Azerbaijan republik
Yüklə 461,07 Kb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Table 3.2: Project Benefits
- Table 3.3 Socioeconomic Benefits
- Table 3.4: Summary of Potential Major Environmental Impacts – broad project categories
- Table 3.5. Summary of Potential Major Environmental Impacts – likely subprojects
3.3 Project Benefits Project activities are expected to lead to increased incomes of farmers, rural entrepreneurs, and other rural residents. This increase in farmers’ income would result from the direct incremental benefits of the competitive funding sub-projects implemented, as well as the spread-over effects in terms of: (i) improved benefit/cost indicators, (ii) lowered production and processing losses and quantities of rejected products, (iii) improved quality of products (including recognized quality of produced commodities that has been ignored due to the absence of laboratory test confirmations), that fetches higher prices on internal and external markets, (iv) improved access to market (infrastructure and information) and related up- and down-stream linkages, that reduces transaction costs and sales and marketing margins, and (v) employment generation, either as hired labor or as increased household labor requirements for both on-farm and off-farm activities. At the national level, the improved competitiveness of agricultural and food production would increase the value and volume of rural domestic and export trade and it would contribute to an improved trade balance. Other potential benefits include: (i) gradual increase of marketable products and export opportunities and linkages; (ii) medium- and long-term effects of sub-projects’ positive experience leading to innovations that are beyond the scope and implementation period of the project; (iii) improved food safety; and (iv) improved consumers’ confidence in the food system. The key social development outcome expected from the project is improved access to markets and knowledge for farmers and rural entrepreneurs. The main stakeholders which will benefit from positive social impacts of the project are: (i) owners of small private farms as well as managers/owners of large farms and agricultural enterprises, (ii) farm workers; (iii) managers/owners of small and medium rural non-farm enterprises, (iv) managers of agricultural processing companies; and (v) key village informants. Table 3.2: Project Benefits
Table 3.3 Socioeconomic Benefits
3.4. Potential Impacts Project’s potential impacts and/or risks are as well as proposed mitigation measures are summarized in Tables A7-1 to A7-10 of Annex 7. The level of significance of those impacts is presented in Table 3.4. The major potential impacts are associated with the implementation of sub-projects under Components B and C and may include water and soil contamination, air quality deterioration, loss of biodiversity and impacts on biophysical resources, including soil erosion. Agriculture production and processing technologies present most of the concern and should be carefully mitigated. The production and processing sectors generally produce a wide range of wastes that are disposed of in the form of effluents that flow into surface watercourses, seepage into groundwater, emission gases that are released into the atmosphere and solid wastes that are disposed of in municipal and unorganized dumps. Such wastes pose a threat to groundwater supplies, air quality, aquatic ecosystems, and ultimately to human health. Livestock rearing in large numbers and in closed conditions, results in a concentration of animal waste that can contaminate both groundwater and surface waters. In the case of the former, public health is at risk, in the case of the latter, aquatic ecosystems and, possibly public health, are both at risk. Livestock expansion, particular for farms in the hills and near the mountains, can lead to pressure on common public lands including forests. Loss of biodiversity and soil erosion can occur if livestock and pastureland is not managed effectively and if livestock numbers are not controlled. Another set of environmental issues might be related to the improper environmental practices in the laboratories which are to be upgraded under Components A and B, as well as to the implementation of minor civil works. A special attention will be required on the issues of toxic substances application for veterinary and quarantine laboratories activities as well as when implementing the subprojects where pesticides and fertilizers use is necessary. Insufficient infrastructure for storage and disposal of the toxic wastes represents a high risk for the environment. Although pesticides will not be purchased under the project, the increased use of pesticides can be triggered by the TA to be provided under Components A and B, and due to the implementation of some sub-projects under Components B and C. This can lead to pesticide residue built up in the soil. Pesticides and fertilizers can migrate to both surface waters and groundwater resulting in contamination of these two sources and leading to damaged aquatic ecosystems and threatened health to downstream users. In assisting borrowers to manage pests that affect agriculture, the Bank supports a strategy that promotes the use of biological or environmental control methods and reduces reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides. As mentioned above, the use of pesticides may be triggered by Components B and C of the project that will provide grants and credits to small and medium size agribusinesses. The use of pesticides in Azerbaijan is regulated by the list of pesticides of Class I a and I b of the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification (Geneva: WHO, 2009); materials listed in the UN Consolidated List of Products Whose Consumption and/or Sale have been Banned, Withdrawn, Severely Restricted, or not Approved by Governments (New York: UN, 1994); and pesticides included into the pesticide registration list is appended below at Annex 8. Table 3.4: Summary of Potential Major Environmental Impacts – broad project categories
Although Table 3.5 indicates a large number of Low-Moderate potential impacts, through mitigation and adoption of best practices most of these can be reduced to low, as indicated in the tables in Annex 7. Typical impacts for those potential subprojects which have high likelihood to be applied for are presented in Tables 7A-1 to 7A-10 in Annex 7. The tables also consider consequences of the impacts, including residual risks, provide for impact rating and indicate relevant mitigation measures. A summary of the potential impacts and their level of significance is given in Table 3.5.
The major potential negative impacts associated with likely potential sub-project types mainly relate to water and soil quality, soil erosion and contamination. More intensive laboratory research activities to be facilitated due to the project supported laboratory upgrade may lead to increase of hazardous wastes and waste water formation. Hazardous waste disposal might lead to leakage to the ground water sources and drinking water pollution/contamination. Increasing pesticide applications can lead to pesticide residue built up in the soil. Pesticides and fertilizers can migrate to both surface waters and groundwater resulting in contamination of these two sources and leading to damaged aquatic ecosystems and threatened health to downstream users. Land preparation can promote erosion, particularly if tractors are too heavy and cause soil compaction, and if fields are ploughed (with or without the contour) and left a longtime before the sowing period. Risks of erosion may increase, particularly on steep sites. Livestock rearing in closed conditions, both on the small farm holding and the large commercial farm, results in a concentration of animal waste that can contaminate both groundwater and surface waters. In the case of the former, public health is at risk, in the case of the latter, aquatic ecosystems and, possibly public health, are both at risk. Livestock expansion, particular for farms in the hills and near the mountains, can lead to pressure on common public lands including forests. Loss of biodiversity and soil erosion can occur if livestock and pastureland is not managed effectively and if livestock numbers are not controlled. A system of ex-ante environmental screening of subprojects has been developed and will be implemented to decide if and which mitigation measure is required. Yüklə 461,07 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||