THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

INTEGRATING CLIMATE RESILIENCE INTO AGRICULTURAL AND PASTORAL PRODUCTION IN UGANDA,

THROUGH A FARMER/AGRO-PASTORAL FIELD SCHOOL APPROACH

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT

Uganda

JULY 2018

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Uganda is a low-income land-locked country from Eastern Africa that largely depends on rain-fed

agriculture, making rural livelihoods and food security highly vulnerable to weather extremes and the

consequences of climate change and variability. Climate change is significantly affecting agricultural

production. Heavy rains induced by climate change cause soil erosion and leaching, and high temperatures

and droughts lead to additional wind erosion and loss of soil nutrients. To face these challenges, the

National Climate Change Policy (NCCP, 2015) advocates to (i) promote Climate Change Adaptation (CCA)

strategies that enhance resilient, productive and sustainable agricultural systems; and (ii) promote value

addition and improve food storage and management systems in order to ensure food security at all times,

as a factor of resilience.

In response to these challenges and in alignment with the NCCP, the objective of the proposed project is

to “build climate resilience into the agricultural sector, as an effective means of reducing vulnerability and

disseminating community-level adaptation measures”.

The area of intervention of the project lies across five Agro-Ecological Zones (AEZ) and three regions. The

districts and sub-counties of interventions are located within the cattle corridor – Uganda’s dryland - that

is dominated by livestock production with scarce water and pasture resources. The project will target 13

of the 121 districts of the country - namely Nakasongola, Nakaseke Luwero, Kayunga, Kamuli, Buyende,

Amolatar, Kaberamaido, Amuria, Katakwi, Abim, Napak, Amudat and 28 sub-counties.

The project’s districts and sub-counties of intervention were selected during the Project Preparation Grant

(PPG) phase, in a participatory manner, in collaboration with the districts administrations and technical

staff, on the basis of the following criteria: (i) Vulnerability to climate change; (ii) Intensity and impacts of

the risks on environment and livelihoods; (iii) Existence of Agro-Pastoralist/Farmer Field Schools (AP/FSS),

farmer producer groups or cooperatives; (iv) Presence of indigenous peoples; (v) Critical environmental

degradation (such as deforestation, soil degradation); (vi) Political Administration (select sub-counties

from in different counties/constituencies); and (vii) On-going initiatives which can be built on and co-

financing.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Evidence shows that Uganda is likely to experience more extreme weather events such as droughts, floods and heat waves in the coming years. This is confirmed by the NCCP, acknowledging that the changing temperature patterns have been linked with drought and consequent increases in cattle deaths in the cattle corridor.

Climate change and extreme weather events exacerbate ecosystem degradation as they can lead smallholder farmers to engage in unsustainable utilization of ecosystem services and livelihood practices to ensure their food security, energy and water supply. These practices lead to the degradation of the local environment and its natural resources, which as a result produce a reduction in quantity and quality of the ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services) available.

The proposed project’s objective, components and outcomes are delineated in the below table.

Overview of Project Components, Outcomes and Outputs

Project Objective: Build climate resilience into the agricultural sector, as an effective means of reducing vulnerability and disseminating community-level adaptation measures.

Component 1: Improving knowledge on climate-resilience and associated agricultural practices in the framework of the Climate Change Department’s mandate and MAAIF Agriculture Sector Strategic Plan

Outcome 1: Knowledge on CCA, natural resources, agrarian systems and agrobiodiversity is produced and disseminated through an integrated knowledge sharing system to male and female farmers and agro-pastoralists, and institutions that support them (MAAIF, NARO, DLG, NGOs, CBOs, etc.) to ensure resilience.

Output 1.1: Natural resources, agrarian systems and land uses are fully described in the 13 districts, and their transformation dynamic in a climate change context is understood.

Output 1.2: Knowledge on agrobiodiversity is enhanced and disseminated to increase climate resilience

Output 1.3: An integrated system to generate and disseminate knowledge on climate risks and emerging adaptation options/best practices is developed at both district level and national level

Output 1.4: An ICT system is developed to share knowledge across 40 AP/FFS and 2 districts amongst farmers and agro pastoralists on CCA best practices to increase their resilience to climate change

Component 2: Dissemination and farmer testing/ application of gender responsive climate-change resilient agricultural practices through Agro-Pastoral/ Farmer Field Schools (AP/FFS)

Outcome 2: Farmers and agro-pastoralist households (of which 30% are female) adopt gender responsive improved climate resilient practices (agroecological practices, improved soil, water, crop, varietal diversity, crop-associated biodiversity, livestock and ecosystem management practices, integrated pest management practices) through the AP/FFS approach.

Output 2.1: A core group of 40 master trainers and 120 AP/FSS facilitators trained on gender responsive CCA and SLM practices

Output 2.2: 7,500 famers and agro-pastoralists in the cattle corridor trained on gender responsive CCA/SLM through AP/FFS

Output 2.3: 4 Community seed banks, 4 community tree nurseries, 13 district tree nurseries and 13 diversity fairs are set up to support smallholder male and female farmers in the diversification of their crop and fruit tree production

Output 2.4: 500 male and female farmers and agro-pastoralists are involved in sustainable production and export opportunities to access high value markets

Component 3: Mainstreaming gender responsive CCA and resilience into agriculture sector policies and plans

Outcome 3: Increased institutional capacity of MAAIF and DLG to mainstream gender responsive CCA into Agriculture Sector and Districts Plans & implement CCA policies, strategies and programs, shifting from a reactive response to a pro-active preparedness approach

Output 3.1: Gender and CCA mainstreamed into the Water for Agriculture Production Policy

Output 3.2: Gender and CCA mainstreamed into the Agricultural Mechanization Policy

Output 3.3 CCA mainstreamed in the Gender Policy

Output 3.4: Institutional capacities on gender and CCA in the agriculture sector built at central, regional and district levels

Output 3.5: Gender and CCA integrated into an effective land and natural resources management system in 13 districts

Output 3.6: Barriers to registration of local/farmers crop varieties on the Uganda National Register of Varieties understood

Component 4: Project monitoring, and evaluation and knowledge management

Outcome 4: Project Implementation based on results-

Output 4.1: Project monitoring system providing systematic information on progress in meeting project outcomes and output targets

based management and application of project lessons learned in future operations facilitated

Output 4.2: Project-related “best-practices” and “lessons learned” disseminated

The Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) will act as the project executing entity

in close consultation with the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE), and the Ministry of Gender,

Labour and Social Development (MGLSD). MAAIF will have the executing and technical responsibility for

the project, with FAO providing technical oversight as GEF Agency.

3. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT

FAO is committed to ensuring meaningful, effective and informed participation of stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of FAO programmes and projects. “Stakeholders”refers to project affected communities and national and local authorities, and where appropriate, other stakeholders. See Annex 1 for a list of the main stakeholders identified and their role in project implementation.

All stakeholders were consulted during the PPG and their inputs was thoroughly considered while preparing this project document. Notably, an inception workshop was organized in Mukono, Uganda on September 26, 2017. The objectives of the workshop were to:

Inform stakeholders about the GEF/LDCF project objectives and components;

Inform stakeholders about the PPG phase, its objectives and different steps, roles and responsibilities and timing;

Discuss the proposed project districts and baseline projects;

Present the results of the stakeholder mapping exercise performed during the August technical workshop;

Present the SHARP tool, to be used during the PPG phase;

Introduce the approach of FPIC (Free Prior Informed Consent); and

Present the System-wide capacity development approach to be taken in the project.

A data collection mission was conducted early 2018 to the project sites where the PPG team met and consulted local authorities and communities. These consultations allowed the collection of first-hand information on the context, needs and priorities of the communities in terms of CCA. In addition, a capacity needs assessment was conducted during the PPG, at the individual level (knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to carry out activities related to the proposed project), organizational level (structures, processes resources and tools that contribute to the functional capacity of fulfil the mandate of an entity), and at the environment level (how enabling is the situation in which the entity operates in terms of policies, laws and regulations, institutional arrangements, etc.). The results of this assessment were duly taken into consideration in the project design.

Moreover, a Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) process was conducted with indigenous communities during the PPG data collection mission. The process was included consultations with the Indigenous People on the project’s objective. They did not object to the project and welcomed project activities. During project implementation, the elders will be consulted to ensure the protection of traditions and cultures.

A participatory validation workshop was organized on May 29, 2018 to present the project concept to a wide range of stakeholders and gather input on proposed project outcomes, outputs and activities. The main concern of the stakeholders is for priority be placed to actions on the grounds, bringing concrete

and quick benefits and capacity building for local decision-making. The feedback and comments received during the workshop have been integrated in the project document.

Stakeholders will continue to be thoroughly consulted and engaged throughout the project implementation, as described in Annex 1 “Project Stakeholders and Role in Project Implementation”. The Project Steering Committee will have government and FAO representation, and will take project decisions on a consensus-based approach. The below table outlines the project’s stakeholder engagement plan.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN

Stakeholder engagement event

Targeted stakeholders

Purpose of the Event

Inception Workshop (3rd month after first disbursement)

Secondary and Tertiary stakeholders

To define and validate project methodologies with project stakeholders that will be used for project implementation, M&E.

To confirm institutional roles of project stakeholders.

To define the project the local and national entry points of the project grievance mechanism - in a participatory way.

Mid-term workshop (Month 18)

Secondary and Tertiary stakeholders

To assess mid-term project achievements vis-à-vis expected outcome indicator targets.

To assess the performance of the Project Management Unit and project technical structure.

To identify weaknesses to be strengthened, in order to improve project effectiveness and achieve project objectives.

To know, systematize and analyze producers’ perceptions on project implementation, alignment with their own expectancies, and expected outcomes.

To share the grievance mechanism with project stakeholders.

Final Workshop (3 months before project closure)

Secondary and Tertiary stakeholders

To disseminate project outcomes and discuss on lessons learned for future projects.

To share success stories with and within producers’ organizations, as well as with other national and international livestock sector actors.

To assess project implementation, share Final Evaluation, consult with co-executing partners, and

identify weaknesses and strengths at institutional and operational levels (local and national).

To consolidate inputs for the Project Terminal Report.

GRIEVANCE MECHANISM

FAO is committed to ensuring that its programs are implemented in accordance with the Organization’s environmental and social obligations. In order to better achieve these goals, and to ensure that beneficiaries of FAO programs have access to an effective and timely mechanism to address their concerns about non-compliance with these obligations, the Organization, in order to supplement measures for receiving, reviewing and acting as appropriate on these concerns at the program management level, has entrusted the Office of the Inspector-General with the mandate to independently review the complaints that cannot be resolved at that level.

FAO will facilitate the resolution of concerns of beneficiaries of FAO programs regarding alleged or potential violations of FAO’s social and environmental commitments. For this purpose, concerns may be communicated in accordance with the eligibility criteria of the Guidelines for Compliance Reviews Following Complaints Related to the Organization’s Environmental and Social Standards, which applies to all FAO programs and projects.

Concerns must be addressed at the closest appropriate level, i.e. at the project management/technical level, and if necessary at the Regional Office level. If a concern or grievance cannot be resolved through consultations and measures at the project management level, a complaint requesting a Compliance Review may be filed with the Office of the Inspector-General (OIG) in accordance with the Guidelines. Program and project managers will have the responsibility to address concerns brought to the attention of the focal point.

The principles to be followed during the complaint resolution process include: impartiality, respect for human rights, including those pertaining to indigenous peoples, compliance of national norms, and coherence with the norms, equality, transparency, honesty, and mutual respect.

Project-level grievance mechanism

The project will establish a grievance mechanism at field level to file complaints during project inception phase. Contact information and information on the process to file a complaint will be disclosed in all meetings, workshops and other related events throughout the life of the project. In addition, it is expected that all awareness raising material to be distributed will include the necessary information regarding the contacts and the process for filing grievances.

The project will also be responsible for documenting and reporting as part of the safeguards performance monitoring on any grievances received and how they were addressed.

The mechanism includes the following stages:

1. In the instance in which the claimant has the means to directly file the claim, he/she has the right

to do so, presenting it directly to the Project Management Unit (PMU). The process of filing a

complaint will duly consider anonymity as well as any existing traditional or indigenous dispute

resolution mechanisms and it will not interfere with the community’s self-governance system.

2. The complainant files a complaint through one of the channels of the grievance mechanism. This

will be sent to the Project General Coordinator (PGC) to assess whether the complaint is eligible. The

confidentiality of the complaint must be preserved during the process.

3. Eligible complaints will be addressed by the Project Advisory Committee (PAC). The PGC will be

responsible for recording the grievance and how it has been addressed if a resolution was agreed.

4. If the situation is too complex, or the complainer does not accept the resolution, the complaint

must be sent to a higher level, until a solution or acceptance is reached.

5. For every complaint received, a written proof will be sent within ten (10) working days;

afterwards, a resolution proposal will be made within thirty (30) working days.

6. In compliance with the resolution, the person in charge of dealing with the complaint, may

interact with the complainant, or may call for interviews and meetings, to better understand the

reasons.

7. All complaint received, its response and resolutions, must be duly registered.

Internal process

1. Project Management Unit (PMU). The complaint could come in writing or orally to the PMU

directly. At this level, received complaints will be registered, investigated and solved by the PMU.

2. If the complaint has not been solved and could not be solve in level 1, then the Project

Coordinator elevates it to the FAO Representative in Uganda.

3. Project Steering Committee (PSC). The assistance of the PSC is requested if a resolution was not

agreed in levels 1 and 2.

4. FAO Regional Office for Africa. FAO Representative will request if necessary the advice of the

Regional Office to resolve a grievance or will transfer the resolution of the grievance entirely to the

regional office, if the problem is highly complex.

5. The FAO Regional Representative will request only on very specific situations or complex

problems the assistance on the FAO Inspector General who pursuits its own procedures to solve the

problem.

Resolution

Upon acceptance a solution by the complainer, a document with the agreement should be signed with the agreement.

Project Management Unit (PMU) Must respond within 5 working days.

FAO Representation in Uganda Anyone in the FAO Representation may receive a complaint and must request proof of receipt. If the case is accepted, the FAO Representative must respond within 5 working days in consultation with FAO's Representation and Project Team. FAO Representative: Priya Gujadur / Deputy FAO Representative - Uganda

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) – Country Office Plot 88 Buganda Road, Wandegeya P.O. Box 521, Kampala Tel: +256 414 349916/7 +256 414 340324/5 Fax: +256 414 250579 Email: FAO-UG@fao.org

Project Steering Committee (PSC) If the case cannot be dealt by the FAO Representative, he/she must send the information to all PSC members and call for a meeting to find a solution. The response must be sent within 5 working days after the meeting of the PSC.

FAO Regional Office for Africa Must respond within 5 working days in consultation with FAO's Representation. Mr. Bukar Tijani FAO Assistant Director-General and Regional Representative for Africa #2 Gamel Abdul Nasser Road Accra, Ghana P.O. Box GP 1628 Accra, Ghana Tel: +233 (0) 302 610930 Fax: +233 (0) 302 668427 E-mail: fao-ro-africa@fao.org

Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

To report possible fraud and bad behaviour by fax, confidential: (+39) 06 570 55550 By e-mail: Investigations-hotline@fao.org By confidential hotline: (+ 39) 06 570 52333

4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT

Project risks were identified and analyzed during its preparation and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the project (see Annex 2 Risk Management Plan). With the support and supervision of FAO, the Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be responsible for managing these risks as well as the effective implementation of mitigation measures. The Monitoring and Evaluation system (M&E) will be used to monitor indicators of outcomes and outputs, project risks and mitigation measures. The PSC shall also be responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation measures and adjust mitigation strategies as needed, and to identify and manage any new risk that was not been identified during the preparation of the Project, in collaboration with the project partners.

The six-monthly Project Progress Report (PPR), indicated in subsection 2.3.2 of the project document, is the main monitoring and risk management instrument. The PPR includes a section of systematic risk monitoring and mitigation actions that were identified in the previous PPR. The PPR also includes a section to identify any new risks or risks that have not been addressed yet, rating and mitigation actions, as well as the staff responsible for monitoring such actions and estimated duration of the same. FAO will monitor the project risk management and the follow up as needed, providing support for adjusting and implementing mitigation strategies. The preparation of reports on risks monitoring and rating will also be

part of the Annual Project Implementation Review (PIR) prepared by FAO and submitted to the GEF Secretariat.

A summary of the analysis of risks identified during project preparation, their likelihood of occurrence and proposed mitigation measures are set out in Annex 2, Section A: Risks to Project. The Environmental and Social Risk Management Plan is also included in Annex 2, Section B. The project has been rated as Moderate risk. The Project Risk Certification is attached to this document.

Annex 1: Project Stakeholders and Role in Project Implementation

Stakeholder Type

Stakeholder Role in Project

Primary stakeholder

Farmers Main project beneficiaries. Involved in the implementation of:

Output 1.4: participate in Digital Green ICT system at AP/FFS level

Output 2.2: trained through AP/FFS

Output 2.3: involved in community seed banks, participate in

diversity fairs

Output 2.4: involved in value chain development through AMFRI’s

training and contracting processes

Communities, Community Based Organizations (CBO)

Involved in the implementation of:

Output 1.2: Organize participatory focus groups at the community

level to identify needs and priorities regarding agrobiodiversity

conservation and enhancement.

Output 2.3: involved in the management of community seed banks

and community nurseries, participate in diversity fairs

Output 3.5: participate in the preparation of the development of the

land and management systems

Secondary Stakeholders

FAO Project implementing partner, together with MAAIF Member of the Project Steering Committee

MAAIF Government entity in charge of the overall implementation of the project, together with FAO Member of the Project Steering Committee Involved in the implementation of:

Output 1.2: participate in the workshop at the national level to

identify priorities and actions to implement for agro-biodiversity

conservation and enhancement; and participate in the drafting of an

action plan to restore project site’s agrobiodiversity

Output 1.3 participate in workshop at the national level on the

development of the CCAKB, and support the expansion of the CCAKB

at the national level

Output 1.4: support the integration of Digital green ICT system into

the CCAKB

Output 2.1: participate in the training of master trainers

Outputs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3: involved in the development of gender

responsive climate change mainstreamed FIPs and implementation

strategies for the Water for Agricultural Production Policy,

Agricultural Mechanization Policy and Gender Policy

Output 3.4: trained in gender and CCA issues

Output 3.5: involved in the development of the land and

management systems

Output 3.6: involved in the study in barriers to local seed registration

and distribution

NARO Member of the Steering Committee Involved in the implementation of:

Output 1.1: research on natural resources, agrarian systems and

land uses

Output 1.2: research on agro-biodiversity, together with Bioversity

Output 3.6: involved in the study in barriers to local seed registration

and distribution

MWE, CCD Member of the Project Steering Committee Involved in the implementation of:

Output 1.2: participate in the workshop at the national level to

identify priorities and actions to implement for agro-biodiversity

conservation and enhancement; and participate in the drafting of an

action plan to restore project site’s agrobiodiversity

Output 1.3 participate in workshop at the national level on the

development of the CCAKB

Output 2.2: involved in investment pilots on water management

practices

Output 3.5: involved in the development of the land and

management systems

Tertiary stakeholders

Other Ministries Including: OPM, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development; Equal Opportunities Commission; Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development; Ministry of Local Government; Ministry of Trade, Industries and Cooperatives; Ministry of Works.

Will be regularly informed of project progress

OPM will be a member of the Project Steering Committee to make

the link with NUSAF3 and DINU programmes

Can be invited on an ad-hoc basis to Project Steering Committee

meetings

DLG under Ministry of Local Government

Involved in the implementation of:

Output 1.2: agricultural extension services trained in improving agricultural productivity with increased diversity

Output 1.3: take part in KMCT, participate in training on CCAKB

Output 1.4: Participate in Digital Green’s trainings (video

production, facilitation, data entry), participate in stakeholder

workshop

Output 2.1: District extension services trained as AP/FFS facilitators

Output 2.2: Act as AP/FFS facilitators

Output 2.3: involved in the establishment of community seed banks,

community nurseries, diversity fairs and district managed nurseries

Output 3.4: trained in gender and CCA issues

Output 3.5: involved in the development of the land and

management systems

Bioversity Involved in the implementation of:

Output 1.2 (research on agro-biodiversity), together with NARO

Output 2.3: supporting the establishment of seed banks, tree nurseries and diversity fairs

Output 3.6: involved in the study in barriers to local seed registration and distribution

Digital Green Involved in the implementation of Output 1.4 for setting up an ICT system at AP/FFS-level

AMFRI Farms Involved in the implementation of Output 2.4 to train and contract farmers on high value markets

NGOs Can be involved in the implementation of:

Output 2.1: could be trained as AP/FFS facilitators

Output 2.3: could support the development of community seed

banks, community nurseries, and diversity fairs

Output 3.5: could participate in the development of the land and

management systems

Makerere and Kyambogo University

Involved in the implementation of;

Output 1.1: research on natural resources, agrarian systems and

land uses

Output 1.2: research on agro-biodiversity, together with Bioversity

Output 1.3 participate in workshop at the national level on the

development of the CCAKB, and support the expansion of the CCAKB

at the national level

Output 3.5: could participate in the development of the land and

management systems

Annex 2: Environmental and Social Risk Management Plan

Risk identified Risk

Classification Risk Description

in the project Mitigation Action (s) Indicators Progress on mitigation action

The project activities can influence the Indigenous Peoples living outside the project area1

Indigenous Peoples

Planned project activities in districts where Indigenous Peoples live and work.

The Free Prior and Informed Consent process was conducted.

Moderate The FPIC approach was applied during project preparation. During the PPG mission, only 1 indigenous group was identified on the project area of intervention: the Kadama people who are distinct from the Karamojong but more closely related to the Pokot in Amudat district. It was identified that the project activities planned will not affect the indigenous peoples.

Paying inadequate attention to gender

Gender There are no planned activities that may increase this risk; but without the uptake of project activities, the risk will increase.

Gender sensitive approach will be promoted in the project decision-making process from the local to district levels and gender-disaggregated data will be collected for monitoring project impacts. Also the AP/FFS will include women participants

Low The ministerial department for gender has been involved in the stakeholder meetings and project development.

The major risk to natural resources in the region is due to charcoal production as a main source of income causing deforestation, land degradation and biodiversity loss.

Natural Resources

There are no planned activities that may increase this risk; but without the uptake of project activities, the risk will occur.

The project will identify solutions through land management plans and sustainable soil water, crop, livestock and rangeland management practices.

Moderate Project activities are planned.

Conflict over natural resources is a risk due to increasing pressure on limited resources caused by population growth, sedentarisation of

Natural Resources

Conflict can arise in the project targeted areas amongst participating farmers.

The project will promote inclusive community management plans at landscape level across stakeholders to minimize or resolve conflicts between crop and livestock producers.

Low Project activities are planned to encourage community management plans.

1 The phrase “Outside the project area” should be read taking into consideration the likelihood of project activities to influence the livelihoods, land access and/or rights of Indigenous Peoples’ irrespective of physical distance.

pastoralists and climate change. Increased risk of the rates of malaria due to irrigation systems

Natural Resources

The project aims to develop improved irrigation schemes but this can increase the risk of the spread of malaria

The project will closely involve the Ministry of Health that will be able to advise to mitigate this risk throughout implementation.

Low The Ministry of Health has been consulted on project activities

The use of pesticides to control major pest outbreaks in production systems

Chemicals and Pesticides

In targeted AP/FFS areas and communities, pesticides may be used.

Preference must always be given to sustainable pest management approaches such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM), the use of ecological pest management approaches and the use of mechanical/cultural/physical or biological pest control tools in favour of synthetic chemicals; and preventive measures and monitoring,

When no viable alternative to the use of chemical pesticides exists, the selection and procurement of pesticides is subject to an internal clearance procedure http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Code/E_SS5_pesticide_checklist.pdf

FAO apply the following requirements to all pesticides that are being supplied directly by FAO and to pesticides supplied by others within the framework of FAO projects. o Conduct a thorough risk assessment,

which should lead to adequate measures to reduce health and environmental risks to acceptable levels.

o Quantities to be provided should be based on an accurate assessment of actual needs. Pesticides should not be provided as fixed components of input packages of projects, credit schemes or emergency assistance.

Low Project activities are planned to ensure low risk from pesticide use

o Provided pesticides should be packaged and labelled in accordance with FAO standards. Labels should be in the national language. The remaining shelf life should be at sufficient to permit all pesticides to be used before expiry and within the scope of the project, (i.e. no expired pesticides will be left behind after the project).

o Appropriate application equipment47 and personal protective equipment that offers adequate protection from the specific pesticides to be used. If it is not available, it needs to be provided by the project.

o Users of the pesticides must have been trained to ensure they are capable of handling the supplied pesticides in a proper and responsible manner.

o Proper storage of pesticides in accordance with FAO guidelines should be ensured for all supplies.

o Empty pesticide containers should be triple rinsed, punctured and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner in compliance with FAO guidance

If large volumes (above 1,000 litres of kg) of pesticides will be supplied or used throughout the duration of the project, a Pest Management Plan must be prepared to demonstrate how IPM will be promoted to reduce reliance on pesticides, and what measures will be taken to minimize risks of pesticide use.

It must be clarified, which person(s) within (executing) involved institution/s, will be responsible and liable for the

proper storage, transport, distribution and use of Pesticides.

Whenever pesticides are provided by FAO it should be established in advance which institution, and which person(s) within that institution, will be responsible and liable for the proper storage, transport, distribution and use of the products concerned in compliance with the requirements of ESS 5.

Procurement of pesticides by FAO is subject to an internal clearance procedure as provided by the ESS Manual. The same applies to the contents of Pest Management Plans.