Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 04/28/2011 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Report No.: AC6016 1. Basic Project Data Original Project ID: P079734 Original Project Name: East Africa Trade and Transport Facilitation Project Country: Africa Project ID: P121354 Project Name: East Africa Trade and Transport Facilitation Program (EATTFP) - Additional Financing Task Team Leader: Solomon Muhuthu Waithaka Estimated Appraisal Date: April 18, 2011 Estimated Board Date: June 23, 2011 Managing Unit: AFTTR Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: General transportation sector (40%);Railways (40%);General public administration sector (20%) Theme: Regional integration (60%);Trade facilitation and market access (40%) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 0.00 IDA Amount (US$m.): 30.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: BORROWER/RECIPIENT 0.00 0.00 Environmental Category: A - Full Assessment Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies) [ ] No [] 2. Project Objectives The revised Project Development Objectives (PDOs) are to: (i) enhance efficiency of the customs agencies clearance processes in the participating EAC Custom Unions to facilitate trade; (ii) improve efficiency and reliability of transport and logistics services along the key corridors; and (iii) enhance safety in identified areas and reduce governments# transfers to railway by rationalizing the work force on the Kenya-Uganda Railway. 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. The project is expected to comprise the following components: (a) 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), and support to establish an appropriate management mechanism for the Central Transport Corridor connecting Dar es salaam with the Great Lakes countries; (c) Investment support for transport facilitation: Upgrade Corridor efficiency by (i) financing 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, (iii) improving Port Security and Port Facilitation in Mombasa and Dar es Salaam; and (iv) financing the establishment of seven joint border posts at main cross border points within the region (Malaba, Busia, and five others to be determined); and (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 environmental and social mitigation plans in Kenya, technical support to the proposed Kenya Railways Asset Authority, and possibly the provision of a Partial Risk Guarantee (PRG) for both countries. 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. Environment and social safeguards apply mainly to activities for improving the concessioned rail system in the yards and along the rail lines and construction of facilities in the one-stop border posts (OSBPs). 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Ms Maria Concepcion J. Cruz (AFTCS) Mr Robert A. Robelus (AFTWR) 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) Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) 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: An Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) was completed for the project and disclosed in the Bank s InfoShop in June 8, 2005. The ESIA was applied to the project components where the specific locations of construction were to be determined. In 2009, when the location of OSBPs were identified, Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) examined the potential positive and negative impacts of project activities on the immediate surroundings with due regard to construction, occupation, and decommissioning. It encompassed the physical, ecological, socio-cultural, health and safety conditions at the relocation sites and its environs during and after construction. The Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) section of the EIA contains guidelines for protecting, managing and responding to processes, situations, and conditions that might compromise health, safety and security of workers and ecological wellbeing. A separate EIA was completed for the Kenya-Uganda railway line and disclosed in the Bank s InfoShop in June 8, 2005. This EIA 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 procedures need to be improved. A separate EIA was conducted along the rail line segments in Kibera and Mukuru in 2005 where the proposed replacement units and footpath were to be constructed. This EIA ensures that proper environmental appraisal is done on the site, including drainage and sewerage for the housing units. This EIA was updated in 2010 and redisclosed in February 2011, after the update of the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was completed. In other segments of the rail line crossing Uganda and Kenya, various locations along the railway right of way (RoW) have been similarly encroached by commercial activities, housing, and social institutions. These human encroachments have several serious consequences to the surrounding environment among them: (i) risks to human safety due to proximity to active railway traffic; (ii) risks to property in the event of accidents or derailments; (iii) risks to human health from dumping of waste onto the railway track which impedes track drainage and compromises track stability; (iv) exposure of maintenance personnel to unhygienic working conditions and disease due to disposal of faecal and other waste on the track; (v) slow train speeds which caused inordinate delays in transport and travel; and (vi) inefficient use of the railway due to inability to increase freight carriage constrained by the need to reduce train operational speeds. The project completed a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the relocation of 3,500 households in the railway RoW in the Kibera and Mukuru segments. This RAP was disclosed in the Bank s InfoShop in June 8, 2005. However, the Government of Kenya (GoK) was unable to implement this RAP throughout the period when the area was unstable due to violence and conflicts, especially in Kibera. In addition, GoK decided in
2007 to expand the 10.4 m provision in the 2005 RAP for an "immediate safety zone" and increased the width to 40 m for operational and safety reasons. A Bank railway expert analysis concurred with the decision to increase the railway width for clearance. In 2009, this decision was borne out by a derailment accident in the area that resulted in significant human health impacts that confirmed the need for a much wider "protection" or safety zone. Finally, the updated RAP recognized the historical fact that the Kenya- Uganda railway s reserve, throughout the 1,920 km length of the line, was defined as 200ft (60m) wide, which was confirmed by the railway technical manuals. The three-fold increase in the number of project affected households, whose number has risen from 3,500 in 2005 to 10,006 in 2010 is one of the main reasons for the proposed additional financing. RAP implementation costs increased from $11.0 m in 2005 to $39.1 m, resulting in a funding gap of USD28.1 million. 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. The concession agreement will include the requirement of the Concessionaire to prepare and implement his own Safety, Health and Environment Management Plan (SHE Plan). The SHE Plan will be based on the Environmental Action Plans elaborated in the Environmental Audits carried out at the time of project preparation. SHE Plan of the concessionaire is approved by the Kenyan and Ugandan Environmental Authorities and by the World Bank safeguard specialists. There is however, some danger that cleared safety zones along the rail lines at "hot spots" may reoccur so the project has put in place mitigation measures in line with updated RAP. The updated RAP noted the risk of increased encroachments in the area, which is anticipated due to the high volume of pedestrian traffic and after improvements have been introduced. A socio-economic baseline survey was completed in 2005, and updated in 2010. The impact audits and resettlement reports in 2008 and 2009 documented severe safety hazards at several specific "hot spots" where encroachment along the tracks and use of the tracks for pedestrian traffic and trading are heaviest. The community leaders in Kibera and Mukuru identified these areas for the pedestrian foot bridges. Clearance of safety zones at these sites will be monitored by Kenya Railway Corporation (KRC) and a committee from the affected areas will be formed to assist in safety sensitization and awareness (especially since the train derailment in 2009). A grievance mechanism was set up and has been functional since 2006. To date, more than one hundred claims were filed referring to housing preferences, locations of services, etc, and most of these complaints or concerns have been taken into account in the updated RAP.
3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. To avoid or reduce negative environmental impacts, mitigation measures were proposed and an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) formulated for the Kibera and Mukuru relocation sites. The EMP includes an annual environmental audit once construction is completed. An EMP outline was developed to ensure sustainability of the site activities during construction and thereafter. The plan provides a general outlay of the activities, associated impacts, mitigation plans and appropriate indicators for monitoring. Implementation timeframes and responsibilities are defined, and where practicable, the cost estimates for recommended measures are provided. There are also guidelines for addressing environmental health and safety. For example, in construction of facilities for the OSBPs, EHS clauses were included in the contracts and monitoring of adherence to these clauses will be done by an independent engineer who will supervise civil works. The construction design and works must be approved by the relevant Government Departments i.e. Physical planning, Ministry of Lands and Housing, Health etc. During construction, warning/informative signs (bill boards) will be erected at the site. These should indicate the operation hours and when works are likely to be started and completed. The updated 2010 RAP recommended: (i) Demarcation of a "Protection" Safety Zone: There will be provision of about 40m wide (20m on each side) "protection" safety zone, which will be cleared of any structures and whose boundaries will be demarcated by a wall (that also serves as the outer wall of the multi-storey replacement housing units). For Mukuru, the width is 50m since the resettlement will be on one side of the line. (ii) Construction of Resettlement Units: The solutions for both Kibera and Mukuru were developed in consultation with the affected communities. The RAP proposes construction of multi-story replacement housing - both business and residential - along the outer 10 m width on both sides of the reserve within the current settlements in Kibera, and on one side of the railway line, similar structures for Mukuru will be constructed. These form part of the land-for-land exchange that the KRC allocated, including GoK cost-sharing to cover some of the RAP implementation infrastructure. Because of the presence of a high voltage line on one side, and an oil pipeline on the other side, only a 1.0 km strip is available for resettlement within the current settlement in Mukuru. The RAP identified a relocation area located 2.5 km away from Mukuru towards the CBD, on the northern side of the railway reserve, parallel to Jogoo road and between Lunga Lunga and Likoni Bridges. (iii) Support to Schools: The RAP reports that there are 43 informal schools in Kibera with 7,056 pupils and 5 in Mukuru with 1,497 pupils. It recommends that the children be relocated to public schools that are in the vicinity of the resettlement areas, many of which are currently operating below capacity. Five such schools have been identified in Kibera and six in Mukuru. The Government provides free primary education in public schools and it is a requirement that the schools take all children who present themselves within the class capacity. As needed, rehabilitation and enhancements of school facilities will be covered. (iv) Provision of 45-year Lease: In addition to the land-for-land exchange, KRC will provide a 45-year lease for the resettled PAPs (at a nominal fee that will be used to maintain the replacement units). KRC has currently a working mechanism for leasing its land and property and similar arrangements will be
followed. This provision of a 45-year lease has been discussed and coordinated with relevant GoK agencies dealing with urban housing and resettlement. 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 participating countries (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda) in this regional project have undertaken extensive environmental and social audits of the port, border posts, and railway lines. The Rift Valley Railways (RVR) created a special unit with environment and social specialists and they have retained the consultants who prepared the EMPs and RAPs to continue with their implementation and to manage the reduction of environmental and social risks. These safeguards documents also received strong incountry ownership and interest on the part of the inter-ministerial teams overseeing the concessioning of the railways and the reorganization of the residual assets-holding corporations in Kenya and Uganda. Each of the plans calls for contractors to carry out implementation consistent with Kenyan and Ugandan environmental legislation, World Bank safeguard policies and Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines. Under restructuring, the Concessionaire will prepare and implement its own SHE plan within six months after the concession starts. This SHE plan will be in compliance with World Bank Safeguard Policies and World Bank Group applicable Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines (Rail Transit System, Port and Harbor Facilities, General Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines, which include Occupational Health and Safety, Hazardous Materials and Monitoring. The following have been agreed with GoK and KRC regarding RAP implementation arrangements under the restructured project: (i) Resettlement Management Unit (ReMU). KRC has already set up the ReMU and is in the process of hiring the technical staff (social/resettlement specialists; environment specialist; engineer; consultation/liaison officer; etc). The ReMU will be in charge of ensuring that preliminary designs and bidding documents for civil works are completed by April/May 2011. The ReMU will coordinate with relevant GoK agency for supervising construction of the civil works, once contracts are awarded. (ii) RAP Advisors: This task will be carried out by the RAP consultants as advisors to the ReMU to ensure a systematic and phased relocation of PAPs. As recommended in the RAP, ReMU technical teams will work closely with the RAP Advisors and Community Leaders to ensure smooth transition. The construction and relocation process will be done in sequential phases, except for Mukuru, since an un-encroached new site is available. In the case of Kibera, the RAP Advisors will enhance consultations to explain the phased movement of people and clearance of structures by sections. The RAP Advisors are also expected to assist in the implementation of the livelihood restoration and community development programs. (iii) Independent Review: The RAP implementation will be assessed through an independent review. This will include programs like social accountability and audits of RAP implementation performance. A follow-up socio-economic survey, building upon the baseline survey that was completed in 2004 and in 2009, will be completed one year after relocation to track changes in PAPs living conditions and incomes. (iv) Project Implementation Team (PIT): The PIT will continue its decision making and oversight
functions with respect to RAP implementation. The inter-agency composition of the PIT, and its mandate to oversee general project implementation, allows a linkage of the RAP implementation activities to the other components of the project. (v) Communications: This is a vital aspect of RAP implementation. The ReMU will have a dedicated communications and liaison specialist who will develop a public consultation and disclosure plan and a communications strategy. A draft program was prepared and will be approved by the PIT by August 2011 (before the PAPs are relocated). The restructured project has provisions to assist GoK implement a communications program. 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 residents, vendors, etc occupying parts of the RoW of the railway that need to be cleared to ensure that the agreed minimum safety standards (safety and protection zone) can be met in the high density rail segments in Kibera and Mukuru rail segments. The communities in these areas include many civil society groups, institutional leaders (in churches, advocacy and service organizations), and administrative representatives, who 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, National Environmental Agencies and other agencies. For all the key stakeholders, consultations have taken place in project presentation meetings, discussions of the issues involved, and in the case of the Kenya RAP, participation in the enumeration process during the preparation of the 2005 RAP and updated RAP (2011). The Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) - Pamoja Trust has been a key partner/consultant in developing the RAP and the RAP Update. The process involved creation of an inter-ministerial committee (including the urban housing agencies) and other NGOs working on urban housing issues. Several neighborhood consultation teams were formed and more than 100 meetings and summaries of consultations are recorded. Finally, affected people have been consulted and actively involved in neighborhood meetings. Pamoja Trust maximized the use of existing urban institutions (e.g. cooperatives) in carrying out the consultation and grievance resolution processes. The 2005 RAP has been disclosed in Kenya and has been made available to local organizations and administrators for consultation by affected and interested parties. The updated RAP (2011) is similarly disclosed and consultations are ongoing, including translating the key RAP provisions in the local dialects. Kenyan and Ugandan EA/EMPs have also been disclosed and translated, carefully explaining the activities to affected people through focus groups meetings and public consultations. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank 05/26/2005 Date of "in-country" disclosure 06/30/2005
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: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank 05/26/2005 Date of "in-country" disclosure 06/30/2005 Date of submission to InfoShop 06/08/2005 Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Pest Management Plan: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop * If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources, 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: The RAP was disclosed in 2005, but was redisclosed in 2011; The EIA for the Kibera and Mukuru area was redisclosed in 2011. 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 or Sector Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? OP/BP 4.11 - Physical Cultural Resources Does the EA include adequate measures related to cultural property? Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on cultural property? OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information
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: Mr Solomon Muhuthu Waithaka 04/26/2011 Environmental Specialist: Mr Robert A. Robelus 04/21/2011 Social Development Specialist Ms Maria Concepcion J. Cruz 04/14/2011 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Ms Alexandra C. Bezeredi 04/26/2011 Comments: Sector Manager: Ms Supee Teravaninthorn 04/26/2011 Comments: