Kenya - Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid Lands (KAACCAL) Project : environmental assessment (Vol. 4 of 5) : Environmental amd social management framework

Public Disclosure Authorized E1783 v4 Republic of Kenya Environmental and Social Management Framework Public Disclosure Authorized for KENYA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND AGRIBUSINESS PROJECT (KAPAP); and KENYA ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN ARID AND SEMI-ARID LANDS PROJECT (KACCAL) Revised July 2012 Acronyms and Abbreviations AGOA African Growth Opportunity Act ALRMP Arid Lands Resource Management Project ASAL Arid and Semi-Arid Lands ATIRI Agricultural Technology and Information Response Initiative BMP Best Management Practices BP Bank Procedure CAC Catchment Area Coordinator CAP Community Action Plan CAPs Community Action Plans CAS Country Assistance Strategy CBO Community Based Organization CBS Central Bureau of Statistics CCC Climate Change Coordinator CDD Community-driven development CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CIG Common Interest Group CMS Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals CPIA Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CWG Community Working Group DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DCU District Coordination Units DDO District Development Officer DEC District Environment Committee DEO District Environment Officer DfID Department for International Development (UK) DRSRS Department of Resource Survey and Remote Sensing DSC District Steering Committee DSDO District Social Development Officer DSG District Steering Group DTT District Training Team EA Environmental Assessment EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMCA Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act EMF Environmental Management Framework EMP Environmental Management Plan ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation ERS Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation ESA Environmental and Social Assessment ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FEWSNET Famine Early Warning System-Network FFS Farmer Field Schools FM Financial management GDP Gross domestic product GEF Global Environment Facility GHGs Greenhouse Gases GMP Good Management Practices GMT Good Management Technologies GOK Government of Kenya IBA Important Bird Area ICB International Competitive Bidding i ICC Inter-Ministerial Coordinating Committee ICM Integrated Crop Management ICPAC IGAD Climate Prediction and Application Centre ICRAF International Council for Research on Agroforestry IDA International Development Association IDA International Development Association IDRC International Development Research Centre (Canada) IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFR Interim Financial Report IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development IMCE Inter-Ministerial Committee on Environment IPM Integrated Pest Management IPO Indigenous Peoples Organization IPP Indigenous Peoples Plan IPPF Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework IPs Indigenous Peoples IRMPF Institutional Risk Management Policy Framework IRR Internal rate of return ISC Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency KACCAL Kenya Climate Change Adaptation in the Arid and Semi Arid Lands KAPAP Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute KEFRI Kenya Forestry Research Institute KEMRI Kenya Medical Research Institute KFSM Kenya Food Security Meeting KMFRI Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute KS KAPAP Secretariat KWS Kenya Wildlife Service M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MET(s) Mobile Extension Team(s) MG & SS Ministry of Gender and Social Services MIS Management information system MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoH Ministry of Health NALEP National Agricultural and Livestock Extension Project NCB National Competitive Bidding NEMA National Environment Management Authority NGO Non-Governmental Organization NPV Net present value NRM Natural resource management OAC Operation Area Coordinator ODA Overseas development assistance PCU Project Coordination Unit PEO Provincial Environment Officer PMP Pest Management Plan PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper RAP Resettlement Action Plan RSU Regional Service Unit SA Social Analysis SC Steering Committee SCCF Special Climate Change Fund SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency ii SRA Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture SWAp Sector-Wide Approach TN Total Nitrogen TOR Terms of Reference TP Total Phosphorus UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNDP United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USAID United States Agency for International Development VFF Village Farmers Forum WHO World Health Organization WKCDD&FM Western Kenya Community Driven Development and Flood Mitigation iii Executive Summary 1. The Government of Kenya (GoK) has requested support from the World Bank for the implementation of two projects, Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agri-business Project (KAPAP), and Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid and Semi-arid Lands (KACCAL) both operating in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands of Kenya (KAPAP also operates in other regions of the country as described below). 2. This report is the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) to be used jointly for both projects, in order to ensure that all environmental and social safeguards are adequately addressed by the projects. 3. The two projects: KAPAP and KACCAL will contribute to the revitalization of agriculture by: a. Making resources available and strengthen the capacity of agricultural producers and other resource users to: (1) adopt good practices and technologies to mitigate land degradation and achieve greater productivity of crops, trees and livestock; (2) enhance understanding of climate change and its impacts nationally and in local regions; (3) recommend vulnerability assessment, impact monitoring and capacity building framework needs as a response to climate change; and (4) adopt sustainable alternative livelihood options to diversify and increase income, and reduce the pressure on the natural resources. b. Enhancing the institutional capacity of all relevant stakeholders to promote sustainable land management practices and alternative livelihood strategies based on participatory and demand-driven approaches. c. Evaluating the impact of existing policies affecting the management of natural resources and contribute to the removal of barriers hindering the widespread adoption of SLM practices and ‘smart agriculture’. d. Facilitating the exchange of information on best practices in sustainable land management among farmers, communities, extension agents, researchers, development partners, and policy makers. 4. The projects are addressing the fundamental features of the Government’s strategies for development and poverty alleviation as specified in the Kenya Vision 2030 and in the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) which has specifically identified five critical areas requiring public action in the modernization process of the sector. The project was designed to fund agricultural policy processes and activities including small-scale, community-based sub-projects that were identified and planned by the communities, with the support of project-financed extension teams. This study is expected to produce an ESMF for the KAPAP and KACCAL activities. 5. KAPAP and KACCAL are implemented (along with KAPSLM project) by the KAPAP Project Coordination Unit in the Ministry of Agriculture, including the secretariat and key experts: i. National Coordinator, Environmental Expert, M&E’s experts, IT- expert, ii. Regional service units, which are to include and a KAPAP Coordinator. KAPSLM Coordinator and KACCAL Climate Change Coordinator; and general field officers implementing any of the 3 projects. iii. Local community level forming different groups to undertake KAPAP, KACCAL, or KAPSLM sub-projects, depending on particular activities being implemented. 6. The purpose of the ESMF is to provide guidance for the integration of environmental and social considerations (including safeguards) in the planning and implementation of the activities iv  to be implemented within the framework of the two projects1: KAPAP and KACCAL. This ESMF includes a guide for initial screening of the sub-projects for negative impacts which would require attention prior to their implementation. 7. The objectives of this ESMF are: to establish clear procedures and methodologies for environmental and social planning, review, approval and implementation of subprojects to be financed under the two projects; prescribe projects arrangements for the preparation and implementation of sub-projects in order to adequately address World Bank safeguard policy issues; assess the potential environmental and social impacts of the subprojects; to propose mitigation measures which will effectively address identified negative impacts; specify appropriate roles and responsibilities, and outline the necessary reporting procedures for managing and monitoring environmental and social concerns related to sub-projects; determine the training, capacity building and technical assistance needed to successfully implement the provisions of the ESMF; and establish the projects’ funding required to implement the ESMF requirements. 8. In preparation of the ESMF, the following activities were completed: an assessment of the potential environmental and social impacts of KAPAP and KACCAL taking into account the World Bank’s relevant safeguard policies as well as Kenya’s environmental policies, laws and regulations; a review of various studies on social, economic and biophysical characteristics of the target districts covered by the projects and identification of constraints that needs to be taken into account, ascertaining whether the projects’ operational areas contains any environmentally sensitive areas, cultural heritage, vulnerable and marginalized groups that need to be taken into account during projects preparation and implementation; development of screening procedures (including checklists) that will be used as a mechanism in the ESMF for screening potential environmental and social impacts due to sub-project interventions; development of appropriate methods to promote an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach that will minimize the need for chemical pesticides during project interventions; a review of national environmental policies, legislation, regulatory and administrative frameworks in conjunction with the World Bank’s safeguard policies, and formulation of recommendations in the context of the project as appropriate; a review of the relevant conventions and protocols to which Kenya is a signatory; an evaluation of the existing environmental and social assessment, and management capacity as well as capacity to implement mitigation measures, and formulation of appropriate recommendations, including the institutional structure and the responsible agencies for implementing the framework, a grievance mechanism and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of potential impacts; an evaluation of capacity building and training needs and their costs; and presentation of an outline on institutional arrangements for environmental management, including environmental assessment procedures, monitoring indicators and mitigation strategies, as appropriate under the project. 9. The methodology used for developing this ESMF consisted of: (1) Identification of 8 KAPAP and 4 KACCAL districts for the purpose of sampling on the procedures used to identify interventions, planning and implementation of the project; (2) Discussion with staff both at the KAPAP Secretariat (KS) at the Headquarters and at the KAPAP RSUs in eight sample districts, 4 of which are also KACCAL Districts; (3) Conducting focused group discussions with stakeholders at district headquarters on the methodologies used in identifying, planning, approving and monitoring of the projects; (4) Visiting and discussing with at least one Common Interest Group (CIG) members/farmers; (5) perusing relevant KAPAP and other relevant documents. 1 KAPAP and KACCAL v 10. KAPAP covers a period of five years (2010-2014) and focuses on; improving linkages of agricultural research and extension systems to national, local and regional sector priorities though the implementation of ASDS, NASEP and NARS policies, including improved planning, coordination, funding and implementation; the empowerment of producer and other public and private stakeholders and their organizations to plan, design and deliver extension and agribusiness services, aimed at sector transformation/growth, including production and value-addition and linking farmers to input and output markets; and the setting-up of appropriate funding and risk mitigation systems which would lead to the development of on- and off- farm diversification and promote private investment in the sector. 11. KACCAL project, which has been approved in 2010 and is scheduled to close in 2016, will focus on: i. Contributing to climate change adaptation particularly through sustainable land management. It is embedded within the country’s programmatic framework for sustainable land management (KSIF) which the Government of Kenya is developing under Kenya Agriculture and Sustainable Land Management Project (KAPSLMP) with support from TerrAfrica. ii. Strengthening capacities among national institutions to better assess and respond to current and future climate risks. The project will generate and disseminate climate-related knowledge and strengthen institutional coordination among currently fragmented agencies managing disaster and climate risk. iii. Helping communities adopt climate change adaptation strategies and investments. Such investments will help arrest vulnerability among the ASAL population by directly strengthening their resilience to climate risk. 12. Prior to implementation of any project it is within the environmental laws (EMCA 1999) that an environmental and social management Framework is developed and applied with a view to conserving the biophysical and social environmental resources. This Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) has been prepared and revised to fully comply with environmental legislations and procedures in Kenya and with the World Bank environmental and social safeguard policies. In this chapter, the key safeguard policies that provide the policy context to the ESMF including World Bank policies and Kenya’s legal requirements on environmental assessment have been outlined. As part of the ESMF process, proposed sub-projects under the two projects will be designed at the local level to ensure that they are screened for potential impacts and that they comply with the requirements set out under World Bank safeguard policies. 13. The project beneficiaries include the farmers and communities within the operational areas who participate voluntarily in projects’ activities. The key stakeholders include the farmers, communities, CBOs and NGOs, local government, research and environmental management institutions and the relevant sector ministries (agriculture, water, environment, lands). 14. The two projects call for an ESMF that will include a screening process to assess the potential impacts associated with sub-projects. This is in accordance with part I Section 6 and Part II Section 7 (1) of the EMCA Act. In addition to the OP 4.01, KAPAP and KACCAL projects have triggered other safeguard polices: OP 4.09 - on Pest Management and OP 4.10 - Indigenous People. Using the screening and review process prescribed for the sub-projects before actual implementation, negative impacts are identified and respective mitigation measures are isolated in the Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMP) for implementation. The screening and review process will determine the extent of environmental and social risks of a particular sub- project and propose appropriate mitigation measures to be put in place. The screening and review process will also ensure that sub-projects that may have potentially significant impacts will require more detailed study. This will ensure that all concerns related to NEMA and the Bank’s safeguard policies are taken into account during the screening of sub-projects for potential impacts, and that the appropriate mitigation measures can be adopted to address them. If a vi  sub-project is categorized under the second schedule of the Act, it will require a separate EA that will comply with the NEMA’s and World Bank’s disclosure regulations. The screening criteria provided in the ESMF includes relevant questions which will help determine if any other safeguard policies are triggered and the measures needed to be taken into account to mitigate impacts. The screening and review process will identify any sub-projects that may have potentially significant impacts which require more detailed study and the need for a sub-project specific EA. 15. The projects contribute to the revitalization of agricultural sector in Kenya by: facilitating empowerment of farmers to access and adopting profitable and sustainable technologies; laying the groundwork for a pluralistic agricultural extension and learning system; integrating and prioritizing the national agricultural system; and supporting analytical work to inform policy and institutional reform. In this respect no major environmental issues are anticipated for the projects. The projects’ beneficiaries include farmers and communities who participate voluntarily in project activities. The key stakeholders during the second phase include farmers, communities, CBOs and NGOs, local government, environmental management institutions and the relevant sector ministries and departments (agriculture, water, environment, forest and wildlife, lands and communities).The projects are expected to generate many positive social impacts that could lead to improvements in alleviation of poverty, improved food security through better crop and livestock yields, better extension service, diversified agricultural resource base, and improved household income. The projects will also result in a multiplier effect on the local economy through development of entrepreneurial activities such as market outlets. Better managed land and water resources will result in fewer social conflicts. 16. The projects are expected to result in increased availability of good quality water for agriculture and livestock. Productive employment opportunities especially for women and the youth are likely to increase. Support to apiculture embraces potential for significant and culturally appropriate benefits for the indigenous peoples. The projects will also result in more affordable health care when medicinal plants are produced, processed and used. In addition, the projects will recommend robust adaptation and mitigation measures needed to minimize risks associated with climate change while maximizing opportunities and recommend research and technological needs that respond to climate change impacts and avenues for transferring existing technologies. On the whole, the projects’ interventions will focus on implementation of specific activities that improve the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem. 17. No major environmental impacts are anticipated from the projects; however, potential environmental impacts at the local level that may be anticipated include pollution and eutrophication of water bodies, interference with wetland and animal ecology (particularly birds and fish), erosion and sedimentation. With regard to the critical habitats that include swamps, wetlands, forests, community-protected areasand grassland fragments in the districts, none will be adversely affected by the projects but rather the ecosystems will be enhanced. The projects will not be implemented in any protected area. The projects activities will focus on efficient technology transfer and conservation strategies hence there will be no degradation or conversion of habitats. Annual environmental and social progress reports will be prepared with the coordination of the KAPAP Secretariat covering the two projects. The annual reports will be shared with the projects’ secretariat, RSUs, KARI, KENFAP, other Implementing agencies, the World Bank and other relevant government agencies. The KAPAP Secretariat will regularly brief and sensitize the Inter-Ministerial Coordination Committee (ICC). In order to ensure proper implementation of environmental and social screening, and mitigation measures, as well as effective natural resource management, the two projects will undertake an intensive program of environmental training and institutional capacity building. vii Contents Environmental and Social Management Framework ................................................................... 1 Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary................................................................................................................................ iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Principles and Methodology ......................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Methodology................................................................................................................................. 3 1.5 Field work and schedules .............................................................................................................. 3 1.6 Methods and materials for field work and schedules .................................................................. 3 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECTS ....................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project (KAPAP) .............................................. 4 2.1.1 KAPAP Components ............................................................................................................... 4 2.2 The Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid and Semi- Arid Lands (KACCAL) ...................... 6 2.2.1 KACCAL Components.............................................................................................................. 6 2.3 INSTITUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS . 8 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 12 3.1 Applicable Safeguards Policies .................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 World Bank Safeguard Policies ............................................................................................ 12 3.1.2 Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01) .................................................................................. 13 3.1.2 Pest Management (OP 4.09) ................................................................................................ 14 3.1.3 Other Safeguards Policies .................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Mainstreaming Safeguard Compliance into Sub-project Screening ........................................... 15 3.2.1 Analysis of sub-projects alternatives ................................................................................... 15 3.3 IFC Performance Standards......................................................................................................... 15 3.4 Kenya Environmental Legislation ................................................................................................ 16 3.5 Sub-Project Screening under Kenyan Law .................................................................................. 17 3.6 International Conventions and Treaties ..................................................................................... 17 3.6.1 African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources ....................... 17 3.6.2. Convention for the protection management and development of the marine and coastal environment of the eastern African region .................................................................................. 17 3.6.3 Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) ........................................................................... 18 3.5.4 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those countries experiencing serious drought and /or desertification particularly in Africa (1996). .......................................... 18 viii  3.6.5 United Nations Framework convention on Climate Change (1992) .................................... 18 3.6.6 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as waterfowl habitat (1971) ............................................................................................................................... 18 3.6.7 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory species ....................................................... 19 3.6.8 Important Bird Areas............................................................................................................ 19 3.6.9 The Nile Treaties .................................................................................................................. 19 4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION ................................................................................................................ 20 4.1 Some Biophysical and socio-economic factors of KAPAP and KACCAL districts ......................... 20 5.0 GUIDANCE ON POTENTIAL IMPACTS .............................................................................................. 27 5.1 Overall Environmental and Social Impacts and Indicators in Agriculture................................... 27 5.2 Potential Positive Impacts of KAPAP and KACCAL ...................................................................... 32 5.3 Sub projects Potential negative impacts..................................................................................... 32 5.4 Environmental Issues in National Agricultural Research ............................................................ 36 5.4.1 Environmental Awareness ................................................................................................... 36 5.4.2 Occupational Safety ............................................................................................................. 36 5.4.3 Waste Disposal ..................................................................................................................... 38 5.4.4 Disaster Preparedness ......................................................................................................... 38 5.4.5 Used and Obsolete Micro Project Waste or Laboratory Chemicals .................................... 38 6.0 REPORTING AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE ESMF ................................................................. 39 6.1 Key Environmental Issues and Proposed Actions for Implementation of ESMF ........................ 39 6.2 Flowchart for Reporting and Advice ........................................................................................... 42 6.3 Screening for Sub-projects .......................................................................................................... 42 6.4 Annual Environmental and Social Audit Report Format ............................................................. 50 6.5 Description of Roles and Responsibility in the KAPAP Structure ................................................ 51 6.6 Monitoring and Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 52 6.6.1 Initial Proposals .................................................................................................................... 52 6.6.2 Monitoring of the Participation Process .............................................................................. 52 6.6.3 Monitoring Indicators .......................................................................................................... 53 7.0 ESMF BUDGET ................................................................................................................................. 55 8.0 CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.................................................................... 57 8.1 Environmental trainings and sensitization.................................................................................. 57 8.2 Levels of Training and sensitization ............................................................................................ 57 8.3 Specialized /Technical Training ................................................................................................... 59 8.4 Training requirements and curriculum ....................................................................................... 59 ix 9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL FOCAL POINT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ............................... 62 9.1 Environmental and Social Responsibilities of the KAPAP Secretariat ......................................... 62 9.1.1 Responsibilities .................................................................................................................... 62 9.2 Environmental and Social Roles and Responsibilities of the Fora Secretariats .......................... 63 9.2.1 Roles ..................................................................................................................................... 63 9.2.2 Responsibilities on environmental issues ............................................................................ 63 9.3 Environmental and Social Roles and Responsibilities of the Regional Service Units, CCCs ........ 64 9.3.1 Roles ..................................................................................................................................... 64 9.3.2 Responsibilities .................................................................................................................... 64 10.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 65 Annex 1.0 Initial Terms of Reference (TOR) for Kenya Agricultural Productivity Environmental and Social Management Framework (KAPAP), Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid and Semi- arid Lands (KACCAL) - ESMF) ................................................................................................................ 66 Annex 2.0 Referred Documents ............................................................................................................ 69 Annex 3.0 Stakeholder Consultations ................................................................................................... 70 Annex 4.0 ESMF Team ...................................................................................................................... 101 x  1.0 INTRODUCTION 18. Despite steady growth in the immediate post-independence period, Kenya’s economy has performed considerably below its potential in recent years. For the past two decades productivity has declined, competitiveness eroded and international financial support diminished. Poverty and food insecurity have increased. Average GDP growth declined from about 7% in the 1970s to just over 2% in the 1990s. Underlying factors include persistent and pervasive governance problems, poorly implemented reforms, and low, ill targeted investments in social services, infrastructure and economic services including agricultural sector. Average annual agricultural GDP growth fell from 3.5 percent during the 1980s to 1.0 percent during the 1990s. External factors such as declining global agricultural commodity prices and vulnerability to climatic shocks explain part, but not the entire decline. Domestic policy shortcomings created distortions in input and output markets. Inadequacies in the legal and regulatory framework raised costs of business. Poor infrastructure increased costs of marketing. High incidence of HIV/AIDS contributed to reduced labour productivity. Dysfunctional public support services slowed the renewal of agricultural technology. The end result has been increased rural poverty and food insecurity, decline in competitiveness, and virtual cessation of both private and public investment in the agricultural sector. 19. Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project (KAPAP), and Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid and Semi-arid Lands (KACCAL) will contribute to the revitalization of the agricultural sector through: (i) facilitating empowerment of farmers to access and apply profitable and sustainable technologies; (ii) laying the groundwork for a pluralistic agricultural extension and learning system; (iii) integrating and rationalizing the national agricultural research system; (iv) developing an innovative Insurance scheme which together with low-interest loans will insure farmers against crop failure due to droughts, pests, floods or floods; (v) strengthening integrated and environmental friendly pest management systems to cope with increased threats from insects, pathogens, and weeds and (vi) supporting analytical work to inform policy and institutional reform. 20. The two projects correspond to the fundamental features of the Government’s strategy for poverty alleviation as specified in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) of 2003, the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (ERS, 2003-2007), and the Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture (SRA 2004-2014). The projects were designed to fund agricultural policy processes and activities including small-scale, community-based sub-projects that were identified and planned by the communities, with the support of project-financed extension teams. This ESMF is covering the two projects’ activities. 21. These projects cover a wide range of major issues of strategic significance to the economy and food security including: major food crops, industrial crops, livestock enterprises, potential irrigable land, SLM practices and technologies, smart agriculture, intensity of agro-business, marketing systems and outlets. This comprehensive and broad based approach is likely to maximize inclusiveness as wider groups of beneficiaries within the project area. The strategic targeting of 59 Districts covered under KAPAP and KACCAL provide implementers with an opportunity to build on lessons learned that are required to respond to the challenges of food insecurity, climate change and economic development which are key to improving livelihood of both to project beneficiaries. The demand driven capacity building approach for the two projects will help to identify and equip communities with appropriate technologies, knowledge and skills hence, improving appreciation and ability to protect environment. 1.1 Objectives 22. The objectives of the ESMF are:  To establish clear procedures and methodologies for environmental and social planning, review, approval and implementation of sub-projects to be financed 1  under the projects;  To prescribe to each project, arrangements for the preparation and implementation of sub-projects in order to adequately address World Bank safeguard issues;  To assess the potential environmental and social impacts of the sub-projects;  To propose mitigation measures which will effectively address identified negative impacts;  To specify appropriate roles and responsibilities, and outline the necessary reporting procedures for managing and monitoring environmental and social concerns related to sub-projects;  To determine the training, capacity building and technical assistance needed to successfully implement the provisions of the ESMF; and  To establish the projects’ funding required to implement the ESMF requirements 1.2 Analysis 23. In preparation of ESMF, the following activities were completed::  An assessment of the potential environmental and social impacts of each of the two projects, taking into account the World Bank’s relevant safeguard policies as well as Kenya’s environmental policies, laws and regulations;  A review of various studies on social, economic and biophysical characteristics of the target districts covered by the projects and identification of constraints that needs to be taken into account.  Ascertaining whether the projects’ area of operation contains any environmentally sensitive areas, cultural heritage and vulnerable groups that need to be taken into account during sub-project preparation and implementation;  Development of screening procedures (including checklists) that will be used as a mechanism in the ESMF for screening potential environmental and social impacts due to sub-project interventions;  Development of appropriate methods to promote an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach that will minimize the need for chemical pesticides during each of the projects’ interventions;  Review of national environmental policies, legislation, regulatory and administrative frameworks in conjunction with the World Bank’s safeguard policies, and formulation of recommendations in the context of each project as appropriate;  Review of the relevant conventions and protocols to which Kenya is a signatory;  Evaluation of the existing environmental and social assessment management capacity as well as capacity to implement mitigation measures, and formulation of appropriate recommendations, including the institutional structure and the responsible agencies for implementing the framework, a grievance mechanism and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of potential impacts;  Evaluation of capacity building and training needs and their costs; and  Presentation of an outline on institutional arrangements for environmental management, including environmental assessment procedures and monitoring indicators, as appropriate under each of the projects. 1.3 Principles and Methodology 24. This study takes on a framework approach to environmental and social management because the precise details of the sub-projects in terms of location, materials required, key communities, etc. are not yet known. The ESMF is to be used to screen for and manage the potential environmental and social impacts of each of the two projects. 2 25. The ESMF Methodology involves:  Review of previous reports, published and unpublished works on the environment of the study area;  Review project documents for KACCAL;  Identification of gaps existing in the available information;  Field investigations;  Collation of baseline data on the environmental conditions of the projects’ area;  Identification of positive and negative environmental and social impacts;  Identification of environmental and social mitigation measures;  Preparation of screening procedures to be used while screening sub-project proposals; and  Formulation of environmental and social monitoring plans. 1.4 Methodology 26. The methodology to be used for developing this ESMF includes: (1) Identification of eight KAPAP/KACCAL districts for the purpose of sampling on the procedures used to identify interventions, planning and implementation of the project (2) Discussion with KAPAP staff both at the KAPAP Secretariat (KS) at the Headquarters and at the KAPAP RSUs in eight sample districts (3) Conduct focused group discussions with stakeholders at district headquarters on the methodologies used in identifying, planning, approving and monitoring of the projects. (4) Visit and discuss with at least one Common Interest Group (CIG) members/farmers (5) peruse relevant documents from the two projects and (6) review the entire EMSF with a view to including KACCAL. 1.5 Field work and schedules 27. The field visits were carried out from 11th to 28th November 2008 and covered the following districts: Makueni (Eastern region), Taita Taveta, Kilifi (Coastal region), Nyeri, Meru (central region) and, Homa-Bay (Nyanza region), Kakamega (Western region) Annex 2. The screening field work will be expanded to all the 59 districts covered by the KAPAP and KACCAL as projects’ implementation proceeds. 1.6 Methods and materials for field work and schedules 28. The methodology used for developing this ESMF included: (1) Identification of the relevant districts covered by the projects for the purpose of sampling on the procedures used to identify interventions, planning and implementation of the project (2) Discussion with KAPAP staff both at the KAPAP Secretariat (KS) at the Headquarters and at the KAPAP RSUs in eight sample districts (3) Conduct focused group discussions with stakeholders at district headquarters on the methodologies used in identifying, planning, approving and monitoring of the projects. (4) Visit and discuss with at least one Common Interest Group (CIG) members/farmers (5) peruse relevant KAPAP and KACCAL documents. 3 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECTS 29. KAPAP and KACCAL are implemented under an already existing KAPAP Project Coordination Unit (PCU) including the secretariat and key experts: iv. National Coordinator, Extension Specialist, Farmer and Other Client Specialist, Research Specialist, Environmental Specialist, Gender and Social Specialist, M&E’s experts, IT- expert, v. (ii) Regional service units, which are to include a KAPAP RSU Coordinator, M&EO and KACCAL Climate Change Coordinator; and general field officers implementing the 2 projects vi. (iii) Local community level forming different groups to undertake KAPAP, or KACCAL sub-projects, depending on particular activities being implemented. 2.1 Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project (KAPAP) 30. The Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project (KAPAP) is part of a twelve year programme being implemented in three phases from 2004-2014. Phase 1 which is KAPP1 ended in December 2008 giving way to Phase II hereby called KAPAP on 10th March 2010 which will run up to 2014. The project seeks to contribute to the revitalization of agricultural sector in Kenya by: facilitating empowerment of farmers to access and adopting profitable and sustainable technologies; laying the groundwork for a pluralistic agricultural extension and learning system; integrating and prioritizing the national agricultural research system; and supporting analytical work to inform policy and institutional reform. 31. KAPAP covers a period of five years (2009-2013) and focuses on; improving linkages of agricultural research and extension systems to national, local and regional sector priorities though the implementation of ASDS, NASEP and NARS policies, including improved planning, coordination, funding and implementation; the empowerment of producer and other public and private stakeholders and their organizations- to plan, design and deliver extension and agribusiness services, aimed at sector transformation/growth, including production and value-addition and linking farmers to input and output markets; and the setting-up of appropriate funding and risk mitigation systems which would lead to the development of on- and off- farm diversification and promote private investment in the sector. 32. The subsequent phase of the programme will focus on consolidating reforms in research, implementing reforms in extension and building the basis for sustainable financing of the entire system. Prior to implementation of any project, it is within the environmental laws (EMCA 1999) that an environmental and social management Framework is developed and applied with a view to conserving the biophysical and social environmental resources and at the same time improve the livelihoods of the local communities.). The development objective of the proposed Programme is that agricultural producers and other natural resource users increasingly adopt profitable and environmentally-sound land management practices and alternative livelihood strategies in the targeted operational areas. 2.1.1 KAPAP Components Component 1: Policy/Institutional and Project Implementation Support 33. This component will support activities that will lead to better coordination of the sector with an aim of creating the necessary impetus for sector-wide approach. These activities will be undertaken both at the national and lower levels. At the national level, the Project will support the development of the ASDS investment plan, its implementation, activities that will facilitate harmonization of both 4  Government and donor supported programs, and activities to align them with ASDS. Component 2: Agricultural Research Systems 34. Support will be given to NARS institutions with the objective of operationalizing the NARS policy towards increased productivity and value addition through pluralism, decentralization, efficiency, cost effectiveness and impact. This will enhance the interplay of research, extension, education, agricultural and livestock producers and clients in all aspects of research problem identification, research agenda setting, planning, and research service delivery. Further investment will be made to the Kenya agricultural Research Institute (KARI) in order to continue implementing strategic research programs of Institute, in order to support the implementation of its Investment Plan. The support to KARI under the Project will focus on promoting an agricultural innovation approach, which is a clear shift from previous paradigms which focused more on capacity building and institutional strengthening. The research will address client market needs, and focus more on value addition, and impact, as articulated in the NARS framework. Research on Natural Resource Management (NRM) issues will also be supported with a special focus on climate change. Component 3: Agricultural Extension, Farmer and Service Providers Empowerment 35. The overall objective of this component is to support the Government to implement the NASEP, focusing on empowering the extension clientele through sharing of information, imparting knowledge, skills and changing attitudes, so that they can efficiently manage their resources for increased productivity, improved incomes and standard of living. In line with the ASDS, KAPAP will strengthen and scale-up its support to extension on the base of the implementation framework of the NASEP, developed by the agricultural sector line Ministries. This reform agenda forms a conducive environment for strengthened PPPs in the sector to fill the gap created by the reduced presence of public sector extension service providers, but also to cater better for diverse needs of extension clientele. Key NASEP elements target the implementation of a pluralistic, participatory, demand driven and market oriented, professional, and decentralized national extension and innovation system. Component 4: Agribusiness and Market Development 36. The objective of this component is, therefore, to empower all public and private stakeholders along commodity chains to plan, design and deliver agribusiness services aimed at value-addition, and linking producers to input and output markets. Building on existing experiences, the Project will promote further coordination within the sub-sector with the relevant ministries, the private sector, and involve development partners to enhance synergies with on- going agribusiness activities. 5 2.2 The Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid and Semi- Arid Lands (KACCAL) 37. KACCAL’s development objective is to improve the ability of selected districts and communities of the ASALs to plan and manage climate change adaptation measures. This will be done through: (i) strengthening climate risk management and natural resource base related knowledge; (ii) building institutional and technical capacity for improved planning and coordination to manage current and future climate risks at the district and national levels; and (iii) investing in communities’ priorities in sustainable land and water management and alternative livelihoods that helps them adapt to climate risk. 2.2.1 KACCAL Components Component 1: Climate information products, policy and advocacy. 38. This component will strengthen capacities among national level institutions, particularly the Ministry of Agriculture, to better assess and respond to current and future climate risks. It will generate and disseminate climate-related knowledge and strengthen institutional coordination among currently fragmented agencies managing disaster and climate risk. National stakeholders will be trained to further disseminate the generated knowledge to the district and community levels. 39. Sub-component 1.1: Development of climate-related knowledge products to inform climate risk management (CRM) strategies in ASALs. This sub-component will help generate and increaseing access to tailored climate information for strategic adaptation planning. Knowledge products will include: (i) district climate risk profiles of the four target districts/counties; (ii) methodologies and tools for assessing climate risks in agriculture and rural development programs, particularly KAPAP investments, and climate risk screening of farmer group/common interest group investments; and (iii) assessment and identification of improvements of the Early Warning System for the agriculture sector. 40. Subcomponent 1.2 will support the integration of climate action into national agricultural development plans and programs, with a special focus on the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs). The subcomponent will build the capacity of the KAPAP PCU, relevant departments of the MoA, the newly created Climate Change Unit (CCU), other agriculture sector ministries and departments, and the Agricultural Sector Programs Steering Committee (ASPC). Based on the National Climate Change Response Strategy, the subcomponent will strengthen the integration of climate change aspects into the Agriculture Sector Development Strategy and support the preparation of the Agriculture and Climate Change Policy/Strategy of the MoA. Component 2: Climate risk management at district level. 41. This component will promote the integration of a climate risk management (CRM) perspective into district planning processes and programs. The component will build climate change-related capacity of major stakeholders at the district level and support public and private "climate-smart" investments. 6 42. Sub-component 2.1: Capacity building to integrate CRM into district planning processes. This sub-component will strengthen the capacity of district officials and other stakeholders to access and use relevant climate information and knowledge products noted in component 1. Capacity building to integrate climate risk management into district planning processes will mainly target the KAPAP Regional Service Units (RSUs), public and private extension agents, the Regional Agricultural Sector Steering Committee, District Stakeholder Platforms (e.g. the District Development Committees), and District Farmer Fora. 43. Sub-component 2.2: Support for "climate smart" public and private investments. This sub- component will support the implementation of selected public and private sector interventions identified through adaptation-enhanced district plans. The coordination of climate-smart private and public investments will be the responsibility of the RSUs. Particular emphasis will be placed on facilitating public-private partnerships for climate-smart investments. Links to the Agribusiness component of KAPAP will be utilized to spur private investments into climate-smart agricultural activities. 44. These activities may include public–private sector partnerships. Investment areas include but are not limited to: improving infrastructure to better manage floods and droughts (including small check dams, water pans, and similar facilities); improving livestock monitoring and response systems (for example, improving conditions and risk factors contributing to livestock diseases such as Rift Valley fever, supporting livestock off-take management, and diversifying animal stocks); natural resource management investments (such as agroforestry or rehabilitating water sources); and training in business/enterprise skills for investments in value addition of ASAL products. Component 3: Community driven initiatives for climate resilience. 45. This component will help communities to adopt "climate smart" strategies and investments (see Subcomponent 3.2 below). It will focus on technology adoption, value addition and marketing of ASAL products. 46. Potential areas of support may include: i. Structural interventions to help communities manage land and water resources e.g. erosion control, and small-scale water harvesting, storage, and management. ii. Sustainable agricultural land and livestock management practices and technologies to improve resilience to climate risks e.g. intercropping, integrated nutrient management, moisture and soil conservation techniques, agroforestry, drought-tolerant crops and pasture species, and silvopastoralism. iii. Opportunities to enhance carbon sequestration. Grants will facilitate assessments of the technical and financial feasibility of micro-projects focusing on ecosystem services, especially opportunities for carbon finance. iv. Livelihood enhancement and diversification. Support will be provided to increase the adoption of livelihood diversification projects e.g. value addition, and marketing of ASAL products such as dates, gum, aloe, jatropha, sisal and promotion of sustainable production, value addition and marketing of indigenous crops and vegetables. 7  v. Credit and micro-insurance. The feasibility of innovative credit and microinsurance schemes for ASAL communities will be explored. If they are considered financially viable and technically sound, grants will help to scale up successful community-based credit and insurance mechanisms to facilitate the adoption of improved agropastoral practices and other livelihood strategies to reduce vulnerability and risks. vi. Human and livestock health. Support for investments to reduce human exposure to vector- and waterborne diseases and improve livestock health will be provided. 47. Sub-component 3.1: Support for community capacity building. This sub-component will support awareness building and capacity building at the community level to enhance climate risk assessments and climate resilient planning and investments. Multiple events and severity of droughts and floods have sapped the communities’ ability to adapt autonomously and solely based on Iindigenous knowledge. While they are increasingly noting anomalies in climatic conditions and impacts on their environment, there is limited understanding about the scale and scope of causes and impacts as well as potential opportunities to reduce their vulnerability. Where opportunities are known, communities are constrained in the adoption of adaptation measures. The sub-component will support: (i) strengthening awareness of climate risks faced by specific groups and their ability to interpret and respond to forecasts and related information; (ii) developing "climate resilient" community action plans (CAPs); and (iii) planning and implementing "climate smart" investments at community level, particularly through Common Interest Groups and Farmer Groups. 48. Sub-component 3.2: Support for community based micro-projects. This sub-component will support community based micro-projects, identified in the "climate-resilient" CAPs. Processes and procedures for preparation and implementation of Farmer/Common Interest Group (CIG) grants are specified in the Farmer Grant Manual (FGM) prepared under KAPAP and updated for KACCAL. 2.3 INSTITUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS 49. The two projects will be implemented under the framework of Kenya Government Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture. The inter-ministerial coordination and Policy guidelines for ASDS and other government initiatives will be used in implementing KAPAP, KAPSLM and KACCAL. This will include a broad based inter-ministerial Coordinating Committee (SRA-ICC) consisting of permanent secretaries from the seven ministries of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Development, Cooperative Development, Water, Environment and natural Resources, Lands and Local government. There is also a National Forum (NF) consisting of all stakeholders operating the sector. 50. The four sector ministries (Agriculture, Livestock Development, Fisheries Development, and Co- operative Development), KARI and KENFAP, will be the implementing agencies. As envisaged during the original design of the KAPP program, the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) will have fiduciary responsibility for the two Projects. This will be exercised through the KAPAP Secretariat (KS), which will be mainstreamed in the government ministries. The Inter-ministerial Coordinating Committee (ICC) will continue to be responsible for, inter alia, policy matters and providing guidance to address implementation bottlenecks. However, the composition of the ICC will be expanded to reflect all the key implementation agencies as per each of the two project Appraisal Documents. The KAPP Steering Committee from Phase I will be replaced with a sector-wide Agricultural Sector Programs Steering Committee (ASPSC). The previous Steering 8  Committee will be expanded to enable it to offer technical, financial (approval of annual work plans and budgets) and operational guidance and oversight to the two projects implementation and other programs in the agricultural sector. The finance and audit sub-committees will be maintained and strengthened. 51. The two projects will be implemented by mainstreaming into the GOK system, both at national and the local level. Qualified staff will be seconded from the line ministries for the entire period of the Project. GOK staff seconded to the KAPP Phase I will be retained based on their performance. The capacity of KS will be strengthened to include an Agribusiness Specialist, Accountants and Auditors3 and other support staff. 52. Due to the sub-division of the original KAPP districts, the Regional Service Units (RSUs) will be maintained and converted into Regional Service Units (RSUs). The RSUs will service the original district (now County) mandate The RSU are based in are where the county government will be located and will therefore not require any structural transfer of responsibility but rather mainstreaming the operations with the country governance coordination organs. A regional programs steering committee will be formed and supported to coordinate the two projects and other sector programs at each region. The regional steering committee will also facilitate joint work programming and planning for all the districts covered under each region. The composition of the committee will include heads of departments in government sector ministries, KENFAP, District farmer’s representative and other stakeholders. The RSU coordinator will be the secretary and convener of steering committee. Two project organs are funded to carry out the following activities: (i) the KAPAP Secretariat (KS), to provide overall coordination of the program and the extra projects, while overseeing the Monitoring and Evaluation and Information and Communication functions; (ii) the KAPAP Steering Committee; and (iii) Regional Service Units (RSU)/Catchment Area Coordinators () and Climate Change Coordinators (CCCs) to coordinate and implement Agricultural extension, climate change adaptation, and sustainable land management (SLM) practices and technologies, farmer and service providers’ empowerment; and Agribusiness and market development component for the first two years will be implemented in the following 59 districts initially under KAPAP have since grown to 69 after inclusion KACCAL projects : 9 Table 1: Projects’ Operational Areas Covered by the ESMF CountyRegion Districts/ Areas Project(s) active in CountyRegion Districts/Areas Project(s) active in District District West Pokot West Pokot, Central KAPAP;KACCAL Tana River Tana River, Tana KAPAP; KACCAL Pokot, Delta North P. Nakuru Nakuru, Molo, Nakuru KAPAP Kwale Kwale, Kinango, KAPAP North Naivasha, Njoro Msambweni Trans Nzoia Trans Nzoia West, Trans KAPAP Garissa Garissa, Fafi, Lagdera KAPAP; KACCAL Nzoia East, Kwanza Nyandarua Nyandarua North, KAPAP Wajir Wajir East, Wajir KAPAP Nyandarua Central, South, Nyandarua South, Wajir North, Wajir Kipipiri West Nyeri Nyeri South, Nyeri KAPAP Meru Central Meru Central, Imenti; KAPAP North, Nyeri Central, North, Nyeri East Buuri; Imenti South Homa Bay Homa Bay, Ndhiwa KAPAP Makueni Makueni, Mbooni, KAPAP Kibwezi, Nzani Gucha Gucha, Gucha South KAPAP Embu Embu KAPAP Siaya Siaya, Ugenya KAPAP Kakamega Kakamega North, K. KAPAP Central, Kakamega South, Kakamega East Taita - Taita, Taveta KAPAP Busia Busia, Samia, Bunyala KAPAP Taveta 10 CountyRegion Districts/ Areas Project(s) active in CountyRegion Districts/Areas Project(s) active in District District Kilifi Kilifi, Kaloleni; Malindi KAPAP; KACCAL Butere- Butere, Mumias KAPAP Mumias (1) 3 KARI staff working with the KS under Phase I will be seconded to the KAPAP Secretariat to ensure continuity in implementation. 11 53. The 59 districts cover the geographical area covered originally by the 20 districts where KAPP phase I was being implemented. The increase in number of districts is as a result of subdivision. The District coverage will be reviewed during mid-term evaluation. However, the geographical catchment of the agri-business and market development activities may naturally spill over beyond the focal district boundaries and some of them will have a national coverage. 54. The projects implementation structures include Secretariat (KS), Regional Service Units (RSU), Financing Models (FMs) (who pays the service providers), the service providers, service provider fora, Farmer fora, Common interest groups (CIG) and Community Working Groups (CWGs). The KAPAP secretariat provide overall coordination at national level and a KAPAP Steering Committee with a national multi-stakeholder membership, has been advising and reviewing the project functions, and also facilitating access to technical resources needed to support activities of the two projects. The RSUs/ and CCCs will be implementing activities of the two projects at district level. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL REQUIREMENTS 55. According to the World Bank review, the two projects were assigned an environmental rating of B-Partial Assessment. The projects aim to strengthen Kenya’s agricultural research and extension system in ways that contribute to environmentally and socially sustainable growth and resource management. The projects have been proactive, and following best practice, a sectoral environmental and social assessment (SESA) will be established for effective response to environmental and social sustainability considerations in a reformed agricultural technology system. Potential environmental issues identified in the two projects include: (a) use of inappropriate farming practices; (b) agriculture/wildlife conflicts; (c) agro-processing pollution; (d) misuse of pesticides; and (e) proneness to climatic fluctuations (especially drought). 56. Social issues identified under the two projects include: (a) resource poor farmers inability to access extension services and inputs; (b) inappropriate technology and thus poor adoption; (c) inadequate access and control of production functions for women; (d) HIV/AIDS impact production systems and livelihoods, and; (e) it was envisaged that the two projects’ activities may have a longer term impacts on indigenous peoples indirectly affected by project activities (e.g. through change in diet, livestock related activities). 57. This Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) has been prepared to fully comply with environmental legislations and procedures in Kenya and with the World Bank’s environmental and social safeguard policies. In this chapter, the key safeguard policies that provide the policy context to the ESMF including World Bank policies and Kenya’s legal requirements on environmental assessment have been outlined. 3.1 Applicable Safeguards Policies 3.1.1 World Bank Safeguard Policies 58. As part of the ESMF process, proposed sub-Projects under the two projects will be designed at the local level to ensure that they are screened for potential impacts and that they comply with the requirements set out under World Bank safeguard policies. The two projects are environmentally oriented and focus on promotion of technologies for the sustainable management of land and related natural resources. No major negative environmental issues are anticipated for the project. The project beneficiaries include the farmers and communities within the operational areas who participate voluntarily in project activities. The key stakeholders include the farmers, communities, CBOs and NGOs, local government, research and environmental management institutions and the relevant sector ministries (agriculture, water, environment, lands). 59. Since these projects seek to affect land use changes, they have been categorized under the 12  second schedule of the Act (EMCA, 1999) and environmental category B (Partial EA) of the World Bank The ESMF has been developed based on the inputs generated during workshops and consultations with all stakeholders and has formulated appropriate processes for screening for environmental and social safeguards in sub-projects. The capacity development component of the projects includes relevant training for the different levels of stakeholders to address capacity constraints for environmental and social screening of micro-projects. 60. The two projects call for an ESMF that includes a screening process to assess the potential impacts associated with sub-projects. This is in accordance with part I Section 6 and Part II Section 7 (1) of the EMCA. In addition to the OP 4.01, each of the two projects has triggered other safeguard polices as indicated in Table 1 below In addition to the OP 4.01, KAPAP and KACCAL projects have triggered other safeguard polices: OP 4.09 on Pest Management and OP 4.10 on Indigenous People. The screening and review process will determine the extent of environmental and social risks of a particular sub-project and propose appropriate mitigation measures to be put in place. Using the screening and review process prescribed for the sub-projects before actual implementation, negative impacts are identified and respective mitigation measures are isolated in the Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMP) for implementation. The screening and review process will also ensure that sub-projects that may have potentially significant impacts will require a more detailed study. If a sub-project is categorized under the second schedule of the Act, it will require a separate EA that will comply with the NEMA’s and World Bank’s disclosure regulations. EA reports produced will be disclosed in Kenya, accessible to the PAPs; they will be disclosed in World Bank InfoShop website. Table 1. The World Bank Safeguard Policies Safeguard Policies Triggered by KAPAP and KACCAL Yes No  Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) [X] [ ]  Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [ ] [X]  Pest Management (OP 4.09) [X][ ]  Physical Cultural Resources (OP 4.11) [ ] [X]  Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [ ] [X]  Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10) [X][ ]  Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [ ] [X]  Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [ ] [X ]  Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60) [ ] [X]  Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) [ ] [X] 3.1.2 Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01) 61. The OP 4.01 has been triggered because the implementation of the two projects may lead to some negative environmental impacts. There are no potential large-scale, significant or irreversible environmental impacts associated with the projects. Programme interventions will focus on implementation of specific activities that improve the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem. Both KACCAL and KAPAP have been assigned an Environmental Category B according to be World Bank review. 62. Although some land management activities may require assessment and mitigation, it is anticipated that few of the expected activities will have negative environmental impacts and they will thus undergo the screening and review procedures. Should the screening and review process identify sub-projects that may have potentially significant impacts, more detailed study will be carried out. However, it should be noted that since the overall environmental category of the project is B, no category A subprojects will be financed by KAPAP and KACCAL. Such sub-projects may require 13  specific EIA and this will be determined by the screening and review process. 3.1.2 Pest Management (OP 4.09) 63. The two projects will make resources available and strengthen the capacity of agricultural producers and other resource users to: (i) adopt sustainable land management (SLM) practices and technologies to mitigate land degradation and achieve greater productivity of crops, trees and livestock; and (ii) adopt sustainable alternative livelihood options to diversify and increase income, and reduce the pressure on the natural resources. A number of sub-projects such as small-scale irrigation may result in the introduction or expansion of pest management activities in certain areas. To mitigate against any potential negative environmental impacts, the requirement to screen for pesticide use is included in the processes set out in the Integrated Pest Management Framework (IPMF) prepared for KAPAP (and updated for KACCAL). In addition, this ESMF includes evaluation of pest management practices (see item 5.4.5; Form 6.1; and item 7.3). Those activities that are not addressed by the ESMF and may use pesticides that are likely to have impacts on the environment will be identified using the screening and review procedures as outlined in section 6.3. 64. However, sub projects of KAPAP and KACCAL should adopt integrated pests management (IPM) strategies. This will comprise soil pests, weeds, field and post-harvest pests and pest diseases management. Use of certified seeds or seed dressing protects them from soil borne pests. Weed control could either be manual or use of appropriate herbicides. There are pre germination and post germination herbicides. However, extreme care is needed in the use of herbicides in that any wrong or uninformed use is likely to cause total loss of the crops or environmental pollution of water and soil. As a rule farmers should observe strict surveillance of their crop and observe high levels of crop hygiene as a first step to manage the pests and diseases in the field. These include removal and destruction of affected plants and then preventive control of the identified problem. Post-harvest pests are managed even before harvesting by cleaning the stores and destroying the residues from previous harvest. Use of recommended pesticides on the harvested crop before storage contributes immensely to the preservation of the harvested crop against attacks by pests. 3.1.3 Other Safeguards Policies 65. Natural Habitats (OP 4.04). This policy is not triggered by KAPAP and KACCAL. There are a number of critical habitats in the target program districts/regions. However, none will be adversely affected by the project. The projects will not be implemented in any protected area and is not envisaged to target natural habitats ecosystems such as wetlands (swamps, marshes, wells, rice paddies, springs, mangroves and coastal beaches), forests and grassland fragments. Other program activities are also not expected to negatively impact critical habitats directly, as both projects are going to be implemented within existing farmland. To further reduce potential indirect impacts on natural habitats from the project activities, such as agriculture, livestock, the ESMF provides communities and extension teams with the appropriate checklist tools, resource sheets and planning methods to identify any potential impacts of sub-projects on natural habitats, reserves, or protected areas, and to develop appropriate mitigation measures to minimize or avoid damage, or compensate for it. Those activities that are not addressed by the ESMF and may have impacts on natural habitats will be identified using the screening and review procedures as outlined in Chapter 6. 66. Indigenous People (OP 4.10). World Bank’s policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10), the Government of Kenya has commissioned the elaboration of this Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) to ensure that the development processes fully respect the dignity, human 14  rights, economies, and culture of indigenous peoples and that the two projects: KAPAP and KACCAL and the IPPF have broad community support from the affected groups. The purpose of the IPPF is to ensure that the development process fully respects the dignity, human rights, economies, and culture of indigenous peoples, and that the projects are able to gain the broad community support of affected indigenous populations through free, prior, and informed consultations. To that end, the IPPF presents guidelines which will avert any potentially adverse effects on the indigenous peoples' communities: or if avoidance proves not to be feasible, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such negative impacts. IPPF is prepared for projects with several sub-projects or those which involve preparation of annual investment programs that are not known at the time of appraisal (e.g. community-driven development projects, social funds, sector investment operations, and financial intermediary loans). The IPPF contains: a description of social assessment for the project; free, prior and informed consultation leading to broad community support, and procedures for preparation and disclosure of an IPP. 3.2 Mainstreaming Safeguard Compliance into Sub-project Screening 67. The screening criteria provided in the ESMF includes relevant questions which will help determine the extent of environmental and social safeguard impacts of any proposed subproject and the measures needed to be taken into account to mitigate impacts. The screening and review process will help the team to select projects eligible for financing under KAPAP/KACCAL and to identify any sub-projects that may have potentially significant impacts which require more detailed study and the need for a sub-project specific EA. This will ensure that all concerns related to NEMA and the Bank’s safeguard policies are taken into account during the screening of sub- projects for potential impacts, and that the appropriate mitigation measures can be adopted to address them. 3.2.1 Analysis of sub-projects alternatives 68. KAPAP and KACCAL include consideration of alternatives into the PCU operational procedures. At the grassroot level target communities working with PCU make informed choices based on what the service providers offer - consequently, they form a CIG along a specific Value Chain. At the level of community, the proposal development and the screening take place. Farmer alternatives exist in form of CIGs open for joining, which has been promoted. Soon after screening, micro-projects are categorized based on their potential environmental and social risks - category A, B or C. The Category A subprojects are then excluded from further consideration. The B and C subprojects will then undergo either an EIA or a Project Report, based on the requirements from NEMA and this ESMF. In both cases, before preparing the final ESMP, alternatives are again considered. 3.3 IFC Performance Standards 69. Among its activities, KACCAL project may include public–private sector partnerships (PPPs). Potential investment areas include but are not limited to: improving infrastructure to better manage floods and droughts (including small check dams, water pans, and similar facilities); improving livestock monitoring and response systems (for example, improving conditions and risk factors contributing to livestock diseases such as Rift Valley fever, supporting livestock off-take management, and diversifying animal stocks); natural resource management investments (such as agroforestry or rehabilitating water sources); and training in business/enterprise skills for investments in value addition of ASAL products. For such PPP activities, financed by International Finance Corporation (IFC), the project will take into consideration IFC Performance Standards. 15 70. IFC applies the Performance Standards to manage social and environmental risks and impacts and to enhance development opportunities in its private sector financing in its member countries eligible for financing. Depending on implementation arrangements for proposed sub-projects these may also be required to comply with relevant IFC Performance Standards, in addition to World Bank Safeguards Policies:  Performance Standard 1: Social and Environmental Assessment and Management System  Performance Standard 2: Labor and Working Conditions  Performance Standard 3: Pollution Prevention and Abatement  Performance Standard 4: Community Health, Safety and Security  Performance Standard 7: Indigenous Peoples 71. The Performance Standards may also be applied by other financial institutions electing to apply them to projects in emerging markets. Together, the Performance Standards establish standards that the client is to meet throughout the life of an investment by IFC or other relevant financial institution. 72. In addition to meeting the requirements under the Performance Standards, clients must comply with applicable national laws, including those laws implementing host country obligations under international law. 3.4 Kenya Environmental Legislation 73. The Government has embraced for proper environmental management of “land use without destruction of the resource base