INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 11/15/2005 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE 1. Project Statistics Country: Africa Project ID: P Project Name: East Africa Trade and Transport Facilitation Project Task Team Leader: Jean-Francois Marteau Appraisal Date: June 20, 2005 Managing Unit: AFTTR Report No.: AC1508 Estimated Board Date: December 15,2005 Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Railways (50%);General public administration sector (30%);General transportation sector (20%) Theme: Trade facilitation and market access (P);Regional integration (S) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 0.00 IDA Grant Amount (US$m.): Total IDA Credit Amount. (US$m.): GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 IDA PRG Amount (US$m) : (Kenya), US$15.00(Uganda) Other financing amounts by source: BORROWERS/RECIPIENTS/OTHERS Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) [ ] No[x] 2. Project Objectives The objectives of the Project are: (a) improving the trade environment among the Regional Countries, through effective implementation of the EAC Customs Area; (b) enhancing the efficiency of transport and logistic services along key transport corridors by reducing non-tariff barriers and uncertainty of transit time; and (c) improving railway services in the territory of the Borrower and the Republic of Kenya 3. Project Description The proposed project is conceived as a multi-sector program to facilitate further trade integration in the region by addressing institutional, legal, and infrastructure constraints. Specifically, it will support EAC trade integration by (i) providing technical assistance and equipment to implement the joint customs administration, (ii) providing technical assistance, financial support, and equipment to improve efficiency at the main border posts, ports, and regional road and railway corridors, with a specific focus on the integration of railways through support to the joint concession of the Kenya and Uganda Railways and their interconnections with the Tanzanian railway network. The project is expected to comprise the following components:

2 (a) Support to EAC Customs Union Implementation: Provide training, technical assistance and equipment to implement a modern customs interconnection system and common data base linking the customs departments in the member states to the EAC Customs directory in Arusha; (b) Institutional support for transport facilitation: Strengthen the Northern Corridor Transit Transport Coordination Authority (NCTTCA), Support to establish an appropriate management mechanism for the Central Transport Corridor connecting Dar-es-salaam with the Great Lakes countries and Help to improve the regional transport policy and harmonize transport regulation; (c) Investment support for transport facilitation: Upgrade Corridor efficiency by (i)fmancing a regional electronic cargo tracking system from the ports of Mombasa and Dar es Salaam throughout the EAC, (ii) reviewing and updating the axle load control policy and (iii) improving Port Security and Port Facilitation in Mombasa and Dar es Salaam; (iv) financing the establishment of seven joint border posts at main crossborder points within the region;(d) Support to railway concessioning: Facilitate the joint concession of the Kenya and Uganda Railways, and improve its interface to the Tanzanian network, complementing existing support to the process in Uganda. This would comprise, among others, financing of severance packages and social mitigation plans in Kenya, technical support to the proposed Kenya and Uganda railways Asset Authorities, and possibly the provision of a Partial Risk Guarantee (PRG) for both countries. The total expected IDA funding, excluding the PRG, is about US$199 million. The PRG, if included, would amount to about US$60 million (US$45 million for Kenya and US$15 million for Uganda). 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis The project will finance activities at several different sites in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania, including: (a) those parts of the existing railway lines in Uganda and Kenya which are to be concessioned to a private consortium; (b) existing border posts between Kenya and Uganda, Uganda and Rwanda, and Tanzania and Kenya, which are to be upgraded, and (c) a number of trade-related agencies in the four countries. Because the works to be carried out under (b) and (c) are of limited scope at existing sites, they are not being treated as safeguards issues. Thus safeguards treatment primarily concerns environmental conditions and social impact of actions to improve the concessioned rail system in the yards and along the lines, knowing that the project itself does not fund any infrastructure investment on the railway system. 5. Environmental and Social Specialists on the Team Mr Robert A. Robelus (AFTS1) Mr Dan R. Aronson (AFTTR)

3 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Forests (OP/BP 4.36) Pest Management (OP 4.09) Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) No II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues 1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: Environmental audits of the two national rail lines have documented oil spills, poor containment and disposal of toxic and other wastes, damage to local water supplies, degraded or eroded slopes and other environmental hazards along various portions of the lines. Polluted sites are mainly found around stations and works yards. While the total number of such sites is large, the damage at each site is of limited significance and can be reversed with proper rehabilitation measures in all the important cases. There is asbestos pollution in Uganda as well as in Kenya. Occupational Health and Safety also needs to be improved. Social impact audits and resettlement reports have documented severe safety hazards at several specific "hot spots" where encroachment along the tracks and use of the tracks for pedestrian traffic and trading will pose dangers to the people involved as the railways begin to raise service speeds and frequencies. Clearance of safety zones at these sites must be done to relieve these threats. The most difficult of these sites is where the line runs through the large Kibera slum community of Nairobi, and to a lesser extent in neighboring Mukuru. Sites in Uganda are much smaller and less sensitive. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: Proper environmental management can both rehabilitate damaged sites and ensure that indirect or long-term adverse impacts and further damage are either avoided or minimized. The inclusion of Social, Health and Environment clauses in the concession arrangements to be signed between the Concessionaire and the two Governments should guarantee the improvement of the situation compared to the current patterns of the existing public railways. There is however still some danger that cleared safety zones along the rail lines at "hot spots" will reoccur if measures proposed in resettlement action plans are unsuccessful.

4 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. The sites already exist. Different technologies exist for rehabilitation of various types of sites, and different options are open for displacement and resettlement. Action planning is under way to ensure that such alternatives are considered and that optimal solutions are found. The Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Kenya has been received and disclosed. An abbreviated RAP for Uganda has also been received and approved and will be directly implemented by the Government. 4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard policy issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. The borrowers have undertaken extensive environmental and social audits of the rail lines, both in Uganda and Kenya. The railroad corporations of each country have retained and managed high level consultants to carry out this work, and to write the RAPs and EMPs to manage the reduction of environmental and social risks. These safeguards documents have been completed, and enjoy strong in-country ownership and interest on the part of the interdepartmental and interagency teams overseeing the concessioning of the railways and the reorganization of the residual assets-holding corporations in the two countries. Each of the plans calls for concessionaires to carry out implementation consistently with Kenyan and Ugandan environmental legislation, World Bank safeguard policies and Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines. The concessionaire will prepare its own documentation in compliance with World Bank Safeguard Policies and World Bank Group applicable Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines (Rail Transit System, Port and Harbor Facilities, Occupational Health and Safety, Hazardous Materials and Monitoring). Regarding Safety and occupational Health, the Concessionaire will, every five (5) years, prepare two (2) Safety Management Plans, one for Kenya and the other for Uganda, the first one to be submitted to the government 12 months from the concession commencement date. Regarding environment, the concessionaire will prepare environment management plans in Kenya and Uganda within six months from the commencement date. He will subsequently be submitted to the annual audits of the two National Environmental Management Agencies. In Kenya, the borrower intends to use part of the proceeds of the Credit for the implementation of the RAP. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. On the social safeguard side: Affected people include especially those vendors and residents occupying parts of the rights of way of the railways that need to be cleared to ensure that minimum safety standards can be met. Their neighbors, local civil society leaders (in churches, advocacy and service organizations), and administrative representatives are all stakeholders in the process. At the national level, key decision makers are in the respective railroad corporations, Ministries of Transport, Ministries of Finance (in both privatization units and as the counterparts of the World Bank), Ministries of Housing and other agencies. For all the key stakeholders, consultation has

5 taken place in project presentation meetings, discussions of the issues involved, and in the case of the Kenyan RAP, participation in the enumeration process for recording all those affected. Also in Kenya, the NGO PAMOJA Trust has been a key partner with the consultant in developing the ideas and data for the RAP, and other NGOs working on housing issues have also been consulted. Finally, affected people have been consulted in neighborhood meetings and individually as homes and businesses to be affected directly have been censused and interviewed to build up the data needed for RAP planning purposes. The RAP has been disclosed in Kenya and will be made available to local organizations and administrators for consultation by affected and interested parties. The Kenyan and Ugandan EAP have also been disclosed. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Date of receipt by the Bank 05/26/2005 Date of "in-country" disclosure 06/03/2005 Date of submission to InfoShop 06/08/2005 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: Date of receipt by the Bank 06/08/2005 Date of "in-country" disclosure 06/03/2005 Date of submission to InfoShop 06/08/2005 * If the project triggers the Pest Management, Cultural Property and/or the Safety of Dams policies, the respective issues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of the Environmental Assessment/Audit/or EMP. If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why: C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (to be filled in when the ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting) OP/BP/GP Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? OP/BP Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan, abbreviated plan, or process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and approve the plan / policy framework / policy process?

6 BP Public Disclosure Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? All Safeguard Policies Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Task Team Leader: Environmental Specialist: Social Development Specialist Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Comments: Ag Sector Manager: Comments: Name W-x Mr Jean-Francois Marteau (J/>7 Mr Dan R. Aronson Mr Robert A. Robelus * '"''*""" "} Mr Thomas E. Walton j(/far // Ms Supee Teravaninthqrp^] ( > '" I /I dt Date 11/15/ /15/ /15/ /09/ /09/2005