Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 10/05/2005 Report No.: 33800 1. Basic Project Data Country: Rwanda Project ID: P060005 Project Name: Urban Infrastructure and City Management Project Task Team Leader: Sylvie Debomy Estimated Appraisal Date: November 8, Estimated Board Date: November 10, 2005 2004 Managing Unit: AFTU2 Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Sub-national government administration (50%);Roads and highways (40%);Sanitation (10%) Theme: Access to urban services and housing (P);Municipal governance and institution building (S);Other urban development (S) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 0.00 IDA Amount (US$m.): 20.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: BORROWER 5.00 NORDIC DEVELOPMENT FUND 7.00 Financing Gap 20.00 32.00 Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) [ ] No [] 2. Project Objectives The project development objective is to increase access to urban infrastructure and services in Kigali and the two secondary cities of Butare and Ruhengeri by improving urban management practices. This objective will be achieved through the combined impacts of the anticipated results of two main interventions: (i) Physical investment programs defined through participatory process are implemented in targeted cities and in poor areas and accessible to the local and low-income population, and (ii) the local and national stakeholders have the capacity to (a) apply appropriate programming, financing, and implementation mechanisms to improve service delivery, (b) improve local resource mobilization, (c) set up simple urban planning tools, and (d) rationalize municipal management and maintenance.
The project would entail: (i) developing programming and financing mechanisms of priority urban investments through programmatic and participatory approaches; (ii) assisting GoR in operationalizing intergovernmental transfer mechanisms for infrastructure investments; (iii) upgrading infrastructure and service delivery in urban setting; (iv) assisting urban local governments to improve local revenue mobilization, financial management, and urban planning skills; and (v) building the capacity of cities, local stakeholders, and government to develop, implement, and monitor pro-poor urban strategies and programs. 3. Project Description Component 1: Urban Infrastructure Objective: To improve the level of infrastructure and urban services in project targeted cities. This component will provide resources for urban infrastructure and facilities at two levels: (i) district level investments identified in a participatory way through Local Development Plans (LDP) prepared by Local Community Development Committees (CDC) and screened through Urban Audits, and (ii) structuring investments, in particular for Kigali, which will benefit several districts, support economic development, improve the urban environment, and contribute to improve the functioning of the City as a whole. The city investment programs will therefore contribute to develop the strategic vision of city while integrating district interventions. Both types of investments are identified through Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEF) and more systematically through the urban audits methodology carried out by beneficiary cities with the support of trained local consultants. The resulting three-year city Priority Investment Program (PIP) is then included in a City Contract. The investment programs will be executed through a Contract Management Agency (CMA) to rationalize and optimize implementation process and increase involvement and capacity of local SMEs. A Delegated Contract Management Agreement (DCMA) between the CMA, the beneficiary cities, and the GOR will be signed. The Nordic Development Fund will support the financing for an amount of about 5.7 US million dollars, of drainage and anti-erosion strategic plan and the execution of a priority investments program at the city level. A catalogue of eligible investments (roads, pathways, school, health facilities, city halls, sports, recreational facilities, sanitation, drainage, environmental improvement, markets, stations, and other economic investments) has been prepared and is included in the project implementation manual. To be eligible, all investment projects must: (i) respond to the demand of the beneficiary communities and to the priority of the district identified through Local Development Plans (LDP) and urban audits; (ii) require a financial contribution of 5% of the investment costs through CDF allocation; (iii) conform with the financial capacity of the city or district (the city or district should be able to maintain and manage these investments and/or take necessary measures to improve maintenance capacity); (iv) be economically justified; (v)be designed to reflect the most appropriate and beneficial solution specifically toward the poorest households and avoid resettlement as much as
possible); and (vi) be respectful of the environment and avoid any negative impact, or at least adopt corrective measures to limit or compensate this impact. Component 2: Slum upgrading and low-income development areas pilot interventions Objective: Initiate pro-poor urban upgrading and land development programs. Sub-Component 2.1 Upgrading programs in precarious areas in Kigali This sub-component will finance a program to upgrade precarious neighborhoods in Kigali. The component includes the potential resettlement compensation costs to be covered by GOR funding. During project preparation, a citywide upgrading strategy has been developed with the Municipality of the City of Kigali (MVK). It highlights a tremendous positive evolution in the way MVK is perceiving the issues of precarious areas and is willing to deal with upgrading programs. Three neighborhoods have been selected for interventions to be supported by the project. The first basic interventions will essentially focus on improving access (secondary and tertiary roads, pedestrian pathways), drainage and run-off control, and public space improvements. A mechanism to ensure that people will not be evicted once the physical improvements are made is being developed with MVK. Street Addressing will also be carried out in one of the neighborhoods to test its replicability to the other. The implementation strategy will favor labor-intensive methods, appropriate standards to reduce resettlement needs, community involvement in design, implementation, monitoring, and social intermediation. Sub-Component 2.2. Pilot development zones for low-income dwellers This sub-component aims at defining and testing new practices to help control urban sprawl and provide serviced plots to low income households. The project will finance (i) a pilot project that will define and implement new standards for serviced land for lowincome dwellers and/or for households to be resettled; (ii) the preparation of a pilot improved housing scheme. Component 3: Institutional Capacity Building Objective: to develop the capacity to use a number of improved urban management tools, to prepare pro-poor urban strategies, and to deliver better infrastructure projects. Sub-Component 3.1. Beneficiary Districts and Cities This sub-component will provide financing for carrying out programming studies, training, and implementing activities defined in the Municipal Support Program (PAM). (i) Development of Programming Tools (local development plans, municipal audits, maintenance programs, etc.). (ii) Implementation of Municipal Support Program (PAM). This focuses on a few operational actions aiming at improving selected areas, critical for the management of decentralized entities, specifically in the field of resource mobilization, city management, and urban planning tools. These priority areas will be addressed along three lines: (i) logistical support (provision of basic equipment and computers), (ii) training, and (iii) timely technical assistance. This component will also finance specific district-level
activities aiming to help fight the spread or alleviate the effects of HIV/AID, targeting the most affected groups such as youth and women. This will be done in close collaboration with the MAP project. (iii) Improving Maintenance Capacity. Maintenance efforts will essentially focus on roads and drainage network maintenance. Sub- Component 3.2. GOR Agencies This sub-component will support (i) sector studies and activities aiming at supporting selected reforms in the field of decentralization, urban planning, land management, urban environment, and infrastructure delivery, (ii) capacity building and training activities for GOR Agencies staff, and (iii) targeted logistic support to MININFRA. Sub-Component 3.3 Local Construction Private sector The sub-component will finance a number of capacity building activities for local consultants and contractors of the construction sector. The training will target (i) technical execution and financial management of infrastructure projects, (ii) integration of environmental issues in design and project execution, and (iii) capacity building for implementing new urban strategies in poor areas. Sub-Component 3.4 Support to Project Implementation This sub-component will provide financing for the effective functioning of the Project Coordination Unit (PCU), including staff, operating costs, technical assistance, evaluation and audits costs to implement UICMP. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis The Project will target the capital city Kigali and two secondary towns: Ruhengeri and Butare. All areas are still effected by the consequences of the genocide and have a population structure with a high proportion of widow-headed households. Because rural areas have experienced destocking of livestock and declining soil fertility, and with the return of refugees, the urban population growth is very high, close to 6%, which brings a new pressure on urban land and services. There are important differences between provinces. For example, Ruhengeri is of high agricultural potential but has been badly effected by insecurity and has many people lacking housing. In Ruhengeri, large inflows of population contribute to the infrastructure deficit and place pressure on the environment. Other provinces, such as Kigali-Ngali and Butare have chronically low incomes arising from dense population, relative aridity, soil acidity, compounded by a high number of vulnerable households as a result of genocide, and aggravated by the current drought. (1) Butare province. This province has a lower agricultural potential and the high population density has reinforced declining soil fertility and interest in wetland reclamation. Deforestation also is a particular problem. City of Butare, the administrative capital of the region, is about 105 km south of Kigali, the capital. With a population of about 47,650 inhabitants, according to the 2001 census, Butare is the third largest city
after Kigali and Ruhengeri. It hosts important health, cultural, commercial, and educational institutions, including the University of Butare. The transient population of Butare town is estimated at about 70,000 people. (2) Kigali City, the political, administrative, and commercial capital of Rwanda, is centrally located in the country. The population of Kigali is increasing at a very fast pace: the population in 2002 was reported as 670,000 inhabitants with an intercensal growth rate of approximately 9.2% between 1991 and 2002, putting pressure on local infrastructure and resources. A large part of the city is informal due to the large population flows. Kigali s central location, with radial roads linking it with the provinces, has led to a lot of rural-urban migration particularly during the last 5 years. Like other capital cities in the region, it has a lower child mortality than the rest of the country, but higher HIV prevalence. The large population influx has put a strain on urban infrastructure, especially in terms of water and sanitation. There are pockets of severe poverty in Kigali; as a whole, the urban-rural gap is very wide. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Ms Yvette Laure Djachechi (AFTS3) Mr Africa Eshogba Olojoba (AFTS3) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered No 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) 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: D.1. Safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts. The project will have significant positive impacts on the population s health and quality of life through the improvement of roads, drainage, erosion and flooding prevention due to runoffs, and provision of social facilities to population in slums and under serviced areas. There are no foreseeable negative social or environmental issues implicated.
During project preparation, the screening of infrastructure projects was carried out through the preparation of urban audits in the city of Kigali and three secondary cities. The choice was made to avoid to a great extent possible investments that could have a significant environmental impact. Environmental impact assessments will be carried out for the respective projects. Alternative construction sites will be proposed as indicated in the ESMF if required. The Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) trigger was checked during ESMF preparation as the project team lacked information on a number of the sites to be covered. The environmental and social analysis of the project which has subsequently been undertaken, showed that OPN 11.03 was not triggered. This has been taken into account in the present version of the ISDS. Potential specific impacts include: Measures to mitigate erosion and loss of vegetation must be provided in construction areas in order to address loss of vegetation due to erosion. Individuals must be compensated for lost property and income as a result of the construction. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: No adverse long-term impacts are anticipated. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. Alternatives have been discussed in the ESMF. The "no action" alternative has been discarded since this would have aggravated the current living conditions of the population and the status of urban infrastructure. Asking communities to take charge of major investments goes beyond their financial capacities and would jeopardize the quality of works and their positive environmental impact. The financing provided through the current project will help the GOR and cities to implement urban infrastructure projects with specific mitigation measures, identified on a case-by-case basis. 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. Prior to appraisal, the Borrower prepared an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) for civil works and a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). The two reports have been reviewed and final versions disclosed in the World Bank InfoShop and in the country. A social assessment has been carried out before designing investments and slum upgrading components. An assessment of the Borrower s capacity was made during the ESMF study. The PCU has been staffed with personnel qualified to supervise the preparation of EMPs and RAPs during project implementation with the support of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority. In the cities, the Mayors will designate two staff (technical and financial) responsible for the follow-up of activities included in the City Contract. The newly created CMA (Contract Management
Agency) will hire engineers, with proficiency in environmental management of urban works to oversee the implementation of civil work contracts. Additional training in environmental issues and assessment will be provided to the PCU, the CMA, cities, and GOR. In addition, the PCU and CMA will make sure that terms of reference for technical studies, as well as model contracts for works, include the necessary provisions in terms of environmental protection and mitigation of impacts. At the national level, the National Environment Policy (PNE) adopted in November 2003 has lead to the creation of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA). This institution will be able to support the PCU with competent staff and advice as appropriate. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. The key stakeholders are; (i) the Ministry of Infrastructure (MININFRA), the PCU, and the CMA with the primary responsibility for the project implementation; (ii) the Ministry of Land, Environment, Forestry, Water, and Natural Resources (MINITERE); (iii) the Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA) bearing responsibility for the implementation of the national environmental policy; and (iv) the participating cities and the beneficiary population. The City of Kigali and the two secondary cities will prepare their City Contracts in close collaboration with the PCU. The screening of infrastructure projects has been carried out during project preparation with preliminary consultation of district authorities and local communities (CDCs), through the preparation of urban audits in the city of Kigali and the secondary cities. The preparation methodology includes an environmental screening process and the preparation of environmental mitigation measures as identified in the ESMF and the RFP. Environmental mitigation measures and RAPs will be disclosed as appropriate at the city level through focus group discussions during the City Contract elaboration. Safeguard documents (ESMF and RFP) have been disclosed according to Bank Policy in the country and through the World Bank Infoshop. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Date of receipt by the Bank 08/06/2004 Date of "in-country" disclosure 08/12/2004 Date of submission to InfoShop 08/10/2004 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 08/06/2004 Date of "in-country" disclosure 08/12/2004 Date of submission to InfoShop 08/10/2004
* 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 4.01 - 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 4.12 - 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? BP 17.50 - 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: Name Date Task Team Leader: Ms Sylvie Debomy 09/29/2005 Environmental Specialist: Mr Africa Eshogba Olojoba 09/30/2005 Social Development Specialist Ms Yvette Laure Djachechi 09/30/2005 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Mr Thomas E. Walton 09/30/2005 Comments: Sector Manager: Mr Eustache Ouayoro 09/29/2005 Comments: