in Appendix I of the Protected Forest Areas Network Law (GoL, 2003c) which, in aiming to protect Liberia’s forests from deforestation, fragmentation and degradation, specifically requires the establishment of a Protected Forest Areas Network to cover at least 30% of the existing forested area of Liberia. It defines eight protected area types, two of which have relevance to the current Scheme because of the proximity of such areas:

National Forest – an area set aside for sustainable regulated commercial forest product extraction, hunting and the preservation of essential environmental functions performed by the forest. Existing areas of National Forest lie beyond the western limits of the Scheme, running towards the border of Liberia with Guinea (Figure 5.1); and

Nature Reserve – an area that does not form a complete ecological unit, set aside for the preservation and enjoyment of features that have outstanding natural beauty, cultural or biological significance, which may require some management intervention.

Chapter 5 of the NFRL Act covers the commercial and other use of forests. The most basic provision contained in Section 5.1 (a) is that “No person shall undertake Commercial Use of Forest Resources without permission from the [Forestry Development] Authority …” and in 5.1 (b) “The Authority may grant permission required … only through Forest Management Contracts, Timber Sale Contracts, Forest Use Permits, or Private Use Permits”. This may apply to the project if any of the trees to be felled have commercial value.

Section 9 of the NRFL Act also charges the FDA with the task of establishing and managing a Protected Forest Areas Network which in addition to national parks and nature reserves includes national forests, strict nature reserves, game reserves, controlled hunting areas, community forests, conservation corridors and buffer zones within some of which there are prohibitions on activities.


Section 19.1 gives the FDA the power to issue additional regulations to assist with implementation of the Law. This clause has recently been exercised with the issue of “FDA Draft Hunting Regulations” which includes a revised list of protected species (Appendix 5.C). As of 2008, draft regulations on the environment have also been prepared which provide for the undertaking of an EIA for forestry projects that involve:

Timber logging and processing; Forestry plantation and forestation and introduction of new species; Selective removal of single commercial tree species; and Pest Management.

For such projects the EPA EIA Procedural Guidelines (EPA, 2006) for forestry projects will therefore apply if removal of trees for the project constituted such a project.

Chapter 10 of the NFRL mandated that the FDA should prepare and send to the President to be presented to the Legislature for enactment of a comprehensive Community Rights Law (CRL) as relate to forest lands. The Community Rights law was enacted in 2008 and gives the communities management rights of community and traditional lands and forest resources on them. The CRL contain challenges and flaws related the issue of land tenure. At consultations of stakeholders it was agreed that the CRL should cover only community rights to access, use and manage forest resources not land ownership which should be dealt with by the Land Commission already established by Legislative Act of 2009. The CRL mandates the establishment of Community Assembles and Management Committees for the management of community lands and forest resources. The FDA has commenced the development of regulations to implement the CRL. The regulations are intended to correct some of the flaws of the CRL therefore direct interpretation of some aspects of the law may be problematic and may require advice from FDA.

The NRFL also mandated a comprehensive Wildlife Law to be enacted. In recognition that Chapters 8 and 9 of the NFRL did not adequately cover best practices and new approaches to conservation, The FDA has drafted a comprehensive Conservation and Wildlife Management Law which is in the process of preparation to be forwarded to the President. Under this draft law protected area network creation process has been expanded to reference community rights and participation.

3.2.3 Liberia Land Commission Act of 2009

Objective is to propose, advocate and coordinate reforms of land policy, laws and programs in Liberia. It does not have adjuratory or implementation role. The goal of the commission is “to develop a comprehensive national land tenure and land use system that will provide equitable access to land and security of tenure so as to facilitate inclusive sustained growth and development, ensure peace and security and provide sustainable management of the environment” (Land Commission 2009)

3.2.4 Other Environmental Legislation and Policy

In addition to national legislation and policy relating to socio-economic development, land tenure, labor laws, health and safety, community rights, Liberia is a party to a range of international conventions, a number of which have relevance to the proposed investment initiative including the:

Convention on Biological Diversity (UN, 1992a), African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (OAU, 1968), Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (UNEP, 2001), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (UN, 1976)

3.2.5 Liberia Social Legislation

The Liberia Social Legislation is derived from the commitment to attain social rights and equality for all citizens. Liberia seeks to adhere to its commitment to global, regional and sub-regional human rights instruments - treaties, conventions – that it is party to. The critical aspect of Liberia’s social legislation is derived from its Constitution. A key aspect of this is the recognition of customary law. Therefore, customs are a recognized source of law in Liberia. This is captured in Article 2 of the Constitution. According to the Constitution, statutory laws and common law of the formal legal system govern all Liberians. According to Article 65 of Chapter V11 of the Liberian Constitution, the courts are empowered to apply statutory law as well as customary


law in accordance with the standards enacted by the Legislature. Local Commissions and Superintendents perform the functions of executive oversight over customary law in Liberia.

Probably the most significant area of Liberian legislation of relevance to the social impact assessment concerns land tenure. There is significant legal confusion over the status of customary land tenure with various contradictory laws on the statute. A Land Commission is being set up and the Community Rights Law currently being formulated is to resolve this situation and this may have important implications for the development of the tree crop sector.

Under national legislation, customary users of land do not hold legal title to the land, and therefore have no rights under the law and occupy the lands at their own risk, unless arrangements for such are detailed in the concession agreement. Nevertheless, prior to granting concession agreement it is expected of the concession holder (Government of Liberia) to negotiate with the respective legal representatives of the communities.

This stated property law recognizes tenancy by suffrage by which a ‘squatter’ may have the permission of the owner without a lease. All squatters who had sought permission from their respective city, district, and township authorities have a right to notification before they are removed and Common law, ‘squatters’ are usually given 30 days before eviction.

Liberia has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1979. It has also ratified the AU Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa (2005). The country has also made commitments to the implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action in 1993 and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in 1995. Liberia is Party to the African Union Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality signed in 2004 and is signatory to the Millennium Declaration which makes clear the Millennium Development Goals with its economic, social and cultural underpinnings.

3.2.6 Other Relevant International Best Practice Standards

In addition to adherence to the World Bank Safeguard Policies and the relevant national legislation, best practice for projects in emerging economies is generally informed by those of the international financing organizations. Prime among these are the various guidelines, policies, performance standards and directives to ensure that environmental and social safeguards are integrated into the planning and implementation of the projects financed by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) which are widely considered to set the international benchmark standards across a range of industries. These include:

The Eight Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability (IFC, 2006) Performance Standard 1: Social & Environmental Assessment & Management SystemPerformance Standard 2: Labor and Working ConditionsPerformance Standard 3: Pollution Prevention and AbatementPerformance Standard 4: Community Health, Safety and SecurityPerformance Standard 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary ResettlementPerformance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource ManagementPerformance Standard 7: Indigenous PeoplesPerformance Standard 8: Cultural Heritage

Guidance Notes and reference documents (IFC, 2007a). These are companion documents to the Performance Standards providing guidance in meeting the standards

Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines (IFC, 2007b). Guidance and standards for drinking water quality have been taken from the World Health

Organization (WHO) standards (WHO, 2006); and RSPO and similar environmental and social guidelines for sustainable production and processing.

At a wider level are the United Nations (UN) Global Compact, which commits development to ten key principles in the areas of human rights, labor and the environment5. Others include the:

International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) Best Practice Principles on Biodiversity-Inclusive Impact Assessment (IAIA, 2005); and

Business and Biodiversity Offset Program (BBOP) principles on biodiversity offsets (BBOP, undated).

5 These can be found at http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.html


The IAIA’s Best Practice Principles and emerging guidance from BBOP both stress the need to achieve ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity and to take a precautionary approach in cases where important biodiversity is at risk and level of knowledge is low.

In determining important biodiversity, reference should be made to criteria used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) [in particular it’s Red List of Threatened Species] and Conservation International’s Biodiversity Hotspots and Birdlife International’s Important Bird Areas.

3.3 LIBERIAN ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK

National Level

The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) is responsible for the governance, management and promotion of agriculture in Liberia. The Ministry is responsible for the oversight of agronomy, animal husbandry and other agriculture industries, the economic organization of the agriculture and food industries, national food security, plant quarantine, agro-forestry, and has specific responsibilities for soil conservation. Some water resource matters used to be managed by the National Water Resources and Sanitation Board prior to the civil war, and proposals have recently been made for its re-establishment. The MoA plans, executes, administers, manages and supervises agriculture programs and provides extension services, trains local farmers in improved cultural practices, and supplies farm inputs to enhance food security. The Ministry of Agriculture, through its Quarantine Division, entitled to sign. is responsible for approving importation of agro-chemicals, recording all the chemicals which are imported into the country and checking them for their compliance to the allowed list of pesticides and to the international laws (mainly respect of Stockholm Protocol).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an autonomous statutory body, established under the Act Creating the Environmental Protection Agency of the Republic of Liberia 2003 (GoL, 2003a) to address the country’s environmental problems. Its mandate was subsequently confirmed when the EPA became a fully functioning entity in 2006, with the appointment of a board of directors and establishment of a Policy Council, under the President with a Policy Committee chaired by the minister for Lands Mines and Energy,

The EPA was established to “coordinate, monitor, supervise and consult with relevant stakeholders on all activities in the protection of the environment and sustainable use of natural resources” and as the lead national environmental agency is charged with executive authority for all environmental activities and programs relating to environmental management in Liberia (GoL, 2003a, s. 5). The EPA also has a key responsibility for matters relating to the issuing of an environmental impact assessment license and for compliance monitoring relating to environmental regulations and standards.

The Forestry Development Authority (FDA), established in 1976, was historically the government agency with primary responsibility for environmental management in Liberia. Now an autonomous body, and mandated by the National Forestry Reform Law of 2006, the FDA has responsibility for the protection, management and conservation of government-owned forests and wildlife on a sustainable basis. It manages commercial, conservation and community uses of Liberia’s forest estate. It provides long- and middle-range planning in the forestry sector as well as preparing forestry policy, law and administration. It exercises control of the commercial use of state-owned forests through the granting of concessions, supervises adherence to forest legislation and concession agreements, calculates and determines forestry fees, evaluates investment proposals, executes reforestation and forest research and training and monitors activities of timber companies. The 2006 law revised the institutional framework of the FDA and created a Department of Conservation which is made up of the Division of National Parks and the Division of Wildlife with the responsibility for development and management of protected areas and wildlife respectively.

The Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy has the statutory responsibility for the development of mineral, water and energy resources in Liberia; it is in charge of land surveys in all parts of the country and coordinates, administers and regulates the use of public and private lands in Liberia, including mineral resources through granting of operation licenses, and regulates beach sand mining. It works along with the Ministry of Agriculture and the University of Liberia to conduct training and research on land rehabilitation. Energy provision is administered through the same Ministry by the National Energy Committee, while water resources are the responsibility of the National Hydrological Service.


The Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs (MPEA) responsible for intersectoral coordination for s the development of policies, plans and programs for the economic, financial, social, cultural and physical development of Liberia. In fulfilling its various duties it serves as the direct link between implementing Ministries/Agencies, NGOs, private voluntary organizations, and the international community. Coordination occurs at the national, sectoral and regional planning levels and also involves the implementation of cross-cutting initiatives.

Other governmental institutions with environment-related responsibilities include the Ministry of Public Works (MoPW) and the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MoSW).

Management at Local Level

Statutory Management Practices

In support of the establishment of the EPA, the EPA Act (GoL, 2003a) also established County and District Level environmental committees, responsible for the local delivery of national environmental policy and priorities. In a move towards a more bottom up approach, a key function of the committees is to articulate local level environmental issues to the EPA who in turn are charged with formulating and passing on a relevant response for local level implementation.

In addition, under Section 20 and 21 of the EPA Act (GoL, 2003a), the EPA is mandated to appoint environmental inspectors within districts to monitor the implementation of environmental standards as established under the EPML (GoL, 2003b). The power of these inspectors is wide ranging and includes the provision to close “any manufacturing plant, establishment or other activity which pollutes or is likely to pollute the environment, contrary to the provisions of the Act” (GoL, 2003a).

Traditional Management Practices

Local level resource management is implemented through traditional systems and practices. At the lowest level of local administration, power and decision-making is in the hands of traditional tribal authorities. The highest rank is that of Paramount Chief who is responsible for the actions of a number of Clan Chiefs. The Paramount Chief is elected by the chiefs and elders but serves at the discretion of the President, who may veto the election. The Council of Elders (elderly, respected community members) must be consulted on important matters. The Paramount Chief has responsibility for enforcement of tribal customs, aspects of law and order, collection of taxes by lower rank chiefs, and promotion of agriculture, industries, trade and welfare.

It is difficult to judge the power of the chiefs, who remain strongly influenced by the secret societies (Poro/Sande) in relation to observance of tribal customs. Chiefs are not government employees, but retain a portion of taxes for their services and for local projects. Traditionally, their power is largely determined by their control (not ownership) of land. The interactions between the State and its institutions with the traditional tribal institutions and practices are regulated by the Hinterland Laws 1949 (GoL, 1949).

3.4 LIBERIAN SOCIAL FRAMEWORK

The Government of Liberia since the mid 2000 is making various attempts to establish and formalize a social framework for its human development backed by policies, strategies, plans, programs and projects. These are being done in a multi-sectoral manner through its sector Ministries and Agencies. Some of these major government policies of critical relevance to the STCRSP are as follows:

The Poverty Reduction Strategy (2008-2011) clearly articulates the Government’s overall vision and major strategies towards inclusive and sustainable growth and development during the period of implementation. In the PRS, Liberia clearly sets out a framework for rapid, equitable, and inclusive growth and poverty reduction. It provides an avenue for progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The PRS is based on four pillars: (i) Consolidating Peace and Security; (ii) Revitalizing the Economy; (iii) Strengthening Governance and the Rule of Law; and (iv) Rehabilitating Infrastructure and Delivering Basic Services. The PRS recognizes the role and contributions to be made by the agriculture sector towards achieving the objectives of the PRS. The PRS adopts a three prong strategy: rebuilding roads and other critical infrastructure; reviving the traditional engines of growth in mining, minerals, forestry, and agriculture; and establishing a competitive business environment to help diversify the economy over the medium term. Under


agriculture, the development of tree crops especially oil palm has been identified as critical to economic growth and diversification. The Government considers the revitalization of agriculture as the bedrock of the economy, since agriculture provides livelihoods for the majority of Liberians. Under the current strategy, it believes that a vibrant agricultural sector is central to reducing poverty, providing food security, and ensuring progress toward the Millennium Development Goals.

A National Land Policy exists with key objectives which are (i) promote equitable access to land for all citizens; (ii) ensure customary rights, especially those of smallholders; (iii) promote sound information on land management; and (iv) promote the protection and sustainable use of water and land resources. These objectives do have implications on the implementation of the project

National Labor Policy (2009), by the Ministry of Labor was developed with assistance from the ILO and strategic plans have been developed to ensure implementation of the policy.

The National Health Policy (2007) sets out the national agenda towards the health and vitality of Liberians. It is a comprehensive document which details out the health priorities of the sector ministry and its agencies.

National Nutrition Health Survey (2009) National Health Commodity Security Strategy and Operational Plan (2008 – 2012) through which

quality contraceptives and other reproductive health commodities can be accessed by every person; The Education Sector established its Free Compulsory Primary Education Policy (2006/2007)

which provides for children between 6-11years to access education freely; The sector also established the Each One Teach One Program and the School Feeding Program sponsored by WFP was introduced to support retention and reduce the attrition and drop-out rates among school children and is assessed to have helped to increase enrollment of especially girls in schools;

Another key educational program is the Accelerated Learning Program and Accelerated Extension Program (ALP), parallel interventions designed to address the basic education needs of young adults who missed out on education. This program seeks to improve enrolment, attendance, and retention through its school feeding program, with support from the World Food Program.

National Employment Strategy- A national strategy for employment creation in Liberia launched by Her Excellency the President on 15 July, 2006 provides for immediate emergency employment and lays the foundation for a longer-term sustainable employment strategy. The program presently being implemented under the Liberia Emergency Employment Program (LEEP), a national public works program, and the Liberia Employment Action Program (LEAP), aims to stimulate employment creation in the country.

The Policy on Girls Education (2006), The HIV/AIDS Strategic Plan of Action (2006), The enactment of two important pieces of legislation including the New Rape Law which outlaws

gang rape and stipulates life term sentence for particularly aggressive forms of rape and the Equal Rights of the Customary Law of 1998, which extends rights of inheritance to women married under Customary Law (the Inheritance Law).

The formulation of a National Gender-Based Violence Plan of Action (2006), The development, launching and implementation of Liberia National Action Plan on United

Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325

Gender and Property Ownership

The Constitution of the Republic of Liberia, 1986, Article 11 states that “All persons are born equally free and independent and have certain natural and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of …acquiring possessing and protecting property, subject to such qualifications, as provided for in this constitution.”

Act to Government on the Devolution of Estates and Establish Rights of Inheritance for Spouses of Both Statutory and Customary Marriages was established in December 1, 2003. These rights do have implications on inheritance relating to the project in the rehabilitation of old tree crop plantations inherited by spouses: The law defines and establishes the rights of spouses to inherit property and some relevant sections as follows:

Section 1: Dower: “the one-third (1/3 interest of the tribal husband’s property to which his widow is entitled as of right regardless of whether or not the widow and children for her late husband, or whether or not she assisted him in acquiring the property”


Section 2.3: Husband/Wife’s Inchoate Dower: Customary wife is entitled to 1/3 of the husband’s property upon his death immediately upon marriage whether or not the wife helped the husband acquire the property.

Section 2.4: Compulsory Wife Labor Prohibited: Customary spouses must “work in partnership and adequately maintain and support their household”.

Section 2.6: Wife’s Property Exclusively Her Own: Customary wife’s property owned or acquired prior to marriage is hers to the exclusion of her husband. It is a felony if the customary husband controls or attempts to control his customary wife’s property.

Section 3.1: Decedent Estates Law Applicable to Customary Marriage: Decedent Estates Law “shall equally apply to all native customary marriages immediately after the passage of this Act”.

Section 3.2: Widow’s Dower Right: Widow or multiple widows, upon the husband’s death, are entitled to 1/3 of the deceased husband’s property.

Cooperative Development Agency

The Cooperative Development Agency (CDA) is an autonomous governmental Agency responsible for the mobilization of farmers groups and associations. The management of the CDA has been vested in a Board of Directors constituted by the representatives of the cooperative movement, The Board is chaired by the Minister of Agriculture and other members serve on ad hoc committees. In line with bringing services close to cooperatives at grassroots level, the CDA is decentralized at county level to bring its services close to cooperative grassroots levels and the County Office is headed by an Assistant Registrar. The County Assistant Registrars represent the central CDA. The County Assistant Registrars are vested with the authority to register, backstop and train cooperatives societies within their counties at all levels. 6

The Secretariat of CDA is headed by the Registrar General who reports to the President through the CDA Board. The Secretariat has various departments with specific functions: Department of Administration, Finance and Audit; Department of Cooperative Development Services; Department of Gender and Youth Promotion; The Secretariat of CDA is headed by the Registrar General who reports to the President through the CDA Board.

4. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS

4.1 ASSESSMENT OF PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

4.1.1 Physical Features

Liberia is located on the west coast of Africa between (4o18’ to 8o30’ north; and 7o 30’ to 11o 30’ west) [Figure 1]. It shares borders with Guinea to the north, Côte d’Ivoire to the northeast and east, Sierra Leone to the northwest and the Atlantic Ocean to the south and southwest. It occupies a land area of approximately 111,370 km2 and has a coastline of about 520 km in length. The population is estimated at approximately 3.8 million (2011), 52 percent of which is rural, with an estimated total of about 230 000 farming families. Monrovia alone accounts for nearly 40 percent of the population, with most of the returning refugees preferring to settle in Monrovia. At a projected growth rate of 2.6 percent per annum, the population is expected to reach 5 million in 2020. According to the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA; 2006), approximately 40 percent of the total population of Liberia is between the ages of 15 and 35 years and a further 40 percent is less than 15 years of age.

The country is made up of four physiographical units: coastal plains (0-100 m amsl), interior hills (100–300 m), interior ridges (300–600m) and the mountainous areas (> 600m). The topography is mainly flat to rolling across the coastal plain and becomes more variable transforming to mainly rolling to hilly and then mountainous with distance from the coast. Broadly, the land can be divided into uplands and lowlands or swamps.

Figure 1: Map of Liberia showing Counties and Neighboring Countries

6 CDA Standard Operational Manual Version 01 January 2010


Map of Liberia showing Counties and Neighbouring Countries

4.1.2 Climate

The country in general has two seasons – a wet season from March-April to October and a dry season from November to March, though the beginning and end of either season can vary considerably. Any significant change in the rainfall pattern could adversely impact on production as these crops all yield best under regular and evenly distributed rainfall.Total average annual rainfall ranges from around 4000mm along the Atlantic coast to approximately 2500 mm at the northern extremes of the country. Average monthly rainfall is lowest in January and highest in September (see Tables 1 and 2).

The strong maritime influence means that the temperatures in the coastal region remain constantly within the relatively narrow band of 18°C to 33°C. Slightly higher maxima and slightly lower minima occur in the dry season, but the range within each band is only about 5°C throughout the year. In the highland region maximum daytime temperatures are slightly higher (35°C) in the dry season, but night time temperatures are considerably cooler (15°C), giving a large diurnal range of some 20°C in December. The wet season daily variations are much smaller, typically only 10°C, and with the daytime and night time temperatures always between 30°C and 18°C respectively.

Wind speeds are generally low (8 to11 m/s) and usually from the west or south, off the sea, though severe winds do occur at times. The records show wind speeds of 21.5 m/s from the east-north-east in April 1962, and another of similar strength from the north-east in April 1963. These were in the force 9, ‘severe gale’ class, which is strong enough to cause minor damage to buildings (AML, 2010).

4.1.3 Soils

There are basically four types of soil in Liberia: Latosols (laterites), Regosols (mainly on beach terraces) and Gleysols, covering 75, 21 and 4 percent of the land surface respectively. In addition there are a number of small inclusions of and Fluvisols (recent alluvial soils close to the main rivers). The Latosols are generally the deeply weathered, acid, red (hematite) or yellow (goethite) soils of the humid tropics. These soils have diffuse horizon boundaries, a clay assemblage dominated by low-activity clays (mainly kaolinite) and a high content of


sesquioxides. These soils generally have very low organic matter and, due to their acidity, generally have poor fertility. They can, also be very prone to erosion once vegetation is removed and they become disturbed. In particular it can be difficult for vegetation to re-establish on exposed rocky areas, or in soils that have undergone rapid erosion as a result of land clearance for agriculture or other development.

The soils of the middle and upper slopes are often shallow and gravely due to higher incidence of erosion and closer proximity to their parent bedrock, and thus are less suitable for agriculture than those on lower slopes and on terraces close to streams. These latter soils tend to be more variable, generally being browner and courser textures than the upland soils. Throughout the country, there are many small streams that now occupy narrow valley floors that are permanently wet. The latter are the Gleysols which are of variable texture and gravel content and generally are waterlogged.

Table 2: Monthly and annual rainfall totals (mm) for Buchanan

Lower Buchanan - Harbour Area: LAMCO Data

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total1959 59 167 218 115 414 817 949 332 472 552 202 26 4,3231960 40 53 170 150 191 925 279 663 1,050 459 174 124 4,2781961 15 44 109 173 215 842 646 96 911 434 195 13 3,6931962 78 51 40 182 310 803 778 314 1,028 391 294 41 4,3101963 20 105 178 166 77 345 733 820 830 624 154 46 4,0981964 50 2 12 43 255 897 418 187 348 386 324 264 3,1861965 32 12 34 209 317 382 564 438 412 724 177 30 3,3311966 2 149 82 197 437 722 894 529 1,116 746 171 175 5,2201967 21 14 15 333 232 581 281 61 950 824 209 202 3,7231968 4 65 137 136 356 599 940 640 536 317 227 57 4,0141969 0 2 20 150 365 457 595 400 622 529 119 93 3,3521970 52 68 142 124 339 308 114 306 617 485 222 147 2,9241971 31 127 24 125 297 450 461 265 688 594 357 139 3,5581972 0 44 42 164 689 603 626 678 840 742 175 29 4,6321973 6 27 144 151 325 431 599 745 756 400 103 10 3,6971974 0 8 19 54 105 760 742 521 585 305 137 15 3,2511975 0 96 114 172 385 467 350 502 786 278 89 198 3,4371976 28 17 75 390 462 366 811 377 1,233 468 377 23 4,6271977 11 82 93 37 357 584 228 507 760 511 125 92 3,3871978 87 98 45 332 350 628 340 525 755 1,245 112 15 4,5321979 56 26 63 247 425 699 750 906 922 490 172 40 4,7961980 0 78 243 185 428 449 936 701 742 374 235 35 4,4061981 2 35 70 133 400 773 511 511 1,219 802 177 58 4,6911982 10 27 46 158 465 430 432 531 871 568 127 0 3,6651983 0 26 54 111 700 981 580 357 840 250 107 69 4,0751984 1 46 52 265 641 962 1,105 1,548 681 410 149 10 5,8701985 63 75 138 89 350 732 684 1,008 693 211 245 15 4,3031986 0 10 72 226 340 768 429 600 740 393 155 16 3,7491987 73 38 4 181 523 1,395 1,439 854 1,209 456 50 54 6,2761988 5 22 49 115 202 566 664 357 736 395 124 55 3,290Mean 25 54 83 170 365 657 629 543 798 512 183 70 4,117

4.1.4 Hydrology

The country has nine major river systems, all of which are perennial, and run in a south-south-westerly direction into the Atlantic Ocean. These rivers have their source in Sierra Leone, Guinea or Côte d’Ivoire. Thus Liberia shares international water resources with her neighbors in the following catchments: St John Basin (Liberia and Guinea), St Paul Basin (Liberia and Guinea), the Cestos Basin (Liberia and Côte d’Ivoire), the Cavalla Basin (Liberia and Côte d’Ivoire), the Moa Basin (Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea); and the Mano Basin (Liberia and Sierra Leone). Numerous bilateral treaties have successively governed the delimitation of the frontier of Liberia since 1885 (the Mano River). Some of these treaties have provided for the freedom of navigation and transit fishing and the protection of existing water use rights for the local population.

4.1.5 Natural Resources

The first comprehensive land use map of Liberia was prepared in 1956 from aerial photographs taken in 1953. At the time, the map showed extensive forest cover in the northwest and southeast, with some agricultural areas. In 1981, another land use map was prepared from aerial photographs taken in 1979. This revealed the extensive depletion of forest cover, largely due to farming activities.


Approximately 600,000 ha of Liberian land is said to be cultivated, and 220 000 ha of this is reported to be under permanent crop or plantation (rubber, cocoa, coffee and oil-palm), while the rest is arable. While the plantations tend to provide a solid surface cover that minimizes soil erosion, the arable farming system is largely ‘shifting cultivation’ that exposes a bare land surface, due to the practice of slashing and burning to prepare new fields, to the heavy early raining season rains leading to extensive soil erosion. One survey in northern Nimba (AML, 2010) found that while the fallow period could extend or up to 35 years, the majority of farmers recycled their planting between six and ten years depending, mainly, on the latent fertility of the soils. Thus if the average cycle was (say) 8 years, approximately 50,000 ha of land could be exposed to soil erosion annually

In the 1970s up to the mid-1980s, a number of large, medium and small agricultural development projects were undertaken in Liberia as part of Government efforts to feed the nation and provide certain raw materials for export. These included a number of projects for swamp rice and tree crop development.

Liberia’s forests are said to be home to about 2000 species of flowering plant, 150 species of mammal, 620 species of bird, 125 species of reptile and amphibian and over 1000 described insect species. However, Liberia’s forest habitat and biodiversity face increasing threats from shifting cultivation, mining, logging and the migration of rural settlements. Deforestation is said to occur at a rate of 1.5–2 percent per annum.

Table 3: Monthly and annual rainfall totals (mm) for the Nimba Geologist’s Camp

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total1965 147 23 175 119 189 382 315 515 546 225 154 4 2,7941966 4 15 252 119 202 375 394 693 627 236 148 15 3,0801967 0 10 119 255 186 302 381 265 826 474 68 42 2,9281968 6 0 202 173 408 499 306 422 403 165 156 71 2,8111969 22 83 104 174 152 381 272 399 417 383 165 0 2,5521970 0 48 41 137 256 226 118 342 519 142 154 16 1,9991971 0 107 123 230 219 277 361 265 451 323 63 88 2,5071972 25 121 129 200 228 377 139 379 391 172 141 0 2,3021973 0 33 182 75 121 170 158 375 419 251 34 0 1,8181974 16 2 125 310 222 290 270 395 912 475 113 0 3,1301975 0 46 132 190 317 239 351 393 639 242 99 86 2,7341976 29 52 233 172 245 248 250 285 432 547 125 0 2,6181977 32 33 36 48 307 282 242 537 791 318 39 2 2,6671978 3 32 82 200 116 218 325 527 546 248 132 26 2,4551979 23 20 149 150 136 321 409 620 502 290 154 15 2,7891980 13 36 134 108 157 176 372 737 440 302 108 55 2,6381981 19 65 142 277 216 211 326 466 359 210 105 22 2,4181982 0 82 116 190 245 328 225 601 323 232 102 34 2,4781983 0 48 18 129 190 157 235 528 719 163 152 0 2,3391984 0 21 171 230 360 346 330 638 356 261 104 21 2,8381985 57 84 207 164 196 306 553 573 754 186 115 4 3,1991986 0 43 77 97 258 225 447 585 431 311 51 1 2,5261987 1 38 76 96 180 305 151 473 492 162 58 0 2,0321988 0 7 218 246 71 291 321 526 411 218 51 12 2,372Mean 17 44 135 170 216 289 302 481 529 272 108 21 2,584

Source: LAMCO data

Agriculture and forestry is the largest economic sector (64–77 percent – based on contribution to gross domestic product between 1997 and 2005) in Liberia, followed by industry (4–10 percent) and services (19–26 percent). The per-capita GDP was reported as approximately US$130 in 2003. Eight out of every ten people are said to be living on less than a dollar a day. The current Government’s strategy for poverty reduction has been first to stabilize the economy and secondly to increase resource allocation to the social sectors.

4.2 ASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

4.2.1 Introduction


Liberia as a whole is considered to be of both local and global importance for its biodiversity as the county is home to several species which are classified as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable by the IUCN. As a result, further expansion of the tree crop sector, unless carefully planned, could have significant potential adverse impacts on the biodiversity of the country and country.

4.2.2 Protected and Sensitive Habitats

There is one National Park (Sapo), four National Forests and three proposed protected areas within or adjacent to the proposed project targeted countries. These are found in Nimba, Grand Gedeh and River Gee Counties and are outlined in blue (Sapo), burgundy (National Forests) and orange (proposed protected areas) shown on Figure 2. All of these are considered critical natural habitat for the purposes of World Bank OP 4.04, and therefore no activities that would convert or degrade any parts of them can be supported by STCRSP.

Figure 2: Map of Liberian Forest Cover

4.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Socio-economic studies in the proposed project target areas are being conducted in parallel with this study, (but the results were not available at the time of this report). However, an indication of socio-economic conditions in the proposed project areas can be obtained from the results of a comprehensive socio-economic study of households in the communities around the mine areas in northern Nimba and along the railway corridor through Bong to Buchanan (three of the target counties). This study7 revealed a picture of severe poverty, with high levels of deprivation for all development indicators. It reported that women are particularly badly off, with fewer girls than boys surviving and fewer women than men living into old age. Schooling is limited and literacy low, while access to health care is also poor. Except in the major centers, few households have electricity or running water and only one percent had any form of sanitation. Per capita annual income levels were almost all below the national mean, and averaged only US$79 in the rural “towns” of Nimba (personal communication).

7 ArcellorMittel, 2010b, ESIAESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 34

S.A. AGRER N.V.

A parallel study8 of agriculture and land tenure in northern Nimba (personal communication) found that land allocation remains strongly dominated by the clan structures. Most rice production is through upland rainfed varieties farmed through shifting cultivation and without any external inputs (i.e. no fertilizers or pesticides). This makes for a laborious undertaking, although local systems of reciprocal labor help mitigate this. Cassava is frequently inter-cropped with the upland rice, while sugar cane and rubber farming provide some diversification. Cocoa, coffee and other minor cash crops are also found in the area.

5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK (ESMF)

The purpose of an ESMF is to set out practical means of identifying and addressing any negative influences for sub-projects that have uncertainties and where appropriate measures cannot be fully developed at the time of this report. This study has identified the potential environmental and social impacts (both positive and adverse) and provides a general outline plan for the mitigation of the adverse impacts of the known sub-components, how the implementation of each mitigation plan will be monitored, and what resources/actions will be required for effective implementation. The intent is that the ESMF will serve as a template for the Environmental and Social Management Plans that will be prepared for subprojects that will follow, and be a resource for preparation of the actual ESMPs.

Key Components of the ESMF for the STCRSP will need to include: Assessment of Environmental and Social Impacts Management of Adverse Environmental and Social Impacts The Screening Process required to identify and select the various subcomponents according to

influencing criteria An Integrated Pest and Pesticide Management Plan A Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. An assessment of the risk of significant conversion or degradation of critical forest and natural

habitats areas within, adjacent or downstream of target counties that might occur due to Project activities.

5.1 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

5.1.1 Sub-sector Assessment

The proposed revitalization of the tree crops sector is visualized as a two stage process with early emphasis on bringing existing farms and small plantations back into production, improving crop husbandry practices and the availability of processing facilities for small farmers, and building the capacity of all involved in the tree crops sector production chain. This will be followed by a more intensive input phase which will include replanting, higher inputs and value added initiatives.

While in general, the activities of proposed project should have little or no adverse environmental impacts providing ‘best practice’ implementation and management is the rule. The major component of the first phase of the on farm rehabilitation process will be support for under-brushing. This activity will have little if any adverse environmental impact as it involves only the removal of weeds and excess woody-growth and of necessity will be a manual task thus resulting in no disturbance of the soil surface. In parallel, there will be an intensive program of capacity building for the various stakeholder groups. The second phase will focus on increasing overall production though replanting existing farms, increasing farm inputs and introducing value-added initiatives.

Main environmental issues are: Land clearing and replanting (including new farm/plantation areas) Pest Management Crop Processing

Waste (liquid and solid) managementNoise PollutionAtmospheric EmissionsHealth and Safety issues

8 ArcellorMittel, 2010b, ESIAESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 35

S.A. AGRER N.V.

Land Clearing and Replanting

The primary adverse environmental impact of the second phase of the proposed project is likely to occur during clearing and replanting of the tree crop plantations in that during this time there will be an increased incidence of disruption to the vegetative cover of the area. This potentially will include loss of income (however small) to those families that have been harvesting the old crop, loss of biodiversity habitat on overgrown farms as a result of land clearing, and where contractors are employed, increased traffic in the local community. A major potential adverse impact could result if significant soil erosion occurs during the period between land clearing and re-vegetation of the cleared areas, and consequent downstream contamination. This concern also applies where new land is taken to expand the tree crop production area.

Where clearing is done in dry season, any disturbance of the land surface will leave the land exposed to the heavy early rains of the wet season and thus to soil erosion and consequent run-off to local waterways. Such erosion will not only represent a loss of growing media for the farmer, but will also result in increase sedimentation loads in streams and rivers leading away from the rehabilitation area with consequent downstream impacts on aquatic flora and fauna as well all who access the drainage system for their water supply and livelihoods.

In the event that current tree crop farmers are supported in expanding their land areas or that new farmers are included in the program, then new areas of planting will need to be identified, cleared and planted, and supporting infrastructure put in place. Given that OP 4.04 and particularly OP 4.36 make clear that the World Bank’s strong preference for new plantations is not to site them on land that has good quality forest, such area expansion will need to be into traditionally farmed areas (i.e. in former fields now lying fallow though there may be an option to use recently logged forest areas. Where this is the case, the potential environmental impacts will be more significant on biodiversity and wildlife habitat, than in the current tree crop farms but not of the same magnitude of mature secondary or primary forest. Adverse impacts on the latter would indeed be significant.

The overall impact of the project on the natural environment is not easily forecast or described. One uncertainty is whether or not farmers will give up the traditional annual slash and burn system when the demands of managing a tree crop farm means they will not have the time/labor to make new farms and should have the income to buy rice and other foods.

Crop Processing

Crop processing, particularly in the Rubber and Oil Palm sub-sectors also has the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, the magnitude depending on the type and quantity of emissions (liquid and gaseous) and solid waste produced, and whether or not these impacts are managed (avoided or mitigated).

While ultimately there is a possibility that small rubber farmers will be supported in some level of processing, for the foreseeable future all processing will be done by the participating Rubber Concession Factories. Thus while field level impacts will be the same in both the small holder and plantation sectors, any processing impacts will be concentrated in a few widely separated locations (i.e. Maryland, Bong and Magribi Counties).

For the Oil Palm sub-sector, two forms of processing [plantation scale factories and small village mills] will continue to exist. As with the Rubber sub-sector, the Oil Palm plantation sector is being encouraged participate in the project through supporting small farmer out-growers, including processing their production. However, there is already some processing done by farm and village level facilities, and as a result of the project there is likely to be a significant increase in the use of small mills.

Currently there is no environmental impact mitigation where farm and village level processing occurs while with the exception of Alternative Enterprise International (AEI), all the Concessions have well established processing facilities and have environmental management plans in place, though none are yet fully compliant with the EPA requirements. They all profess intent is to achieve full compliance in the near future. This intent is driven by shareholder pressure and the increasing ability of the EPA to award fines for non-compliance. AEI plans to install a factory and Equatorial Palm Oil (EPO) is planning to install a larger one in the immediate future. Both will require new environmental management plans.

The potential environmental impacts from traditional village extraction and Freedom Mill processing of oil palm are minimal since currently the process uses only minimal quantities of local natural resources (water and


firewood) and manual labor. In future the mills are likely to be engine driven and will likely increase in size, resulting in the use of petroleum products and generation of larger quantities of effluent. Thus where district level processing is established, these facilities should be subjected to the same environmental management requirements as the Concessions (i.e. have a monitored emissions management plan). Currently what little processing that occurs in the Cocoa and Coffee sub-sectors [basically breaking of the cocoa pods/pulping coffee berries air drying of the beans] has negligible environmental impact. If and when value added processing is added (i.e. roasting, grinding, packaging) to these sub-sectors. There are unlikely to be any potential adverse impacts from such processing though this should be verified in the case of any liquid effluent. Solid waste will be the hulls/husks which can be returned to the field as mulch.

Pest Management

Tree crop rehabilitation in Liberia will require increased use of a range of agro-chemicals to control pest and diseases as well as enhance soil fertility. Agro-chemicals that will be used include:

Type of Chemical

Cocoa Coffee Rubber Oil Palm

InsecticideInsecticide √√ √√ √√HerbicideHerbicide √√ √√ √√PesticidePesticide √√ √√ √√

RodenticideRodenticide √√ √√FertilizerFertilizer √√ √√ √√

All crop subsectors will be involved, but the main subsector where agro-chemical control is likely to be most used will be Cocoa where there is endemic infestation of two diseases [Black Pod (Phytophthora palmivora or the more virulent Phytophthora megakarya) and Swollen Shoot (Sahlbergella singularis or Distantiella theobroma)]. Treatment of these two infestations in particular will be a priority if this component of the project is to be successful. Potential adverse impacts centre on the handling and storage of these chemicals and can be minimized, if not avoided by good management and equipment.

Nurseries

Potential environmental impacts from tree crop nurseries will be similar to farm/plantation impacts (i.e. land clearing, pest and disease control) with the possible exception that irrigation will be required should large scale district nurseries be established. Nurseries on this scale will require large quantities of water during the dry season and thus storage reservoirs will need to be constructed and engine driven pumps installed, both of which will carry potential adverse environmental impacts. They will also require chemical handling facilities, and may also require initial land clearing. The most probable water reservoir will be located within the channel of a suitable stream, which will have potential adverse impacts to downstream users as well as disruption and possible contamination during dam construction.

Feeder Roads

The feeder roads component may be included the revitalization of any of the target areas and while it may involve new road construction, will mainly be improvement of existing roads, particularly replacement of culverts and bridges. This component has the potential for adverse impacts on adjacent natural habitat, while at the same time has the potential for significant positive impacts to farmers and communities via improved access to markets. For the most part rehabilitation of the feeder roads, if done with care, will not impact adversely on the surrounding environment. The exception will be where new road is constructed, particularly where it opens access to remote natural areas, or where the contractor clears more vegetation than necessary or allows contamination of the drainage ways when reconstructing the culverts and bridges.

Crop Handling and Storage

It is proposed that warehouses be constructed at district level to receive, store and dispatch cocoa/coffee beans. They are likely to be located on the edge of the district market town and perhaps include additional social amenity space (i.e. administrative, equipment storage and washing facilities, perhaps even community latrines).


Potential adverse environmental impacts will be mainly during construction (i.e. noise, dust, equipment movement) and thus will be temporary. With the Oil Palm and Rubber Plantation sector handling the majority of the processing, farmers will deliver their fruit bunches and latex direct to the factories and thus there will be little requirement for village/district level storage.

Health and Safety issues

Within any plantation there is always the possibility of accidents (i.e. exposure to pesticides,. splash of latex serum in the eye of a rubber-tapper, cuts from sharp harvesting and maintenance equipment, falling trees or branches), With training and experience, accidents can be minimized. 5.1.2 Component Assessment

Smallholder Coffee Revitalization [Sub-Component 1.1]This component envisages revitalization of existing coffee plantations through:

manual under-brushing, weeding and pruning without any application of agro-chemicals; and promoting improved coffee marketing and value addition, including small scale processing (i.e.

coffee powder) using adapted technologies.

On smallholder coffee farms, the potential adverse environmental impacts of coffee production will be very low as no agro-chemicals or replanting is included in the revitalization package. Currently what little processing that occurs in the Coffee sub-sector [basically removal of the berry pulp and air drying of the beans] has no environmental impact. The potential for adverse environmental impacts where additional post harvest processing (i.e. value added initiatives such as roasting, grinding, and packaging) is introduced should also be low and easily managed (i.e. liquid effluent treatment, return of pulp to fields as organic supplement). The location of potentially significant adverse impacts will be where land is cleared to replant old or start new coffee farms or large scale nurseries.

Smallholder Cocoa Revitalization [Sub-Component 1.1]This component envisages revitalization of existing cocoa gardens through:

manual under brushing, weeding, pruning, reducing the shade followed by either the application of limited amounts of fungicides and insecticides, but no fertilizer, or regular applications each year of fungicides and insecticides together with the high application of fertilizers; supporting new plantings; promoting improved cocoa marketing and value addition, including small scale processing (i.e. into

cocoa butter or cocoa liquor) using adapted technologies; and promoting the development of village nurseries and the maintenance of seed gardens.

The potential adverse environmental impacts in smallholder cocoa gardens will be low even though agro-chemicals are included in the revitalization, and where present can be effectively managed by properly trained and equipped owners/workers. Old Cocoa in Liberia is highly infested by Swollen Shoot (Sahlbergella singularis or Distantiella theobroma) and Black Pod (Phytophthora palmivora or the more virulent Phytophthora megakarya) and thus any rehabilitation will need to pay particular attention to these two problems as a priority if this component of the project is to be successful. The potential for adverse environmental impact where additional post harvest processing (i.e. value added initiatives such as roasting, grinding, packaging) is introduced should also be low and easily managed. The activities that could lead to significant adverse impacts will be where land is cleared to replant old or start new cocoa gardens, seed gardens/nurseries.

Smallholder Oil Palm Revitalization [Sub-Component 1.2]This component envisages revitalization of existing oil palm plantations through:

clearing the undergrowth (under brushing), weeding around the trees and between the rows, and applying fertilizers;

supporting replanting of smallholder oil palm; supporting the organization of farmers’ groups and the provision of training and technical advice to

small farmers; limited rehabilitation of access roads and related small bridges and drainage structures wherever it

is critical to provide access to farmer groups; and


the promotion of small scale processing facilities for farmers where no mills are present and/or facilitate access to small scale processing technology and finance for interested private investors (SMEs), in collaboration with commercial banks and guarantee or equity funds.

The potential adverse environmental impacts of oil palm production on smallholder farms will be low, even though agro-chemicals are included in the revitalization, and where present can be effectively managed by properly trained and equipped owners/workers. The potential environmental impacts from traditional village extraction and Freedom Mill processing of oil palm are minimal since currently the process uses only local natural resources (water and firewood) and manual labor, though there is evidence of effluent pollution in adjacent water sources. In future there is likely to be an increase in the number of small-scale mills and these are also likely to increase in size and be engine driven, resulting in the use of petroleum products and generating larger quantities of effluent. Potential adverse impacts from Concession processing is also low and is likely to remain so as this Sector, for the most part, has well established processing facilities with environmental management plans in place. The activities that may lead to adverse impacts will be (as stated in Section 4.4.1) where land is cleared to replant old or start new oil palm farms/plantations, during road/bridge rehabilitation, and increased village/district processing.

Smallholder Rubber Revitalization [Sub-Component 1.3] This component envisages revitalization of existing rubber plantations through:

supporting replanting of existing smallholder rubber farms; new planting targeting smallholders who already have some rubber plots as well as newcomers in

the sector, particularly women and youth; the provision of training and technical advice to smallholders (including for tapping techniques)

and supporting the organization of farmers’ groups in rubber growing areas; and limited rehabilitation of farm access roads and related small bridges and drainage structures

wherever it is critical to provide access to participating farmer groups.

The potential adverse environmental impacts of rubber production on smallholder farms will be low, even though agro-chemicals are included in the revitalization, and where present can be effectively managed by properly trained and equipped owners/workers. There are currently no smallholder processing facilities, nor are these envisaged within the proposed program. Potential adverse impacts from Concession processing is also low and is likely to remain so as this Sector, for the most part, has well established processing facilities with environmental management plans in place. The activities that could lead to adverse impacts will be (as stated in Section 4.4.1) where land is cleared to replant old or start new rubber farms/plantations or seed gardens/nurseries, and during road/bridge rehabilitation.

Institutional Capacity Building [Component 2]This component consists of:

Capacity building of MoA, CDA, CAC, EPA9 and Land Commission target technical staff involved in the project planning, coordination and monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

Support to adaptive tree crops research. Support to the MoA Program Management Unit (PMU).

Assuming that this component has been comprehensively implemented (i.e. that the key institutions involved in the smallholder tree crop sector should be strengthened in all their responsibilities and activities to the benefit of the whole industry, the environmental impacts of the initiatives should be indirectly significantly positive.

Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation [Component 3]This will comprise two main groups of activities:

Support to Steering Bodies, including: the organization of project launching workshops at county and national level and supporting regular coordination County level meetings of representatives from all stakeholders involved in the agricultural sector and particularly in tree crops development; and

Support to the Project Coordination Unit (PCU), including the establishment of the project M&E system to integrated within the overall PMU’s and MoA’s M&E systems, carrying out necessary baseline studies per project site and/or per thematic area, and annual participatory planning and evaluation workshops with beneficiaries and other stakeholders at county and district levels.

9 EPA is not listed in the TOR but will require some support from the projectESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 39

S.A. AGRER N.V.

The environmental impacts of this components initiative should be indirectly positive as a result of supporting the project management structure.

5.1.3 Other Risks

Fire

Probably the most serious risk within the smallholder tree crop sector is fire, particularly when it is used in the land clearing process, either by the farmer him/herself or neighbors. Hunters also use fire and may be less careful than farmers in its use. Rural communities have very little resources in terms of fighting fire. Fire is more lethal during the dry season when the winds tend to be stronger.

Climate Change

Climate change is an area of increasing concern worldwide. As yet there is not a strong indication of significant climate change in Liberia, but should this be expressed by a significant change in the distribution of rainfall during the rainy season and/or an increase in the length of the dry season this could seriously affect crop yields as the target tree crops require high, evenly spread rainfall for optimum production.

Capacity Building

Since the target communities as well as their supporting institutions require significant capacity building for the proposed project to succeed, and failure on part of the PIU and its partners to provide adequate training and guidance could hamper the success this initiative. Coupled with this is the potential inability of the beneficiaries to fully comprehend and apply the provided training.

Residual Effects

While there will be an increased use of agro-chemicals by farmers participating in the proposed project, the type and amounts of these likely to be applied (particularly with emphasis on IPM) should not result in significant residual deposition of some compounds provided that the training program in storage, handling and use of agro-chemicals is rigorous and closely monitored.

5.2 POTENTIAL SOCIAL IMPACTS

General

Liberia conducted a population census in June 2008 indicating its population still remains lower compared to neighboring countries on the West African coast. The average annual growth rate has fallen from 3.4% to 2.1; the population grew from 2.102 million in 1984 to only 3.49 million in 2008. Population density has however increased from 66% to 93 persons/sq. mile from a previous 56 persons/sq mile in 1984 according to preliminary census results (MPEA 2008). About 40% of this population is living in urban areas with as much as 33% in Monrovia alone and over 6.6% divided into the remaining county capitals. Nearly 60% rural dwellers make their living from agriculture. These rural dwellers are the project’s ultimately targets.

The project is likely to have some socio-economic impact on the communities and the farmers in the seven (7) counties (Montserrado, Margibi, Grand Gedeh, Nimba, Bong, Maryland/River Gee and Grand Bassa). The expected social benefits relates as much to the goal of reducing poverty among rural poor. Social issues likely to be impacted on by the project include: Land tenure and ownership rights, labor, social infrastructure, social capital, cultural believes and rights, gender, youth and vulnerability and community expectations. The development of social capital through capacity building and infrastructural developments are likely to take place during and after the implementation of the project activities. The ability of the project to deliver on its poverty reduction objective is likely to increase income levels of rural farmers and support some infrastructural development in participating communities. Financially, the main social benefits of the project will be derived from increased incomes from tree cropping and stimulation of local and international marketing.

Given the socio-economic situation in Liberia in general, there are expected overall positive social impacts in the short, medium and long term as a result of the project. But there is also a potential for adverse impacts. These are outlined in the following paragraphs.


Positive Impacts Improve access to land and tenure security as cash crop farmers and communities register their

lands and farms with the revision of land policy; Creation of opportunities for sustainable income-generation in agriculture through diversification

and improvement in tree crop production for rural communities; The project is likely to impact positively in ensuring that farmers capacities are enhanced in the

production of quality cash crop products; Increase in capacity opportunities including training and skills development will enhance local

communities and farmers in tree crop production for improved rehabilitation and expansion of the sector

Provision of opportunity in small-scale infrastructure in a planned and organized fashion that would facilitate more efficient uses of economic resources in project counties and communities;

Empowerment of local communities to mobilize and build capacities in sustainable community development through effective delivery of extension services, improved technologies in cash crop farming and agricultural inputs;

Inclusion of women, the youth and migrants to participate in the cash crop sector through the creation of sustainable agricultural sector employment opportunities;

Provision of basic infrastructure including access roads in tree crop production areas which would further improve and facilitate distribution of food crops to market centers; and

Provision of sustainable productivity through input supply and improved access to needed cash crop seeds and technologies.

Improved management and governance of FOs, increased trust and sustainability.

Negative Impacts Increased competition over lands to invest in cash crops within the current dualistic land ownership

system in Liberia could create local conflicts over land; Women’s (and the youth’s) access to land and land ownership may limit their direct involvement in

the project. Though this may differ from one project area to the other; The project could have negative social impacts if the participatory processes to sensitize

communities on the project objectives are not consistently followed. Food insecurity may occur if project implementation does not fully comply to current food security

strategies and link up with ongoing projects to increase food security; Competitive labor demand for cash crops cultivation may affect the contribution of household labor

for crop farming; Farmer associations may face elite capture, the vulnerable, powerless and/or marginalized groups

especially women and the youth are hindered from actively participating and benefiting from the project;

Social tension and agitation due to lack of inadequate flow of accurate project information in a timely manner and dialogue among different stakeholders of the project.

Given these potential negative impacts, the project must be prepared to ensure that any necessary mitigation measures are fully implemented using the management frameworks developed for this purpose. There may also need to be strong grievance redress system to receive and address complaints at the different governmental levels.

Land Tenure and Ownership Rights

In Liberia land tenure is a complex issue which is still undergoing critical review by the Liberian government. The current legislation covering land tenure remains to be clarified and the Government has established the Land Reform Commission the outcomes of their work still being awaited. The most significant of the Land Tenure System is the Community Rights law under which the status of Customary Land Tenure is to be clarified, The current complexity of the system and the significant legal confusion over customary rights is linked to various contradictory laws and this has been captured in a proposed strategy report to Land Commission, 10

The 1986 Liberian Constitution includes a number of provisions related to real property rights including land. Article 22 provides that “Every person shall have the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.” It limits that right to Liberian citizens, but makes an exception for non-citizen missionary, educational

10 Bruce and Kannah, Law Reform Strategy Concerning Land, Proposed Strategy, Final Report, February 2011


and other benevolent institutions. Access to land as a Liberian citizen is therefore granted under the constitution. Land is vested in the President and all communities through their leaders have access to lands which are allocated to family heads. For the smallholder sector there are five broad types of land holding, with different levels of tenure security: (i) Deed holders (or holders of other documents) with a comparatively high degree of tenure security; (ii) Customary occupation without a deed resulting in relative security within the customary domain; (iii) Rental or leasing of land with lower security; (iv) “Strangers” or ”Borrowers” of land who are not from a local area who do not rent, but are allowed very temporary and insecure access to land, and must supply a token amount of crop produce to the owner to acknowledge that the land is owned by another—in essence acknowledging that the land is being loaned; and (v) Squatters, who although they can be evicted at any time they are discovered by the owner, are also the most aggressive about attempting claim through tree crop planting and forms of adverse possession.

The legalization of customary land tenure within such a dualistic land-ownership system has been identified as a serious insecurity of tenure.11 For many farmers with customary usufruct over land (mostly subsistence farmers) there is less security over land than those holding under statutory tenure. A proposal to harmonize customary and statutory rights over land would require legal protection by national law which has not yet been formulated and adopted. Access to land and its resources and security of tenure are essential for the success of the STCRSP and overall poverty reduction. Smallholder farmers, who make up the majority of the project target, require access and security of tenure to move beyond subsistence farming into more profitable and sustainable food crops and tree crops cultivation. This will improve farmer’s livelihoods, support food security and increased export crop production.

The lack of land policy has implications on the STCRSP. The project is likely to be affected by traditional land tenure and ownership system.

The project will require the government to expedite action on clarifying its policy on land rights and ownership. This process has already commenced with the establishment of the Liberian Lands Commission. Individuals in communities must have security over their lands if they are to invest in tree crops. The rehabilitation of tree crops under the various project components may undoubtedly place some requirements on current land tenure and ownership situation. Proof of usufruct rights over existing farms need to be established before investing into the project. In discussions with community leaders including commissioners and clan heads, it was established that this will not be difficult since community members “know” existing members who have rights over specific plots of lands within their communities. The project will however call into question the tenure and usufruct rights over land by community members where new plantings and replanting are to be done. The studies on land tenure and access being undertaken by the proposed project will provide further guidance on this.

Assessment of Potential Impacts

Positive Impact: Rehabilitation and new development of tree crop farms is likely to support proper land use by farmers. The project will encourage farmers to diversify the use of agricultural lands and this will lead to efficient land usage for both food crop and cash crop production; rehabilitation of old plantations will immediately improve and increase household income levels; and long term provision of opportunities for farmers to obtain security over lands through the provision of legal titles and deeds over lands owned. Again, due to the verification of ownership of land as a condition for participation, it is likely that there will be improved sanity in ownership and tenure. The studies on land in addition to other programs will contribute towards an improved land tenure and administration system. The improved system can also be o the advantage of otherwise vulnerable groups like women, youth and migrants.

Adverse Impacts: The lack of a registry of land in Liberia means that no systematic records keeping system currently exists on lands. The proof of land ownership for those to be supported under the project may therefore not be sufficiently validated. Women, youth, migrants and the “landless” may not be able to benefit directly from the project as their usufruct and customary right over land may be limited to the production of food crops. Customary landowners may invest large acreages of land into tree crops and prevent others from benefiting from project by leasing out available lands. Proof of ownership of old plantations (cocoa, coffee and rubber) and of land may bring some conflicts by multiple claimants where titles and deeds covering them are not available.

Mitigation Measures

11 Ibid


Establish linkages with ongoing land administration review under the Lands Commission of Liberia, and ensure that lands invested in the project are free of conflicts;

Support access to land for women, youth and migrants land ownership may limit their direct involvement in the project. Though this may differ from one project area to the other The project could have negative social impacts if the participatory processes to sensitize communities on the project objectives are not consistently followed.

Farmer Organizational Development/Producer Associations

The project has the potential to impact positively on social capital development as well as offer some opportunities for the development of social amenities including roads and farm tracts. The formation, revitalization and capacity building of FOs in tree crop production in particular, and agriculture in general is important in strengthening individual and group support for sustainable development of the sector. Farmers currently operate individually and do not have the opportunity to learn from each other and to be able to negotiate with central government and other stakeholders on issues relating to improving their practices with a strong voice. Previous farmer cooperatives and district level community groups which were scattered all over the country collapsed during the war and efforts to restore these groups according to community leaders have been grim. Although there exists some remnants of these cooperatives some dating as far back as 1971 (e.g. Kpodo Farmers Cooperative in the Nimba Country) their capacities are weak with minimal engagement in self-help activities.

Promotion of producer groups and associations as part of the project should have a positive socio-economic impact as these generally have a louder voice and bargaining position which ultimately benefits the entire community.

Positive Impact: Overall, the project will support proper organization, reorganization and capacity building of farmers and farmers/producer associations and empower them through training to enable them to attain a common voice and form cooperatives which can better negotiate on issues relating to the management of their farms, produce and their needs. The capacity building will also ensure improved governance and management of the FOs and improved knowledge base for the leaders and members. The project is likely to support the restoration of social capital by mobilizing and developing targeted human skills in tree crop development. Unlike neighboring Ivory Coast and Ghana knowledge and skill in Cocoa and Oil Palm cultivation is weak. The project is likely to impact positively in ensuring that farmer’s capacities are enhanced in the production of quality cash crop products. The STCRSP may impact on social cohesion and encourage inclusion using appropriate participatory approaches and extension support. This can mitigate the risk of conflict and promote equitable access to development benefits by enhancing inclusive participation and capacity enhancement for farmers.

Negative Impact: There is the potential for elite capture of the project which may create the marginalization of vulnerable groups most likely to be women and the youth. This can occur within community level farmers associations where participatory strategies are not implemented. The past experience may also be a hindrance as members’ trust.

Mitigation Measures Establish clear constitutions and mode of operation for Farmer associations to prevent elite capture

and ensure active participation among the vulnerable, powerless and/or marginalized groups especially women and the youth;

Design and establish gender and youth strategies under the project.

Food Security

A key policy direction of the Liberian Government is to improve the agricultural sector towards reducing poverty and ensure food security. The central goal for the agricultural sector is to revitalize the sector in order to contribute to inclusive and sustainable economic development and growth, and to provide food security and nutrition, employment and income, and measurable poverty reduction. Food insecurity in Liberia is high and is evident in the poor nutritional status of the population. The Comprehensive Food Security and Nutrition Survey (CFSNS) carried out in March 2006 found that 11 percent of households in rural/semi-urban Liberia are food


insecure, while the figure reaches as high as 28 percent in the areas most affected by the war and displacements. Additionally, 40 percent of the population was found to be either highly or moderately vulnerable to food insecurity. Since then there has been consistent effort by the government to support programs and projects aimed at food security. Hence a major concern to the project should be its impact on food security. Increasing domestic food supply will reduce the country’s dependence on food imports and provide incomes for farm households.12 Enhancement of transport infrastructure as part of the STCRSP could accelerate the development of other productive sectors, ensuring food security. This was one of the key impacts that community members identified during discussions. Current poor road network limits opportunities for an effective market system for crop producers. Expanded economic opportunities for rural farmers through cash crop production will have positive effects on family welfare, food security, and poverty reduction.

Positive Impact: A robust agriculture sector will enhance food security, both by directly increasing food production through intercropping under tree crops and also by improved incomes of farmers through diversification into cash crops. Food security will be improved through collaboration with the Agriculture sector to increase food production and diversification. Production in traditional food crops such as rice and cassava has already begun to rebound as farmers are expanding their farmlands and adopting improved agricultural practices under agricultural interventions like the ASRP. The rehabilitation and expansion of rubber, palm oil, coffee, cocoa, and oil palm farms have major potential to improve farmer’s income which can be reinvested into food crops. The project must collaborate with sector ministries and agencies undertaking some rehabilitating and expanding Liberia’s road network within the tree crop production corridors. This will help to connect farmers to markets, raising output, reducing prices for food and critical inputs, and stimulating supporting activities throughout the rural areas. Intercropping of tree crop plantations with food crops (e.g. pepper, peanuts, and plantains) can support in the short term increase in food production and household incomes. Negative Impact: The rush by communities to participate in the project at the expense of food crops is real. Given the fact that participation guarantees some financial and logistical support, farmers may become more interested in planting any of the selected project crops at the expense of food crop

Mitigation MeasuresThis can be abated through the system of intercropping, proper information dissemination on the project scope, requirements and objective which hopefully will limit the number of possible farmers who would qualify to participate. The project will also be presented as just an aspect of Government of Liberia’s plan for enhanced agriculture and other plans and programs for the food sector may be considered by food crop farmers.

Levels of Expectation from Communities

Poor rural communities do have high expectations whenever new projects emerge. These expectations include such benefits like roads, clinics, school construction, employment of locals and the provision of training to members of the local communities.

Pre-consensus and consensus with communities regarding the project objectives has not yet been undertaken. There are clear indications of high enthusiasm among these stakeholders at county, district, clan and town levels. Farmers expressed their interest in embracing any such project to be initiated by the government and implemented through the MOA and some Concessions. They are optimistic that the partnership can be built with farmers benefiting most. The possibility of the project being able to support infrastructural development especially roads and schools is clearly expressed by them. These expectations need to be properly managed right from the formulation stage when project goals should be clearly spelt out to farmers and community leaders.

Positive Impact: The high level of expectations could help with effective project implementation as there will be enthusiasm and commitment from members of beneficiary communities. This could help the project achieve its development objectives and activities.

Negative Impact: High levels of expectations from communities, increased demand for more support from the project beyond the capacity of the project is therefore likely. The project’s inability to meet these expectations could be a challenge that can hamper progress during implementation.

Mitigation Measures

12 Food Security and Nutrition Survey (CFSNS), 2006


The project can mitigate against the above by ensuring consistent dialogue with communities on project goal, objectives and activities at all levels (county, district, clan and community) will ensure a better understanding of the project and enhance involvement of communities and farmers

Labor and Employment

The rural agricultural sector has not as yet been able to attract unemployed youth and young women. This assertion was corroborated in all counties consulted during the mission especially in Bong and River Gee. The current system of local mobilization of labor is the “Kuus’ in rural communities. These are identified as a more sustainable source of labor than that of household labor in the rehabilitation and development of tree crops. Already in use in most rural communities “kuus” form or system of self help in land clearing, planting and harvesting made up of a number of farmers who come together to form groups.

Currently most smallholders (according to feedback from community level discussions) depend to a large extent on family labor for smallholder agriculture and this involves all members of the family. Permanent employees and/or temporary/contract workers (seasonal) may also be involved. Division of labor on farms according to discussions held with farmers is pretty much along gender roles and responsibilities i.e. gender division of labor. Influx of labor from neighboring counties or countries as farm hands was assessed to be likely but minimal.

Positive Impacts: The project is likely to impact positively on family, migrant and indigenous labor. Another positive impact is the potential to address rural youth unemployment through the diversification of the rural economy. Rural-urban movement among the youth may be reduced but this is dependent on the integration of youth empowerment strategies. Improving skills and building capacity of existing labor force through the transfer of improved agricultural practices in tree crops will also be achieved. Raising the level of efficiency in the tree crop value chain for instance processing of oil palm from artisanal extraction methods involving households, to more efficient small to industrial-scale will support increase in labor opportunities for women and the youth.

Negative Impacts: Reinforcement of any negative division of labor (gender / child division of labor) may limit the direct gains to be made by marginalized groups. Unless proper consideration is given to gender and child labor issues adverse impacts may occur as extra demands are made on child labor. This was not considered to be a strong adverse effect and community members and stakeholders were very clear on their objection to particularly child labor issues. There would be a gradual increase in employment for rural youth with consequent possible increase in their interest in agriculture especially tree crop cultivation. Whereas the involvement of migrants and their needs are often trampled upon or neglected in wage negotiations, the impact of the project on migrant labor does not appear to be high.

Mitigation MeasuresSupport for established international, regional and national strategies against child labor in agriculture for instance cocoa and rubber must be adhered to. Also support for existing labor support and self-help mechanisms (known as “kuus”) at community levels, must be embraced, supported and structured under the STCRSP.

Farmers and Implementing Agency Relationship

Relationship between farmers and implementing agencies like NGOs and Concessions seems good where they exist. Communities surrounding for instance rubber plantations in Margibi County expressed mutual respect and benefit from one another. Potential Out-grower communities in Maryland/River Gee were full of commendation for growing support from the Cavala Rubber Plantations. In Bong Country a group of farmers participating in Farmer Field Schools (FFS) under the ACDI/VOCA and IITA Cocoa Project were obviously elated about the level of improvement of their knowledge and skill in improved cultural practices as a result of the project. These relationships can be further improved if they continue to work together to support each other mutually. Whereas communities consider NGOs to support the cause of the poor some have the opinion of Concessions being more profit-oriented and more interested in their business.

Positive Impact: Impact may be positive as the project supports and strengthens collaboration and linkages between farmers, NGOs and Concessions to ensure that maximum benefits from the project accrue to communities and farmers.ESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 45

S.A. AGRER N.V.

Negative Impact: The potential for this relationship to turn sour exist especially where there is suspicion on the part of any of the parties.

Mitigation MeasuresThe strong involvement of the County and District Development mechanisms should be employed to address any likely misunderstanding between stakeholders. Development committees at county, district and clan level must ensure and organize continuous dialogue and interactions between communities, Concessions and NGOs as a forum for discussions.

Social Infrastructure

The concern most frequently cited across nearly all counties was the shortage and poor state of roads. People also noted the shortage of safe drinking water and electricity. In the education sector, they expressed concern over the shortage and inadequacy of educational facilities, the shortage of trained teachers, and the under-representation of girls in schools. Likewise, in the health sector, concerns were raised about the shortage of trained medical personnel, the lack of health care facilities and ambulances.

Positive Impact: The likely impact in terms of support and provision of some infrastructure can be considered as highly positive and these may include especially improved road network and farm access. The project is likely to impact positively on improving particularly road accessibility to communities, and to support some improvement in community-market feeder roads and farm tracks particularly those through abandoned areas and farms which will be considered under the project. The project therefore has the potential of improving social infrastructure at the community level through rehabilitation of selected feeder roads. If labor –based methods are employed, it could create additional employment for local youth.

Negative Impact: The rehabilitation exercise may affect communities along the selected feeder roads who may temporarily lose their access, some farms crops along the feeder roads and may also experience inconveniences during the rehabilitation period.

Mitigation MeasuresThe exercise will be done in collaboration with the community leaders and members. Any loss of livelihood or income or restriction of access will be addressed using the project’s resettlement policy framework.

Gender Issues

Liberia faces major gender disparities in terms of women’s access to productive assets. Many women are unable to fully benefit and enjoy access to economic opportunities. The tree crop sector in Liberia is dominated by men. This was confirmed by communities corroborated the differentiated roles between men and women.

Women are major players in the agricultural sector, constitute the majority of smallholder producers and agricultural labor force. Despite women and girls’ important economic role, they have limited access to the inputs and services essential to carrying out their productive functions, and are absent from important economic sectors. Women have less access than men to productive inputs and services, including land, skills training, basic tools, and technology.

Women hardly own land in Liberia and their access to land is through men, who may be their husbands, fathers or a relative. This current land tenure system has contributed to a lack of land security for women and frequent conflicts over property rights within families. The outlined impacts below were confirmed by stakeholders.

Positive Impact: Overall impact may be positive as women’s inclusion in tree crops production improves with increase in household incomes. The project has a strong focus on gender considerations. The social impact assessment conducted for the project and the study on land will all positively contribute to women’s participation in the project vis a vis their men counterparts. Again, the project will be informed by GoL’s commitment to gender equality matters in the agriculture and general economy. Impact may also be positive in relation to increased opportunities for value chain additions like small-scale processing which is a preserve of women

Negative Impact: The constraints women in agricultural production face, especially in relation to tree crop production, affect household food and nutrition security. Lack of access to land for productive agriculture ESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 46

S.A. AGRER N.V.

activities may be a hindrance to women’s participation as most of the owners of existing tree crops are likely to be men due to the land ownership system. Under current customary and usufruct access to land, equitable access to and security of tenure in land" for women, youth, and other disadvantaged groups may hinder their direct or indirect involvement in tree crop cultivation. Access to land and ownership rights may however increase the chance of men directly participating than women, whose direct involvement may be limited due to lack of access and ownership rights over land.

Mitigation MeasuresThe project will specifically expand women’s and girls’ economic opportunities through their involvement in the STCRSP. A mapping of the number of women, youth and the disadvantaged group who actually possess and could participate directly in the project may be useful.

5.3 MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

As outlined in Section 5.1 the main environmental issues are: Land clearing for replanting (including new farm/plantation areas) Handling and use of chemicals Pest Management Crop Processing

Waste (liquid and solid) managementNoise PollutionAtmospheric EmissionsHealth and Safety issues

Land Clearing and Replanting/New Planting

Clearing of existing tree crop for replanting can be done manually using power saws for the larger trees and axes/cutlasses for the smaller growth. Larger timber trees providing shade within Coffee and Cocoa plantations should be removed only with FDA permission (as they may be rare and endangered species) and then should be milled to provide timber/lumber for repair of buildings and bridges, while smaller wood should be prepared for home fuel. Old Rubber trees have a variety of uses (i.e. lumber, furniture, fuel wood), whereas old Oil Palm trees have little commercial value due to their highly fibrous nature, though they can be used for some furniture and fencing, and the sap used to make palm wine (though this only for a short period after felling). Buchanan Renewables is currently purchasing old rubber trees for exporting and soon to supply fuelwood for a new 36 MW Biomass Power Plant when construction is completed. Cleared vegetation not removed for commercial reasons should be wind-rowed along the contour between lines set out for planting to act as barriers to surface run-off and consequent soil erosion. Lining the plantings on the contour will also make it easier for plantation workers where the landscape is undulating to hilly. The soil surface should disturbed as little as possible, unless there is good reason to remove the tree roots (e.g. due to root disease). When clearing land areas where slopes are greater than 10 percent should not be cleared but left as of natural vegetation and a strip of natural vegetation 50 meters wide adjacent to any stream or water body should be left uncleared to protect the feature from soil erosion and filter run-off from the farm areas. Where possible, areas of natural vegetation should be interlinked to provide biodiversity links. Clearing and planting as well as the fallow period should be closely monitored to assure that no soil erosion is occurring and where such is the case, immediate remedial action is to be taken.

Clearing of non-tree crop land for tree crop planting: This refers to land that is not currently planted to any of the targeted tree crops. It may be fallow land of any age as well as mature secondary or even primary forest. However, it is unlikely that the proposed project will support clearing of mature forest for plantations as the World Bank’s policy (OP 4.04 and especially OP 4.36) is not to site projects on land that has good quality forest unless there is sound justification (i.e. no other land available or a very compelling cost-benefit analysis). Thus any new land initially brought into the sector must be community fallow land or possibly recently logged forest. Once the area to be planted is identified, the screening procedure in this ESMF should be applied and the appropriate environmental and social impact analysis should be carried out, followed by preparation of an ESMP where adverse impacts are identified. Such an ESMP should also identify clearance procedure that avoids adverse environmental impacts or where this is not possible set out how these are to be mitigated.

Establishment of ground cover: Where the land surface has been left bare as a result of the clearing, it is imperative that a groundcover be established quickly. A legume such as Pueraria phaseolides or similar species should be planted to quickly establish a complete ground cover which will remain until the new tree crop


provides a full canopy (this depends on the type of crop grown but may be up to 6 or 7 years). The use of a legume as opposed to a non-legume has the advantage of improving the natural fertility of the soil, and in some cases assists in pest control (e.g. infestation of Oryctes rhinoceros in Oil Palm).

To reduce the impact of loss of income, farms should consider intercropping food crops in the rows between tree lines. This will be possible until the trees at large enough to shade the entire area. However, this could mean that the tree crop will take longer to mature.

There is a potential of indirect adverse impacts as a result of non-project participants recycling the removed vegetation through production of charcoal, furniture and other production. Where the actors are part of the beneficiary community, they should have been recipients of environmental awareness training and accessible to the PIU, CAC and EPA County staff who can monitor and report any adverse environmental and social impact activity. Where these actors are not part of the community, but benefiting indirectly from the project, the project Monitors should report them to the EPA and other relevant authorities.

Chemical Usage and Management

In the field, the highest risk of pollution is from the handling of any potentially hazardous chemicals used. Proper care needs to be taken to avoid spillage and leakage, particularly of concentrated solutions. Concentrated chemicals should be stored and diluted for field application at a central specially designed location for individual farmers to collect. This will minimize the risk of contamination and wastage. To further reduce contamination, a proper regime for handling and disposal of empty chemical containers. Ideally these should be returned to the supplier for re-use when new supplies are purchased. Alternatively, Farmer Organizations might purchase the diluted fungicides and pesticides from the Supplier, but these will also need to be safely handled and stored.

Owners/workers should be protected from direct contact with the chemicals through the use of appropriate protective apparel and equipment (gloves, clothing, goggles etc.) and given training in the proper procedures for the handling of hazardous materials. This might be done under contract with the Input Supplier. A further refinement would be to train a few members of the community to conduct all spraying on member farms. This will reduce the potential for accidents and could be a means to create employment in the community.

The Environmental Protection and Management Law (EPML) Part V Sections 52 and 53 covers the management of hazardous chemicals.

For more details on the management of agro-chemicals, see Annex F – Pest Management Plan. Nurseries

While many small farmers may wish to establish their own nurseries, the project will support the establishment of large scale seed gardens/nurseries (SME’s). These larger nurseries will require irrigation to support the seedlings during the dry season. Each will require a water storage reservoir and a water distribution system. They will also require chemical handling facilities, and may also require initial land clearing (see above). Potential adverse impacts of water reservoir establishment will be increase sediment load in the water channel during dam construction and reduction in water available to downstream users (within and without the stream bed) during the dry season when stream flow will be at a minimum and irrigation demand highest.

Stream contamination during dam construction can be avoided/significantly reduced by preparing a temporary channel around the dam site, but reduction in dry season stream flow is likely to be a permanent impact. The extent on the latter should be investigated before dam construction and a mitigation plan detailed. Feeder Roads

For the most part rehabilitation of the feeder roads, if done with care, will not impact adversely on the surrounding environment. The exception will be where new road is constructed, particularly if it affords access to formerly remote natural habitat, or where the contractor clears more vegetation than necessary or allows contamination of the drainage ways when reconstructing the culverts and bridges. A mitigation plan should be detailed in each contract.

Warehouses


The Warehouses will be used to receive, store and dispatch crops after harvest and/or processing and will mainly apply to the small farmer cocoa/coffee subsectors. These will be relatively small structures on the edge of market towns and thus the potential adverse impacts will be during construction (land clearing, noise, dust, increased local traffic) and thus temporary.

Crop Processing

The principle adverse environmental impacts during crop processing will be the emissions from the processing plant. These will be:

Emission to Land and Water (e.g. Liquid and Solid Waste) Emissions to Air (e.g. gases and noise)

Liquid Waste Management

Liquid waste can lead to significant potential environmental impact depending on its source (e.g. processing effluent, run-off from processing and maintenance facilities) and the amount generated daily. Thus the potential impacts are greater for plantations with large factories where large amounts of waste water are produced daily than on small farms or village processing units. Where significant quantities of liquid waste result in pollution of nearby water-bodies specific mitigation measures need to be in place. An example effluent treatment for a typical rubber or oil palm plantation is shown in Figure 3. A similar flow diagram could be prepared for smaller operations, though these would be of smaller scale. The Concessions who are partners in the proposed project are subject to EPA environmental regulations under contract and thus have in place or are working towards having in place the requisite management plans. The same (with slight modification) should be required of smaller processing units operated by Farmer Organizations or Cooperatives in future.

Solid Waste Management

Solid Waste will occur from a variety of sources. The greater portion of solid waste will be natural vegetation (i.e. plant and tree parts). Most of this waste will be as a result of farm/plantation management (e.g. pruning’s, foliage, harvest platforms) and also organic waste from the processing (pulp, pods, fruit stalks) which can be composted or returned to decompose in the field, provided they are not a host to specific pests and plant diseases, thus assisting with fertility maintenance. Other solid waste will include obsolete equipment and containers made from a variety of materials. Such material should be removed from the farm/plantation, and if not recycled should be disposed of according to and EPA approved Waste Management Plan.

Atmospheric Emissions

The main sources of emissions to air are the processing factory, power plants and combustion engines. Given that there only a handful of the large factories and that they normally have large areas of plantation surrounding them, the impact can be considered low, though of course they do contribute, however small amount, to the total global levels of pollution. Vehicle and the power plant exhaust produce the most serious emissions but these can be kept to a minimum by regular engine service and maintenance. More noticeable are the odors that result from harvesting and in processing (of rubber in particular), and emissions of water vapor in the drying process (of all crops) neither of which cause any harm. In the field (farm/plantation) natural processes tend to neutralize the odor in a relatively short time, while at any processing facility these odors can be all pervasive, they can be minimized by appropriate ventilation and regular cleaning.

Figure 3: Example Factory Effluent Treatment Flow Diagram


Noise Pollution

The areas of highest noise pollution tend to be around the processing facility with attended power plant, machinery repair facility and concentrated vehicle activity. Regular maintenance of engines and machinery and use of silencing techniques can significantly reduce the overall impact. Farm/plantation noise pollution is usually occasional as the source is most frequently a passing vehicle. The loudest is the intermittent sound of a power saw clearing fallen trees and vehicle backing beepers. Most significant will be where there is clearing for replanting, where noise of power saws and heavy equipment will be relatively constant. However, it will be temporary in that the activity takes place over a relatively short period of time at any given location. Operators of such equipment are the most affected and should have appropriate protective equipment.

Health and Safety issues

Within any plantation there is always the possibility of accidents (i.e. exposure to pesticides, splash of latex serum in the eye of a rubber tapper, cuts from sharp harvesting and maintenance equipment, falling trees or branches), With training and experience, accidents can be minimized.

5.4 MANAGEMENT OF SOCIAL IMPACTS

A social baseline survey will have to be conducted in the project implementation and detailed consultations have to be held with those directly targeted. The CACs and DACs and other project personnel and relevant extension officers must be trained in social development communications to be able to effectively relate to target communities and farmers. During the planning and implementation phases, considerable time needs to be allowed to explain verbally the concept and objectives of the project to the people, especially when the majority of them are rural and may be illiterate. Their traditional knowledge systems and practices must be taken into account in the design and implementation of the project. Dialogue, meetings and group discussions should be held with local community chiefs and leaders, the youth, women’s groups and other influential people. During ESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 50

S.A. AGRER N.V.

Factory

Workshops/Power Generation/Other

Rainwater from roofs and Hardstandings mixed with sediments and

other materials from facilities activities

Petroleum Product Trap

Solid material Trap

Petroleum Products to collection area for

recycling

Liquid Effluent to Pond 1

- Anaerobic

Solids to Collection

point for reuse

Pond 2 -Aerobic

Pond 3 - Fishpond

Recycle to Factory/Other Uses

Field

Rainwater and Harvested Product Run-

off

Channel through Vegetative Barrier or to

Soaker Trenches

To Natural Drainage

the implementation phase, the project officers should discuss work programs and targets for the month or year with the people. To address any possible adverse and/or negative social impacts the project need to establish clear mechanisms to manage the following:

Land Tenure and Ownership Issues

Despite improvement in unrestricted usufruct rights and access to farming lands in Liberia, the rehabilitation and development of tree crops as indicated earlier comes with long term ownership and rights issues. This became evident in discussions with community members regarding especially the youth and women who may wish to participate in tree crops. Land tenure security would need to be addressed. The PIU together with sector ministries, collaborating partners and implementing agencies should consider the following:

Initial discussions with the Commission of Lands must focus on finalization of land sector policy to address current constraints relating to dualistic customary and state land ownership.

Mapping of household access and rights over land: Initial mapping of possible target groups need to include mapping of household access to and rights over land. Particular land access and ownership constraints of women, youth and other vulnerable groups like migrants need to be assessed, analyzed and addressed.

Land Titles and deeds must be developed to cover farms invested in the project through the support and partnership with Liberia Lands Commission.

Integration of Conflict Management Strategies: Possible conflicts relating to land access and rights of ownership needs to be carefully managed. This may relate particularly to the expansion of tree crops and those which will be initially invested into the project. Establishment of clear land ownership rights and guidelines to land access must be pursued.

Address community norms and customs relating to gender, land and ownership rights: Improved ability of women and also the youth to have secure access to land will support their interest and confidence to participate, invest and diversity their agriculture into particularly tree crops development.

Access to Land

Whereas it has been fully established that land is not an issue and traditional ownership of land is not contested in communities, mechanisms to address any possible conflicts must be clearly established. Land related disputes were assessed to be currently minimal and family disputes about ownership were not judged to be that rampant and so likely to have less impact on the project. However the ejection of squatters on some tree crop plantations especially within concessions can have some negative impact on related project activities. For some concessions who will be participating in the project resettlement arrangements with squatters would have to be discussed and outlined. Also modalities for support in legally registering lands must be discussed and carefully communicated to farmers. Research is needed to examine the impact of customary land tenure on the adoption of tree crops, and land-use intensification. Tree crops are a potential source of alternative incomes for communities but must not disenfranchise those with access to limited lands

Productive Labor Resources

The scarcity of labor in a target community may hinder the attainment of project goals. Community members indicated growing internal migration among the youth in Liberia. Mostly these rural-urban migration affects significantly the youth who would wish to have more regular source of income than can be offered from agriculture and least of all tree crops with their perceived “lengthy maturity levels”.

Availability of household labor will determine the extent to which households may be able to expand beyond subsistence levels and venture into tree crops. The initial labor resource requirements of tree crops could be demanding on household labor. To assume that family labor may be adequate for most of the rehabilitation activities may be unrealistic since for some vulnerable families (aged, female headed households, physically challenged) the labor demands may be much higher than most average families. For young families who have inherited tree crop farms requiring rehabilitation the role of children in supporting their families may have to be assessed to prevent any unreasonable demands and compromises.It will be important to:

analyze current family labor availability and the roles and responsibilities of individual members of the family in tree crop farming;

an assessment of the availability, cost and demand for labor and the prevailing cost of hiring labor;


Identify and support additional labor sources like the traditional “kuu” (self help) system and all other avenues that exist within rural farming communities to ensure that labor needs are met;

Investigate options for consistent labor hiring and available resources to farmers and farmer associations;

Establish and reinforce guidelines against the involvement of children as direct labor on household plantations;

Map household plots against household labor to advice on the realistic levels of acreages to be invested in the project must be undertaken as part of a detailed social impact assessment (SIA). According to the Liberia CFSNS (2008) the number of working age adults (15-59) in rural households is 2.5 (Male:2.6 / Female 2.0)

Unexpected Community Expectations

Managing community expectations for projects is not always an easy task due to the varying composition of project stakeholders and their divergent interests. Individual members may hold different and sometimes unrealistic expectations of every project. Initial project efforts must invest in ensuring that adequate consensus is built among community members and leaders regarding the objectives and proposed project actions:

Organize general consensus building meetings with community members to sensitize and create awareness and understanding of the goal, objectives of the project and the role of farmers to prevent any unwarranted expectations among the stakeholders.

Organize consensus building meetings with clan elders, and community committees and leaders; Organize consensus building meetings with county Superintendents, Commissioners and District

Development Committee (DDC) members; Community leadership, conflict and peace management; and Gender sensitization, women and youth empowerment training for community leaders. Identification and establishment of linkages with community level structures

Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture Measures

There is the potential of negative impact on food crop production with negative impact on general food security. Agricultural sector policies that do not clearly have a strategy to maintain and sustain food security can have negative impact on food security of tree crop producing communities. Some constraints faced by households, and the central role of social relations in their livelihood strategies, may limit their response to supply-side approaches. If little was known prior to the civil conflict, then even less is known at present as displaced households return. The project needs to assess how to integrate and address household food security issues in line with tree crop development, while balancing household financial needs through the sale of tree crops and surplus food crops given a farmer’s current endowment of land, labor and capital.

The STCRSP must build strong linkages and synergies with ongoing food security programs being undertaken by the government of Liberia and development partners. The project implementation must for instance foster some collaboration with the ongoing Agricultural Sector Rehabilitation Project (ASRP) which focuses mostly on food security. The ASRP adopts an approach that is the Value Chain Approach which is an integrated approach aimed at strengthening the linkages between the various steps of the crop cycle, from planting to consumption, taking into account agronomic, processing and marketing aspects.13 The STCRSP should map their target communities and farmers and build synergies between their activities and that of projects like the ASRP.

Farmers Organizations and Community Level Associations

Establishment of mechanisms to minimize any possible fractionalization and group conflicts is important. The existence of groups and cooperatives in some communities may not offer automatic adoption and adaptation since they may not have been formed in line with the STCRSP project objectives and may not adequately serve the required purpose. Their existence however offers some opportunity to assess their potential to be adopted with some intense training. Selection of leaders for the farmer organizations groups is another critical issue to be managed through careful facilitation, sensitivity and tact. The issue of possible elite capture of community level groups has to be managed in light of that current leadership systems in rural communities have been greatly weakened by the conflict and its resulting migration of community members. These groups should have leaders who have been selected by group members themselves and not imposed upon by other stakeholders.

13 Ministry of Agriculture 2009, ASRP Project Report Volume II, page 4.ESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 52

S.A. AGRER N.V.

The involvement of women and the youth in the associations is another important consideration. According to a recent study by CDA14, the average age of the cooperatives across the nine counties that were part of this assessment is 45 years, of the 10,722 shareholder only 2852 (26%) were under the age of 35. Representation on the boards are expectedly low, of the 574 total board members only 85 (14%) are youths. Whereas the involvement of the Cooperative Development Agency (CDA) in the project is applauded, their group, financial and management capacities at national, county, district and community levels would have to be assessed and targeted training provided.

The project must ensure proper mobilization, formation and training of farmer based organizations. Ensure that farmers understand and accept the project objectives and proposed actions; Clear guidelines are established for the formation of the groups including the selection of

leadership to avoid elite capture of the group; Develop a manual of operation for the farmer groups and associations; Strengthen capacity of groups in financial management especially management of group funds and

loans under the project; Formerly register the associations with the DDCs at district and county levels; Build in conflict management and peace-building systems in group formation to prevent

factionalism; and Build in sustainability mechanisms for groups to continue beyond the project duration.

The establishment of a governance system which uses participatory approaches to ensure effective participation of local stakeholders is critical. This will ensure effective mobilization, facilitation, advocacy, communication, market pricing and information sharing amongst especially community level structures: With the coordination of the Ministry of Agricultural, a management system is to be established which sets out clearly the functions and roles of each stakeholders some of which are as detailed in Table 3 below.

Capacity Building in Group and Financial Management

The provision of targeted training on-demand training of farmers’ groups including financial management, conflict management and peace building must include training of trainers. Farmers including women must be trained to complement extension staff in service delivery. It should be stated that there is already some ongoing efforts under the ACDI/VOCA Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Project being implemented by the IITA/STCP in three counties (Bong, Nimba and Lofa) under Cocoa. Farmer Field Schools have been trained to manage groups and transfer improved cultural practices in the management of Cocoa and Coffee.

Whilst farmers and community leaders are very emphatic in the need to be supported with short term soft loans the management and repayment of loans by farmers remain a grey area and it would be important to ensure some intense training for farmer groups to understand the modalities of the financial and input support to be provided under the project. Sensitize Cooperatives on inventory credit and other credit supports Implementation of the mechanization program in cooperation with farmers’ groups, etc.

Regular Backstopping

Communities, farmers and farmer groups hold the key to ensuring that project objectives and activities are consistently followed and outputs are successfully achieved. The role of extension agents is critical and their mobility vital. There may be the need to ensure that extension agents are well distributed, sufficiently equipped and mobile to work with Project Management/Implementation Unit (PMU/PIUs). The role of the County Agricultural Coordinators (CACs) and District Agricultural Coordinators (DACs) may have to be assessed and their capacity gaps addressed.

Table 4: Functions of Key Groups and Stakeholders:

Ministry of Agriculture: They will establish the PIU under which project activities are to will be carried out by the MOA extension agents who are posted at county level under the supervision of the CAC. The project will provide the CAC with a the needed resources to backstop farmers for instance motorbikes to enable them visit farmers’ groups under their areas of responsibility on a regular basis. The

14 Liberia’s Cooperative Societies Analysis, April 2011, Draft Report


project should support the formation of women’s groups / cooperatives to improve their access to extension services.

Farmers: The main project targets who will provide farms and lands for rehabilitation and cultivation of the tree crops. They will provide household labor required to ensure proper management of the crops:

Farmers Associations: Responsible for the mobilization of farmers into formidable groups, negotiate for market crop prices, facilitate training of farmers and the distribution of inputs to farmers.

Cooperatives: Their specific contribution may include provision of land for community nurseries, sensitization and mobilization of farmers groups, coordination and monitoring of farmers activities;

Concessions: Will play the role of assisting farmers with farm development, supply of seedling, technical support and purchase of tree crop products. Initial participants: SRC, COCOPA, CRC, MARCO, EPO, EAI

Traditional and Political Leadership:

These have the crucial function of settling disputes among farmers, ensure peace within communities and represent government at the various levels of the grassroots. They also have the ability to assist with land access. They include District commissioners, paramount chiefs, chiefs, and elders

Input Suppliers: Private sector will support distribution, supply and advisory support in the use of farm inputs and equipments.

Brokers and Marketing Companies:

Can assist development and farm management through marketing agreements with the PIU and farmers associations.

Gender Equality and Youth Issues

In the distribution of project activities and resources, gender and vulnerability assessments and analysis may have to be conducted in relation to the project. Targeted women and the youth empowerment programs may need to be developed. This may enable them become active participants in the project and support the improvement on their roles and responsibilities in the tree crop sector. Critical issues relating mostly to access and ownership to land, labor and breaking out of the stereotypical and traditional perception of relating to tree crop farming must be addressed. In supporting women farmers to improve their productivity and to be able to increase their production levels the project must consider the proposals identified under the Policy Memorandum developed by the World Bank’s Gender and Development Group (PRMGE) in collaboration with the Ministry of Gender and Development of Liberia (MoGD).15 This will require prioritization of interventions to ensure:

Sustainable provision of productivity-enhancing inputs and means of production, particularly high yielding seeds, agrochemicals and tools;

Improve access to cash crops; Effective delivery of extension messages for knowledge and technology dissemination; and Improved access to land and tenure security Gender mainstreaming efforts and plans among both the STCRSP and main project stakeholders is

incorporated in the social management plan.

Collaboration between the sector ministries of Planning and Economic Affairs, Gender and Development, and Agriculture will be crucial to improve efforts to ensure the collection of gender-disaggregated agriculture sector data and to maximize the decision making on promotion of gender equity. Stakeholder Involvement and Linkage Building

The STCRSP must sustain and support cohesiveness within the household and kinship systems since this will support the management of any potential conflict relating to land at any level (household, kingship, community and local systems). In the development and expansion of tree crop farms any potential conflict may affect any sector development agenda. The fragility of post-war conflict management promotion activities must be clearly considered and supported. The act of involving project communities, smallholders (however defined) need to be included in the plan and decision making processes clarified in order for the project to desirable outcome which benefits both participating individuals, farmers, communities, counties and Liberian sustainability.

Ensure inter sectoral / ministerial collaboration to deal with critical sector issues and avoid duplication of efforts in the coordination in the implementation of the project is critical. The MOA under the supervision of the CACs and DACs need to work closely with the District Development Committees (DDCs) to ensure proper coordination at the county and district levels.

15 PRMGE and MOGD Gender –Aware Programs and Women’s Roles in Agricultural Value Chains, 2010


There are a large and diverse number of stakeholders with an interest in the revitalization of the smallholder tree crops sector and who can influence to varying degrees the success of its implementation and operation. These include:

Local people (as individuals and communities): Interaction and dialogue is essential for maintaining the good will of local people and a secure and productive environment for the proposed project. Initiatives such as capacity building and employment generation are examples of such interaction;

Government of Liberia ministries and line agencies: Those which, directly or indirectly, have responsibility for initiating, regulating or monitoring one or more other of the components of the proposed project;

Non-government organizations: Many of these work in the local communities and may be able to assist in the delivery of mitigation and complementary measures;

Private sector: These include businesses as well as individuals who may be potential vendors of support services;

The international community: A number of these focus on the rich biodiversity of Liberia and have concerns regarding the safeguarding of the country’s natural heritage;

Involvement of the stakeholders at key stages in the development and operation will be a key factor in avoiding challenges and conflicts. There is a requirement to be accountable which necessitates appropriate dissemination of information and transparent policies. The table below summarizes some of the key project stakeholders, their tasks and responsibilities.

Table 5: Institutional Tasks and Responsibilities in Management of Project Impacts

INSTITUTION TASKS RESPONSIBILITIESMinistry of Agriculture Coordination

Resource MobilizationPIUDisbursement of fundsMulti-sector collaboration Stakeholder dialoguesMonitoring and Evaluation

Overall Project Coordination and implementation including the setting up of a PIU

Establish linkages with ongoing projects

Cooperative Development Agency Registration, Support and Training of Farmers Groups and Cooperatives

Guiding and supporting participating communities in setting up, registration and management of Farmer Organizations/Cooperatives

Ministry of Internal Affairs Local AdministrationAdministration of Local LawsManagement Instruments/PlansTraditional Authorities Collaboration

and communityMobilization

National, Counties and clansCollaboration with Local Institutions

including traditional authority

Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy Review of lands policies by the Commission of Lands

Coordination and Review of land related issues

Regulation of concessions and resettlement of settlers

Ministry of Youth and Sports Youth policy and strategy implementation

Youth involvement and employment opportunities

Capacity building and skill transfer

Implementation of the youth policy

Ministry of Gender and Development Gender mainstreaming and strategy development

Support in development of gender sensitive indicators

Collection of gender disaggregated data and Gender Analysis of project activities

Overall coordination, advising, as well as monitoring gender specific and related indications

Ensure involvement of women and marginalized

Ministry of Education Establishment and Monitoring of protocols against Child labor and girl child issues

Educational development in participating communities


Monitor educational development relating to infrastructural development

Health and Social Welfare Child labor prevention and migration strategies

Health and safety issuesVulnerability issuesHIV/AIDS

Monitoring of nutritional and community development and welfare issues

Development Partners and NGOs (Including UN Agencies

Implementation partnersAwareness, sensitization and educationMobilization of farmers groups and

associationsCapacity building / training of groups

and associations

Monitoring and support of project implementation

Monitoring of compliance to international and national procedures and best practices

5.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IMPACT MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.5.1 Environmental and Social Impact Management

The PIU will need to clearly set out the guiding principles under which the project will be implemented. These should include:

Policy and Procedures – to assure that all activities in compliance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency and other government regulations;

Environmental Planning – starting with this ESMP, continue to identify new issues/ requirements or changing situations;

Monitoring and Evaluation – regular checking of impacts and mitigation measures leading to adjustments necessary to achieve ESMP objectives;

Management Review – taking note of monitoring results and changing policy, plans, operation that will lead to continual improvement of environmental performance.

The ESMP should be seen as a management tool to be reviewed at least annually to readjust policy and practice as necessary based on experience over the preceding period. Points to be addressed in the annual review will include:

assessment of the progress in the attainment of the ESMP objectives verification of compliance with environmental legislation and regulations recommendations for changes in Company environmental policy and practices as necessary determination of the capital investment and operating budgets necessary to ensure achievement of

environmental management objectives pollution control procedures good housekeeping practices.

Project Management Structure

In order to ensure successful delivery of the project, including the mitigation and improvement measures, it will be necessary for the PMU to put in place appropriate processes and mechanisms, and strengthen the capacity of the implementing agencies and the participating communities to achieve the project objectives in an efficient and sustainable manner. Involvement of the stakeholders at key stages in the development and operation will be a key factor in avoiding challenges and conflicts. There is a requirement to be accountable which necessitates appropriate dissemination of information and transparent policies.

The PIU will need to appoint an Environmental and Social Manager (ESM) to take responsibility for the implementation of the ESMP. This could be a shared (with another responsibility) position within the PIU, but for clarity and focus it would be best if responsibility was invested in a single position. This appointee would be the point of contact for all issues related to environmental and social impact management of project initiatives and activities. The Environmental and Social Manager would be responsible for liaising with the EPA and participating Line and Other Agencies. Similarly, an Environmental Officer should be designated in each of the target counties with responsibility for day to day issues arising from project implementation, to assist with farmer training and awareness programs and to monitor compliance and progress. The person designated would most probably be one of the County or District Agricultural Offices but as these offices are currently understaffed, it may be necessary to recruit specialists to fill these posts. In addition, each section within the PIU


structure should designate a person to be the point of contact with regard to any environmental issues relating to that sections activities. Collectively these officials will be the project’s Environmental and Social Management Team (ESMT).

Initially, at least, the PIU should appoint a Sociologist Scientist to assist with the preparation of the social monitoring program and to build social impact management skills within the County/District level staff who will be responsible for impact monitoring. This person could be on a contract to return as necessary after an initial input.

The ESM should have at least 5 years experience in the management of ESMP’s in a similar environment. The Social Scientist should have similar relevant qualifications.

The PIU Environmental Manager will be responsible for organizing and assisting in training of personnel in all aspects of the ESMP, creating a general awareness of environmental management throughout the participating organizations, partner organizations and the beneficiary communities. One of the objectives of the program will be to encourage communities to safeguard their own environment and the value of conserving their natural heritage for their present use and the use of future generations. There may be a requirement to continue some aspects of capacity building, in particular of the communities and smallholders, after project completion.

With the assistance of the ESMT, the PIU Environmental and Social Manager will be responsible for identifying and selecting suitable local training resource persons, preparation of standard and specific relevant training modules, liaising with providing agencies and stakeholders to plan training implementation and preparation of training progress reports.

Each member of the project management team will be responsible guiding conformity with applicable laws and regulations, and for conducting their work responsibilities in accordance with permit requirements and the ESMP. The environmental management controls that should be used at each of the project development locations to assist in meeting the overall environmental management objectives for the project should include, but not be limited to:

Environmental and Social Awareness Training; Environmental and Social Compliance Reviews and Co-ordination Meetings; and Environmental and SocialCompliance Inspections and Documentation.

It is important that the ESMT meet regularly and as frequently as necessary to coordinate prompt reaction to arising issues, evaluate data from the monitoring program and assure efficient implementation of the ESMP. A representative of the EPA should be invited to attend these meetings as well as representatives of other supporting agencies when appropriate (e.g. when specific expertise is required).

Professional Development and Training

Capacity within the MoA and the other line agencies is generally weak both in terms of personnel and hands on experience in environmental and social impact management and the laws and regulations in place to control/mitigate adverse impacts. As a result, the PIU will need for focus initially on capacity building.

Members of the PIU Environmental and Social Management Team should be the first to receive training in identifying and managing adverse environmental and social impacts with the intent that they will act as trainers in environmental and social awareness to all management staff, and monitor and support local implementation of project initiatives. This may be provided by:

sending employees to specific training courses in Monrovia or elsewhere, employing consultants to hold training courses at the PIU premises, or assisting individuals to register for Distance Learning Courses from Credited Institutions.

Annual refresher courses should be available for members of the committee and specialist training provided when new issues arise.

As a guideline, initial awareness training courses could be set up as follows: A half day briefing of potential project environmental and social impacts and proposed mitigation

plans including the pertinent policy, laws and regulations for all PIU staff and senior MOA, CDA, FDA and other participating agencies


A two day introductory workshop on the ESMF and the environmental and social issues outlined and reasoning of the approach for all members of the ESMT.

One day introductory workshops in each of the participating communities to raise awareness of environmental issues and introduce the projects approach to managing potential environmental and social impacts.

On the basis of the above, further training course could be organized with more specific focus to strengthen awareness and ability within individuals or groups.


Annual work plans should be developed in consultation with the relevant participating agencies and stakeholders to indicate institutions and networks that will be required to provide research and development support. The principal actors will include a number of local institutions directly involved in project implementation while other agencies (partners) will include international and national institutions to provide technical and other support for implementation of the plan.


Provide expertise in planning, training and field implementation of IPM, and contribute field staff to be trained as Trainers;

Utilize members of participating FOs to facilitate extension and farmer training; Prepare and produce field guides and other relevant information materials; review current policies and adjust/develop policy guidance/oversight to support the implementation

of the project; Serve as technical reviewers for subprojects submitted by FOs for funding under STCRSP;

Social Impact Management

A social management system which incorporates key social strategies identified for each of the project components and critical to community well-being shall be established. These may include the following:

Establish linkages with ongoing land administration review under the Lands Commission of Liberia and ensure that lands invested in the project are free of conflicts;

Support access to land for women, youth and migrants land ownership may limit their direct involvement in the project. Though this may differ from one project area to the other The project could have negative social impacts if the participatory processes to sensitize communities on the project objectives are not consistently followed.

Establish close linkages with ongoing food security programs in the participating counties and districts for instance the ASRP. Ensure effective land management by beneficiaries including land banks for food cropping

Establish and ensure project compliance with current and ongoing national, regional and district food security strategies and projects;

Strengthen existing “kuus” and labor access strategies at community levels to support household labor;

Establish clear constitutions and mode of operation for Farmer associations to prevent elite capture and ensure active participation among the vulnerable, powerless and/or marginalized groups especially if women and the youth;

Design and establish gender and youth strategy under the project; Establish local involvement and participation mechanisms and strategies to prevent any likely

social tension and agitation due to lack or inadequate flow of accurate project information Establish participatory and timely stakeholder dialogue mechanisms: country, district, clan level

project committees with acceptable ToR for operations including all the different segments of society: leaders, youth, women and political associations. Define the tasks, roles and responsibilities of various agencies governmental and non-governmental;

Ensure the availability and use of consistent extension services; Provision of timely market information for farmers especially on quality and pricing of tree crops; Establish clear skills in cultural practices, inputs and agro-processing technology transfer Ensure multi-sector collaboration especially with regards to communities access to basic

infrastructure and the general living environment, satisfaction of basic social needs (e.g. housing,


sanitation, water supply) including existing and ongoing public services (e.g. health, education, training and recreation)

Address current and required labor availability and constraints including, household, child and migrant labor

Clearly establish avenues for formal and informal sustainable finance and credit options, Gender Equality Awareness Training; Gender and Environmental Awareness Assessments Gender and Value Chain Analysis of tree crops Youth and Gender Co-ordination Meetings; Social Responsibility Compliance and Documentation by benefiting Concessions and participating

NGOs

5.6 PROCEDURE FOR SUB-PROJECT SCREENING

The selection of target project areas/communities will focus on Districts and Sub-districts where there is a significant number of small farmers involved in the growing of one or more of the four focal tree crops. The table below provides a guide to selection of sub-project that comply with the requirements, policy and regulations of the PIU, the World Bank and the Government of Liberia

Table 6: Verification of Safeguards Policies triggered by Subprojects

Identification ProcessQuestions: Actions:

Initial Investigations1) Has there been an appraisal visit to

the community and proposed sub-project location?

If ‘yes’ go to question 2). If ‘no’ organize an appraisal mission by a qualified and experienced person to assess the potential impacts to the natural and human environment and the amount of additional information need to produce (if necessary) an adequate ESMP (see Note 1 below)

Location2) Is the location currently under tree

crop that requires rehabilitation?If ‘yes’ go to question 8). If ‘no’ go to question 3).

3) Is the location currently degraded forest as a result of traditional shifting cultivation?

If ‘yes’ go to question 8). If ‘no’ go to question 4)

4) Is the location recently logged forest?


5) Is the location on lands covered with primary or mature secondary forest or otherwise rich natural habitat?

If ‘yes’, it will fail to comply with the World Bank’s OP 4.36 and OP 4.04, the Bank will not support the subproject. If ‘no’ go to question 7)

6) Is the location on lands that prior to degradation by logging were (or potentially were) high value natural habitat?

If ‘yes’ may not comply with provisions of World Bank’s OP 4.04 and EPA regulations – submit to PIU EMT for decision on further action. If ‘no’, go to question 8).

7) For a location with significant natural habitat, are there potential alternatives for the subproject?

If, ‘yes’ go to the potential alternative and go to question 2i). If ‘no’, submit to PIU EMT for decision on further action.

8) Will implementation of the sub-project result in relocation of current occupants of the land?

If ‘yes’ it may fail to comply with the World Bank’s OP 4.12 - go to question9). If ‘no’ go to question 11)

9) Were resettlement will be required, has an assessment of requirements been carried out in compliance with OP 4.12?

If ‘yes’ are the impacts significant to require a RAP/ARAP -go to question 10). If ‘no’, submit to PIU EMT for decision on further action.

10) Has a RAP/ARAP been prepared or if only special monitoring required has a protocol been established?

If ‘yes’ go to question 11). If ‘no’, submit to PIU RMT for decision on further action.


11) Are there any physical cultural resources located within the proposed sub-project location?

If ‘yes’ go to question 12i). If no, go to question 14i)

12) Where any physical cultural resources are present, will the implementation of the sub-project have an adverse impact on them?


13) Has a PCR Management Plan been prepared in accordance with OP 4.11?

If ‘yes’ go to question 14). If ‘no’ submit to PIU EMT for decision on further action

Base Data Bank14) Is there an ESMP (see Note 1

below) covering the sub-project? If ‘yes’ go to question 15). If ‘no’, submit to PIU EMT for decision on further

action.15) Is there need for any further

study?If ‘yes’ submit recommendations to PIU EMT for decision on further action. If ‘no’

go to question 16)

Community Organization16) Does the beneficiary Community

have a Farmer Organization/Cooperative?

If ‘yes’ go to question go to question 17). If ‘no’ submit recommendations to PIU PRT decision on further action.

17) Is the Farmer Organization Registered?

If ‘yes’ go to question18). If ‘no’ submit recommendations to PIU EMT decision on further action (e.g. refer to the CDA/Other relevant Agency able to provide assistance/guidance in establishing a viable organization)

18) Have all condition of the procedures of the PIU project ESMP, the World Bank and GoL policy, legislation and regulations and been met?

If ‘yes’ submit the sub-project assessment to PIU EMT for review and approval. If ‘no’ submit the sub-project with recommendation for deselection to the PIU EMT.

Note 1): See Chapter 3.2.1 above and Annex E for guidance. Possible options, depending on the identified potential impacts, could be:i) A Fonsi - when the nature of the activity and the results of the site visit show that there is not likely to be any impact that requires a management plan.ii) A “Generic" ESMP, in cases where there is nothing unique about the site or the sub-project activities that would require special mitigation measures (e.g., removing under-brush in coffee and cocoa plantations in an agricultural area – see Chapter 5 above. iii) A site-specific ESMP, in cases where there are features of the environment that require more study leading to an ESMP that is designed to take particular sensitive features into account. For example the presence of a significant natural habitat conservation area or water-body on/near the site that could be significantly affected by the sub-project activities.iv) A full ESIA. The may be a requirement for sub-projects that are extensive in size (e.g. greater than 50 ha) or for value-added initiatives involving agro-process as set out in Annex 1 of the EPML.

6. PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The objective of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is to provide management with a tool to measure the effectiveness of an intervention and/or its sub-components, providing an early warning of limitations in a given action or policy and a basis for fine tuning future management decisions. Planned and focused monitoring can be an effective project management tool only if it is accompanied by focused and regular evaluation of the data collected. Thus it must be seen as an integrate component of the overall project management plan. Thus it is imperative that the number of initiatives monitored and the quantity of data collected does not overwhelm the capacity to continuously evaluate the data collected. Equally important is the current and on-going institutional capacity of the M&E office. It is recommended that an annual review of the M&E process be carried out. In the first three years, or until the process if operating effectively and efficiently, it is recommended that external advisors be invited to assist with the evaluation and planning process as part of the capacity building initiative. Suggested advisers will be specialists in IPM, Soil Conservation, Social Science, or any other specialization where expert knowledge will enhance M&E efficiency and effectiveness..

As shown in Figure 4, there are two aspects to the Project Management Cycle - the management cycle itself and the capacity building cycle within project/program management. For monitoring to be successful it is important to see this activity as a continuous cycle of input, review, and redesign procedure.

Figure 4: Example Environmental Management Improvement Cycle


Policy

Skills/Training

Monitoring

Implementation

Coordination

Coordination

Management Evaluation/Revie

Planning

Continual Improvement

The level of monitoring should continue after sub-project completion to confirm sustainability of the processes, but with fewer observations. Perhaps crop husbandry and processing, Livelihood Impacts and innovations based on Capacity Building (e.g. farmers continuing to train other farmers

6.1 MONITORING

The key focal areas for monitoring during implementation will be of necessity larger than will be required later when the revitalization process has been completed. During project implementation monitoring in each of the target communities may need to be focused on all of the following:

Activities that lead to soil erosion and water run-off leading to downstream contamination of land and water (e.g. land clearing, replanting, road/bridge rehabilitation, irrigation dams)

Measuring compliance regarding noise, air and the quality of effluent discharge to water bodies in and around the factories and other processing plants

Measuring noise and water pollution as result of project activity Implementation of the capacity building plans within the communities and the support institutions Compliance with Government/World Bank policies and regulations Compliance with mitigation measures Livelihood Impacts Public Consultations and dialogue Land use and management plans and systems including Land Tenure arrangements Conflict resolution mechanisms and procedures Gender, youth and vulnerability involvement and or mainstreaming strategies Community/FO governance and institutional framework Other as become necessary as a result of project implementation evaluation.

Table 7: Project Implementation Monitoring Plan

SectorImpact to beMonitored

Monitor Frequency/Method Monitor

Physical Environment

Land Clearing for Replanting

Run-off to streams & water bodies

Monthly during the wet season and after rain in dry season/ report with regular water samples 16

County Environmental Officer PIU/EPA

16 See Guidelines for Water Sampling following table ESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 61

S.A. AGRER N.V.

SectorImpact to beMonitored

Monitor Frequency/Method Monitor

Road Rehabilitation

Run-off to streams & water bodies

Weekly site visits/report with regular water samples

County Environmental Officer PIU/EPA

Irrigation Dam ConstructionLand Selected for New Plantations

Compliance with EPA laws/regulations

Daily during land clearing and until good vegetative ground cover established/report with regular water samples

PIU/EPA/FDA

Waste Management Plan

Handling and Disposal of solid and liquid waste

Monthly Spot Checks/report Country Health and Safety Officer

Biological Environment

Revegetation Program

Review of past and present plantings

At least annually with full report

County Environmental Officer

Education Awareness Program Effectiveness

Month Spot visits/report Community Liaison Office

Illegal activity Timber extraction, Hunting, Buying/Selling of Bush-meat

Irregular patrols and reported activity

Community with FDA/EPA

Human Environment

Project Development Program

Social Impact of Program Implementation

Monthly visit/report PIU Community liaison Office

Health and Safety Potable Water Quality,Work and road accidents involving project property

Monthly/report with water samples as necessary

PIU /CountyEnvironmental Officer

Social Environment

Land ownership rights

Land registration guidelines, Process of land titling and availability of deeds

Quarterly report PIU Community liaison Office

Labor Issues Functionality of kuu's, assessment of family roles and responsibility, availability of hired laborers

Quarterly report PIU Community liaison Office

Farmer Organizations

Review of group formation guidelines

Quarterly report PIU Community Liaison Office

Food Security Food security surveys Annually County Agricultural Office

Gender Equality Promotion

Collection of gender disaggregated data and Gender Analysis of project activities

Quarterly report PIU Community Liaison OfficerCounty and District Gender Officer

Farm Management/ Production

Crop improvement

Yield Annual report County Agriculture Dept

Environmental management

Compliance with EPA regulations

Annual report County EPA Officer

Follow up Issues

e.g. Land Tenure program

Impact of Project Initiatives

Annual report PIU with relevant County Line Officer

Guidelines for Water Sampling

Water samples should be taken in all streams and water bodies adjacent to, and leading away from the planned rehabilitation (e.g. land clearing is on current farms/plantations or new land development, road rehabilitation or any other activity which leaves the soil bare of vegetation for even a short period of time. Such samples should be taken immediately downstream of the site prior to commencement of activity to establish the baseline water quality, and then during and following completion of the rehabilitation activity. Simple sediment load analysis should be all that is necessary and this can be done in the field simply by filling ordinary water-bottles, leaving them to set undisturbed for 24 hours, then measuring and recording the depth of settled sediment in the bottle.

6.2 EVALUATION

All data collected and observations made during the monitoring program should be evaluated at least annually and measured against project policy and objectives to ascertain whether experience over the preceding period


suggests that adjustments to policy, guidelines, standards or procedure (even governing legislation) should be incorporated to improve the effectiveness and environmental and social sustainability of smallholder tree cropping. To this effect each monitoring report should contain a section for observations of data collected (i.e. whether it is as expected or unusual changes in conditions at monitoring site). Points to be addressed in the annual review will include:

Effectiveness of the monitoring program and/or specific procedures (e.g. social and gender issues) Assessment of the progress in the attainment of the project objectives (both environmental and

social) Assessment of the effectiveness of adverse impact mitigation measures Verification of compliance with environmental legislation and regulations Recommendations for changes in implementation policy and practices as necessary for their

continued effectiveness or relevance Determination of the capital investment and operating budgets necessary to ensure achievement of

environmental management objectives. incorporate

7. ESMF BUDGET The budget estimate for implementing the ESMF Budget is shown below in Table 7 For the most part this appears to be covered in the overall project budget estimate, though it is not always clear.

Table 8: ESMF Implementation Budget Estimate (US$)

Activity Activity Component

UnitNo.

Units

Unit Cost (US$) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Environmental & Social Management Staff

Senior Environmentalist Year 1 9,600 9,600 9,600 9,600 9,600 9,600Sociologist Week 6 400 1,200 800 400 Driver Year 1 3000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Project Implementation Officers to strengthen CAC Offices

Year7 7200 50,400 50,400 50,400 50,400 50,400

'Out of Office Travel Allowances

Sr. Environmentalist Day 140 100 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000Driver Day 140 50 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000PIO's Day 1000 50 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

Sub-total 135,200 134,800 134,40 134,000 134,000

Transport for Management Staff

4WD Vehicle Per Unit

1 40,000 40,000

Operation & Maintenance

Lump sum

12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000

Motorcycles for PIO’s Per Unit

7 4000 28,000

Operation & Maintenance

Per Unit

7 1000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000

Sub-total 87,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000Project Implementation

Equipment for Trainers Lump sum

1 5000 5,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Fees for Trainers (1 each for ESMP & PMP) Day 2 800 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600

Travel & Subsistence for Trainers Day 8 100 800 800 800 800 800

Meeting Budget (Refreshments, Travel) Day 100 1000 100,000 100,000 100,00

0100,000 100,000

Sub-total 107,400 103,400 103,40 103,400 103,400

Capacity Building/Training Workshops

ESMF Training of PIU/CAC Staff Day

10 500 5,000 5,000


PMP Training of PIU/CAC Staff Day 10 500 5,000 5,000

Travel & Subsistence for PIU/CAC staff for training

Day 20 50 1,000 1,000

ES Awareness Training for Farmers (2 one day session per focus crop)

Day 16 50 800 800 800 800 800

PMP Training for Farmers (2 one day sessions per focus crop)

Day 16 50 800 800 800 800 800

Travel & Subsistence for PIU/CAC training Farmers

Day 32 50 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600

Field guides/ESMP-PMP materials

Lump sum

1 4000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

Specific Research Budget

Lump sum

1 20000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

Study Visits (IPM) Lump sum

2 10000 20,000

Sub-total 58,200 27,200 38,200 27,200 27,200Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring equipment Lump sum

1 5000 5,000 1,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

EPA Laboratory Strengthening

Lump sum

1 5000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Sub-total 10,000 6,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Reporting Laptop with Printer &

Accessories) Set 8 1000 8,000 8,000 8,000

Communication and office materials

Lump sum

1 5000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Sub-total 13,000 5,000 13,000 5,000 13,000Annual Review

2 External Advisors (e.g. Pest Management, Soil Conservation, etc. as needed) – 10 p/d's

Day

20 500 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

2 International Flights Lump sum

2 1000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Per Diems – 20 days Day 20 200 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000Meeting Budget (Refreshments, etc) Day 5 100 500 500 500 500 500

Sub-total 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500Total 427,300 311,900 334,50 315,100 323,100

8. CONCLUSION

For the most part, the proposed project impacts will be beneficial, or at least neutral. Where there are potential adverse impacts, these can be avoided by careful management which includes full awareness of the potential for the adverse impact and ‘best practice’ implementation of all activities. This will require all stakeholders to be fully trained and supported as envisaged in the proposed program.


ANNEXES

ANNEX A: LIST OF REFERENCES

ArcelorMittal Liberia Ltd. 2010. Nimba Western Area Iron Ore Deposits, Liberia: Environmental Baseline Studies Volume 2 (Hydrology)

ArcelorMittal Liberia Ltd. 2010. Nimba Western Area Iron Ore Deposits, Liberia: Environmental Baseline Studies Volume 4 (Communities)

ArcelorMittal Liberia Ltd. 2010. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Western Area Iron Ore Deposits Phase 1, Nimba, Liberia [http://www.arcelormittal.com/index.php?lang=en&page=760]

ArcelorMittal Liberia Ltd. Miscellaneous Liberia environmental and other documents [http://www.arcelormittal.com/index.php?lang=en&page=773]

Brandolini G. V. and M. Tigani. 2007. Liberia Environmental Profile. European Commission, Monrovia

Bruce and Kannah. 2011. Law Reform Strategy Concerning Land, Proposed Strategy, Final Report.

Cambrony, H.R. 1992. The Tropical Agriculturalist – Coffee Crowing, MacMillan.

DAI. 2008 Liberia Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment (ETOA), USAID/Liberia, Office of Economic Growth

English, P. 2007. Liberia: Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance Diagnostic Trade Integration Study.

Flower, R. 2007. Liberia Agricultural Markets: Production and Marketing Systems for Selected Crops in Liberia. MercyCorp Liberia.

Government of Liberia. 2003. An Act Adopting the Environmental Protection and Management Law of the Republic of Liberia. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Monrovia.

Government of Liberia. 2006. Environmental Impact Assessment Procedural Guidelines. Environmental Protection Agency, Monrovia.

Government of Liberia. Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Tree Crops. Ministry of Agriculture

Government of Liberia. 2006. Food Security and Nutrition Survey

Government of Liberia. 2007. Comprehensive Assessment of the Agriculture Sector in Liberia, Volume 2.2 Sub-Sector Reports. Ministry of Agriculture

Government of Liberia. 2009. Agriculture Support Revitalization Project Report Volume II. Ministry of Agriculture

Government of Liberia, 2009, National Health Policy, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Final ReportGovernment of Liberia, 2009, National Employment Policy, Ministry of Labor, Final Published

Government of Liberia, 2009, National Nutrition Policy, Final Draft Report

Government of Liberia, 2009. Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS), Final Published

Government of Liberia, 2009. Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) Policy, Ministry of Land, Mines and Energy, Final Published

Government of Liberia. 2010. Cooperative Development Agency. Standard Operational Manual


Government of Liberia. 2011. Establishment of Protected Area Network: Environmental and Social Management Framework. Final Draft Report

Guidelines for Packaging and Storage of Pesticides (FAO, Rome, 1985)

Guidelines on Good Labeling Practice for Pesticides (FAO, Rome, 1985)

Guidelines for the Disposal of Waste Pesticide and Pesticide Containers on the Farm (FAO, Rome, 1985)

IFC. 2010. Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources, Performance Standard 6 – V2

ISO 14001:2004 (ISO 14000) Certification

Jacquemard, J-C. 1998. The Tropical Agriculturalist - Oil Palm, MacMillan.

Lubunga R et. al 2009. Agriculture Sector Rehabilitation Project, Liberia. Draft Appraisal Report: Volume I Main Report. African Development Bank.

Oldham, P. 2001 Farm Management Survey of Liberian Smallholder Tree and Food Crops. Agrisystems Ltd. for the Government of Liberia/European Commission Resettlement and Reintegration Program.

PRMGE/MOGD. 2010. Gender-Aware Programs and Women’s Roles in Agricultural Value Chains: A Policy Memorandum

Republic of Liberia. 2010. Progress, Prospects and Challenges Towards the Attainment of the MDGs. Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs and the UNDP

Republic of Liberia. 2008. Liberia MDG Report, Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs and the UNDP

The Liberian Biodiversity Country Study

Vermeulen, S and N. Goad. 2006. Towards Better Practice in Smallholder Palm Oil Production. IIED.

Wilcox, M. D. Jr. Tree Crops to Ensure Income Generation and Sustainable Livelihoods in Liberia: Unlocking the potential of the cocoa sub-sector [R5. Market and Information Systems Report]

World Bank. 2007. Liberia Gender Needs Assessment: Towards Women’s Economic Empowerment, Ministry of Gender and Development of Liberia

World Bank. 2010. Employment and Pro-Poor Growth, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management 4, Africa Region Development Dialogue on Values and Ethics, Human Development Network Country Department W1, Africa Region, Report No. 59124-LR

World BankOP 4.01 - Environmental Assessment, OP 4.04 - Natural Habitat, OP 4.09 - Pest Management, OP 4.11 - Physical and Cultural ResourcesOP4.12I - Involuntary Resettlement and OP 4.36 - Forests


ANNEX B: DETAILED FIELD STUDY SCHEDULE

Date Day ActivityJuly 10 - Su Day 1 Mobilization – travel to Monrovia July 11 - M Day 2 Monrovia - Meet with Client/Key officials – discuss/agree schedule - collect relevant

documents - Commence document reviewJuly 12 Tu Day 3 Monsarado/Margibi/Bong – Morning visit MARCO Concession – meeting with

officials and villagers who have been allocated 1000 acres of the MARCO Concession for smallholder rubber development. Afternoon visit to Salala Rubber company to meet the Concession and ascertain locality of target smallholders. Overnight in Monrovia

July 13 – W Day 4 Monsarado/Margibi – Morning visit to Stakeholder village and planned development location on MARCO Concession.

July 14 – Th Day 5 Grand Bassa – Morning meeting with Equatorial Palm Oil management in Monrovia, then travel to Buchanan. Afternoon visit to target Smallholder area adjacent to Equatorial Palm Oil Concession and meeting with stakeholders in District 1. Overnight in Buchanan

July 15 - F Day 6 Grand Bassa – Morning meeting with Country Officials and Smallholder representatives in Buchanan. Afternoon visit to EPO Plantation to meet Estate Manager and inspect factory and plantation. Overnight Buchanan

July 16 - Sa Day 7 Bong – Travel to Gbarnga via Botata – visit to Cocoa farm in village of Abel Suah, then meeting with Smallholders attending an IITA Training session in a Cocoa garden in the village of Kponyea. Overnight in Gbarnga.

July 17 – Su Day 8 Bong – Non-travel day – review and reporting. Overnight in GbarngaJuly 18 - M Day 9 Bong – Morning field visit to cocoa growing area and meeting with Country Officials

and Cocoa Farmers. Afternoon travel to Nimba. Overnight SaclepeaJuly 19 - T Day 10 Nimba – Morning field visit to Zayglay for meeting with Kpodo Farmers Cooperative

Members and visit to a Cocoa Garden, then to Tingbein for a Stakeholder meeting and visit to a Cocoa Garden. Afternoon travel to Grand Gedah and meeting with Palm Oil Smallholder of Amenu Farmers Cooperative Society and the Manager of the AEI Plantation at Zleh Town. Overnight night in Zwedru

July 20 - W Day 11 Maryland – Morning travel to Pleebo. Afternoon meeting with Smallholder Development Office at the Cavalla Rubber Corporation, then meeting with the County Agricultural Office in Harper. Overnight in Pleebo.

July 21 - Th Day 12 River Gee – Morning meeting with Deputy Manager of CRC, then travel to River Gee for meeting with Commissioner and Smallholder Rubber Stakeholders at Freetown village. Overnight in Zwedru

July 22 - F Day 13 Travel Zwedru to MonroviaJuly 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

Day 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Monrovia – prepare stakeholder/field trip reports, additional meetings with Monrovia based stakeholders to fill information gaps, prepare zero draft ESMF, commence impact assessment Meet with Key Monrovia based Stakeholders. RWB departs Liberia on July 27th.

July 28 to Aug 5 Day 19, 20,21,22,23,24, 25, 26, 27

Monrovia – PAT – prepare stakeholder/field trip reports, additional meetings with Monrovia based stakeholders to fill information gaps, field visits to Stakeholders of Salala Rubber Corporation, Bong. PAT departs Liberia on August 5th.

Aug 6 - 7 Days 28-29 Home – Finalize and submit Workshop and Zero Reports


ANNEX C: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED

PARTICIPANTS OF CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOPS / MEETINGS

Name Position Organization / Community / County Contact

Agency for Economic Development and Empowerment (AEDE), Monrovia

Annie Demise Deputy Director AEDE 06571375/

Esther Pager Executive Director AEDE

John Runnel Deputy Director AEDE 06472853/

David W. Peters Rubber Expert Global Associates 06419769/

Ministry of Agriculture Core Design Team, Monrovia

Kais Poke Project Preparation Coordinator Ministry of Agriculture, Monrovia 06678266/

Daniel Wryer Assistant Director Ministry of Agriculture, Monrovia 077040333/

Otto M. Dunbar Acting Director Crops Ministry of Agriculture, Monrovia 06341897/

Gregory Topple Director Ministry of Agriculture, Monrovia 06446251/

James K. Marla Sir Agric Officer Ministry of Agriculture, Monrovia 06518572/

Michael D. Tiptoe Principal Economist Ministry of Agriculture, Monrovia 06517569/

Moses Sinner PMU Director Ministry of Agriculture, Monrovia 06420955/

Morris American Rubber Company (MARCO), Monrovia and Karate

Edward Languid General Manager MARCO 06635748/

William L. Morris Chief Executive Officer MARCO 0636629/

David Johnson Superintendent Tide District, Margibi County 06100493/

Ernest J. Garage Commissioner Tolbert Town, Tide District, Margibi County 06718014/

Stephen S. Gobi Paramount Chief Tolbert Town, Tide District, Margibi County 06424036/

John Marshall Benjamin Chairman, Citizen Committee Tolbert Town, , Tide District, Margibi County 0880666328/

Joseph S. Morris Co-chairman, Citizen Committee Tolbert Town, Todee District, Margibi County 06923682/

Teneh Kaikay Member Citizen Committee Tolbert Town, Todee District, Margibi County 0880541088/

John R.Yancy Member Citizen Committee Tolbert Town, Todee District, Margibi County 06954007/

Alfred K. Argbo Operations Manager MARCO, Montserrado County 0880666409/

Edwin Kelleh Administrative Manager MARCO, Montserrado County

Equatorial Oil Palm (EPO), Monrovia and Palm Bay, Grand Bassa

Boima Bafaie Environmental Officer EPO

Macon F. Tubman Estate Development Officer EPO 0880690545/

Geoffrey Brown Director EPO

Togba Gboo Farmer District No. 1, Grand Bassa County

James Jaido Clan Chief District No. 1, Grand Bassa County 06900562/

Wrerangar Kpaduwu Farmer District No. 1, Grand Bassa County 07779689/

Grand Bassa County Consultative Workshop, at County Administration HQ, Buchanan

Tunis S. Diggs Dispatcher Superintendents Office, Buchanan City, Grand Bassa County 0777820608/


Mammie Mbore Farmer Own your Own, Grand Bassa County 06321638/

Oretha Kapee Farmer Own your Own, Grand Bassa County

Darius Tfe EPA Inspector County Office, Grand Bassa County 0777277632/

Isaac Peter M.I.A. UTC, Buchanan City, Grand Bassa County 077890974/

Nettlie P. Depoe Coordinator Buchanan City, Grand Bassa County 06445240/

Davids Freeman Farmer Own your Own, Grand Bassa 06562475/

Bronsfield Reeve Farmer Distric No. 2, Grand Bassa 06980803/

Jerry Gargar Clerk Harmonsville, Grand Bassa County 077049932/

Mary Logan Farmer Harmonsville, Grand Bassa County

Marie Kratee Farmer Harmonsville, Grand Bassa County

Emmanuel N. Joshua Agricultural Inspector MOA, Buchanan City, Grand Bassa County 06268378/

James Massaquoi Administrator Water G-Bag Camp, Grand Bassa County 08405646/

Jackson Snokpelle Administrator District No. 3C, Grand Bassa County 06667243/

Josiah M. Jacobs District Superintendent Neekreen District, Grand Bassa 06123418/

Harris B. Zond Farmer District No. 4, Grand Bassa 088542308/

George R. Payne Snr. Farmer District No. 3C, Grand Bassa 076349348/

George Page Farmer Central Buchanan, Grand Bassa 06654502/

Emma Morris Nutrition Officer MOA, Buchanan, Grand Bassa County

Rose Johnson District Agricultural Officer (DAO) MOA, Buchanan City, Grand Bassa County

Rufus N. Johnny District Agricultural Officer (DAO) MOA, Buchanan City, Grand Bassa County 077762927/

Beatrice Newland Regional Officer Ministry of Gender and Development (MOGD), Grand Bassa County 06556212/

Nettie Doepeo County Gender Coordinator

Hon. G. Lawrence Q. MaCauley Commissioner Harmonsview, Buchanan 077099932/

Jerry Yoko Farmer Karsuah, Grand Bassa

Comfort Yarkpah Farmer Karsuah, Grand Bassa

Emmanuel Nebah Farmer Karsuah, Grand Bassa

Saturday Youjay Farmer Karsuah, Grand Bassa

Mammie Y. Dayougar Farmer Karsuah, Grand Bassa

Jackson Baa Sanokpelle Chairman Liberian National Farmer and Food Security Union, Grand Bassa County 06667243/

Mr. Gilbert Netto Plantation Manager Equatorial Palm Oil (EPO)

Bong County Joquelleh/Kokoya District Farmer Field School Consultation

James Gi Cammue Facilitator

David Kerkulah Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Joquelleh District, Bong Country

Emmanuel Sanlon Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Joquelleh District, Bong Country

Paul Cammue Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Joquelleh District, Bong Country

Joseph P. Cammue Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Joquelleh District,, Bong Country

Otis Wamah Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Joquelleh District, Bong Country

Robert Paye Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Joquelleh District, Bong Country

Junny Cammue Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Joquelleh District, Bong Country

Moses Nanlon Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Joquelleh District, Bong Country

James Sumo Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Joquelleh District, Bong Country

John T, Samie Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Joquelleh District, Bong Country


Gibson Dolo Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Bong Country

Victorious Cammue Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Bong Country

Joseph Dolo Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Bong Country

Nyamah Dolo Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Bong Country

Flomo Dolovenlent Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Bong Country

Daniel Gwelikpolusohn Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Bong Country

James Bono Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Bong Country

Samuel Harris Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Bong Country

John K. William Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Bong Country

Joseph Pewee Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Bong Country

James Saul Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Bong Country

Junior Niaban Farmer FFS, Kponyea, Bong Country

Stephen Dolokelen Paye Farmer Dorwuta, Bong County

Anthony Y. Kolleh Farmer Janyen, Bong County

James Saah Farmer Gbanla, Bong County 076528645/

Edward T. Yarkpawolo Commissioner Foloblia, Joquella District, Bong County 0643281/

Arthur Wennah Chief Suacoco District, Bong County 06462294/

Salala Rubber Company (SRC) Montserrado and Margibi County

Gracia Kabanga Kabedi Managing Director Salala Rubber Company 077834285/

Nicolas Bergerot Finance Manager Salala Rubber Company 076305416/

Bong County Consultative Workshop, at County Administration HQ, Gbarnga

Clyde F. Saul Commissioner Suacoco District, Bong County 06446060/

Cantos Bonnor Commissioner Sanoyea District, Bong County 06441174/

Monica Honore County Agricultural Coordinator (CAC) Ministry of Agriculture, Gbarnga, Bong County 06510795/

Deddah L. Homo Officer Ministry of Planning and Econ. Affair (MPEA), Bong County 06413281/

Garsonide K. Watson Officer Ministry of Agriculture, Bong County 06121772/

Preston Anderson Officer Ministry of Agriculture, Bong County 06818647/

Joseph M. Urey Officer Ministry of Internal Affairs (M.I.A.), Bong Country 06979283/

N.T. Gborkorgethe Officer Ministry of Internal Affairs (M.I.A.), Bong Country

J. Commue Dormea Officer Ministry of Internal Affairs (M.I.A.), Bong Country 06446626/

Nat M. Quekpmeise Development Planning Officer M.I.A Gbarnga, Bong County 06656570/

Joseph N. Pantone Officer Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Bong County 06008638/

Christiana Collie Officer EPA, Bong County 06411505/

Henry G. Kleenex Officer M.I.A Gbarnga, Bong County 06463826/

Anthony Sheriff Officer M.I.A Gbarnga, Bong County 06721125/

Tracy Saywallah Officer IITA, Gbarnga, Bong County 06836439/

Rolland P. Monponu Officer IITA, Gbarnga, Bong County 06696199/

Nimba Country Consultative Workshop, Saclepea, Mahn District

Ben K. Saye District Agricultural Officer (DAO) MOA, Saclepea, Nimba County 06620790/

George K. Matiah District Agricultural MOA, Saclepea, Nimba County 06838320/


Officer (DAO)Moses Maqueh Chairman

Sam Karn Secretary Kpodo Farmers Cooperative, Zayglay, Zoe-geh district, Nimba County 077765395/

Peter Sarkpeder Member Kpodo Farmers Cooperative, Zayglay, Zoe-geh district, Nimba County 0880558271/

Henry Dippa Member Kpodo Farmers Cooperative, Zayglay, Zoe-geh district, Nimba County 06470723/

Anthony Zeatay Member

Tommie Barnah Member

Gomah Zeatay Member

Erasmus Kartoe Member

Cooper Dippah Member

Gartay Joseph Member

Peter Karn Member

Esther Worzon Member

Willian Tahr Member

Augustine Gonpue Member

Mary Yorwon Member

Cooper Gborlue Member

Abel Kermuah Member

Jessy Barposeh Member

Martha Menlar Member

Richard Benn Member

Peter Gonwoe Member

Esther Sarkreder Member

Junior Sakreder Member

Whitefeild Nyanzee Member

Rogger Martin Member

Matthew Garlue Member

James Kpodo Member

Nelson Konah Farmer Blapa Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Joseph Tamah Farmer Blapa Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Samuel Gordee Farmer Blapa Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Eric Konah Farmer Blapa Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Alphonso Vab Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Bill D. Karlao Farmer Gborwin Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Benedict P. Dahn Farmer Gborwin Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Junior Sangan Farmer Gborwin Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Roland S. Dahn Farmer Gborwin Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Bolivia J. Konah Farmer Blapa Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Harris Slona Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Otis Y. Dorlan Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Martin Mensah Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Saye S. Gogoe Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Archie B. Vah Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Peter G. Konah Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Leroy D. Dolo Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County


Peter G. Konah Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Saye S. Dahn Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Willian O. Vah Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Edward M.Saye Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Gibson Tare Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Agnes M. George Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Erasmus K. Daniel Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Arthur Yarzue Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Saye Wahyee Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Timothy Yarzue Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Marie Zeah Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Joseph Dahn Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Augustine Donkeh Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Peter Konah Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Wilson Gbor Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Sayegeh Dolo Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Emmanuel Yarzue Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Peter Tarr Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Joseph Z. Quoi Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Ernest Dilo Harris Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Deborah Mensahn Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Moses Ben Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Chester Edward Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Arthur Soye Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Ezekiel Edward Farmer Tengbben Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Rubin Yarzue Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Cyrus Yarzue Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Nya Dolo Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Daniel Luogon Farmer Gunhn Town, Saclepea Mahn District, Nimba County

Grande Gedeh Country Consultative Workshop, Zleh Town

Wilberforce Togba AEI, General Manager Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

McCarthy Zleh Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

William Scott Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

William D. Tarty Snr. Field Supervisor, Oil Palm Plantation Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Felicial Scott Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Cecelia Zeon Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand GedehPastor Alexander Zarwenjah Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Jimmy G. ZlehF Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Alex Zigeon Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Rancy Z. Towah Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Arthur K. Sohood Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Poul Town, Grand Gedeh

Cecelia Sohood Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Poul Town, Grand Gedeh

Annie Sohood Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Poul Town, Grand Gedeh

Anthan Beh Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Poul Town, Grand Gedeh


Sallaye T. Gaye Snr. Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Poul Town, Grand Gedeh

Beatrice Wehleh Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Poul Town Grand Gedeh

Norah Zleh Towah Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Towah Town. Grand Gedeh

Princess Karr Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Towah Town, Grand Gedeh

Oretha Zleh Towah Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Towah Town, Grand Gedeh

Zargba Zleh Towah Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Towah Town, Grand Gedeh

Alex Kahn Snr, Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Shad Geadeyan Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Sam. B. Geadeyan Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Peter Gaye Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Sarah Saydee Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

San Dunm Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Susay Geneyan Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Prince Kahn Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Gbahollo Leonard Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Mamie Brooks Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Decontee Zeon Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Tetta Carr Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Talata Haidala Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Washington Wea Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Janet Quih Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Susuannah Zeon Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Joseph Queway Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Neton Weah Farmer, Oil Palm Amenu Cooperative, Zleh Town, Grand Gedeh

Maryland and River Gee County, Pleebo and Glarro District Consultations

Beatrice Bowman County Agric Coordinator Ministry Of Agriculture, Maryland County

Derrick M. Nyumah Outgrower Manager Cavala Rubber Cooperation (CRC) 088416804/

John Y. Barkemeni Deputy Managing Director Cavala Rubber Cooperation (CRC) 066513361/

Harry N. Teah Commissioner Freetown, Glarro District, River Gee County

Kayo Wallace Paramount Chief Freetown, Glarro District, River Gee County

Vrooe Saylee Elder Speaker Freetown, Glarro District, River Gee County

Alphonso Webber Farmer Freetown, Glarro District, River Gee County

Sunday Saylee Farmer Freetown, Glarro District, River Gee County

Stephen B. Teah Snr Youth Leader Freetown, Glarro District, River Gee County

Charles Nyenah Farmer Freetown, Glarro District, River Gee County

Harrison Saye Farmer Freetown, Glarro District, River Gee County

Jackson Tullhe Farmer Freetown, Glarro District, River Gee County

Lucy Wallace Women's Leader Freetown, Glarro District, River Gee County

Andrew Teah Farmer Freetown, Glarro District, River Gee County

Eric Youlo Farmer Freetown, Glarro District, River Gee County

Monrovia Stakeholder Meetings

Johansen Voker Manager: Planning, Policy and Legal Affairs Environmental Protection Agency 06520042


Brian Caoute Co-founder Farmbuilders, Sinkor, Monrovia 077075010

Isaac D. Smith Officer Farmbuilders, Sinkor, Monrovia 06405529

Morris M. Koffa CEO Africa Environmental Watch (NGO) 02404172545

Eric Opoku Program Officer UNDP, Monrovia 08808235

Masaneh Bayo Gender Officer UNDP, Monrovia 06579251

Stephen Ntow Consultant Child Survival UNICEF, Monrovia 0880640892

Henry Danso Program Officer ILO, Monrovia 06914382

Martha E.G. Lukens Technical Support Officer ITTA, Monrovia 077985608

Candace Eastman Chief Marketing Office AEI, Monrovia 077112465

Richelieu Deputy Minister Ministry of Agriculture 06786068

Sizi Z. Subah Zinnah Deputy Minister TS Ministry of Agriculture 06557104

Paul Jallah Assistant Minister Ministry of Agriculture 06471166

Edward B. Perry Director/Extension Ministry of Agriculture 077011985

James K. Morlu Sr. Agriculture Officer Ministry of Agriculture 0880552012

Daniel Wrayee Assistant Director Crop Ministry of Agriculture 077040333

Daxenous G. Tyah Agronomist Ministry of Agriculture 0765508779

Daniel Korfeh Technical Assistant Ministry of Agriculture 0637456

Moses Sinnah Director PMU Ministry of Agriculture 06420955

Kwasi Poku PPC STCRSP Ministry of Agriculture 0667826


ANNEX D: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents a summary of results of the consultative meetings and workshops held in eight counties in Liberia as part of the Environmental and Social Management Framework Development. The mission took place from July 10th to August 5th, 2011. The information gathered formed critical parts of the main O draft report submitted by the consultants.

2. METHODOLOGY

The Consultants conducted individual meetings, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, one on one meeting and informal community / village level meetings. The regional county meetings including that in Monrovia which were organized with support from the County Agricultural Coordinators (CAC) and the project preparation coordinator. District Agricultural Officers ensured where possible that villages and communities were informed in advance of these meetings.

Team MembersThe team comprised the Environment (Team Leader) and Social Development and Gender Specialists with support from the Project Preparation Coordinator.

Thematic DiscussionsThe discussions were guided by some key elements and components based on the Terms of Reference for the environmental and social impact assessment:

General Environmental Conditions of the proposed project areas Observation of the Natural Habitat Pest and pesticide management issues relevant to the STCRSP and relating to the four tree crops Typical, biological, and socioeconomic characteristics of the proposed project areas Current and potential development activities within the participating counties Marketing infrastructure, access to agricultural inputs and services The socio-economic benefit of the project to communities and possible impacts (negative and

positive) including improved road network Labor issues and possible influx of from neighboring counties or countries as farm hands and

associated social dynamics Increased employment for the youth and impact on rural-urban movement High levels of expectations from communities, increased demand for more support from the project

beyond the capacity of the project Relationship between farmers and implementing agencies like NGOs, Concessions Land related disputes, family disputes about land and property ownership and implications for

project activities Gender equality, youth, children and vulnerability issues

The above issues guided discussions with key stakeholders and communities visited.

3. MONTSERRADO COUNTY CONSULTATIVE MEETINGS

Arrival of ConsultantsConsultants arrived in Monrovia and settled in at the Renaissance Hotel in Monrovia. Both Consultant and Team Leader arrived on the same day and were introduced to the project formulation coordinator Mr. Kwasi Poku.

Meeting with AEDE (Agency of Economic Development)An introductory meeting was held with AEDE a local partner of Agrer. This was to discuss the planned itinerary and to share information on the nature of the ESMF to be conducted. The meetings was attended by the management of AEDE led by the Executive Director (Refer to Participants List)

Meeting at the Ministry of Agriculture


An official meeting with Mr. Kwasi Poku was held to modify and practicalize the tentative schedule drawn by the consultants. It was agreed that the Team Leader (Mr. Wayne Borden) should be part of the visit to all the counties to ensure a birds-eye view of the environment the project and it would still be possible to do so and return to Monrovia before his departure. Mr. Poku explained that it would be better to start with the neighboring counties and move into the interior rather that the opposite and especially since most of the Concessions the project targets have officers in or near Monrovia and it would be better management of time to target them before moving over to other counties.

Meeting with Ministry of Agriculture Project Formulation Team A short introductory meeting was held with some key representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture who formed part of the core project formulation Team. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the assignment to them and to seek their support in assessing the practicality of the itinerary drawn by the consultants and to agree on the relevance of the program in relation to the communities targeted. The team provided some input into the program and supported the selection of areas and communities to visit which had to fall within the coffee, cocoa, oil palm and smallholder rubber areas. They agreed to meet the team in the last week of their mission for debriefing and a more in-depth discussions.

Meeting with Morris American Rubber ConcessionA meeting was held with the General Manager of Morris American Rubber Company (MARCO) at their office in Monrovia to plan and schedule visit to their plantation and also to plan for a workshop with representatives and leaders of their communities. He explained his organizations position on developing small holder farms by allocating portion of the concession back to the communities for them to become part of the concession but identified the need for some attitudinal changes among community members to be able to gain maximum benefit from the . Among the key issues discussed were:

Land tenure issues and the challenge of getting people to understand the need to have their lands measure

Problem relating to the demarcation of lands for communities use Clearing of land and compensation to be paid to squatters Religious and cultural beliefs and attachment to land where shrines and other religious relics are

supposed to be The project is designating a total of 1000 acres for development into rubber by the community but

some initial apathy has been detected from the community members. Discussions with the community is ongoing but the project has to come clear with its objectives so

that they can be better sensitized on the commitments from both the The surveyor who has been designated to measure the land is having challenges getting some

community members to understand the importance of having the community lands measured. The organization pledges its commitment to be part of the project but this would require a lot of

clear guidance from the project. The organization is also working with some partners on other designated plots of land and these

include the Buchanan Renewables and the Farmbuilders which would be working with farmers to demonstrate proper land management.

Compensation of Squatters who may be in the area allocated for development and new planting of rubber

Consultative Workshop with District / Community Leaders and Visit to MARCO Monsarado/Margibi/Bong – Morning visit MARCO Concession – meeting with officials and villagers who have been allocated 1000 acres of the MARCO Concession for smallholder rubber development. Afternoon visit to Salala Rubber company to meet the Concession and ascertain locality of target smallholders. Overnight in Monrovia.

The team met with Mr. Bill Morris, CEO of MARCO and representatives of the community targeted for the project. The community has a population of over 2000 and the project is targeting 300 hectares for the new planting of rubber to be owned by the community at 2-5 acres per community members that is about 2 hectares. Labor is to be provided by the community whilst MARCO will provide the technical backstopping required by community members. The CEO pledges his commitment to the people and indicates that the land is part of the concession which he is “giving back” to the community. The workshop was attended by representatives of the community, district and county. These included the Superintendent, Commissioner and the chief (traditional leader).


The community is happy with the gesture from MARCO’s CEO to provide them with part of “their” land which was given to MARCO. They however have some concerns which have not yet been clarified. This relates mainly to current provision of social services particularly to the workers of the company who live in the camps.

Initial engagement with the community has not clarified whether community members will own the land ones the planted rubber have matured or it would be reverted back to MARCO?

Key Issues: Land ownership rights of communities who participate in smallholder schemes on plantation

concessions Communities understanding of ownership of land within concessions Communities attitude in loan repayments Communities expectation of what benefits needs to come to them from the Concession

Field Visit Proposed Project Site at Monsarado/Margibi and Stakeholder villages and planned development location on MARCO Concession.

4. GRAND BASSA COUNTY CONSULTATIVE MEETINGS AND WORKSHOP

Field Visit to Equatorial Palm OilThe meeting commenced with Morning meeting with Equatorial Palm Oil management in Monrovia, then the team traveled to Buchanan City, the capital of Grand Bassa County. Key activities included field visits and stakeholder workshops. The afternoon of the first day was spent visiting target Smallholder area adjacent to Equatorial Palm Oil Concession and meeting with stakeholders in the villages of Neor Town, Compound 4, Behn Town and Karsuah Town. The communities confirmed the predominance of Oil Palm as a major crop on which most community members depended on as their major crop. The communities currently do not engage in any smallholder activity with Equatorial Palm but would be glad to establish some links with the company like they previously did with LIBINCO. The team also visited Go Town and Little Cola Town both satellite communities where a lot of trading goes on but not engaged in oil Palm cropping.

Land Tenure: The community has a vast stretch of land surrounding it and land is not an issue for both men, women and youth who showed interest in farming.

Economic Importance of Oil Palm: The economic importance of the crop to the communities was deeply expressed.

Stakeholders WorkshopThe workshop was organized in Buchanan on July 15th 2011 and was chaired by a representative from the office of the superintendent. The workshop was attended by thirty five persons with representatives from 10 communities including district level stakeholders. About 10 women attended with representation from the Ministry of Gender and Development. It was established that communities in the area have a strong potential for developing the tree crop sector especially oil palm. The community members expressed their high interest in getting involved in the project especially for the rehabilitation of old oil palm plantations. There is however the need for sensitization and awareness on the project.

Key Issues raised can be categorized as following: Environmental knowledge and awareness is low among community members; Road accessibility is a major issue in the county since most communities are unreachable during

the rainy season; The communities have access to large acreages of land but current holdings have not been

documented; There are limited number of farmer groups and associations, however the Ministry of Gender and

the Ministry of Agriculture have mobilized some women’s groups in some communities to engage in cassava and peanut farming;

Labor for farming is dependent on family members though there is the “kuu” system of shared labor operating in most communities. This operate on some cost sharing arrangements where labor offered may be paid for in kind;


The operation of NGOs in the communities have not been sustainable since they implement mini and micro projects targeting few members of the communities;

Youth issues abound in the communities and the county as a whole. Most of them are unemployed and continue to migrate into larger towns and cities. They require more capacity building and waged-work and majority of them are not interested in farming;

Capacity building in terms of training of farmers in improved technologies and also mobilization of farmer groups and associations is critical;

Access to improved seedlings and varieties for replanting and new plantings is the most urgent of need;

Community members may not be used to taking and repaying for loans and any project which would build in loan components need to be carefully implemented to ensure loan repayments by farmers. This may require some intense awareness to ensure change of mindset towards loan repayments;

The communities have strong clan and traditional and leadership systems which can support effectively the implementation of all kinds of projects; and

Some communities have experience in working with concessions but majority do not and would have to be sensitized and offered some technical backstopping to conform to the guidelines set out by the Concession.

5. BONG COUNTY CONSULTATIVE MEETINGS AND WORKSHOP

The team traveled to Gbarnga via Botata to afford them with the opportunity to pass through the cocoa growing districts of Kokoya and Joquella. The first community visited was Kakamue where traditionally the men in the community cultivated Cocoa. Some members of the community are currently participants in the ACDI/VOCA funded and IITA facilitated Small Tree Crops Project. A meetings was held with Abel Suah a Cocoa Farmer after a visit to his farm. The team had a meeting with Smallholder Cocoa Farmers attending an IITA Farmer Field School (FFS) Training session in a Cocoa garden in the village of Kpoenyea. The meeting was attended by twenty five (25) farmers made up of representatives from five (5) other surrounding communities (Quayakulah, Kpoe, Joe Town, Tookpolorsu and Duiaya).

The group meets frequently to learn new methods of rehabilitating and maintaining their cocoa farms. The group is being supported with basic inputs from the IITA and also with improved seedling varieties for replanting. There are limited number of women and the youth in the groups due to the current traditional roles which considers cocoa growing as a man’s occupation though women are not bared. The few women who may currently own cocoa farms may be widowed or have either inherited them from men. The youth are generally more interested in waged work and are attracted to the cities and or mining communities. Among the critical needs of the farmer group are chemicals and inputs since some of the farms are infested with diseases and pests and would require further treatment. The group is aware of some of the environmental hazards that my result from the use of chemicals but have limited training in its application though they are being offered some environmental awareness.The meetings at Suacoco with the County Agricultural Coordinated (CAC) revealed that the county indeed has some Cocoa growing communities but majority are cut off due to poor road infrastructure hindering accessibility. Indeed an attempt to reach one such community in the district had to be boycotted due to the nature of the road. The District Agricultural Officer (DAO) confirmed the existence of many farmer groups and associations some of which have been mobilized into cooperatives however all these groups would require proper mobilization and capacity enhancement.

Bong Stakeholders’ WorkshopThe Bong Consultative workshop was well attended by the county development superintendent, commissioners from six districts, three of which were very much involved in Cocoa. Key issues discussed were:

Availability of land with limited usage and the practice of subsistent farming mainly concentrating on food crops;

The likelihood of the STCRSP supporting the revamping of the county’s agricultural economy; Revitalization of cooperatives which would require a lot of mobilization and training; IITA already trained facilitators in their operating communities through the FFS and these is

supporting rehabilitation of cocoa farms; The project is almost at the end and farmers are particularly worried about sustainability of

activities commenced by the project;


Spraying of farms: insecticides and fungicides may be required due to the extent of infestations and black pod diseases in some cocoa farms;

The project need to carefully exploit avenues of working with local stakeholders to ensure support from all local stakeholders and sure proper mobilization of farmers and farmers groups; and

There is the need for more information and dialogue between project facilitators and local stakeholders about the proposed project so that there will be proper engagement on the nature of the project and the type of farmers to be targeted.

6. NIMBA COUNTY CONSULTATIVE MEETINGS

The team conducted some field visits and visited two main districts the Zoe-Bahn and the Saclepea Mann District. In the Zoe-Bahn District they visited the Zayglay Clan area one of the main cocoa growing areas. Here they met with a group of farmers who are members of the Kpodo Farmers Cooperative, one of the few who have existed for a long time. Here the environmental expert and team leaders visited a Cocoa Garden with the District Agricultural Officers (DAO). Focus group discussions were held with the community leaders, cooperative executives and women leaders. The team visited Tingbein community for a Stakeholder meeting and visit to a Cocoa Garden. The communities confirmed the area as a major cocoa growing district in previous times with a large number of farms requiring rehabilitation.During the meetings community members expressed their interest in becoming part of the project since they have scattered cocoa farms that require rehabilitation. However they expressed that they are limited in several ways:

Aged plantations requiring intensive rehabilitation; Low pricing of cocoa beans; Pests and diseases exists on farms; Non-availability of new seedlings for replanting and new plantings; Gender roles and divisions means women do not own farms but are active members of family labor

on cocoa farms; Youth do not show much interest in farming and are giving land only when they show interest; Existence of some groups and cooperatives with limited capacity; and Family labor exists but continue to be limited and paid labor is getting scarce

7. GRAND GEDEH CONSULTATIVE MEETING

The main target for the Grand Gedeh workshops was the Amenu Farmers Cooperative who are the main targets of the project in the county. The cooperative is linked to the Oil Palm Plantation situated within the Zleh Town community with a vibrant cooperative. Currently the plantation is managed by the AEI. The farmers also have cocoa farms. The cooperative have an estimated 2000 members. The farmers are interested in extending their farms with some smallholder arrangements and were confident of their capacity to undertake any such out-grower scheme having previously participated under the LPMC schemes. The members think their current ownership of the plantation (vested by the government of Liberia) by the cooperative places them in a better position to support any such smallholder scheme. Rehabilitation of the existing oil palm will revive the local economy since prior to the conflict the community was economically vibrant.

The high attendance of the meeting indicated the high interest of the Amenu cooperatives in reviving their cooperatives and be involved in another project. Critical however is the current objective of the cooperatives, the need for capacity enhancement, some intensive extension support and the improvement in the use of technology and processing equipments. The issue of value addition to the processed palm oil by locals may hold the key to the development of a local oil palm industry in the area. Women and youth involvement were not questioned since about a third of the members of the cooperatives.

8. MARYLAND COUNTY CONSULTATIVE MEETING

The main consultations were held with the Cavalla Rubber Company (CRC) and the Country Agricultural Coordinator (CAC) at Harper, the County capital. The CAC expressed concerns over the scarcity of land in the Maryland area for smallholders to invest in tree crops due to the investment of large acreages to Rubber as concessions and plantations in the past. The prime concern of the country is now on food security targeting particularly female farmers. She expressed her support for the project and agreed to backstop the Cavalla Rubber Company should they be involved in the project to ensure that smallholders receive the necessary technical support under the project. She stated that the basic requirement of the county agricultural development


is availability and skill of technical officers and so the project support should consider capacity building as a crucial activity. The county has shortages of technical staff including district officers.

Meetings held with the CRC Deputy Manager and Out-grower Manager indicated the company’s current focus on developing its Out-grower schemes. The Out-grower Manager indicated the company’s attempt to ensure that most farmers in the peripheries of their plantation are involved. He indicated that an Out-grower Scheme is being supported which focuses on farmers mostly in the River Gee County. This confirmed the previous discussions held with the CAC that most farmers in the district are no longer able to commit much of their lands into rubber. He however expressed the poor nature of the roads linking the communities to the main access roads some of which requires some extensive travel on foot. He indicated that the company has commenced the mapping of the potential smallholder out-grower areas for future development. He indicated that partnership with the MOA for this project will ultimately benefit the poor farmers. He indicated that lands in these areas are available and farmers are willing to be part of the program with proper mobilization. The company is currently mobilizing the potential communities to be involved in the out-grower schemes and some can be adopted by the STCRSP. Discussing key thematic areas the CRC officers stated:

Their company is complying with all environmental procedures required by the EPA in Liberia, but cautioned that the company is still being develop to fully operationalize their environmental guidelines and provisions as laid down by its mother company SIFCA;

Environmental issues are now being given much consideration by Liberia though monitoring capacity of EPA can still be considered to be low and require some capacity enhancement;

The company is also very much aware of its social responsibility to the communities and smallholders and that would include the provision of social amenities including schools and access roads;

There is still the need to incorporate some peace-building elements in community level projects and also in national planning to improve and promote national democracy and good governance;

The Patriarchal system of inheritance may require some special projects or efforts to ensure the involvement of women and girls;

The issue of squatters cannot be ignored since there are still remnants of them within some plantations

Labor issues cannot be entirely ignored since though there is some unemployment, the youth are particularly not interested in horticultural and subsistence agriculture.

There are few formal wage jobs and there is the need to explore the avenues to involve particularly the youth in agriculture.

9. RIVER GEE COMMUNITY LEVEL MEETINGS

In the River Gee County the team visited one hinterland community, Freetown, which forms a satellite for many others. The Out-grower Manager of CRC pre-arranged for this meeting. The community is linked by very poor access road and hence it took quite some effort to reach that community which has a huge potential for an out-grower scheme. The meeting was chaired by the commissioner, and had representation of town elders and community members including a fair representation of women and youth. The community expressed interest in any such project which focuses on tree crops since they are already into cocoa and rubber though oil palm is not so prominent. The community is very close to the Ivory Coast and so the cultivation of particularly cocoa is of major interest to farmers. The critical issues discussed and observations made included the following:

Knowledge in environmental issues is very low and would require some awareness and sensitization;

There is vast stretches of marginal lands with the potential to be invested in tree crops; These lands can be categorized into communal, family and also individual holdings where farms

have already been established; The community members already have experience in tree crop farming; The CRC has commenced some mobilization process for their involvement in an out-grower

scheme and this has been welcomed by the community members; The community is surrounded by other villages and all are very much interested in any such out-

grower schemes except that some are cut off due to poor road network; The community is very much aware of the socio-economic benefits that a tree crop project may

accrue to the community and critical among them is infrastructural development (roads, schools and clinic or health post);


Girls education is currently lacking behind and there is a huge problem with teenage pregnancies and any community level project must seek to address this problem by ensuring the inclusion of girl education or opportunities to involve them;

Labor may not be an issue initially since family labor currently exists and also there are “kuus” or self help groups;

Mobilization of farmer groups and associations may be crucial since the communities no longer have well organized cooperatives and these groups when formed will need a lot of training and capacity building since due to the long years of conflict leadership skills are currently scarce; and

There is currently limited activities of NGOs in the community and with the influx of Ivorian refugees the community needs a lot of support;

10. MONROVIA STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATIVE MEETINGS & STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP

The stakeholder consultations at the national level took place between July 27 th and August 4th 2011. Meetings were held with key stakeholders at the national level including some International and National Development Partners (ILO, UNDP, UNICEF, IITA and Farm builders, ACDI/VOCA) and some ministries and agencies (EPA, LISGIS, Ministry of Gender, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Labor, CDA). Further meeting were held with the MOA Core Design Team, Deputy Ministers and Assistant Ministers. The dialogue focused around these key issues:

Technical support for implementing partners and community level stakeholders must be a key component of the project and the framework must investigate how best this can be done;

There is the need for the project formulation to come up with an economic viability index since it is not currently defined in a precise manner;

Farming families and the issues of labor has to be further investigated since the different phases of the project may require different levels of involvement by family labor and the rights of children should not be compromised;

Biodiversity conservation issues must be built into the project development. There may be the need to ensure that species which has some economic importance like Medicinal trees and shrubs

Environmental impacts for the development of tree crops may require a more in-depth study; At the National level there is currently an ongoing Community forestry Projects which may be in

its second year and identification of non-forest products and economically significant species may be useful for consideration by the project;

Linkages with other projects need to be carefully considered and reconsidered in the project design– with ASRP Model

Youth migration is currently very high especially into the cities and town and o attract them back into the farming sector and especially into tree crops may be an important outcome of the project;

Project component relating to value additions need to be further exploited and the role of women and the youth would require specifically designed strategies since these groups have peculiar needs and roles which may not be targeted by the project design

Other projects e.g. cocoa projects are currently ongoing and there is the need to exploit avenues for linkages and synergies especially that being implemented by the STCP of the IITA/ACDI VOCA;

Health issues particularly HIV/AIDS and Malaria need to be mainstreamed into project considerations;

Consensus on the acceptability of project among stakeholders must not overlooked since many stakeholders have roles;

Cultural considerations require that local strategies and traditions have to be properly integrated to support sustainability; and

Aversion to existing groups and cooperatives may need to be carefully considered since these groups may have been formed with particularly objectives which may not necessarily fit that of the STCRSP.

Stakeholders WorkshopThis section summarizes the key issues gathered during the stakeholders debriefing and consultative workshop held in Monrovia on August 4th, 2011. The workshop targeted the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) extended project design team and other key stakeholders. The extended design team forms part of the main stakeholder group mobilized to support the design of the STCRSP with possible involvement in its implementation. The organization and facilitation of the workshop was assisted by the Ministry of Agriculture.


Key points: Environmental knowledge and awareness is not as low among national stakeholders but may

require some intense education among the grassroots. EPA is still a young agency with challenges and the project must ensure that enough capacity building activities are inculcated into the project targeting all levels of stakeholders.

Pest management and the use chemicals (insecticides and fungicides is a major issue which should be considered bearing in mind some of the current international guidelines and also being aware of the demands of international markets. For instance one of the main buyers of cocoa, MARS is considering the purchase of only organic beans by 2020 so Liberia has to be mindful of this. Also farmers’ inability to afford and sustain the use of pesticides and fungicides coupled with credible input distributors in Liberia is a challenge which the project must address. Again, the knowledge of farmers in the application of such chemicals may have to be addressed to avoid misapplication and also hazard to health of farmers and also plants.

Consumer and environmental friendliness issues need to be carefully considered. The infestation of crops with pests and diseases means that for Liberia the rehabilitation of trees particularly cocoa would require indeed a combination of low and high input models to maximize production levels.

Counties and Districts: Selection of specific counties and districts for the project needs to be further investigated to ensure that all those with the highest potential are targeted. Previous projects did not embark on detailed studies to characterize the selection of counties and districts and hence some opportunities were lost in maximizing the gains that could have been made.

Land: There is huge availability of land for the project since land is currently being under-utilized by farmers in their subsistence, slash and burn, shifting cultivation and rotational farming practices. However critical issues relating to titling and deeding of land is still uncommon in Liberia especially among farmers and the project need ensure that lands are properly documented to avoid possible future conflicts and litigation.

Economic Benefits: Focus on horticulture and crop farming may not yield many benefits to ordinary farmers and the introduction of tree crops has the potential of revamping the economy however this has to be done with proper linkages with ongoing projects in the ministry like the food security project to ensure that this is not compromised.

Produce Marketing and Input Suppliers: The availability of credible input distributors and also marketing agencies at farm gates remain one of the major considerations to be given by the project. Current operating agencies may not be able to meet the future demands which will be driven by the project.

Value Addition: The main benefit that is likely to accrue to the tree crop sector is tied to the introduction of value addition before exports. This would also support more employment avenues especially for the youth and women who may not be directly involved in the actual cultivation and farming of tree crops.

Technology: Avenues for the introduction of modern technology especially for the processing of produce must be well investigated by the project and the various options included in the project implementation. Current processing of tree crop products especially oil palm is done manually and more needs to be invested into modern and appropriate technology. Gender Equity and Youth Involvement: An analysis of the roles and responsibilities of the various groups especially women and the youth need to be analyzed to ensure their involvement at all levels.

Capacity Building: The project must focus on developing capacities for more sustainable extension support for farmers to ensure adoption of sustainable mechanisms at all levels. Farmers associations and groups may require the most capacity building since there are currently fragmented groups scattered without any proper mobilization.

Modeling: The ESMF should incorporate practical models and guidelines for a more sustainable implementation in Liberia and still be mindful of existing international standards.

Synergies and linkages: It is important for the project to ensure that proper synergies and linkages are established with some ongoing projects in the tree crops sector for instance the ACDI/VOCA and IITA Small Tree Crops Project (STCP). Also current infrastructural projects by the government including road infrastructural development may have to be considered.

Stakeholder involvement needs to be enhanced using existing structures especially at the community levels and also avoid duplication of efforts. There are a number of ongoing projects and these must be harmonized for communities to benefit more.

Survey instruments: Detail studies must review study instruments to ensure that critical issues are identified including the number of potential farmers and farms to be targeted by the project.


Where necessary the project formulation coordinator explained the various components of the project and further elaborated the processes that will be followed to ensure that the design took into consideration all the pertinent issues discussed for the design team to ensure a more holistic project.


ANNEX E: TEMPLATE FOR PREPARATION OF SUB-COMPONENT ESIA/ESMP

The section below includes the minimum requirements for an environmental impact assessment, adverse impact mitigation, and project monitoring (www.worldbank.org)

Executive Summary: Concisely discusses significant findings and recommended actions.

Introduction: Provide background and concise description of the proposed project. Normally includes a map showing the project site and the project's area of influence.

Policy, Legal, and Administrative Framework: Discuss the policy, legal, and administrative framework within which the ESIA is carried out. Identify relevant international environmental agreements to which the country is a party. Assessment of Environmental and Social Impacts: Assess the dimensions of the study area and describe relevant physical, biological, and socio-economic environment taking into account baseline data collected during the study and from other relevant sources. Predict and assess the project's likely positive and negative impacts, in quantitative terms to the extent possible. Estimate the extent and quality of available data, key data gaps, risks and identify specifies topics that require further attention (e.g. Pest Management, Resettlement). Identify mitigation measures and any residual negative impacts that cannot be mitigated. Explore opportunities for environmental enhancement.

Environmental and Social Management Plan: Covers mitigation measures, monitoring, and institutional strengthening. The ESMP should include the following key sections:

Summary of Impacts: Anticipated adverse environmental impacts should be identified and summarized as well as their relationship to social impacts and the appropriate mitigation measures.

Description of Mitigation measures: The mitigation measures proposed for the various impacts should be described in relation to the corresponding impacts while stating the conditions under which they are required. Adequate description of the consultations should be done and justified.

Description of monitoring program: A detailed monitoring program should be described in the EMP, listing environmental performance indicators and their link with impacts and mitigation measures. The EMP should also describe the parameters to be measured, methods to be used, sampling location and frequency of measurements, detection limits and a clear definition of thresholds that indicate the need for corrective measures. Monitoring and supervision schedules should be clearly stated and agreed with the Bank to ensure timely detection of needs for remedial action and also provide information on the level of compliance with EMP in accordance with Bank safeguards. These arrangements must be clearly stated in the project implementation/operations manual to reinforce project supervision.

Institutional arrangements: The EMP should clearly state who is responsible for monitoring, execution of remedial action and the reporting order and format to allow for a defined channel of information flow. It should also recommend institutional strengthening for relevant agencies and the funding authorities for the various activities.

Capacity Development and Training: To support timely and effective implementation of environmental project components and mitigation measures, the EMP draws on the EA's assessment of the existence, role, and capability of environmental units on site or at the agency and ministry level.3 If necessary, the EMP recommends the establishment or expansion of such units, and the training of staff, to allow implementation of EA recommendations. Specifically, the EMP provides a specific description of institutional arrangements i.e. who is responsible for carrying out the mitigation and monitoring measures (e.g., for operation, supervision, enforcement, monitoring of implementation, remedial action, financing, reporting, and staff training). To strengthen environmental management capability in the agencies responsible for implementation, most EMPs cover one or more of the following additional topics: (a) technical assistance programs, (b) procurement of equipment and supplies, and (c) organizational changes.

Implementation Schedule: The frequency, timing and duration of mitigation measures and monitoring should be stated in the implementation schedule. Links between mitigation measures and development of relevant institutions and legal requirements of the project should be stated.

Reporting: The order of information flow as it concerns monitoring reports should be clearly defined. The relevant officers to receive these reports should be those who have authorities to facilitate implementation of the results of the monitoring. These reports should also be


communicated to the Bank via media to be agreed and specified in the EMP. Adequate arrangements should be made by the Bank to facilitate the circulation of the EMP through the selected means.

Cost estimate: The cost of carrying out monitoring and implementation of the mitigation measures at the various stages of the project should be integrated into the total cost of the project and factored into financial negotiations. These costs should include administrative, design and consultancy, operational and maintenance costs – resulting with meeting required standards and project design.

Appendixes List of References--written materials both published and unpublished, used in study preparation. Record of interagency and consultation meetings, including consultations for obtaining the

informed views of the affected people and local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The record specifies any means other than consultations (e.g., surveys) that were used to obtain the views of affected groups and local NGOs.

List of associated reports (e.g., Pest Management Plan). List of ESIA report preparers--individuals and organizations. Other relevant documentation


ANNEX F: STCRSP PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN

Background

The Government of Liberia is exploring the feasibility of a World Bank supported agricultural development project, the principal objective of improving the income opportunities of poor farmers by a combination of rehabilitating unproductive farms, undertaking replanting and new planting programs, facilitating future replanting and development programs, and improved financing mechanisms and institutional arrangements. The proposed Smallholder Tree Crop Revitalization Support Project (STCRSP) has been identified in response to this objective.

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

The proposed project objective is “to increase poor tree crop farmers’ income opportunities by rehabilitating unproductive farms and supporting tree crop replanting and new planting and by supporting preparation activities toward the future development of the tree crop sector and effective smallholder participation”. The proposed project will be the first, preparatory stage of a long term pro-poor growth program focused on developing the tree crop sector. The target group will be poor smallholders in the main country’s tree crop producing counties. The objective of this PMP is to ensure that adverse environmental and social impacts as a result of agro-chemical use in achieving the proposed project objectives will be avoided or, where unavoidable, will be minimized, as required by World Bank Safeguards Policy OP 4.09.

This policy is designed to strengthen capacity of the beneficiary country’s regulatory framework and institutions to promote and support safe, effective and environmentally sound pest management (i.e. to promote the use of biological or environmental control and to avoid using harmful pesticides. It applies to all projects involving pest management, whether or not the project finances pesticides.

More specifically the policy aims to: Ascertain that pest management activities in Bank-financed operations are based on integrated

approaches and seek to reduce reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides in agricultural projects; Ensure that health and environmental hazards associated with pest management, especially the use

of pesticides, are minimized and can be properly managed by the user; As necessary, support policy reform and institutional capacity development to (i) enhance

implementation of Integrated Pest management (IPM)-based pest management, and (ii) regulate and monitor the distribution and use of pesticides.

This policy is triggered whenever the procurement of pesticides or pesticide application equipment is envisaged directly or indirectly by a project and thus will apply to the proposed project where a subproject includes the use of pesticides as part of the revitalization process. Thus the requirement for this Pest Management Plan (PMP).

Liberian Agro-chemical Policy, Regulatory Framework and Institutional Capacity

There appears to be little joined up policy and regulation in Liberia concerning the importation and use of agro-chemicals. Three agencies – the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MoCI) all are able to issue licenses agro-chemical imports, but do not necessarily keep each other informed. The EPA under the Environmental Protection Management Law, Sections 52 (Management of Pesticides, Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Materials), 53 (address misuse of these substances) and 55 (Importation and Exportation of Hazardous Waste) has the power to address misuse of such substances through fines, seizure and other legal instruments. The MoA’s Quarantine Division is responsible for recording all the chemicals which are imported into the country and checking them for their compliance to the


international laws (mainly respect of Stockholm Protocol) and to the allowed list of pesticides, while the MoCI’s Bureau of Standards is responsible for keeping records of all good that enter the country.

Pest Problems in the Liberian Tree Crop Sector

Plant pests and diseases, on visual evident, result in a significant reduction in crop yields throughout Liberia. The extent of such crop loss is not documented, nor has there been any significant research into their control. The full extent of pesticide use in Liberia is unknown, but some indication might be obtained from the list of import licenses issued by the three licensing Agencies. However, this information is not readily available. Even so, official records will not account for the importation though the non-formal channels. The lack of coordination and regulation means that there is very little date available re the type and quantity of agro-chemicals in the market and even though lists of banned chemicals exist, the lack of public awareness and lax border controls (aid by absence of effective regulation) makes it possible for banned and non-registered agro – chemicals to continue to be used by agricultural sector.

The above not withstanding, very few small farmers in Liberia use any form of chemical pest/disease management due to cost, absence of credit and in many cases lack of local availability. Where they use plant protection chemicals, it is frequently indiscriminate due to lack of application knowledge and ignorance of it impacts on the wider environment and human health. The awareness and use of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM)17 is virtually non-existent.

However, the fact that most small farmers do not currently use chemical plant protection chemicals and that these are costly inputs should be seem as potential opportunity to promote the use of IPM techniques during the project implementation, though it must be recognized that where pest and diseases are in epidemic proportions (as Black Pod and Swollen Shoot are in Cocoa) this will be a Herculean task requiring extensive and intense eradication. Regardless, a concerted effort should be made during the implementation to convince the farmers of the economic and environmental benefits of the IPM.

Pest Management and Pesticide Use Policy/Strategy

The general pest control objectives are to: Control, and/or eradicate and maintain good surveillance of the major economic pests whose

outbreaks are responsible for large-scale damage/loss to agricultural production. Provide protection to man and animals against vectors of deadly diseases.

The pest management methods should be a mix of the following: Mechanical Methods: Hand picking, digging, trapping; Biological Methods: Use of parasites and predators, NPV, Bt, etc. Chemical method: Use of eco-friendly and bio-friendly insecticides, fungicides and pesticides.

Pest Management Plan

This pest management plan has been prepared as part of the ESMF in the context of the Liberian Small Holder Tree Crop Revitalization Support Project with proposed funding by The World Bank

This project has been prepared to support the rehabilitation of smallholder rubber, oil palm, cocoa and coffee farms throughout Liberia. The strategy is to provide loans and expertise to farmer organizations to initially clear the underbrush and prune their existing tree crops and provide limited inputs to increase production insitu, and later to clear and replant their farms to increase production with new stock and additional inputs as necessary.

Included in the proposed revitalization program is the use of agro-chemicals to control pests and diseases. It will be up to the farmer organizations to decide the amount and type of insecticides, pesticides, etc. and the application equipment, thus part of the rational for this management plan is to provide guidance. Currently farmers use little or no agro-chemicals so it is expected that the loan support will lead to an increase in the use of agro-chemicals. Such an increase of pesticides uses could potentially be harmful to both the environment and public health. In accordance with the World Bank safeguard policies (OP 4.09 pest management) this pest management plan has been prepared to ensure that future sub projects do not engage in unsafe pest management.

17 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an innovative approach with emphasis on biological control. IPM is efficient, economical with limited or totally free residual problems.ESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 87

S.A. AGRER N.V.

The objective will be that the type of insecticides used should: have negligible adverse human health effects. be effective against the target species. have minimal effect on non-target species and the natural environment. take into account the need to prevent the development of resistance in pests

The methods, timing, and frequency of pesticide application should such as to avoid or minimize damage to natural enemies, as well as for personnel applying them.

The objectives of this plan are: to assist the country to develop its regulatory framework and build capacity within its institutions to

promote and support safe, effective, and environmentally sound pest management; provide collaborative linkages between the project and international IPM18 groups to assist in the

development of a national IPM policy, to strengthen national and local capacity to address pest problems faced by STCRSP farmers, to encourage national and local compliance with international conventions and guidelines on pesticides, and to further develop IPM through awareness of resources developed elsewhere;

provide an information basis for stakeholder groups to establish functional mechanisms enabling farmers to identify, understand and manage pest and vector problems in the rehabilitation of their agriculture production, reduce personal and environmental health risks associated with pesticide use, and protect beneficial biodiversity such as natural enemies of pests and pollinators;

assist farmers to understand and respond to the external IPM environment the affect their livelihoods (For example, stringent minimum pesticide residue levels that limit the potential for farmers to benefit from international trade opportunities);

promote participatory approaches in IPM for farmers to learn, test, select and implement “best-bet" IPM options to reduce losses due to arthropod pests, diseases and weeds.

promote biodiversity monitoring to serve as early warning systems on pest status, alien invasive species, beneficial species, and migratory pests.

enable the STCRSP project to monitor pests and disease vectors and mitigate negative environmental and social impacts associated with pest/vector control in the tree crop sector;

Action Plan

1. Diagnose pest problems affecting the Tree Crop Sector as the basis for stakeholders to develop a shared vision on priority needs and IPM opportunities.

2. Develop the capacity of stakeholders (especially the farmers) to understand and manage pest problems through farmer participatory learning approaches with complementary participatory research on feedback issues emanating from farmers' field experiences.

3. Extend public awareness of the issue through organizing stakeholder workshops (including EPA, MoA, MoCI, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and other relevant Agencies to establish a consensus to enforce the regulation and to create a network of exchange of information as pesticides are concerned leading to a regular reliable importation inventory and records.

4. Introduce and promote biological controls as alternatives to chemical control regimes and thereby reduce environmental and personal health risks in agriculture:

5. Establish biodiversity monitoring schemes for early warning on changes in pest and vector status, natural enemy complexes, pollinators, and detect migratory pests and introduction of alien invasive species.

6. Develop/update a national IPM policy including national legislation governing the registration, manufacture/importation, distribution and use of pesticides in order to promote compliance with the World Bank's safeguard Policies, OP 4.09 and BP 4.01, and other international conventions and guidelines on pesticide use

18 For example: In partnership with the CGIAR Systemwide Program on IPM (SP-IPM), the FA0 Regional Crop Protection Office (FAORaFA), the Global IPM Facility, the IITA Biodiversity CenterESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 88

S.A. AGRER N.V.

7. Establish partnership linkages with international organizations for assistance to develop a national IPM policy framework and establish a national IPM advisory and oversight committee (multi-stakeholder composition). The process for training and demonstrations could involve identification of a small subset of progressive farmers in each district. The farmers selected for training can then in turn train the other farmers in their respective area. This process is critical because the main benefits of IPM depend on all farmers in a contiguous area practicing IPM; otherwise, the benefits are much less likely to materialize.

Anticipated outcomes will be: Strengthened institutional capacity on IPM Improved farmer awareness of the health hazards of misuse and mishandling of agro-chemicals and

the advantages of IPM Introduction of training in the proper handling, usage and storage or agro-chemicals, and the proper

disposal of chemical containers. Increased awareness about efficacy and advantages of eco-friendly alternatives of chemical

pesticides. Development of promotional material, dissemination of IPM through field demonstrations,

canvassing through extension personnel and NGOs Dissemination of information about traditional and IPM techniques and practices used for the

control of insect/pests. Improving the information and knowledge base on pests, chemical pesticide use, health impacts,

IPM use and trends across the country. This would be included in the monitoring and evaluation schedule suggested for the project.

Farmers using newly acquired knowledge to choose compatible methods to reduce losses in production and post-harvest storage.

Ripple effect spreading out from participating communities to other agriculture activities and from participating farmer to other farmers.

Capacity Building

The success of IPM depends largely on developing and sustaining institutional and human capacity to facilitate informed decision making by farmers, and empower farmers to integrate scientific and traditional knowledge to solve location-specific problems, and respond to market opportunities. This will be particularly important in Liberia as much of the infrastructure and knowledge base was destroyed during the civil war.

In IPM, there is the need for farmers to accurately identify and diagnose pests and pest problems, understand tropic relationships that underpin biological control opportunities, and use such knowledge to guide pesticide and other kinds of interventions. Through the participatory approaches the STCRSP can build local capacity to ensure rapid spread and adoption of ecologically sound and environmentally friendly management practices in participating communities.

A foundation element of the capacity building exercise is diagnosis of pest problem and IPM opportunities to provide baseline information that will enable stakeholders to develop a shared vision on felt needs and IPM strategies. Through informal interviews, field visits, and planning meetings, stakeholders will develop joint understanding of the key issues affecting production and develop a common IPM plan based on agreed concerns.

Training at all levels will be based on participatory learning modules for capacity building inIPM information delivery. The participants will be equipped with skills in facilitation, group dynamics, non-formal education methods to encourage adult learning. Farmer training will focus on farmers' group learning for informed decision making. Group learning will be experiential through farmer-led field trials and discussions on practical aspects of crop and livestock production and pest management including indigenous knowledge/technologies.

Farmer group learning will be facilitated by Training or Trainers trained men and women extension agents and on farm demonstrations with organized field days where farmers can participate in the analyze of results and recommend corrective action based on the results of their own analyses. Field day participants will include representatives of national and local policy makers from government, development agencies, NGOs, rural and national press media, researcher institutes, and national extension services. The Farmers Organizations established as part of the STCRSP will create a new learning fora which will help to increase scientific literacy,


ownership of biological and ecological information and knowledge, and informed decisions making habits in the communities.

Also trained farmers can be expected to promote secondary adoption of proven options. For example, each farmer trained will train other farmers and explain new/improved IPM practices they have learnt.


Annual work plans should be developed in consultation with the relevant stakeholders to indicate institutions and networks that will be required to provide research and development support. The principal actors will include a number of local institutions directly involved in implementing the PMP while other agencies (partners) will include international and national institutions to provide technical and other support for implementation of the plan.


Provide expertise in planning, training and field implementation of IPM, and contribute field staff to be trained as IPM Trainers;

Utilize members of participating FOs to facilitate extension and farmer training; Prepare and produce field guides and other relevant IPM information materials; review current policies and adjust/develop policy guidance/oversight to support the implementation

of the PMP; Serve as technical reviewers for subprojects submitted by FOs for funding under STCRSP; Provide

technical support in pest and natural enemy identification, including new and adaptive research; Assist to organize study tours and networking with international IPM groups.

PIU responsibilities are to standardize training needs assessment across sites; and organize national workshops to develop participatory learning modules, liaise with FOs to plan training implementation; provide technical support such as in preparing and delivering specific training materials, and evaluating resource materials; identify and select suitable local training resource persons and materials; and prepare training progress reports.

The County Agricultural Coordinators(CAC) and relevant line agencies will collaborate with the PIU to identify and organize farmers groups for training; prepare, organize and supervise training implementation plan; verify reports of persisting pest problems and farmers training needs; monitor performance of farmer trainers and post-training assignments; and prepare training progress reports.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The M&E Section of the PIU will evaluate the PMP component for over-all effectiveness and that of the IPM initiative. The M & E will involve establishing a base line on the current status to evaluate the impact of project interventions. The M & E of IPM will be based on pre-defined parameters such as adoption of biological and mechanical methods of pest control, use of parasites and predators, adoption of bio-pesticides.

The following indicators will be incorporated into a participatory monitoring and evaluationPlan:

Capacity to inform: Number of trainers trained; number and type of participatory farmer training sessions; category and number of participants reached beyond baseline figures; practical skills/ techniques most frequently demanded by extension agents and farmers; and crop management practices preferred by farmers.

Capacity to motivate: Number of farmers who correctly apply the skills they had learnt; new management practices adopted most by farmers; category and number of other farmers trained by project trained farmers; types of farmer-innovations implemented; level of pest damage and losses; rate of adoption of IPM practices; impact of the adoption of IPM on production performance.

Major benefits: Increase in crop production; increase in farm revenue; social benefits: e.g., improvement in the health status of farmers; level of reduction of pesticide purchase and use; and number of FO families using preventive mechanisms against diseases. Farmer educational activities will be central to the exit strategy which


should feature increased roles and responsibilities of committed national and local communities to take primary responsibilities in the development of action plans and expertise exchange for IPM development and promotion.

Institutional Strengthening: Type and number of participants in short-term technical study visits 19 for hands-on laboratory and field training, and farmer participatory learning will help to create favorable conditions for continuity of IPM processes and results. These study tours should involve representatives of the regulatory authorities, implementing agencies and FOs.

PMP Budget

The budget for this PMP are included in the ESMF Budget in Chapter 7 of the main report, or otherwise can be covered in the overall project budget.

19 Ideally to other West African countries with proven experience in IPM development and implementationESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 91

S.A. AGRER N.V.

ANNEX G: OPERATIONAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Operational Practices that should apply for all persons involved, in whatever capacity, in implementing the proposed project are set out in the tables below. These Operational Practices are intended to be low in cost, practical and easy to apply. This should be seen as ‘organic’ so that anyone involved may request modification to the practices based on site experience. To do this s/he should raise the matter with the Environmental Manager within the PIU.

Environmental Management Guidelines

MUST do Must NOT doGeneral principlesRespect the environment: Avoid damage to any part of the environment (soil, plants,

animals, human resources and settlements) as far as possible.

If damage cannot be avoided, then mitigate or compensate for the damage.

General principlesUndertake any work beyond the agreed boundaries of the

work sites.Undertake any work before agreeing mitigation or

compensation arrangements.Hide any damage or pollution. In the event of an accident, it

is better to consult the PIU Environmental Supervisor and agree a mitigation plan than to risk prosecution under the law.

Environmental awarenessEnsure that the site supervisors brief all workers at the start

of every job, and at the beginning of each week, on the main environmental messages

Environmental awarenessAllow workers to neglect environmental issues. This may

lead to offences under the Environment Protection and Management Law.

VegetationOnly cut the vegetation that you have to when clearing land

for any project component.

VegetationCut more vegetation than is necessary Use fire to remove vegetation.Burn cut vegetation.

Soils and earthworksOnly disturb the soil where it is necessary to do so. Undertake soil erosion prevention and sediment controls as

required by the Environmental Officer if this should be deemed necessary, to protect areas from erosion and siltation.

Soils and earthworksDisturb any more of the ground surface than is absolutely

necessary when land clearing.Allow erosion to happen without taking rapid measures to

control it.Leave soil slopes steeper than 10° completely bare and

unprotected.Drive unnecessarily often or use very heavy equipment on

the access tracks (thereby compacting the soil excessively).DrainageProvide culverts wherever water needs to flow across access

tracks/roads.Ensure water from culverts and other drains is discharged at

low energy via drop structures and aprons. Make temporary drains as necessary to avoid water-logging

or erosion.Discharge drains into well vegetated areas. Provide mini silt

collection ponds if drains must discharge straight into water courses.

DrainageAllow sediment from bare eroding surfaces to be washed into

water courses.

Water resourcesEnsure that all private and community water supplies are

safeguarded.

Water resources Allow leakages of fuel or other contaminant to pollute and

stream or standing water body.Dispose of anything into a water course or standing water

body.If irrigating, extract so much water from a supply that the

normal users are short.NoiseBe mindful of noise disturbance to adjacent communities

during on farm operations with tractors, power-saws, etc.Provide all site workers with ear protection for those using

power-saws.

Noise

AnimalsAll project workers instructed not to hunt, deal in or transport

bush-meat

Animals


MUST do Must NOT doLocal people’s livelihoodsDuring project implementation, establish an equitable and

fair employment strategy, giving priority to local people in labor crews.

Local people’s livelihoodsPay local people below the usual wage rates.Demand unpaid work by local farmers or others.

Damage to cultural sitesCheck with local people, as to whether any activities will

affect sites of cultural or religious importance.As far as possible, avoid any works where cultural sites

might be affected, If damage to cultural sites cannot be avoided, agree

compensation measures with the local community.

Damage to cultural sitesDamage any sites of cultural or religious importance without

first agreeing compensation arrangements.

SanitationProvide proper earth pit latrines at all work sites where more

than 5 people will work for more than 1 day at a time.Fill the latrines in once site work is complete.

SanitationAllow latrines to become full or overflow.Allow site workers to defecate at random in the forest.

Pollution from camps and storesEnsure that all potentially hazardous materials (i.e. fuel, oil,

other chemicals, sewage) are stored or disposed of in appropriate ways.

Devise on-site emergency spillage plans (see detailed standard for guidance) and train staff in their implementation.

Remove all debris and litter from site.

Pollution from camps and storesAllow any pollution to occur to the soil or water courses.

Provision of safety equipmentProvide all workers with safety equipment appropriate to the

work that they are doing. Keep first aid kits on all work sites.Ensure that there are two people on each work site who know

what to do if there is an accident and how to use the first aid kit.

Remember that safety gear is cheaper than hospital and funeral bills!

Provision of safety equipmentAllow workers on to a site unless they are wearing the

appropriate safety gear.Allow first aid kits to become empty or out-of-date.

Social and Gender Operational Guidelines

MUST Do’s MUST NOT Do’sLandEnsure that farmers have legal/traditional rights over the

lands and tree crops to be invested into the projectAllow land disputes and conflictsAllow persons with large tracts of land to disenfranchise

those with less Stakeholder / Community InvolvementEnsure effective participation of all segments of the society

especially the poor.Respect the culture and traditions of the people

Allow community leaders or elites to capture the projectAllow politicization of project support and activities

Farmer AssociationsEnsure that groups that farmers groups formed have clear

operational guidelinesEnsure effective capacity building for all members especially

the leaders

Allow elite capture of leadership of associationsDo not allow associations to use group support for other

benefit

Gender and Youth Conduct gender analysis Mainstream gender and youth empowermentDialogue with and ensure active involvement of women and

youth Review the project support and activities to ensure they those

marginalized and vulnerable persons can be part of value chain activities

Allow women and youth to be marginalizedAllow women to become burdened with extra roles and

responsibilities Allow project to ignore the needs of women, youth and

childrenAllow child labor issues to be ignored


Build linkages with stakeholdersEnsure that strong partnerships and linkages with ongoing

social development projects by governmental and non-governmental organizations both at national, county, district and community levels

Allow duplication of social development efforts by government and non-governmental organizations focusing on same communities and farmers


ANNEX H: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MONITORING REPORT TEMPLATE

Subproject name: ________________________________ Location: _________

Date: ___________________

1. Environmental and Social ImpactsSummary of the environmental impacts of the project that were predicted during project planning.

2. Environmental and Social Impacts observed in the field visitSummary of the environmental effects which have been observed in the field visit:

Predicted effects and nature of observation; Unpredicted effects and nature of observation.

Peoples participating in the field visit:

Name Institution Position Sign

3. Compliance of the environmental and social policy, laws and regulationsProject’s compliance with environmental design specifications, including environmental protection and control, mitigation, reimbursement and comparison measures, if any.

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

5. Conclusions and recommendations to the project operationRecommended adjustments to project operations if any, including the rationale for the recommendation.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations to the monitoring programRecommended adjustments to the monitoring program, if any, including the rationale for the recommendations.

7. Other observations, recommendations and conclusions.

Monitor: ________________________; Signature: _________________; Date: ___________

Reviewed by ESMT on ______________

8. Action to be TakenSummary of any decisions with action points and person responsible

Sign by Environmental Manager: ___________________ Date: ___________


ANNEX I: TERMS OF REFERENCE

Modifications in scope resulting from the contract negotiations (17-18/06/11)

During contract negotiations held in Monrovia between the client and the consultant the following clarifications and modifications were communicated with respect to the scope of the assignment, as initially given in the Terms of Reference for the ESMF:

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

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

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

a zero draft ESMF will be submitted at the end of the first mission of the consultants (day 25).

All other aspects of the methodology, work plan and outputs remain as per the ToR and technical proposal submitted by the Consultant.

Background

The Government of Liberia is exploring the feasibility of a World Bank supported agricultural development project – the Smallholder Tree Crop Revitalization Support Project (STCRSP), with the principal objective of improving the income opportunities of poor farmers by a combination of rehabilitating unproductive farms, undertaking replanting and new planting programs, facilitating future replanting and development programs, and improved financing mechanisms and institutional arrangements. The proposed STCRSP has been identified in response to this request.The main characteristics of the Liberian tree crop sector at present are the old age of plantations and their low productivity. There have been no significant replanting activities for the last twenty five years due to the war, and a large proportion of the country’s rubber and oil palm plantations are now at the end of their productive life, necessitating replanting. The main constraint to the implementation of a large scale replanting program, particularly for smallholders, is the lack of long term credit. This situation is consistent with the experience in other tree crop producing countries in Asia or Africa, where commercial banks are generally reluctant to provide long term credits to farmers for tree crops mainly due to the crops’ long gestation period (7 years for rubber, 3-4 years for oil palm and cocoa), the perceived high credit risk and the lack of collateral.

The Proposed Project

Proposed Project Description. The proposed project would be the first, preparatory stage of a long term pro-poor growth program focused on developing the tree crop sector. Specifically, it would be aimed at preparing future large scale tree crop replanting and development programs by testing different replanting and new planting models and associated financing and implementation mechanisms, and strengthening the capacity of key public and private sector/civil society institutions involved in tree crop development. At the same time, the proposed project would also seek to have a short term impact on farmers’ revenues by supporting the rehabilitation of both immature and mature smallholder tree crop farms, which would generate additional revenues that farmers could subsequently use towards financing of replanting, thereby at least partially alleviating financing constraints.

The proposed project development objective would be “to increase poor tree crop farmers’ income opportunities by rehabilitating unproductive farms and supporting tree crop replanting and new planting and by supporting preparation activities toward the future development of the tree crop sector and effective smallholder participation”. The proposed project would be the first, preparatory stage of a long term pro-poor growth program focused on developing the tree crop sector. The target group would be poor smallholders in the main country’s tree crop producing counties, with particular attention given to the participation of women.

The proposed project would contribute to national and local revenues through increased foreign exchange from tree crop exports and would directly benefit smallholder households through increased incomes from the


rehabilitation of their tree crop farms. It would directly support Government of Liberia (GoL)’s policy for economic revitalization, based on the promotion of export oriented economic growth, through consolidating the role of the private sector, while also facilitating rural development, increasing rural incomes, and contributing to poverty reduction. Furthermore, the proposed project is also aligned with MoA’s priority of achieving a viable and sustainable Tree Crop Sector within the Liberia Agriculture Sector Rehabilitation Program (LASIP) under the framework of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP).

Project Scope.

The proposed project would follow a two pronged approach: (i) rehabilitating existing mature and immature small tree crop farms, which would have a short-term impact by generating additional revenues that farmers could subsequently use towards financing of replanting; and (ii) supporting tree crop replanting and new plantings, using different models and associated financing and implementation mechanisms, while strengthening the capacity of key public and private sector/civil society institutions involved in tree crop development, with the aim of laying out the foundations for future smallholder tree crop development programs. It would be implemented over a period of four years in several districts of the country’s main tree crop producing counties.

Proposed Project Components.

The proposed project would include three components as follows: Component 1 - Tree Crop Revitalization

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

Lofa(ha)

Nimba(ha)

Bong(ha)

Total(ha)

Cocoa Rehabilitation a/ 6,000 5,000 1,000 12,000

Cocoa New Planting 1,000 1,000 2,000

Sub-Total Cocoa 7,000 6,000 1,000 14,000

Coffee Rehabilitation 1,000 1,000 500 2,500

Total Cocoa/Coffee 8,000 7,000 1,500 16,500

a/ half the area under high input, half under low input

The component would be aimed at: (i) rehabilitating existing smallholder cocoa and coffee farms, according to two different models: (a) the low model input, consisting in under brushing, reducing the shade, weeding and pruning, without applying fertilizers and fungicides, and (b) the high input model, consisting in the same operations together with the application of fertilizers and fungicides for three years; (ii) supporting new plantings of cocoa as there are good market prospects and comparative advantage for cocoa in northern Liberia; (iii) to a lesser extent, rehabilitating existing smallholder coffee farms, as it would generate much less income than cocoa; and (iv) promoting improved cocoa/coffee marketing and value addition, including small scale processing (into cocoa butter or cocoa liquor and coffee powder) using adapted technologies.

This would include: the development of village nurseries and the maintenance of seed gardens, complementarily with other ongoing initiatives; supporting the organization and strengthening of farmers’ groups (farmers’ associations -FOs- and cooperatives) dealing with bulking, marketing and primary processing; the provision of training and technical and management advice to smallholders and their organizations; the construction (or rehabilitation) of warehouses and installation of solar dryers and procurement of quality control equipment (at section FOs, clan cooperatives and district cooperatives levels); the establishment of pilot processing plants at district level (including access to working capital) at district level; and limited feeder road rehabilitation and related small bridges and drainage structure, wherever it is critical to provide access to groups of farms (indicatively 100 km).Under the low input model, even 40 to 50 years old cocoa trees can be rejuvenated. The production slightly declines during the year of rehabilitation but subsequent yields are much higher (from 250 kg/ha to 1000 kg of dry beans per ha). The high input model has been extensively applied in Ghana (more than 10,000 farmers) and much higher yields are reported after rehabilitation (up to 1,600 kg of dry beans per ha). The various crop ESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 97

S.A. AGRER N.V.

models (rehabilitation with low or high input, replanting, and new planting) could be implemented simultaneously or during subsequent years on the same farm. It would depend on the available labor and financial resources as well as the condition of the trees.

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

Sub-Component 1.2 – Smallholder Oil Palm Revitalization. The component would be implemented in the counties of Lofa, Bong, Nimba, Grand Gedeh and Grand Bassa, as shown below.

Rehabilitation (ha)

Replanting(ha)

Total(ha)

Smallholder Oil Palm Model in northern Counties a/

300 300 600

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

300 300 600

Total Oil Palm Component 600 600 1,200

a/ Lofa, Bong, Nimba and Grand Gedeh

The smallholder oil palm model in the northern Counties refers to farmer run plantations without processing facilities (Foya plantation district in Lofa, Zleh Town and Debe plantations in Grand Gedeh, and Kpatawee plantation in Bong). It is envisaged that, during preparation, a detailed study on smallholder oil palm revitalization will review whether there are other similar farmer run plantations in Lofa, Bong, Nimba, and Grand Gedeh and will assess their potential for rehabilitation. Based on the outcome of the study, the area for rehabilitation (provisionally estimated around 600 ha) will be updated accordingly during appraisal. The inclusion of the smallholder oil palm revitalization model in Grand Bassa in partnership with a Concession (Libinco) would also need to be confirmed during appraisal.

The component would be aimed at: (i) rehabilitating old smallholder oil palm farms, which would consist in clearing the undergrowth (under brushing), weeding around the trees and between the rows, and applying fertilizers; (ii) supporting replanting of smallholder oil palm; (iii) supporting the organization of farmers’ groups and the provision of training and technical advice to small farmers; (iv) limited feeder road rehabilitation (access roads and related small bridges and drainage structure) wherever it is critical to provide access to groups of farms (indicatively 30 km); and (v) the promotion of small scale processing facilities for farmers’ run plantations where no mills are present and/or facilitate access to small scale processing technology and finance for interested private investors (SMEs), in collaboration with commercial banks and guarantee or equity funds. The smallholder oil palm revitalization model in the northern Counties would be implemented in partnership with NGOs and private sector service input providers and processors under contracting arrangements to be determined during project preparation. The smallholder oil palm revitalization model in Grand Bassa would be implemented in partnership with the Concession/primary processor (LIBINCO/Equatorial Palm Oil) throughout-grower type arrangements.

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


Sub-Component 1.3 – Smallholder Rubber Revitalization. The component would be implemented in the counties of Montserrado, Margibi, Bong and Maryland, as shown below.

Montserrado, Margibi, Bong(ha)

Maryland(ha)

Total(ha)

Proposed Operator or Concession

MARCO SRC CRC

Rubber Replanting 400 1,000 1,400

Rubber New Planting 300 400 500 1,200

TOTAL Rubber 300 800 1,500 2,600

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

The component would be implemented in partnership with Concessions (primary processors) throughout-grower type arrangements. Only the high input model would be supported, and would be based on the use of high quality stumps and of fertilizers during the immature period. Under such model, each participating rubber farm would be developed according the same technical standards as the Concession. Farmers would provide their own labor for replanting and planting operations. Replanting and new planting would require the financing of land preparation, labor (under the high input model only) and inputs (mainly fertilizers) through credit. A grant element would be introduced to lower the establishment cost (planting year), particularly the seedlings costs. Smallholder credit and cost recovery mechanisms are still to be determined.

Component 2 – Institutional Capacity Building and Preparation of Future Large Scale Smallholder Tree Crop Development Programs.

The component would aim at: (i) building and/or strengthening the capacity of the main public and private institutions involved in project planning, coordination and implementation, particularly: the MoA’s Program Management unit (PMU), of which the project coordination team would be part; MoA’s technical divisions at HQ and targeted MoA County offices; the Cooperative Development Agency (CDA) at HQ and county level; targeted County offices of institutions responsible for land allocation and registration, including the Land Commission and the National Archives; and other implementation partners supporting smallholders, notably agriculture research institutions; and (ii) preparing future large scale smallholder tree crop development programs before the completion of the proposed project and building on its lessons learned.

Sub-component 2.1: Institution building. Capacity building of MoA and CDA staff would target technical staff involved in the project planning, coordination and monitoring and evaluation (M&E), both at Headquarters (HQ) and county level. A training of trainers (ToT) approach would be used. A rapid assessment of staff skills and training needs would be carried out. Training would tackle the following domains: economic development and empowerment of FOs/cooperatives; financial management and procurement; policy and project design; agronomic issues related to tree crops; computer literacy; training of FO facilitators. Support to MoA County offices. The project would contribute to the strengthening of the seven targeted County Agricultural Offices (CAC) in order that these effectively exercise their promotion, planning, coordination and M&E role of projects’ activities in their respective county. This would include: field allowances to carry out sensitization or supervision activities; a contribution to procuring the necessary field equipment or transport means (motorbikes); and associate running costs of the CAC office. Support to CDA. Similarly, as the CDA has a key role to play in the promotion of FOs/cooperatives, the project would strengthen CDA’s operational capacity to deliver its services through its current five offices at county level. This would include support for: procuring necessary transport means and office equipment for field offices and associate running costs; and field allowances for HQ and field offices staff in order to deliver training, business development and managerial advice to FOs/ cooperatives. Support to the Land Commission at county level. The project would complement ongoing support received by the Land Commission in order that its county offices could adequately expedite the issuance of land titles or deeds to participating smallholders. That would include: support to carrying out land surveys; and a contribution to the equipment of county offices, operating costs and field allowances. Support to adaptive tree crops research.


Proposed activities would be linked to the tree crops sector and could cover: the establishment and maintenance of seed gardens (cocoa & coffee), in collaboration with other ongoing programs; refurbishing facilities for soil testing, germplasm production, biological analyses, etc.; support to adaptive research on tree crops, including socio-economic issues; training of scientists up to Masters or Doctorate level if needed; exchange visits to neighboring countries and regional agricultural research institutions; and scientific coaching and organizational advice through national and international consultants. Support to the MoA Program Management Unit (PMU)20. The project would contribute to the setting-up and effective performance of the PMU, of which the STCRSP coordination team would be part. This would encompass a contribution to the staffing of top managers of the PMU (PMU Manager, Financial Advisor, and Procurement Advisor) and associated operating costs of the PMU.

Sub-component 2.2: Preparing future large scale smallholder tree crop development programs. This would include: (i) the preparation and validation of Master Plans for all targeted tree crops. Plans would detail strategic options for development, scope, detailed activities, operational modalities, costing, as well as phasing. During this process, a national tree crops database including a GIS system would be established to better reflect the current situation of tree crops at national and county levels (acreage, number of farmers, size of farms, status of trees, localization, etc.); (ii) the elaboration and validation of a National Policy/Strategy for Farmers Organizations and Cooperatives development: this would comprise technical assistance from a specialized international consultant, setting up and support to a core country drafting team, and organization of validation workshops; and (iii) the preparation of a large scale smallholder tree crop development program encompassing the following activities: mid-term review of the proposed STCRSP; detailed feasibility studies, notably building upon the strategic options and conclusions of the adopted tree crops master plans; and final evaluation of the STCRSP to make sure lessons learned from phase I would be integrated in the larger scale program.

Component 3 - Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation.

Sub-component 3.1: Strategic Planning and Coordination and Implementation support. This would comprise two main groups of activities: (i) Support to Steering Bodies. That would include: the organization of project launching workshops at county and national level; supporting regular coordination meetings at County level (under the responsibility of the CAC) assembling representatives from all stakeholders involved in the agricultural sector and particularly in tree crops development; an operational support to the National Project Steering Committee; and (ii) Support to the Project Coordination Unit (PCU). The coordination, management, monitoring and evaluation of project activities would be under the responsibility of a specific team, to be established within and reporting to MoA central Project Management Unit (PMU). The team would include a limited number of highly qualified and motivated staff, consisting of a project coordinator, one or two specialists (agronomist or agro-economist, capacity building specialist), finance, M&E, procurement and administration staff, to be selected on a competitive basis. The responsibilities for financial management and procurement, however, would be located under the Project Financial Management Unit (PFMU) in MoF, until the capacity of the PMU is assessed as being adequate. It would encompass: a contribution to the staffing costs of the PCU (Project coordinator; Planning and M&E officer; Institution development officer; Agri-business officer; Information, education, communication and knowledge sharing officer, Accountant; and administrative support staff); the procurement of necessary transport means and of computer/office equipment; staff training and exchange visits; office operating costs of the PCU; the installation of a project accounting and management software and of management control tools; and short term technical assistance in key areas relevant to project implementation.

Sub-component 3.2: Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) and Knowledge Sharing. Under that sub-component, the following activities would be supported: the establishment of the project M&E system to integrated within the overall PMU’s and MoA’s M&E systems; carrying out necessary baseline studies per project site and/or per thematic area; annual participatory planning and evaluation workshops with beneficiaries and other stakeholders at county and district levels; the elaboration of a communication and knowledge sharing strategy for the overall PMU and for the STCRSP; development of various communication and knowledge sharing tools using various medias (newspapers, radio, television, internet, etc.) and targeting different publics (smallholders, private sector, donors, general public, etc.).

THIS CONSULTANCY

Objectives

20 The PMU has been established within MoA with the support of various donors including World Bank, USAID, EU, AfDB, etc, with the aim of providing the Ministry with the capacity to manage and coordinate all donor funded projects.


The objective of this TOR is to develop an environmental and social management framework (ESMF) aimed at ensuring that adverse environmental and social impacts of the Project will be avoided or, where unavoidable, will be mitigated or offset, in response to the five World Bank safeguards policies triggered by the proposed project, namely OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment, OP 4.04 Natural Habitat, OP 4.09 Pest Management, OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement21 and OP 4.36 Forests.

Overview of ESMF Requirements

An ESMF is the safeguards instrument used in projects supported by the World Bank in which the investment components will be implemented by means of multiple subprojects, and those subprojects will be identified during implementation rather than at the time of appraisal. The ESMF will be based upon a clear understanding of the environmental and social issues typically associated with the activities involved in the various types of subprojects which the Project will support, in the context of the general characteristics of the natural and human environments in the Liberian counties likely to be the locations of those subprojects. The presentation of typical impacts is one key element of an ESMF. The second element is a compilation of the mitigation measures that will be effective in managing the typical impacts, and a compilation of measures to monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and to detect any unforeseen impacts. Together, these mitigation and monitoring measures are, in essence, a generic environmental and social management plan, and they form the basic resource for environmental and social impact management in subprojects.

How the generic mitigation and monitoring measures are used for individual subprojects is determined by the third key element of an ESMF -- a screening procedure for determining the appropriate level of safeguards work needed for each subproject. In other words, how is the information on impacts and management measures in the ESMF to be used to produce the environmental and social management plan (ESMP) specific to a particular subproject. For a proposed subproject involving rehabilitation or replanting on an uncomplicated site, the ESMP will normally be simple: a reiteration of the appropriate generic mitigation and monitoring measures in the ESMF, preceded by a brief description of the subproject and followed by identification of the responsible implementing entities. On the other hand, preparing the ESMP for a subproject involving new planting on a site where significant clearing is needed or where sensitive features such as wetlands might be affected would involve environmental assessment of site characteristics and, perhaps, development of special mitigation measures for that particular location, in addition to or instead of the generic measures in the ESMF. To assist in implementation, the ESMF will provide formats such as checklists for screening, and guidelines for preparing ESMPs. The ESMF should also take Liberian environmental assessment procedures into account in the screening procedure, especially the Environmental Protection and Management Law adopted in 2003. Because of type and scale, most of the subprojects will not be subject to environmental assessment requirements, but there may be some new planting operations for which that law requires submission of a project brief to the Liberian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Ministry of Agriculture. Upon receipt of a project brief, EPA determines what additional environmental studies are necessary, if any.

Finally, the institutional arrangements for implementing the ESMF have to be specified; these include the responsible organizations, the sequence and timing of activities, cost estimates and budget sources. If capacity-building is needed for implementation, recommendations for it should be part of the institutional arrangements. Ultimately the ESMF and the ESMPs that will be prepared in accordance with it during implementation must serve as guidance during subproject preparation to adjust and if necessary re-design project activities with the active support and involvement of individuals and groups that will potentially be the beneficiaries or otherwise affected by the STCRSP activities.

Scope of Services

To reach the above objectives, the Consultant will undertake a study which will involve the following:

I. Assessment of potential environmental and social impacts

21 It is not expected that project activities will lead to involuntary resettlement. However, in the unlikely event that this may happen, a Resettlement Policy Framework will be prepared under a separate consultancy (Social Assessment),


The consultant will: Conduct fact-finding workshops in each of the project areas and in Monrovia22. The client (MoA)

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

Identify and assess the typical environmental and social impacts of the types of investments that will be supported by the proposed STCRSP. Explore options for mitigating, monitoring and managing any potentially negative impacts likely to result from the proposed project. In order to supplement observations on the environmental and social characteristics of the participating counties, a thematic literature review should be conducted. The consultant must conduct this work according to World Bank requirements, namely OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment, OP 4.04 Natural Habitat, OP 4.09 Pest Management, and OP 4.36 Forests.

Pest and pesticide management issues relevant to the STCRSP need to be addressed. It will be necessary to review current pesticide practices in the project areas and evaluate the appropriateness of any existing IPM plans, and how the implementation of recommended practices will be monitored in the Project. The relationship of the recommended practices to the regulatory framework would be examined and recommendations provided for the mitigation of risks associated with pesticide use. An appropriate Pest Management Plan in accordance with the requirements of World Bank OP 4.09 would be prepared.

Water quality issues relevant to the STCRSP need to be addressed in the ESMF, particularly in regard to riverine contamination from agricultural & processing operations, impact on ground water portability, and impact on marine environments.

At the level of an ESMF, the dimensions of the study area that could be affected by activities on the ground cannot be determined. Baseline data for the ESMF should be collected at the county level, focusing where appropriate on the regions in which cocoa, coffee, rubber and oil palm are commonly grown. The data should address the following:

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

Take into account major current and proposed development activities within the participating counties that are not directly connected to the project but could be relevant to decisions about project location, design, operation, or mitigatory measures.

The ESMF should contain a risk assessment at the county scale of significant conversion or degradation of critical forest areas, including adjacent or downstream critical natural habitats that might occur due to Project activities. Amongst others, the following topics require attention:

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

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

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

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

22 There will be a Social Assessment conducted around about the same time as the ESMF consultancy and ideally, the workshops will be conducted jointly with the Social Assessment consultant. If this is not possible, the ESMF consultant will be required to identify the social issues and impacts as part of this TOR and also, to obtain any other relevant information from the Social Assessment consultant as far as is possible. Similar information sharing requirements will be included in the Social Assessment consultant’s TOR. The Social Assessment consultant will also be responsible for preparing the Resettlement Policy Framework.


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

An analysis should be included of the compliance and possible implementation progress of current or planned environmental management systems being adopted by those tree crop processing or milling companies that are going to be working with the Project, covering those environmental implications which are significantly affected by the implementation of the STCRSP.

The ESMF should include a review of current environmental practices affecting tree crop development, and particularly those affected by implementation of the STCRSP, including forest and habitat protection considerations, pesticide use, soil erosion and watercourse contamination by crop processing and agricultural practices. Practical means to address any negative influences and monitor implementation progress would be developed under the Environmental Management Plan, where appropriate measures are not already in place. Funds have to be included under the consultant’s proposal to undertake limited investigations (e.g. laboratory analysis) that would support the consultant’s assessment of the water quality concerns associated with the STCRSP. The participation of an EPA officer in the sampling process should be included.

The capacities of the government, non-governmental organizations, and other private entities on environmental assessment and monitoring should also be assessed.

Specifically, the social dimensions of the ESMF should consider the issues below in addition to any others mentioned above:

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

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

Increased employment for the youth and impact on rural-urban movement High levels of expectations from communities, increased demand for more support from the project

beyond the capacity of the project Relationship between farmers and implementing agencies like NGOs, Concessions Land related disputes, family disputes about ownership and implications for project activities

Typically the ESMF report will have to be structured as follows: Executive Summary; Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework (following EPA and World Bank guidelines); Detailed description of the Proposed Project; Methodology (describe the techniques used for carrying out the work, source and description of

data); Baseline Data Typical environmental and social impacts; Generic mitigation and monitoring measures required to address the typical impacts, assess the

likely costs, and identify how they will be funded and by whom (e.g. Government, contractor, etc).

II. Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) Mitigation and Monitoring Measures

The consultant must prepare as a section of the ESMF a template for the Environmental and Social Management Plans that will be prepared for subprojects that will follow, keeping in mind that the primary purpose is to serve as a resource for preparation of the actual ESMPs. The STCRSP’s template must consist of the set of (1) mitigation, (2) monitoring, and (3) institutional measures that will be available during implementation and operation to eliminate adverse environmental and social impacts, offset them, or reduce them to acceptable levels, which should be consistent with the Social Assessment that is being carried out concurrently with this consultancy. The template, which may be looked on as a generic ESMP, should also include/specify the actions needed to implement these measures.

Mitigation: Identify feasible and cost-effective measures that may reduce potentially significant adverse environmental and social impacts to acceptable levels. Includes compensatory measures if mitigation measures are not feasible, cost-effective, or sufficient. Specifically, the template or generic ESMP should:

23 It would be important to ensure that the tree crop farms are not established near natural forests to ensure that farmers are not tempted to expand into these areas when they start making profits. There should be some determination by the Consultant of what “near” is - eg within a mile? etc.


Summarize significant adverse environmental and social impacts. Describe, with technical details, each mitigation measure, including the type of impact to which it

relates and the conditions under which it is required (e.g., continuously or in the event of contingencies), together with designs, equipment descriptions, and operating procedures, as appropriate.

Estimate any positive environmental and social impacts of these measures. Provide linkage with any other mitigation plans required for the project. Identify any protection or preservation activities that may be required during the implementation of

the project. This further includes the determination of critical natural habitats and/or critical forest areas within the Project areas.

Provide an Integrated Pest Management Plan. The plan will have to (i) determine the Project’s pest management approach, (ii) analyze its pesticide management practices, (iii) examine the policy, regulatory framework and institutional capacity for pest management, and (iv) propose a monitoring and supervision plan. The plan will also have to contain a list of pesticides going to be used in Project related activities and need to be classified in accordance with World Bank Guidelines on Pest Management.

Monitoring: The environmental and social monitoring during project implementation provides information about key environmental and social aspects of the project, particularly the environmental and social impacts of the STCRSP and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Such information allows evaluation of the success of mitigation as part of project supervision, and allows corrective action to be taken when needed. Therefore, the ESMF identifies monitoring objectives and specifies the type of monitoring, with linkages to the impacts assessed in the ESMF report and the mitigation measures described in the generic ESMP or template. Monitoring should also ensure that STCRSP activities comply with World Bank policies on i) Natural Habitats, Forests, and Pest Management; and ii) Land Acquisition and Resettlement. Specifically, the monitoring section provides:

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

Monitoring and reporting procedures to (i) ensure early detection of conditions that necessitate particular mitigation measures, and (ii) furnish information on the progress and results of mitigation.

Currently applied monitoring mechanisms for all-important environmental and social aspects need to be assessed (e.g. ISO 14,001). Should current monitoring mechanisms not be satisfactory, adequate measures need to be suggested and put in place. Two examples might be helpful for clarification:

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

In the case of monitoring palm oil mill and rubber factory effluent treatment, the consultant will need to assess whether the established effluent treatment capacity will be sufficient to deal with the expected incremental crop produced under the project. If not, the consultant will need to suggest measures aimed at increasing effluent treatment capacity. While an independent check of performance may not be required if the palm oil mills and rubber factories are certified through an internationally recognized certification standard, arrangements will need to be made to ensure that the independently audited reports on effluent effects are accessible to EPA. If the palm oil mills and rubber factories are not certified through an internationally recognized certification standard, the consultant will need to suggest measures to monitor effluent treatment, and ensure that the reports are accessible to EPA. In both cases, the consultant will need to verify that the adopted effluent treatment standards are compliant with the World Bank standards, and if not suggest measures aimed at bringing them to compliance.

Capacity Development and Training: To support timely and effective implementation of environmental project components and mitigation measures, the ESMF draws on the assessment of the existence, role, and capability of environmental units on site or at the national agency and Departmental level. If necessary, the ESMF should recommend measures that will improve the effectiveness of such units to allow implementation of impact management and monitoring recommendations, e.g. amelioration of logistical constraints that may inhibit site monitoring by EPA officers and other designated officers from the MOA.


Specifically the Capacity Development section of the ESMF should: Propose an environmental and social awareness program aimed at STCRSP tree crop stakeholders.

The awareness program should be geared toward encouraging practical measures to mitigate environmental impact and be on a scale commensurate with the scope of the STCRSP; and

Propose criteria that can be used for the preparation of a duty statement and selection criteria for the appointment of a Safeguards officer to be responsible for environmental and social safeguards issues for the STCRSP.

III. Screening Procedure

The consultant will develop and explain a step-by-step process whereby proposed subprojects will be screened to determine (a) suitability for financing under STCRSP from the standpoints of environmental and social acceptability, and, once as subproject is determined to be suitable, (b) how the requirements of the ESMF are to be met in preparing and implementing it. For (a) the consultant shall provide a ‘checklist’ that can be used as a decision tool to decide the acceptability of a proposed tree crop block according to criteria for funding under World Bank (and EPA) requirements. For (b) the consultant will describe the review procedure and provide guidelines for desk review and field reconnaissance, ideally in checklist form, and criteria for a determination of whether the subproject ESMP can be a compilation of the relevant generic mitigation and monitoring measures in the ESMF, or whether site-specific measures based on field studies will be needed. The screening procedure should provide guidelines for defining the scope of such field studies.

IV. Guidelines for Subproject ESMPs.

Typically the ESMP reports that will be prepared for subprojects during implementation will have to be structured in a similar fashion to the ESMF report (see above). Much of the material on the overall Project, the policy and legal framework, the typical impacts, and the generic mitigation and monitoring measures can be extracted directly from the ESMF. The subproject description, the description of baseline environmental and social conditions, the results of any field studies, and any site-specific assessment and mitigation measures will need to be prepared anew for each subproject as relevant. In addition the subproject ESMP report will contain:

An environmental and social mitigation plan and Budget; A monitoring proposal; and A proposal for strengthening and training of the institutions that will actually be implementing the

ESMP for the subproject.

The consultant will develop a format for the subproject ESMPs and include it in the ESMF as an annex.

V. Methodology and Data Collection Instruments/techniques

As part of the reports prepared by the consultant, the consultant should clearly outline: The sources, accuracy and reliability of data collected; and Methods and nature of consultations undertaken as part of the study.

VI. Composition, Profile and Expertise of Consulting Team

The actual makeup of the consulting team will depend to an extent upon the range of skills and experience available. However, it is expected that it will most likely comprise of two team members with the following skills, with possible support from other relevant field staff and/or specific specialists as may be required in order for the Consultant to effectively complete all tasks, outputs and deliverables required under this Terms of Reference:

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

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

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

Detailed knowledge of World Bank Safeguards Policies;ESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 105

S.A. AGRER N.V.

Strong communication skills in spoken and written English; and A strong track record, with experience and demonstrated skills in preparing environmental and

social assessment reports for international development projects.Preferred

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

Previous experience working in Liberia. Experience with preparing an ESMF for a World Bank funded project.

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

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

Comprehensive knowledge of rural development issues in Africa; Strong communication skills in spoken and written English; and A strong track record, with experience and demonstrated skills in preparing social evaluations for

international development projects.Preferred

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

Previous experience working in Liberia. Experience with preparing an ESMF for a World Bank funded project.

VII. Deliverables

The consultant will be required to produce the following reports/outputs: A Workshop Report addressing environmental issues; An Environmental and Social Management Framework Report containing all parts listed under I

through IV (above), and satisfying World Bank requirements; and Summaries papers or brochures of the ESMF report, in English and any local languages considered

important by the Social Assessment team.).

VIII. Consultations and Disclosure

In addition to the stakeholder consultations to be conducted at the outset of the engagement, the consultant will support and assist the Ministry of Agriculture in disclosing the final draft ESMF at locations convenient for stakeholders that are interested in reviewing it, and in holding a set of workshops at which the ESMF will be presented to stakeholders and their comments obtained for inclusion in the final document. The final ESMF will include in an annex a list of consultation events, participants, issues raised and responses given.

IX. Administrative Arrangements

The Consultant would ultimately report to the PMU Director but would report on a day to day basis to the PIU Project Preparation Coordinator. He/she would also liaise closely with the World Bank Task Team Leader or anyone appointed by him. The work would be conducted in close collaboration with MoA, other relevant Government agencies both in the field and in Monrovia (e.g. EPA, NGOs, research institutions, etc), and other representatives of the sub-sectors. The Consultants would work with the PIU based within the PMU of MoA, including with the PIU Project Preparation Coordinator, who would provide guidance to the consultants in country and ensure that the consultants’ inputs meet the requirements of Government and those of the World Bank. MOA will provide guidance and logistic support (as defined under the Consultants contract) to the Consultant, who will also receive guidance from the World Bank.

X. Timetable

The assignment is expected to require a total of about four person months,. The total duration of the assignment will be about 14 weeks, which could include about 5-days for desk review, about 12-weeks for field activities (including conducting stakeholder workshops in the various counties), and about 15-days for writing the detailed reports. It is expected that the field work could be conducted with two separate field visits. ESMF for the Liberian Smallholder tree Crops Revitalization Support Project – First Draft Page 106

S.A. AGRER N.V.

The estimated timetable for the assignment will be around the following period:Desk Review: Late May 2011Field Visits: Early – mid June 20111st draft of report: Mid July 2011Final draft (incorporating comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Bank): End July 2011Consultation on final report and future actions to be taken: Mid August 2011.

The reports must present the study’s findings and define proposals for each of the critical issues identified. Particular attention must be paid to ensure that the EMP and draft guidelines for monitoring of the STCRSP are appropriate and endorsed by EPA.

XI. Facilities & Information to be Provided by the client

The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) will designate a suitably qualified and experienced officer to act as counterpart for the study and to assist with liaison and coordination with meetings etc. The MoA Project Management Unit (PMU) will also provide ongoing support and assistance for the team, especially with administrative issues and required documentation.

Otherwise, the Consultant will be required to source and fund its own office accommodation, equipment and transport.

In order to facilitate the study, the consultant will be made available with the following documentation concerning the sector and the project:

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

Draft WB Project Appraisal Document (PAD) -including its annexes. Data from the Ministry of Public Works (Infrastructure Unit), the International Labor Organization

(ILO), the World Bank, and Liberia Institute of Statistics & Geo-Information Service (LISGIS), with regards to the road sector (including feeder roads), notably ongoing/planned projects, rehabilitation methods, costs, road maps etc.

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

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

XII. Safeguards Policies to be used as Guidance and Standards OP 4.01 – Environmental Assessment OP 4.04 – Natural Habitats OP 4.09 – Pest Management OP 4.36 - Forests


ANNEX J: STUDY TEAM

The Consultant’s team leader, Wayne Borden, has over 40 years of practical experience in agriculture/rural development and in environmental assessment and environmental and biodiversity conservation management planning based on assignments in 30 countries worldwide, including in Liberia. Mr. Borden has extensive experience as coordinator/participant in project environmental components, including rural resource evaluation and development planning, mitigation and monitoring, participatory project planning and implementation, environmental policy, and assisting/training counterparts in developing strategy/criteria for impact assessment. He also has wide experience in cross cutting themes (poverty alleviation, livelihood systems, human resource development, gender issues) on identification, planning and implementation projects funded by a wide range of multilateral and bilateral agencies (EU, IBRD, ADB, GTZ, Danida, CIDA, FAO, IFAD).

He also has wide experience in cross cutting themes (poverty alleviation, livelihood systems, human resource development, gender issues) on identification, planning and implementation projects funded by a wide range of multilateral and bilateral agencies (EU, IBRD, ADB, GTZ, Danida, CIDA, FAO, IFAD). Particularly relevant to this consultancy is his experience conducting the EIA/EMP for the LAC small holder rubber initiative in Grand Bassa and for the rehabilitation of oil palm production at Mange in neighboring Sierra Leone. In 2010 he was Lead Environmentalist in the preparation of the ESIA/ESMP for the rehabilitation of the former iron mine Nimba Country, and thus is very familiar with the issues related to sensitive habitat safeguarding amid strong land-use competition in Liberia.Mr. Borden has already worked on several occasions for AGRER and has shown to be a very competent and reliable team leader.

Patience Agyare-Kwabi, the Consultant Social Scientist has been working on social development and gender issues for the past 18 years and has undertaken extensive consultancy assignments locally and internationally. Among her key areas of professional expertise are Policy and Strategy Development, Institutional Capacity Building, Program and Project Development and Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, Gender Mainstreaming and Human Rights. She has an international exposure having worked in many countries including Liberia, Britain, Kenya, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and South Africa and with nationals from many countries around the world. As a consultant in Ghana, Patience has worked in all the 10 regions of Ghana covering several Metropolis, Municipalities, Districts and rural communities.

Ms. Patience Agyare-Kwabi has a Master of Science Degree (MSc.) in Gender and Development from the University of London, Birkbeck College. This is in addition to an honors degree in Education majoring in social science and administration and many other relevant certificate courses and trainings. Core aspects of the masters’ study were conceptual analysis of development policies, programs and projects and also gender mainstreaming. As an expert, Patience has undertaken consultancies for some of the major international development partners such as the Royal Danish Embassy and the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Ghana and Liberia; agencies of the United Nations (ILO, UNFPA, UNFAO, UNHCR, UNDP and UNIFEM); SNV(Dutch Development Organization); Netherlands Embassy in Ghana, SIMAVI, ICCO and WASTE (Netherlands), TROPENBOS International, Ricerca e Co-operazione, International Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development (ICED) GTZ and KfW (German Development Cooperation). She has partnered international consultancy firms such as Particip GmBH of Germany, Development Associates and COWI/AS of Denmark. Patience is an independently registered consultant in Ghana and also a core member of JEAVCO Associates Limited, a project management consultancy. Patience has a track record of consistent, excellent and timely delivery of services demonstrated by repeated engagements by her clients.


preliminary esia and esmp for the liberian...

Documents