REPUBLIC OF RWANDA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL RESOURCES (MINAGRI) RURAL SECTOR SUPPORT PROJECT (RSSP 3) [email protected]ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR RSSP 3 FINAL REPORT March 2012 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
117
Embed
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT ...documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/285631468336663680/...KWAMP Kirehe Watershed Management Project MINAGRI MINALOC MINICOM Ministry of Commerce
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
REPUBLIC OF RWANDA
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL RESOURCES (MINAGRI)
2.1 Literature review ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Field Visits ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Annex 7: Annual Report Form for the District Level ............................................................. 100
xi
ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS
ACTS African Centre for Technological Studies
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
APL Adaptable Program Loan
BP Bank Procedure
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CBO Community Based Organization
CMS Convention on Migratory Species
DEO District Environment Officer
DEC District Environment Committee
EA Environmental Assessment
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMP Environmental Management Plan
EO Environment Officer
ESIA Environment and Social Impact Assessment
ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework
ESMP Environment and Social Management Plan
EWASA Energy, Water and Sanitation Authority
GoR Government of Rwanda
IDA International Development Association
IMCE Integrated Management of Critical Ecosystem
IPM Integrated Pest Management
ISAE Institut Supérieur d’Agriculture et d’Elevage
ISAR Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda
KWAMP Kirehe Watershed Management Project
MINAGRI
MINALOC
MINICOM
Ministry of Agriculture and Animal resources
Ministry of Local Administration
Ministry of Commerce and Industry
MININFRA
MINIRENA
MINISANTE
Ministry of Infrastructures
Ministry of Natural Resources
Ministry of Health
LWH Land Husbandry, Water Harvesting and Hillside Irrigation
Project
xii
NBI Nile Basin Initiative
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
PMP Pest Management Plan
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
PSCU Project Support and Coordination Unit
PSF
RADA
Private Sector Federation
Rwanda Agriculture Development Authority
RCA
RAB
RDB
Rwanda Cooperative Agency
Rwanda Agriculture Board
Rwanda Development Board
RAP Resettlement Action Plan
RBS Rwanda Bureau of Standards
REMA Rwanda Environment Management Authority
RHSP Rwanda Health Sector Plan
RNRA
RPF
Rwanda Natural Resources Authority
Resettlement Policy Framework
RSSP Rural Sector Support Project
SPATR
SPIU
Strategic Plan for Agricultural Transformation in Rwanda
Single Project Implementation Unit
WUA Water Users Association
2
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context
The Government of Rwanda (GoR) is pursuing a comprehensive Poverty Reduction Programme. In
support of this Programme, the GoR has received a grant from the International Development
Association (IDA) towards the implementation of the Third Rural Sector Support Project (RSSP3) under
the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI). The RSSP3 aims at (i) increasing the
agricultural productivity of marshlands and hillsides in the sub-watersheds targeted for development in
an environmentally sustainable manner; and (ii) strengthening the sustainable participation of women
and men beneficiaries in market-based value chains.
The subproject investments that the RSSP 3 will finance will require consideration of environmental and
social issues. Activities to be financed that could give rise to environmental risks and concerns have not
been confirmed during project preparation and the exact location of the investments has not been
finalized. Therefore, in compliance with the Rwanda Environmental Management Authority (REMA) and
the World Bank’s Safeguards Policies, the GoR represented by the MINAGRI, has prepared this
Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). This instrument will guide the project to
identify, assess and evaluate environmental and social impacts on subproject level, and develop
appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures, incorporated into the design of the subprojects.
The ESMF is complemented by three other safeguards instruments. Firstly, Environmental Assessments
(EAs) including Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) which will be prepared for each marshland
irrigation scheme to be developed in RSSP 3. Secondly, a Pest Management Plan (PMP) is prepared to
ensure that RSSP 3-supported investments in strengthening agricultural productivity pay adequate
attention to the need to promote integrated pest management, and to ensure that pesticides are used
appropriately. And finally, a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) is prepared to provide standards and
procedures for compensation for any land acquisition, loss of assets, or restriction of access to resources
that may take place as a result of RSSP 3 investments.
The objectives of the present ESMF are:
To establish clear procedures and methodologies for environmental and social planning, review, approval and implementation of subprojects to be financed under RSSP 3;
To prescribe project arrangements for the preparation and implementation of subprojects in order to adequately address World Bank safeguard issues;
To assess the potential environmental and social impacts of envisaged subprojects;
To propose mitigation measures which will effectively address identified negative impacts, and to outline a simple Environmental Management Plan (EMP);
To specify appropriate roles and responsibilities, and outline the necessary reporting procedures, for managing and monitoring environmental and social concerns related to subprojects;
To define a public consultation and disclosure process;
2
To determine the training, capacity building and technical assistance needed to successfully implement the provisions of the ESMF; and
To establish the project funding required to implement the ESMF requirements.
In general, RSSP 3 investments that have associated environmental and social concerns include:
Marshlands and hillsides rehabilitation and development: Potential sites for some of these activities have not yet been identified. Once identified, an
Environmental Assessment (EA) with Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) for each scheme will be
prepared. Thus, the ESMF refers to the EIA and EMPs when addressing their environmental
management requirements. Similarly, a Pest Management Plan (PMP) and a Resettlement Policy
Framework (RPF) are used to address, respectively, concerns for pesticide use and resettlement
activities associated with these activities.
Small scale rural infrastructures Small scale rural infrastructures that RSSP 3 is likely to finance will be demand-driven investments in
infrastructure such as rural markets, drying floors, processing facilities, storage facilities, access road
upgrades, bridges and culverts.
The specific design and location of these infrastructures will be determined during project
implementation, and the ESMF focuses on how RSSP 3 will manage their associated environmental and
social concerns.
1.2 Project Description
This chapter describes the RSSP 3 objectives, proposed components activities and outcomes
expected during the duration of the project.
1.2.1 Objective of RSSP 3
In line with the overall objective and programmatic phasing of the RSSP Adaptable Program
Loan (APL), the Project Development Objectives (PDOs) for RSSP 3 are to:
(1) Increase the agricultural productivity of organized farmers in the marshlands and
hillsides of sub-watersheds targeted for development in an environmentally
sustainable manner; and;
(2) Strengthen the participation of women and men beneficiaries in market-based value
chains.
3
1.2.2 Project Components
The RSSP3 will have three components: two technical components and one implementation
support component.
Component 1: Infrastructure for Marshland, Hillside and Commodity Chain
Development
Building on the successful approaches, processes and experience of RSSP 1 and 2, the objective
of Component 1 will be (i) to expand irrigated area of cultivated marshlands through
rehabilitation and development, (ii) promote sustainable land management practices on
associated hillsides and (iii) improve economic infrastructure in support of commodity chain
development. Three subcomponents will be supported under Component 1:
Subcomponent 1.1: Marshland rehabilitation and development
The sub-component will finance rehabilitation and development of selected schemes in
marshlands totaling 6,000 ha with high potential for commercialized agricultural production. It
will finance preliminary, detailed feasibility and participatory design studies (some of which
have already been completed or are on-going), construction and construction supervision.
Investments will be demand-driven and a clear selection framework will be applied. Criteria
include (i) readiness for investment; (ii) stakeholder interest; (iii) proximity to market; (iv)
environmental and social sustainability; and (v) favorable economic rate of return. In addition
to the successful water harvesting model of previous phases, the Project will promote lower-
cost irrigation technologies in lowland areas where the shallow aquifer is appropriate for low-
cost groundwater technologies. The Project will finance rapid groundwater assessments to
identify the potential for groundwater exploitation in marshlands potentially to be covered
under the Project. Where studies demonstrate significant potential for groundwater
exploitation, the Project will finance “public good” elements of viable supply chain
development for affordable irrigation technologies, including product development, training of
local mechanical workshops in the manufacturing, repair and maintenance of affordable
irrigation technologies, and development of mass marketing approaches. The project will
recruit a consultant for the implementation of this activity.
4
Subcomponent 1.2: Sustainable land management on associated hillsides
This sub-component will build on the progression seen from simply ‘hillside protection’ in RSSP
1 to the development of economically interesting sustainable land management (SLM) on
hillsides that emerged near the end of RSSP 2. Drawing from and adapting the successful
approaches of the Land, Husbandry, Water Harvesting and Hillside irrigation Project (LWH),
RSSP 3 will finance investments in improving productivity on 17,000 ha of those hillsides
directly associated with marshland irrigation schemes developed by the Project. Lessons learnt
from RSSP1 and 2, as well as from LWH, in terms of best SLM hillside practices will be adopted
in order to ensure that RSSP 3 hillside activities provide economic incentives for SLM by
promoting an integrated hillside approach to better productivity and marketing for hillside
communities. Activities supported by the Project will include :(a) promotion of sustainable land
management on hillsides immediately adjacent to the irrigation investments, using the 3:1 area
ratio used in RSSP 2; (b) promotion of cost-effective soil moisture retaining technologies on
these hillsides for agricultural production, using the 3:1 ratio adopted in RSSP2; and (c) support
for better marketing of hillside agricultural output (Component 2). By increasing agricultural
productivity on hillsides, the Project would provide incentives to farmers to invest in
sustainable land management practices and reduce land degradation. In view of the positive
potential impacts on hillside agricultural productivity, dissemination of the technologies is
expected to be farmer-led.
Activities for promotion of rainwater harvesting technologies and sustainable land
management practices will include (i) Grass strip planting, contour bunding and improved
radical terracing, as appropriate for slope category and soil depth; (ii) Pasture improvement
through trees and grass planting; (iii) Dam and canal buffer zone protection; and (iv)
Afforestation of critical hillside ecosystems unsuitable for intensive agriculture and animal
production. Other technologies such as construction of cut-off-drains and waterways, liming
and organic materials (compost, manure, green manuring, etc.) application will be introduced;
while crop rotation, double cropping, contour cultivation and mulching will be encouraged. The
improved radical terraces and soil bunds will be stabilized using grass (such as nappier, legume,
etc.) and agro-forestry trees, including fruit trees. The specific composition of the support
financed under this sub-component will depend on specific conditions of the site (soil, climate,
slope, farmer interest, etc) and will be determined during implementation. Under LWH,
interventions on hillsides included mostly radical terracing and chemical fertilizers.
5
The agronomic performance is noticeable on the terraces cultivated, but the costs of such
works remain very high (>USD7,000 /ha). According to the above, and to ensure sustainability
of both the infrastructures and the associated gains from irrigation, the Project will develop and
propose an affordable approach to RSSP 3 hillsides that still meets the Project objectives of
making soil erosion protection on adjacent hillsides an economically interesting activity for
hillside farmers.
Subcomponent 1.3: Infrastructure for value chain development
This sub-component will support construction of economic infrastructure for developed
marshlands and hillsides to support the integration of organized farmers in value chains and/or
their diversification. Rural investment for economic infrastructure concerns all infrastructure
that supports the economic activities handled by cooperatives or small farmer groups.
Investment in infrastructure in this Component would follow a Community-Driven
Development (CDD) approach and be directly linked to business plans developed by
cooperatives with support from sub-component 2.3. Such investments would require
contributions from the participating farmer organization (either in-kind or through linkages
with rural finance providers).
While these investments will cover all marshlands developed under RSSP 3, as well as
Muvumba 8 (developed at the end of RSSP 2), selection criteria has been developed to help
prioritize the hillside cooperatives that can best benefit from similar investments (see Annex 2).
Selection criteria will include (i) the compliance with local development priorities in conformity
with the project development objectives; and (ii) women and men and districts who show their
interest either in kind or cash to contribute to the infrastructure construction; and (iii)
economic viability. As this sub-component will be implemented through a CDD approach, the
full set of specific criteria will be fully elaborated in the Project Implementation Manual. The
level of contribution to the financing of the investments will be modulated according to its
commercial nature.
The positive list of eligible investments will comprise for both marshland and hillsides sites:
roads which appear to be critical for linking production basins to markets, will be funded
through the upcoming World Bank Rural Roads Operation as well as projects supported by
other partners. Finally, the project could support supra-cooperative initiatives for greater value
chain integration. Detailed community-level implementation arrangements, including social
mobilization and accountability procedures will also be highlighted in the PIM.
The full list of possible demand-driven investments eligible for support, as well as a list of
investments that would not be legible for project financing, the eligibility criteria, thresholds for
funding support and cost sharing arrangements, and sanctioning procedures will be described
in detail in the CDD operating manuals contained in the Project’s Implementation Manual
(PIM).
Finally, this sub component will be explicitly linked with business planning capacity in
Component 2, reinforcing the synergies across the sub-components.
Component 2: Strengthening Capacity for Marshland and Hillside Commodity
Chain Development
The objective of Component 2 is to support the firm integration of men and women in targeted
marshland and hillside areas into markets by intensifying production, promoting diversification
into agricultural value addition or upstream markets, and expanding access to markets. The
Project will focus on strengthening commodity chains for main food staples, including rice,
potatoes, and maize, but it will remain responsive to broader proposals where tangible
marketing opportunities exist. The project approach will strengthen farmer communities to
promote an inclusive development for all including the very poor, the landed and the land less
by mainstreaming best practice community driven development (CDD) principles across all
project target areas (see Technical Annex for further details). Component 2 will include three
sub-components:
1 Half bulk market is part of an ABC and is defined as demarcated secured area designed in such a way to facilitate
cost saving wholesale transactions of the main agricultural commodities produced in the surrounding areas, and
managed by an autonomous body involving market stakeholders and district authorities through a public private
partnership.
7
Sub-component 2.1: Strengthening farmer organizations and cooperative
This sub-component will support group formation where necessary (e.g. hillsides), and will
strengthen WUAs and cooperatives to improve their governance and management capacity to
deliver quality services to their members. Activities include:
(i) For farmers groups and cooperatives: (a) mobilization and group formation (particularly on the hillsides); (b) governance and management training including book keeping and accounting for farmers’ organizations and cooperatives implemented in partnership with Local Service Providers (LSPs); the focus of capacity development will depend on the level of maturity of the farmer organizations and cooperatives. For mature cooperatives, value-chain development through business planning would be emphasized (see Sub-component 2.3) while for new cooperatives basic governance and new production technology would be promoted. Small group formation will form an integral part of the approach where appropriate, but particularly on hillsides and with women and men in Project areas involved in non-farm activities. As the project progresses and groups and cooperatives gain experience, they would increasingly qualify for capacity support in more complex value chain integration (see sub-component 2.3).
(ii) For WUAs, specific support and training in collaboration with RSSP3 engineers and district authorities to include WUA support and activities in the District development plans, (a) emergence, registration, governance of the WUAs, (b) water management and appropriate bye laws including enforcement procedures; (c) infrastructure maintenance plans based on the recommended principles:
Type of Infrastructure
Annual provisions in percentage of the price as stated on BoQ
Periodicity of maintenance works
Dam 1% 5 years: reparations…
Main canal 3%
3 years for reshaping 1 year for weed-cutting
Secondary and tertiary canals 3%
Twice a year for reshaping and weed-
cutting
Roads 3% 3 years: relining
(iii) Establishment, collection and management of water services fees: WUAs will reach all users regardless of their cooperative membership status with a 95% minimum rate of fees recovery. WUAs will be trained to develop an efficient collection system that may be inspired by lessons learnt (e.g.: open bidding for fees collectors with a performance contract remunerated through a limited commission, recovery through cooperatives); (e) to enhance and permanently monitor the progress of WUAs and with their support, a WUA “technical coordinator” could be posted in the associations by RSSP3 during 1-2 years to ensure that each WUA fully endorses all its responsibilities and enforce its established by-laws.
8
At the end of the period, such technical coordinator may be recruited as a WUA permanent member of staff if the WUA can cover the salary without affecting the irrigation scheme maintenance capacities of the WUA. In smaller size marshland, the technical coordinator trains and mentors a WUA manager with a lower profile who will run the WUAs activities under the supervision of the steering committee. The WUA technical assistant is understood as a permanent on-site person coordinating all tasks and responsibilities to be carried out by WUAs as listed above. This person is accountable to the WUAs steering committees and to the Project coordinator for the duration of the assignment.
Sub-component 2.2: Improving production technologies
RSSP3 will support activities to improve production and productivity in the marshlands and
hillsides adjacent to marshlands. In line with Government policy for extension and in
collaboration with Rwanda Agricultural Board (RAB), the Project will support the up-scaling of
the Farmers Field Schools (FFS). The FFS approach builds capacity and empowers farmers to use
improved and economically viable practices for sustainable soil, water and pest management
with a view of increasing the agricultural productivity and profitability. RSSP3 will continue
supporting cooperatives to become certified seed producers. Project activities in this sub-
component would include: (i) Training-of-trainers for the up-scaling of FFS in marshlands and
hillsides for sustainable intensification; (ii) up-scaling of the FFS in the marshlands and in the
hillsides developed both by RSSP2 and RSSP3; (iii) support to interested cooperatives to
become certified seed producers in cooperation with RAB, linking to any ongoing seed projects;
(iv) LWH extension approaches to support intensification of rainfed hillside production with a
particular emphasis on the dissemination of fruit trees with the establishment of fruit tree
nurseries and adapted fruit trees management techniques (grafting, pruning, root pruning,
fertilization); and (vi) support to innovations for productivity.
Sub-component 2.3: Capacity building for value chain development
Capacity building for value chain development will be directly linked to the various levels of
organized groups discussed above as each of these are meant to play a role in the value chain—
starting with the individual producer. As a lesson learnt from RSSP2, it is crucial to allow
individual farmers to better plan and develop their farming activities through a thorough
understanding of the business. Participatory value chain approaches will be used in addition to
the successfully applied methodology of lead farmers.
9
The subcomponent aims at supporting the development of market oriented farming at three
levels of intervention: the producer level, the cooperative level, the agribusiness centre level
including half bulk markets.
(i) For the first level, two core modules will be delivered: (a) development of farm budgets/business planning to lead farmers; (b) small enterprise management to lead farmers; as well as (c) study tours to well established cooperatives.
(ii) At the second level, activities will be implemented to support business oriented cooperatives through (a) the training of the Marketing Committees (cooperative leaders) on marketing of output for onward communication to farmers, (b) support to the management through a participation to the recruitment and hiring of a professional manager and (c) a permanent mentoring programme for both cooperative staff and cooperatives leaders. This programme will include training on business plans including cooperative investment plan that links directly to investments discussed in sub component 1.3. Beyond this core training, a mentoring program provided by professionally trained service providers in agribusiness and value chain development on retainer basis will focus on cooperatives leaders and marketing committees for at least the first three years of the program. The hillsides cooperatives benefitting from collective infrastructure under sub-component 1.3 will receive similar support. Building on the success stories from RSSP 2, under RSSP3 cooperatives which accessed matching grant funding from financial service providers through the Government’s (World Bank financed) Rural Investment Facility (RIF) for activities in their business plans, will be supported to seek financing for innovations through RIF. This includes clear articulation of quality innovation investment proposals and full information for risk assessment by the financial institution.
At the third level of Agribusiness Centres, three RSSP3 areas of intervention will be selected
based on the following criteria: (a) the expected volume of commodity transactions (e.g. rice,
maize, potatoes, and bananas) and (b) availability of a supra-structure of matured cooperatives
that provide specific services to their cooperatives members. For the selected areas, the project
will support development initiative dialogue with cooperatives and the District authorities to
launch an Agribusiness centre (ABC) whose infrastructure will be partly financed as stated in
sub-component 1.3. The ABC will comprise facilities to increase trade of agricultural
commodities in half bulk – safe storage, lorry access, handling facilities, weighing bridge - and a
more equitable share of added value – price information system, auction market services,
negotiated local tax payment- amongst the value chain stakeholders.
10
In the case of rice, cooperatives and their unions, registered traders, government approved
millers will be included. Such initiative would rely initially on funding from the project to be
complemented by other private source of financing through public private partnerships.
Study tours comprising all main stakeholders (union leaders, private traders, district officials)
will be organized to places (within and outside the country) where rural half bulk markets
managed by PPP associating farmers’ organization and district authorities have been
developed.
Component 3: Project Support and Coordination
In keeping with the commitment of Development Partners (DPs) in the agricultural sector of
Rwanda, the experienced and competent implementation team of RSSP 2 will be merged with
the LWH implementation team to form one implementation unit embedded in the Ministry’s
structure. The implementation capacity of LWH recently received a thorough assessment as
part of the preparation for an LWH scale up under the Global Agricultural Food Security
Program (GAFSP) in 2010 and again in 2011. A similar assessment took place during the
preparation of RSSP 3 and the proposed combined implementation team was found to ensure
sufficient implementation capacity for the two activities. The proposed merger entails
economies of scale and this will ensure cost-effective management of projects, in line with
MINAGRI’s strategy to create a single PIU for each program under PSTA. The bank fully
endorses this as a mechanism under which RSSP 3 will be implemented.
The objective of this component is to ensure: (i) efficient execution of administrative, financial
management, and procurement functions; (ii) coordination of Project activities among the
various stakeholders; (iii) timely implementation and monitoring of environmental and land-use
management frameworks mandated by World Bank safeguards policies; and (iv) establishment
and operation of an effective monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system.
11
2 METHODOLOGY
The present study is an update of RSSP 2 ESMF report and was conducted by the Project
Environmental Officer using the following approach and methodology.
2.1 Literature review
Review on the existing baseline information and literature material was undertaken to gain a
further and deeper understanding of the project. Among the documents that were reviewed
included:
RSSP 2 ESMF and LWH ESMF Reports
RSSP 2 World Bank Project Concept Note and Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet
Project Appraisal Documents I and II
RSSP 3 Project Concept Note
Government documents (studies)
MINAGRI documents
The Environment Officer (EO) of the project also undertook detailed review and analysis of the
current national relevant legislations, policies and guidelines including the World Bank
Safeguards Policies, international conventions related to this project and other relevant
documents.
2.2 Field Visits The EO carried out visits to three (3) potential project sites (Rwinkwavu, Karangazi - Rwangingo
and Gacaca marshlands) in order to be familiar with the issues on the ground and appreciate
the possible environmental issues of concern.
2.3 Interactive Discussions Various discussions were held with the RSSP technical staff at the national level and provincial
levels as well as other relevant staff of the key implementing partners of the RSSP 3 including
among others REMA, RDB, IMCE and MINAGRI projects (PAIGELAC, KWAMP- PAPSTA).
12
2.4 Preparation of ESMF
The preparation of ESMF for RSSP 3 involved
Collection of baseline data on the environmental conditions of the project area;
Identification of positive and negative environmental and social impacts;
Identification of environmental and social mitigation measures;
Preparation of screening procedures to be used while screening subproject activities;
And formulation of environmental and social monitoring plans.
13
3. BASELINE DATA
This section describes the overall baseline condition of Rwanda in terms of biophysical
environment, the socio-economic and cultural attributes.
3.1 Location and size
Rwanda is a small, mountainous and landlocked country covering 26,338 Km2 of which the total
land area is 24, 948 Km2 (94.7 %) and 1,390 Km2 (5.3 %) is water. It is located in Central Africa
and bordered by Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The country is described as the “Land of a Thousand hills’’ because of its numerous highly
dissected hills, often with flat peaks and convex slopes, separated by relatively narrow valleys
covered with alluvium materials, with the lowest altitude of 950 m at Rusizi River and the
highest altitude of 4,507 m at Mount Kalisimbi. The average altitude is 1,250 m above sea level.
3.2 Physical environment
3.2.1 Climate
Rwanda enjoys a tropical temperate climate due to its high altitude. The average annual
temperature ranges between 16°C and 22°C, without significant variations. Rainfall is abundant
although it has some irregularities. Winds are generally around 1-3 m/s. In the high regions of
the Congo - Nile ridge, the average temperatures ranges between 15 and 17°C and the rainfall
is abundant. The volcanic region has much lower temperatures that can go below 0°C in some
places. In areas with intermediary altitude, average temperatures vary between 19 and 21°C
and the average rainfall is around 1000 mm/year. Rainfall is less irregular, and sometimes
causes periods of drought, especially in the Eastern Rwanda. In the lowlands (East and
Southeast), temperatures are higher and at times can go beyond 30°C in February and July-
August. Rainfall is less abundant in that region (700 to 970 mm/year).
Weather in Rwanda is determined by the rainfall patterns. Thus, the climate of the country is
characterized by an alternation of four seasons of which two are wet and the other two are dry.
However, rainfall is generally well distributed throughout the year, despite some irregularities.
Eastern and South-Eastern regions (Eastern Province and Mayaga in Southern Province) are
more affected by prolonged droughts while the Northern and Western regions experience
abundant rainfall that may cause catastrophic landslides and flooding.
14
The quantity of total annual rainfall varies between 800 mm in the Northeast of Rwanda
(Eastern Umutara) and 1600 mm in the natural forest of Nyungwe (Wisumo) and in the
highlands of the Northwest. A decrease in rainfall is generally observed from West to East.
3.2.2 Relief
The Rwandan relief is hilly and mountainous with an altitude varying between 900 m and 4,507
m. The components of that relief are:
Congo-Nil Ridge over laying Lake Kivu with an altitude between 2500 m and 3000 m. It is
dominated in the Northwest by the volcanic ranges consisting of five volcanic massifs of
which the highest is Karisimbi with 4507 m.
The central plateau presents a relief of hills with an altitude ranging between 1500 m
and 2000 m.
The lowlands of the East are dominated by a depression characterized by hills with more
or less round top and 1000 to 1500 m in altitude. The lowlands of the South-West in
Bugarama plain with an altitude of 900 m are part of the tectonic depression of the
African Rift Valley.
3.2.3 Catchment and Hydrology
Rwanda has abundant water resources estimated at 417,000 ha, including 101 lakes covering
almost 128,000 hectares, water courses (7,260 ha) with 6,400 km of rivers and 860 marshlands
spanning an estimated 278,000 hectares.
Surface water
The sources of surface water of Rwanda include water courses and runoff. Rwanda has a dense
hydrographical network of ± 2 km/km² (length of the superficial flow network by km² of
surface). The country is divided into two hydrographical basins with a separating line called
Congo-Nile Ridge, moving from the North to the South and approximately perpendicular to the
volcanic chain, making natural obstacles exchange between the catchments basins of the
Northern Kivu and the Southwest of Uganda and those of Rwanda.
In the West of that line there is the Congolese basin (33 % of the surface of the national
territory) that drains 10 % of water resources of the country. It comprises rivers of Sebeya,
Koko, Rusizi, Rubyiro, as affluents of Lake Kivu (102,800 ha on the Rwandan side, 473 m of
maximum depth), Ruhwa and many other small streams.
15
In the East of the Congo Nile Ridge there is the Nile basin which covers 67 % of the National
territory and drains 90 % of Rwandan waters by two main rivers namely Nyabarongo and
Akagera. The latter is the main affluent of Lake Victoria with an average outflow of 256 m3/s at
Rusumo station and thus considered as the source of Nile.
The Nile basin in Rwanda comprises of many small lakes (e.g. Bulera, Ruhondo, Cyohoha South,
Mugesera, Muhazi, Rwampanga, Mihindi, Mirayi and others). Those lakes are not very deep (5
to 7 m), except Lake Bulera and Ruhondo, which are 50 to 90 m deep respectively.
Most rivers originate from the slopes of the Congo-Nile ridge. The two main rivers, namely
Nyabarongo and Akanyaru, together with their numerous tributaries, form, downstream from
Lake Rweru, the river Akagera which drains the most part of Rwanda’s waters towards the Nile,
forming the border with Burundi in the South and Tanzania in the East. Nyabarongo and
Akagera rivers are closely associated with vast marshes and numerous shallow lakes found
along these rivers. The ecology of these ecosystems is very dynamic and complex. Marshland
vegetation and the size of the lakes change continuously with the rainfall and the flow rate of
the rivers.
Underground water
The Rwandan underground water is dominated by the water of wetlands covering some
278,000 ha. The catchment/watershed of these wetlands are the many hills that catch
rainwater and drain slowly to the lower areas where the marshlands modify the movement of
water in the channel network by lowering the peak flow and volume of flood discharges.
Groundwater in most of these marshlands areas is found at a depth of 8 m. The marshlands
provide recharge of the ground water through percolation during water retention time in the
area. The outflow of the underground renewable water resource is estimated at 66 m³/s. Out
of this, the 22,000 known sources contribute an output of 9m³/s.
In general, little information is available on underground resources. The total area of
marshlands of Rwanda is estimated at about 278,000 ha which are partially exploited
depending on their degree of flooding.
16
Lakes
Rwanda has some 28 lakes of significant size and 73 lakes of small size. Six largest are located
entirely within the national territory: Ruhondo, Burera, Muhazi, Mugesera, Ihema and
Rwanyakizinga. Three others, Rweru, Cyohoha and Kivu, are shared with neighboring countries.
The largest and most spectacular is Lake Kivu. It lies at 1,460 m above sea level and is 90 km
long (North-South) and 49 km wide (East-West). From an average depth of 220 m, it plunges to
a maximum depth of 475 m.
Lake Kivu has a rough, jagged coast and contains numerous islands of which Idjwi is the largest.
Lake Kivu lies on the border with Congo in Western Rwanda at the foot of the volcanoes.
Although there is a species of small edible fish in the lake, it is poor in fauna, but rich in volcanic
substances. Great volumes of dissolved methane gases exist in its deep waters, which have
begun to be developed as an energy source. Lake Kivu drains to the south into Lake Tanganyika
by the swiftly descending Rusizi River.
Quality of water
In Rwanda, the quality of water is generally good with a pH ranging between 6 and 7.5. Surface
water often carries a lot of soil sediments and, in mining and volcanic regions, the water can
contain traces of arsenic, lead, mercury, fluoride, iodide and other toxic metalloids and heavy
metals, leading to water resources degradation.
The physico-chemical pollution of water is not frequent due to the low level of industrialization
and use of agricultural chemical inputs. The microbiological pollution is often observed and it
comes from various domestic wastes and debris carried by rain water. The pollution of
watercourses and lakes by the water hyacinth and other invasive species is a very recent and
alarming phenomenon in Rwanda.2
3.2.4 Wetlands
Wetlands cover a total area of 278,000 ha or about 10.6 % of the national territory. They
include a variety of ecosystems, ranging from large, permanently flooded swampy peat-lands to
smaller, seasonally flooded wetlands with a more mineral soil.
An MoU was signed establishing a partnership between RSSP 2/MINAGRI and National University of Rwanda
(NUR) for Water Quality Assessment from the marshlands developed by RSSP 2 in a bid to implement the
mitigation measures proposed in the sub-projects Environmental Management Plans (EMPs). This partnership may
be extended for RSSP 3 sub-projects.
17
The wetlands are composed of marshes, lakes, rivers and streams representing around 10.6 %
of the national territory. In the highlands of the Northwest, there are lakes Bulera and Ruhondo
as well as the marshland of Rugezi. In the Central and the East of the country, wide marshes are
those of Nyabarongo, Akanyaru and Akagera rivers. Many lakes connect with rivers and most of
them are located in the Akagera National Park. The main swamps are Akanyaru (30,000 ha) on
the border with Burundi, Mugesera-Rweru in the Southeast, Akagera swamp along the Tanzania
border in the East, Nyabarongo (10,000 ha) and the Rugezi wetlands (5,000 ha) in the North.
The wetlands serve as troughs for sediment particles and play an important role in the national
water balance by acting as a buffer, thus reducing the maximal flow rates during the rainy
season and maintaining a relatively high flow rate during the dry season. Currently, an
estimated 94,000 ha have been brought under agriculture, the large majority of this being
spontaneous agriculture with maize, sweet potatoes and beans. In addition, the wetlands are
used for a variety of traditional activities including the collection of leaves to make handicrafts,
extensive grazing and making of bricks. Wetlands also provide a spawning habitat for fish, and
are of great significance for biodiversity conservation. They play a role of alleviating the erosive
force of water and thus facilitate the deposit of sediments in suspension that could block
watercourses downstream.
Given the importance that the Government of Rwanda attaches to wetlands, in 2003, Rwanda
ratified the RAMSAR Convention (or convention on wetlands) and has already registered on the
RAMSAR list the site of Rugezi and identified other potential sites that will be registered in the
future, like the complex of Mugesera-Rweru, Kamiranzovu marshes and the wet zones of the
Akagera National Park. In addition, an action plan for the implementation of the RAMSAR
Convention was developed in June 2004.
3.2.5 Soils and land uses
Pedology
The Rwandan pedology is characterized by six types of soils namely:
Soils derived from schistose, sandstones and quartzite formations (50%);
Soils derived from granite and gneissic formations (20%);
Soils derived from basic intrusive rocks (10%);
Soils derived from recent volcanic materials (10 %);
18
Soils derived from old volcanic materials (4 %);
Alluvial and colluvial soils (6 %).
Rwanda’s soils contain many of the metal compounds found in laterite soils, but are generally
lighter, more fertile, more workable, and less problematic to farmers than true laterite soils.
There are two sub zones, with vastly different soils.
To the northwest and the lower portions of the larger river valleys are very fertile volcanic soils
covering approximately 10 % of the country. Elsewhere, the largely metamorphic bedrock has
produced generally poor quality with fertility varying and depending on extent of erosion and
leaching.
Land uses
About 30 % of Rwanda’s land is suitable for agricultural farming, and another 30% for grazing.
Except where the land is seriously eroded or leached by heavy farming, the soils have good
humus content and fertility. Intensive food crop production, often on steep slopes, has led to
serious soil erosion. Pastureland has also been overgrazed in many areas. Population pressure
on the richer lands is sufficiently intense that soil damage, which is due to leaching, erosion,
and intensive farming without adequate fertilizer, is an increasingly serious problem.
The resulting depletion of nutrients from the soils has caused crop production to stagnate or
decline, with a significant adverse impact on Rwanda’s food security situation.
The exploitation of land employs 88 % of the active population. The number of agricultural
households is about 1.4 million with an average surface area of 0.60 ha. Land resources are
thus limited, resulting in the overexploitation and inappropriate use of lands with potentially
disastrous consequences on land resources and on environment in general.
3.3 Biological Environment
Rwanda contains a wide variety of different habitats and species, due to its varied
geomorphology and its diverse climatic conditions. It is covered with diverse ecosystems that
include mountains, ombrophile forests, gallery forests, savannahs, wet and aquatic zones,
wood and agro ecosystems. All these ecosystems have rich flora and fauna.
19
3.3.1 Protected areas
The fauna and the flora can be better preserved and protected through the establishment of
protected areas like national parks and forest reserves to which the best management is
applied. However, through time and due to human activities, these conservation areas have
been reduced considerably.
Rwanda possesses three national parks (Nyungwe, Akagera and Volcanoes national Parks) and
In preparing this ESMF, a consideration of the type of future activities /investments planned vis-
à-vis the baseline data presented in Chapter 3 and the requirements of the Bank Safeguard
policies, has led to the determination that only the following Bank policies are triggered:
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP4.01)
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
Pest Management (OP/BP 4.09)
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04)
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50)
Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11)
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37)
World Bank Policy on Access to Information
World Bank Group Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines
This notwithstanding, since the exact location of all investments was not known at the time of
preparation of the RSSP3, other Bank policies may apply and not all policies selected above may
apply simultaneously. Therefore, a complete description of the Bank safeguards and their
triggers for applicability can be found on the World Bank’s official web site www.worldbank.org
and summarized in this chapter, to be used as part of the Environmental and Social
Management process presented in Chapter 6 of this ESMF.
4.2.1 Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01)
This policy requires Environmental Assessment (EA) of projects proposed for Bank financing to
help ensure that they are environmentally sound and sustainable, and thus to improve decision
making. The EA is a process whose breadth, depth, and type of analysis depend on the nature,
scale, and potential environmental impact of the proposed investments under the RSSP 3.
39
The EA process takes into account the natural environment (air, water, and land); human health
and safety; social aspects (involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, and cultural property)
and transboundary and global environmental aspects.
As part of the ESMF process, proposed subprojects under the RSSP 3 are to be designed at the
local level to ensure that they are screened for potential impacts and that they comply with the
requirements set out under World Bank safeguard policies.
The World Bank system assigns a project to one of three project categories, as defined below:
Category “A” Projects
An EIA is always required for projects that are in this category. Impacts are expected to be
adverse, sensitive, irreversible and diverse with attributes such as pollutant discharges large
enough to cause degradation of air, water, or soil; large scale physical disturbance of the site or
surroundings; extraction, consumption or conversion of substantial amounts of forests and
other natural resources; measurable modification of hydrological cycles; use of hazardous
materials in more than incidental quantities; and involuntary displacement of people and other
significant social disturbances.
Category “B” Projects
Category B projects have impacts that are ‘less significant, not as sensitive, numerous, major or
diverse. Few, if any, impacts are irreversible, and remedial measures can be more easily
designed. Typical projects include rehabilitation, maintenance, or upgrades, rather than new
construction. Although a full EIA is not always required, some environmental analysis is
necessary.
Category “C” Projects
Category C projects result in negligible or minimal direct disturbance of the physical
Environment. Typical projects include education, family planning, health, and human resource
development. No EIA or other analysis is required.
The RSSP 3 has been screened and assigned an EA Category B. This category of projects is
defined as follows: ‘’Category B projects are likely to have potential adverse environmental
impacts on human populations or environmentally important areas – including wetlands,
forests, grasslands, and other natural habitats – and are less adverse than those of category A
40
projects’’. These impacts are site specific, few if any of them are irreversible, and in most cases
mitigation measures can be designed more readily than for category A projects.
The EA process for category B projects examines the potential negative and positive
environmental impacts and recommends any measures needed to prevent, minimize, mitigate,
or compensate for adverse impacts and improve environmental performance.
Therefore, this ESMF sets out to establish the EIA process to be undertaken for implementation
of project activities in the proposed RSSP 3 when they are being identified and implemented.
This process requires that RSSP 3 and its implementing partners screen their activities to
identify their potential adverse impacts and thereby determine the corresponding mitigation
measures to incorporate into their planned activities. EAs/EMPs will be prepared for all RSSP 3
sub-projects.
4.2.2 Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04)
The conservation of natural habitats, like other measures that protect and enhance the
environment, is essential for long term sustainable development. The Bank therefore supports
the protection, maintenance, and rehabilitation of natural habitats.
Natural habitats are land and water areas where (i) the ecosystems biological communities are
formed largely by native plant and animal species, and (ii) human activity has not essentially
modified the areas primary ecological functions. All natural habitats have important biological,
social, economic, and existence value. Important habitats may occur in tropical humid, dry, and
cloud forest; temperate and boreal forest; Mediterranean type shrub lands; natural arid and
semiarid lands, mangrove swamps, coastal marshes, and other wetlands; estuaries, sea grass
beds, coral reefs, freshwater lakes and rivers; alpine and sub alpine Environments, including
herb fields, grasslands, and paramos; and tropical and temperate grasslands.
Therefore, the natural habitats policy may be triggered in certain cases because the
investments proposed under this project may have potential adverse impacts on Rwanda’s
many marshlands, water sources, rivers, and forests.
41
The natural ecosystems of the rivers, wetlands and forests are known to support varying
degrees of natural complexities of flora and fauna. Therefore, this policy requires that any
activities funded under the RSSP 3 that adversely impacts these ecosystems are successfully
mitigated so that the balance of the ecosystems are enhanced or maintained.
This would require RSSP 3 to design appropriate conservation and mitigation measures to
remove or reduce adverse impacts on these ecosystems or their functions, keeping such
impacts within socially defined limits of acceptable change. Specific measures may depend on
the ecological characteristics of the affected ecosystem. Such measures must include provision
for monitoring and evaluation to provide feedback on conservation outcomes and to provide
guidance for developing or refining appropriate corrective actions.
4.2.3 Pest Management (OP /BP 4.09)
This policy aims at assisting borrowers to manage pests that affect either agriculture or public
health. The Bank supports a strategy that promotes the use of biological or environmental
control methods and reduces reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides. Rural development and
health sector projects have to avoid using harmful pesticides. A preferred solution is to use
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques and encourage their use in the whole of the
sectors concerned.
In appraising a project that will involve pest management, the Bank assesses the capacity of the
country’s regulatory framework and institutions to promote and support safe, effective, and
Environmentally sound pest management. As necessary, the Bank and the borrower
incorporate in the project components to strengthen such capacity.
The Bank uses various means to assess pest management in the country and support integrated
pest management (IPM) and the safe use of agricultural pesticides: economic and sector work,
sectoral or project specific environmental assessments, participatory IPM assessments, and
investment projects and components aimed specifically at supporting the adoption and use of
IPM. For World Bank funded agriculture projects, pest populations are normally controlled
through IPM approaches, such as biological control, cultural practices, and the development
and use of crop varieties that are resistant or tolerant to the pest. The Bank may finance the
purchase of pesticides when their use is justified under an IPM approach.
42
The policy supports use of environmental methods for public health projects in controlling
pests. Where environmental methods alone are not effective, the Bank may finance the use of
pesticides for control of disease vectors.
The policy calls for assessment of the nature and degree of associated risks, taking into account
the proposed use and the intended users for procurement of any pesticide in Bank financed
projects. The IPM study and trainings have been carried out in RSSP I and II and the Pest
Management Plan (PMP) has been prepared for RSSP II and is underway for RSSP 3.
The policy requires that any pesticides it finances be manufactured, packaged, labeled,
handled, stored, disposed of, and applied according to standards acceptable to the Bank. The
Bank does not finance formulated products that fall in WHO classes IA and IB, or formulations
of products in Class II7, if the country lacks restrictions on their distribution and use; are likely
to be used by, or be accessible to, lay personnel, farmers, or others without training,
equipment, and facilities to handle, store, and apply these products properly.
4.2.4 Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
The objective of this policy to avoid where feasible, or minimize, exploring all viable alternative
project designs, to avoid resettlement. This policy is triggered in situations involving involuntary
taking of land and involuntary restrictions of access to legally designated parks and protected
areas.
The policy aims to avoid involuntary resettlement to the extent feasible, or to minimize and
mitigate its adverse social and economic impacts. This policy covers direct economic and social
impacts that both result from Bank assisted investment projects, and are caused by (a) the
involuntary taking of land resulting in (i) relocation or loss of shelter; (ii) loss of assets or access
to assets, or (iii) loss of income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected
persons must move to another location; or (b) the involuntary restriction of access to legally
designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the
displaced persons. For project activities that impact people and livelihoods in this way, RSSP 2
will have to comply with the requirements of the disclosed RPF and RAPs to comply with this
policy.
43
A separate Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) that establishes standards and procedures for
the preparation of Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) will be prepared. The RAPs will be
prepared by RSSP and its implementing partners.
This policy would be triggered when a project activity, in the cases mentioned above, for
example, causes the involuntary taking of land and other assets resulting in:
Relocation or loss of shelter,
Loss of assets or temporary or permanent access to assets
Loss of income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected persons
must move to another location,
Loss of land,
4.2.5 Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11)
This policy addresses physical cultural resources, which are defined as movable or immovable
objects, sites, structures, groups of structures, and natural features and landscapes that have
archaeological, paleontological, historical, architectural, religious, aesthetic, or other cultural
significance. Physical cultural resources may be located in urban or rural settings, and may be
above or below ground, or under water. Their cultural interest may be at the local, provincial or
national level, or within the international community.
As this policy is triggered for RSSP3, chance finds procedures should be incorporated into the
EMPs and civil works contracts. The following wording is proposed:
If the Contractor discovers archeological sites, historical sites, remains and objects, including
graveyards and/or individual graves during excavation or construction, the Contractor shall:
- Stop the construction activities in the area of the chance find;
- Delineate the discovered site or area;
- Secure the site to prevent any damage or loss of removable objects. In cases of
removable antiquities or sensitive remains, a night guard shall be arranged until
the responsible local authorities or the administration of the Institute of National
Museums of Rwanda (INMR) take over;
- Notify the supervisory Project Environmental Officer and Project Engineer who in
turn will notify the responsible local authorities and the [Culture Department of
Province] immediately (within 24 hours or less);
44
Responsible local authorities and Institute of National Museums of Rwanda (INMR) would then
be in charge of protecting and preserving the site before deciding on subsequent appropriate
procedures. This would require a preliminary evaluation of the findings to be performed by the
archaeologists of the [National Culture Administration]. The significance and importance of the
findings should be assessed according to the various criteria relevant to cultural heritage,
namely the aesthetic, historic, scientific or research, social and economic values.
Decisions on how to handle the finding shall be taken by the responsible authorities and the
[Culture Department of Province]. This could include changes in the layout (such as when
finding irremovable remains of cultural or archeological importance) conservation,
preservation, restoration and salvage.
Implementation for the authority decision concerning the management of the finding shall be
communicated in writing by relevant local authorities.
Construction work may resume only after permission is given from the responsible local
authorities or INMR administration concerning safeguard of the heritage.
4.2.6 Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50)
This policy applies to the following types of international waterways:
(i) any river, canal, lake, or similar body of water that forms a boundary between or any river or
body of surface water that flows through, two or more states, whether bank members or not;
(ii) any tributary or other body of surface water that is a component of any waterway described in (i) above and; (iii) any bay, gulf, strait or channel bounded by two or more states or, if within one state, recognized as a necessary channel of communication between the open sea and other states and any river flowing into such waters. This policy applies to the following types of projects: (i) hydroelectric, irrigation, flood control, navigation, drainage, water and sewerage, industrial and similar projects that involve the use or potential pollution of international waterways as described in paragraphe 1 above, and
45
(ii) detailed design and engineering studies of projects under paragraph 2 (i) above, including those to be carried out by the Bank as executing agency or in any other capacity. The Project ascertains whether riparian agreements are in place, and ensures that riparian states are informed of and do not object to project interventions. Such notification has been issued to the concerned riparian states.
4.2.7 Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37)
Following the Bank policy for dam’s safety, RSSP 3 will follow the Small Dam Safety Guidelines for
Rwanda, adopted in November 2009. The document on small dam safety guidelines for Rwanda has
been disclosed in Bank InfoShop - these guidelines are based on the September 2005 guidelines
originally developed for small dams in Uganda, with support from the World Bank.
The Project's adherence to the World Bank’s Operational Policy OP/BP 4.37 means that the Government
of Rwanda (GoR) shall:
(a) furnish to the Bank for review, prior to the issuance of a request for proposals relating to a contract
for the provision of technical services relating to the investigation, design, or construction or the
commencement of operations of a dam, terms of reference satisfactory to the Bank for such contract,
and appoint for the provision of such services professionals with qualifications and experience
satisfactory to the Bank;
(b) furnish to the Bank for review, no later than 15 days after the completion or receipt of each such
report, all reports relating to dam safety prepared by the GoR, any independent specialists assessing a
dam under construction or targeted under the Project, or professionals appointed by the GoR to design,
construct, fill, and start up a dam; and
(c) furnish to the Bank for review, as soon as available, all information relevant to dam safety, including
cost estimates, construction schedules, procurement procedures, technical assistance arrangements,
environmental and social assessments, along with the dam proposal, technical aspects, inspection
reports, and any actions plans relating to dam safety prepared by the GoR.
The GoR shall furnish to the Bank for review, no later than three (3) months prior to the Project’s Closing
Date, operational procedures with respect to dams constructed or targeted under the Project, including
retention of written instructions for flood operations and emergency preparedness at such dams at all
times, incorporation of necessary modifications to technical criteria for the evaluation of dam safety
further to the advent of new technology or information, and application of such revised criteria to such
dams and other dams under the Government’s jurisdiction as necessary.
46
4.2.8 World Bank Policy on Access to Information
The World Bank Policy on Access to Information sets out the policy of the World Bank on public
access to information in its possession. This Policy supersedes the World Bank Policy on
Disclosure of Information, and took effect on July 1, 2010. This Policy is based on five principles:
Maximizing access to information.
Setting out a clear list of expectations
Safeguarding the deliberative process
Providing clear procedures for making information available
Recognizing requester’s right to an appeals process.
In disclosing information related to member countries / borrowers in the case of documents
prepared or commissioned by a member country / borrower the Bank takes the approach that
the Country / Borrower provides such documents to the Bank with the understanding that the
Bank will make them available to the public.
4.2.9 World Bank Group Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines
The World Bank Group Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines (known as the "EHS’’
Guidelines are technical reference documents with general and industry-specific examples of
Good International Industry Practice (GIIP), as defined in the IFC's Performance Standard 3 on
Pollution Prevention and Abatement. The General EHS Guidelines contain information on cross-
cutting environmental, health, and safety issues potentially applicable to all industry sectors. It
is designed and should be used together with the relevant industry sector guideline(s), in this
instance the Guidelines on Occupational Health and Safety. All contracts should include a
clause requiring the provision of Protective Personal Equipment to all workers.
47
5. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
5.1 Positive Impacts
a) Catchment Rehabilitation and Management
c) Flood Control
d) Water Resources Conservation
e) Birdlife Habitat conservation
g) Improvement of previously waterlogged areas
h) Environmental Protection
i) Food Security
j) Poverty Alleviation
k) Raise Rural Income
l) Improved access to water for domestic purposes
m) Improved nutrition
n) Appreciation of the value of land
o) Employment creation for community members
p) Provision of fuel wood
q) Empowerment of farmers
Highlighted in summary below are the potential adverse impacts that could occur when the
RSSP subprojects are implemented. An EMP has been prepared and details the potential
adverse impacts for each of the proposed activities.
5.2 Critical Project Activities and Anticipated Adverse Impacts
The critical project activities that could potentially lead to adverse impacts mentioned below
include;
(i) The excavation works for the construction of dam and reservoir area will involve
excavating the proposed sites for construction of the dam wall to block the water
and create a reservoir;
(ii) The retention of water in the reservoir area for irrigation will be undertaken once
the wall is completed in order to store the water in the reservoir area for irrigation;
(iii) Clearing of the proposed project sites for construction activities will be undertake
and will involve clearing and cutting down of crops, vegetation and structures that
could be in the dam or reservoir areas;
48
(iv) Introduction or application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to boost overall
productivity in the irrigation areas;
(v) Establishment of construction camps for the dam construction activities.
The Potential Adverse Impacts include the following:
a) Water quality and quantity degradation (both surface and ground water)
b) Soil erosion and quality deterioration
c) Loss of biodiversity
d) Ecological imbalances
e) Ecosystems damage
f) Surface water sedimentation
g) Damage to aquatic habitats
h) Soil salinity
i) Sanitation and waste management problems
j) Pathogen breeding ground
k) Introduction of invasive flora species
l) Loss of high value trees especially those with medicinal value
m) Borrow pit impacts
n) Downstream flooding and water use denial
5.3 Socio-cultural and Economic Impacts
These include:
a) Displacement of local inhabitants
b) Damage to property
c) Water use conflicts
d) Land ownership conflicts
e) Damage of aesthetics of the area/land
f) Food insecurity attributed to by displacement of subsistence farming
g) Dam safety related impacts
h) Camp construction related impacts
i) Traffic congestion
49
5.4 Health Impacts
These include:
a) Spread of water borne diseases
b) Spread of HIV/AIDS
c) Dust impacts
d) Noise impacts
5.5 Localized Impacts
Most of the developments or subprojects planned under the RSSP 3 will vary from medium to
small in scale. Consequently the significance of the direct negative environmental and social
impacts is likely to be moderately significant except where they accumulate in single
watersheds.
5.6 Cumulative Impacts
Many of the subprojects may result in cumulative impacts on natural resources. Cumulative
impacts are those that may result from individually small-scale activities with minimal impacts
but which over time can combine to have a significant impact. Cumulative impacts can also be
defined as impacts that potentially develop from the combined impacts of more than one
subproject. Examples include:
Increased use of chemical fertilizer which may have downstream impacts; and
Attraction of immigrant populations to communities that have improved production
systems and social infrastructure.
Reduced water to downstream users due to the dams
Increased sedimentation of the natural water bodies and valley
The stakeholders will be provided with an opportunity to learn how to avoid or mitigate
localized impacts from initial subprojects so that measures can be integrated in
subsequent activities.
5.7 Strategic Impacts
The main objective of RSSP 3 is to promote diversification of economic activities in rural areas
as a way of increasing and stabilizing rural incomes in an environmentally sustainable manner.
This will be achieved by assisting rural households to expand and intensify sustainable crop
production systems and to increase their participation in agricultural markets.
50
5.8 Ecological Impacts and Land Degradation
A number of the proposed activities in the subprojects can lead to both localized and
cumulative impacts on biodiversity, wetlands, soils and water quality. Land degradation may
arise due to subprojects that involve intensification of agriculture.
The environmental and social screening tools in Chapter 8 will be used to identify and mitigate
the potential impacts as they relate to certain types of community investments.
5.9 Potential Sources of Pollution
The use of agro-chemicals such as inorganic fertilizers and pesticides, and organic manure can
lead to pollution, especially due to surface runoff into adjacent water courses, including
infiltration into groundwater.
This will be carefully monitored through annual reporting tools described in Chapter 8. Training
will be provided to communities in proper handling and application of these materials as part of
local capacity building component.
5.10 Pest Management
Successful Integrated Pest Management/Integrated Crop Management (IPM) is based on sound
farmer knowledge of the on-going agro-ecological processes of the farming environment. Such
farmers are, therefore, technically empowered to make informed decisions on the most
appropriate management strategies to apply a specific period of crop development and
production cycle. Furthermore, integrated crop/pest management is a farmer-centred
management approach that addresses issues beyond pest management. It offers the entry
point to improvement of the entire agricultural production system. It can be successfully
adopted in the presence of a national Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy framework and
institutional support.
In all instances where high input-dependent crop/pest practices are adopted, pesticide misuse
is known to be common and can result in the following impacts:
Destruction of crop pollinators leading to poor crop yields;
Elimination of the natural enemies of crop pests and consequent loss of natural pest
control that keeps the populations of crop pests very low;
51
Development of pest resistance to pesticides, encouraging further increases in the use
of chemical pesticides;
Contamination of the soil and water bodies;
Toxicity to fish and birds;
Proliferation of aquatic weeds;
Pesticide poisoning of farmers and deleterious effects on human health;
Unacceptable levels of pesticide residues in harvested produce and in the food chain;
and
Loss of biodiversity in the environment, particularly of the aquatic non-target species.
Considerable attention must, therefore, be paid to the environmental consequences of current
pest management practices in Rwanda.
52
6. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR RSSP3
This section of the ESMF describes the process for ensuring that environmental and social
concerns are adequately addressed through the institutional arrangements and procedures
used by the project for managing the identification, preparation, approval and implementation
of subprojects. It sets out the reporting systems and responsibilities of the institutions in
implementing the ESMF including the details to be addressed by the ESMF and the specific
steps to be undertaken to ensure adherence to the ESMF.
Based on the project implementation approach adopted by the project, the project and
subproject preparation and reporting will be through the RSSP 3 PSCU as the focal point for
environmental approvals. Due to the multiple implementation approach to be adopted for
project execution, different project preparation and application methods will be used
depending on the project component.
6.1 Marshlands and Hillsides Rehabilitation and Development
The screening and review process for subproject identification presented below will help
determine which World Bank safeguard policies are triggered for each subproject, what similar
requirements REMA and RDB may have, and what measures will need to be taken to address
the potential adverse impacts. Subprojects and activities that fall under Component 1.1 and 1.2
will each need to be reviewed for potential environmental and social impacts.
Environmental Impact Assessments/Environmental Management Plans (EIA/ EMPs) will be
prepared for all subprojects anticipated by RSSP 3. These preliminary EMPs provide substantial
guidance on how each subproject should be planned, designed and implemented to avoid or
minimize adverse environmental impacts.
As subproject planning is finalized, RSSP 3 will undertake additional environmental studies as
needed to ensure that it avoids creating significant adverse impacts, and that the EMPs are
updated to accurately document how subproject implementation will incorporate adequate
impact mitigation, monitoring and management measures.
53
Similarly, the PSCU will ensure that subproject plans incorporate any measures required under
the RSSP 3 Pest Management Plan (PMP) and Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). The RSSP 3
PSCU will be responsible for completing the screening checklist (Annex 6) and ensuring that the
final EIA and RAP reports are approved by RDB before subprojects receive final approval by
World Bank for implementation.
6.2 Community Subprojects
In the case of community driven subprojects under Components 2, RSSP 3 PSCU will encourage
cooperatives to carry out the screening task themselves, possibly by the more literate members
of the community. The same screening checklist will be used for projects that are proposed by
other implementing parties.
Communities will identify the subprojects with the assistance of the RSSP 3. The proposed
subprojects will subsequently be checked against the screening checklist. It will be encouraged
that communities carry out this task themselves. The checklist is a simple yes/no form
culminating in whether a specific advice to the community on environmental mitigation is
required. The screening forms will be reviewed quarterly.
There will be numerous community subprojects financed by the RSSP 3 that will each need to
be reviewed for potential environmental and social impacts, while there is only one District
Environmental Officer per District. Therefore, a system that is streamlined is required, and as
far as is feasible, communities must be responsible for completion of this screening process. As
part of the identification of subprojects, the screening checklist (Annex 6) will be completed by
the relevant community group, provincial staff or District Environmental Officer. As needed, the
PSCU Environmental Officer will facilitate this work.
Based on this application, the subproject proposal will be reviewed and selection for the next
stage of evaluation undertaken. At this selection stage, a first level of environmental screening
takes place on the basis of the screening checklist completed by the proponent.
In the eventuality that a subproject cannot be approved by RDB on the basis of a Project
Report, the proponent will be advised to undertake a simple environmental assessment and
prepare an EMP.
54
Figure 1 illustrates the Flow chart for Advice and Reporting on Smaller Scale Projects:
55
6.3 Compliance with ESMP Implementation for Larger Projects
Monitoring of the compliance of subproject implementation with the mitigation measures set
out in its EMP and/or RAP will be required. This is particularly important for some of the
irrigation subprojects, as their environmental and social impacts, if not mitigated, could be
highly significant.
The EO and DEO will have responsibility for carrying out this monitoring by regularly visiting the
subprojects, and pursuing the following corrective measures as required.
(i) If a violation of the EMP or RAP is detected during a site visit, the project proponent
will be notified of the violation, and the means of rectification, verbally. The EO and
DEO will discuss with the proponent a realistic deadline for rectifying the violation. It
will be the proponent’s duty to convey these discussions to any other parties
involved, for example the construction contractor.
(ii) If a violation is reported to the EO and DEO by some other entity, they will conduct a
site visit and, similarly, issue the verbal warning and deadline.
(iii) The verbal warning will be confirmed in writing to the proponent within five working
days.
(iv) The EO and DEO will return to the site on the deadline, and if the violation is still
occurring, he will notify the contractor / operator in writing of the continuing
violation, informing them of the disciplinary action to be taken. The PSCU EO will
inform REMA in writing of the situation.
(v) If after two months the violation has not been rectified, REMA will instigate
disciplinary procedures.
6.4 Annual Reports
Forms proposed for completion on an annual basis are set out in Annex 7 below. These will
comply with Rwanda EIA regulations and will provide:
(i) A means of communication between Districts and PSCU team at national level (i.e.
through the PSCU Environmental Officer), and between the PSCU and the relevant government
departments;
56
(ii) A paper trail of experience and issues running from year to year throughout the project;
(iii) Practical information from which the Environmental Officer can assess strategic
effectiveness of the proposed plans in achieving project objectives; and
(iv) Practical information from which the Environmental Officer in the PSCU and the
consultant used to carry out the annual performance audit can draw upon.
The District level annual report will be completed with input in the appropriate sections by the
District Environment Officer. The objective of the report is to feedback on activities and
observations from subprojects implemented over the review period in the district. The form will
be submitted to the District Authority and the PSCU.
This national level annual report is to be completed by the PSCU principally by the
Environmental Officer. The objective of the report is to consolidate and summarize the
feedback from the districts, and assess the overall progress of the RSSP 3 projects against
objectives.
6.5 Public consultation and participatory process
The objective of the public consultations with stakeholders is to gather information on their
Concerns, perceptions and fears of the livelihood changes to be brought about as aresult or
consequence of RSSP 3.
Public consultations will be organized as a way to collect first-hand accounts of benefits and
grievances from interested/and affected parties by RSSP project. They will involve organized
group discussions with purposively selected individuals/stakeholders (between 6 and 10) to
gain information on their concerns, perceptions, reactions and experiences of livelihood
changes brought as a result/consequence of RSSP project. Group discussions will provide
multiple views within a group context and will be particularly useful in exploring the level of
consensus on a given felt impact.
57
6.6 Description of Roles
The roles for implementing this ESMF will be:
Community Based Representatives
(i) The Community Based Representatives (Cooperative leaders and group leaders) will
be the key liaisons with the communities to support and facilitate them in targeting
and identifying community driven projects that meet the objectives of the RSSP3
subprojects;
(ii) Sensitization and capacity building will be a key part of their role in interacting with
the communities, in particular to ensure that they are equipped to make informed
and representative choices for the benefit of the whole community;
(iii) The Cooperatives will communicate regularly with the District Officers and the PSCU
Environmental officer in order to facilitate two-way flow of feedback, information
and advice.
District Environmental Officers
(i) District Environment Officers will be responsible for ensuring that the Environmental
screening and review system set out in this chapter is integrated into the subproject
cycle, and is used;
(ii) Sensitization of Cooperatives to Environmental issues will be a significant part of
ensuring this, as will partnerships with government (such as the DEO, DO, DFO) and
non-governmental officers ;
(iii) The District Environmental Officer may need to draw on the technical advice of their
governmental colleagues in other departments, or indeed upon traditional technical
knowledge etc;
(iv) Backstopping technical advice will also be available from the Environmental Officer
in the RSSP 3 PSCU;
(v) Each District Environmental Officer will compile with the District Development
Officer, a brief annual report for subprojects, for delivery to the Project Officers in
PSCU.
58
District Officers Supporting the DEO
The District Agronomist and District Forest Officer will also be required to provide support to
the DEO as necessary to ensure effective execution of RSSP 3 activities.
PSCU Environmental Officer
(i) The PSCU Environmental Officer will provide guidance to the District Officers and the
Cooperatives and provide the key link between districts and REMA.
(ii) An annual environment and social performance audit will be prepared for the PSCU,
REMA and the World Bank.
59
7. MONITORING PLAN OF THE ESMF
The objective of monitoring is twofold:
(1) To alert project authorities by providing timely information about the success or otherwise
of the environmental management process outlined in this ESMF in such a manner that changes
can be made as required to ensure continuous improvement to RSSP 2 environmental
management; and
(2) To make a final evaluation in order to determine whether the mitigation measures
incorporated in the technical designs and the EMP have been successful in such a way that the
pre-project environmental and social condition has been restored, improved upon or is worst
than before and to determine what further mitigation measures may be required.
This section sets out requirements for the monitoring of the environmental and social impacts
of the RSSP 3 subprojects. Monitoring of environmental and social indicators will be
mainstreamed into the overall monitoring and evaluation system for the project. In addition,
monitoring of the implementation of this ESMF will be carried out by REMA and the key
implementing institutions of RSSP 3.
7.1 Monitoring of Environmental and Social Indicators
Two opportunities will be taken to build a simple system for the monitoring and evaluation of
environmental and social impacts:
1) The Environmental Officer should consider the environmental and social criteria that require
measurement (i.e. groundwater levels, levels of income etc); a list of initial proposals is given
below;
2) Using this list of criteria, a set of indicators can be integrated into the screening forms used in
the project approval process in each district. This will ensure flexibility at the subproject design
stage, integration of monitoring considerations throughout the subproject cycle, as well as a
participatory approach to environmental and social monitoring.
Initial proposals
The key issues to be considered in the RSSP 3 subprojects include monitoring of water quality,
agricultural production, income generation, health and population influx.
60
The goals of monitoring are to measure the success rate of the project, determine whether
interventions have resulted in dealing with negative impacts, whether further interventions are
needed or monitoring is to be extended in some areas. Monitoring indicators will be very much
dependent on specific project contexts.
Monitoring and surveillance of subprojects will take place on a “spot check” basis at it would be
impossible to monitor all the subprojects to be financed under the project. The spot checks
consist of controlling the establishment of mitigation measures. It is not recommended to
collect large amounts of data, but rather to base monitoring on observations by project
technicians and stakeholders to determine the trends in indicators.
Monitoring of Participation Process
The following are indicators for monitoring of the participation process involved in the project
activities. Number and percentage of affected households consulted during the planning stage:
Level of decision making of affected people;
Level of understanding of project impacts and mitigation;
Effectiveness of local authorities to make decisions;
Frequency and quality of public meetings;
Degree of involvement of women or disadvantaged groups in discussions.
7.2 Evaluation of Results
The evaluation of results of environmental and social mitigation can be carried out by
comparing baseline data collected in the planning phases with targets and post-project
situations. A number of indicators would be used in order to determine the status of affected
people and their environment (land being used compared to before, how many clean water
sources than before, etc).
In order to assess whether these goals are met, the RSSP Environmental Specialist with
technical support of the Advisor will indicate in the EMP, parameters to be monitored, institute
monitoring milestones and provide resources necessary to carry out the monitoring activities.
The indicators for evaluating the ESMF process, mitigation plans and performance are
presented in Annex 5.
61
7.3 Monitoring of ESMF Implementation
In addition to the Project Reports and EMPs required by the World Bank and under the Organic
Law on Environment, an Annual Audit on ESMF implementation will be prepared by the PSCU,
and delivered to REMA and the World Bank. In addition, each subproject that has been subject
to an EMP (or RAP) will also be required to produce an annual audit report, for delivery to
REMA.
62
Table 1: Monitoring indicators for RSSP 3
Project Activities Negative Impacts Indicators Methods of
Monitoring
Responsibility Frequency
Promoting use and
access the required
inputs (chemicals and
high quality seed)
Ground and surface
water pollution by
chemicals
Water and soil quality Soil and water
Sampling and
analyses
RSSP, REMA Annually
Development/
Rehabilitation of the
irrigation works in the
area
- Soil degradation;
- Change in flow
regimes attributing to
flooding or dryness or
rivers
- Erosion &
sedimentation of the
system
- Water quality
degradation
-Ecosystem damage
- Water borne diseases
- Soil quality
- Water quantity (flow
rate per second)
- Sediment load, on
site rills/gullies
- Nutrient load (N, P,
K, etc.)
- Change in ecosystem
composition
- Water borne disease
prevalence
- Soil sampling and
analysis
- Stream gauging
- Sediment
analysis
- water sampling
& analyses
- Site observation
-MINISANTE
records
RSSP
RSSP/RNRA
RSSP/-RAB
RSSP/MINIRENA,
RSSP, REMA
MINISANTE, RSSP
Annually
Annually
Annually
Seasonally
Seasonally
Seasonally
63
- Inefficient use of the
scarce water/ land
resources
- Change in
exploitation levels of
water/land
- Yield
measurements
MINAGRI
Safety Hazard Safety of livestock and humans
Reported cases of incidences and accidents Seepages and leakages reported or observed on the dam Color, turbidity and change in seepage chemical content
Review and evaluation of incidents and accidents Register Instrumentation equipment including; acceleograph, theodolite Direct observation of seepage water
RSSP Regularly
Improvement of value addition of infrastructures activities (markets, rural roads, etc)
- Soil erosion - Loss of vegetation -Degradation of water quality - Destruction of scenic beauty
- Sediment load, -Deforestation, -Water quality, Change in landscape
- Sediment sampling and analysis
- Determination of vegetation cover
- Sample analysis
- Visual observation
- Field reports
RSSP, REMA/RDB & MININFRA
Annually
64
7.4 Monitoring Roles and Responsibilities
A) Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA)
REMA will play the leading oversight role of monitoring the activities of this project. The REMA
will carry out this role by ensuring that the environmental management plans (EMPs) contained
in the cleared design package is being implemented as specified therein. REMA will monitor the
reports on a regular basis, perhaps quarterly. They will rely on a bottom up feedback system
from the ground by going through the monitoring reports and making regular site visits to
inspect and verify for themselves the nature and extent of the impacts and the success or lack
off, of the mitigation measures.
B) Project support and coordination Unit (PSCU)
The RSSP 3 Monitoring and Evaluation Officer will be primarily responsible for ensuring
compliance to the monitoring framework. Jointly with the Environmental Officer, they will
undertake review of the monitoring reports emanating from the implementing agencies and
will then upon approval submit these monitoring reports to REMA and the World Bank. The
RSSP 3 PSCU will also provide overall coordination in monitoring including training coordinating
of training in collection and analysis of monitoring data for data collectors.
Critical role of the RSSP 3 PSCU will include data analysis, as well as maintenance of
management information systems and all baseline data. Lately other than preparation of
periodic reports, the PSCU will implement all the necessary modifications in the monitoring
framework.
C) RSSP 3 Implementing Partner Institutions
All the RSSP 3 implementing institutions identified under this project, will monitor the specific
components of the RSSP 3 project that they are targeted to execute. They include MINIRENA
and its Agencies (REMA and RNRA), MINISANTE, MINALOC, MINICOM and its Agencies (RCA),
MININFRA and PSF. The Ministry of Natural Resources (MINIRENA) and its Agencies will support
the project in water quality and ecosystem monitoring while the Ministry of health
(MINISANTE) will be responsible for campaigning and fighting against water born diseases and
monitoring their prevalence. The Ministry of Infrastructure (MININFRA) will assist in improving
infrastructures (roads, market, etc).
65
The Ministry of local administration (MINALOC) will assist in mobilizing local communities in the
project intervention areas for the adoption and maintenance of RSSP activities. With regard to
the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MINICOM) and its agencies, especially Rwanda
Cooperative Agency (RCA) will play a role in the formation, organization and capacity building of
Cooperatives assisted by RSSP. The Private Sector Federation (PSF) will be involved in providing
services, supplying agricultural inputs and transformation of agricultural produces. All
implementing partners will be required to prepare periodic monitoring reports for submission
to the RSSP 3 PSCU and specifically to the Environment Officer and the M&E Officer.
D) Local Communities
Local communities will be useful agents in collection of data that will be vital in monitoring and
as such they will play a role in the monitoring framework. Local communities in the project
intervention areas will receive training and capacity building skills in data collection to be done
by the implementing agencies so as to equip them with the ability to collect data.
E) Specific Community Groups
Water Users Association (WUA)
In each project site, there will be one Water Users Association (WUA) which will oversee the
water usage. This will have its by-laws and legal registration. Its membership will comprise of
farmers who will be utilizing irrigation water in their farms i.e. those within the command area.
The Water Users Association will have a coordination committee that will be responsible for the
operation and maintenance of the irrigation infrastructures. In the initial project
implementation stages, the operation and management will be jointly conducted by the project
staff and the farmers (who will comprise of the coordination committee of the WUA) but
eventually when the project exits, the farmers’ coordination committee members will manage
the water use.
One of the areas to be addressed through the WUA coordination committee is how to manage
the siltation of the reservoir and the irrigation canals, which would otherwise reduce the water
reaching the entire command area thus affecting the yields. This will be done by having
irrigation user fee per season depending on the area of land owned by an individual.
66
The WUA coordination committee will be responsible for collection of these funds for its
operation and de-silt the canals and the water reservoir when need arises. They should have a
strict procedure for collecting user fees with set deadlines. Since the WUA will have its by-laws,
they should include penalties for defaulters. However, the nature of the irrigation system may
not provide a means of blocking supply of water to the individual defaulters; hence the penalty
could include withdrawal of plots in the next season and rented out to willing farmers. It is the
responsibility of the WUA coordination committee to ensure that the farmers are fully aware of
the bye-laws and that they are strongly enforced.
67
8. CAPACITY BUILDING, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE – RSSP 3
Effective implementation of this ESMF will require technical capacity in the human resource
base of implementing institutions as well as logistical facilitation. Implementers need to
understand inherent social and environmental issues and values and be able to clearly identify
indicators of these.
Even with existence of policies and laws such as the Organic Law on Environment Protection,
evidence on the ground still indicates that there is significant shortcoming in the abilities of
local and district level stakeholders to correctly monitor, mitigate and manage environmental
performance of development projects. This is critical as the bulk of RSSP 3 projects are to be
implemented at the community level. While undertaking this study, a capacity need assessment
was inbuilt to identify strengthening needs on social and environmental evaluation, screening,
mitigation and monitoring. Capacity enhancement was consolidated into two key areas; human
and institutional resources capacity. These are discussed in detail below.
8.1 Human Resource Capacity Requirements
Human capacity requirements for stakeholders of the ESMF are of two types i.e. low technical
capacity and inadequate staffing.
While adequacy in staffing requirements varied between different stakeholders, there was very
limited presence of directly trained and dedicated staff for environmental management
purposes within these institutions. In some institutions, staff have been retained for core
activities leaving little, if any, human resources to directly oversee environmental management
activities. As a result, this portfolio which, in many cases, is given little attention is handled by
staff members not adequately conversant with it. Therefore, sufficient knowledge on
environmental management principles, project screening, impact mitigation, monitoring and
follow up action was limited within most institutions.
In some other cases, environment personnel are present but level of training and technical
capacity on environmental principles and tools of management is not sufficient.
Training and awareness creation will be undertaken at different levels of implementation.
These levels will entail the local authorities, private sector, NGOs, and grassroots stakeholders.
The exercise will be customized according to each level’s needs to ensure adequacy in
implementation of the ESMF.
68
8.2 Technical Capacity Enhancement
Awareness creation, training and sensitization will be required for personnel of the following
The above matrix should be filled out for each subproject that will have the need for a separate
EMP (the screening process using the screening checklist should determine this).
86
Annex 3: Project Report Form
RSSP 3 Select relevant project
Subproject name [type here]
Estimated cost (US $) [type here]
What are the project objectives and Activities [type here]
Reason for field appraisal, based on Issues in screening checklist [type here]
[type here]
Approximate size of the project in land area [type here]
Approximately size of the project in terms [type here]
of affected individuals
How was the site of the subproject [type here]
chosen?
Does the project comply with the most [type here]
Relevant planning document, for example
The district Development Plan or the
Microcatchment Plan?
Will the Project:
Yes No
Adversely affect natural habitats nearby, including forests, rivers or wetlands?
If “Yes”, give details: [type here]
87
Is the project sited within a strict protected area, national park, nature reserve, natural/historical monument or area of cultural heritage? If ‘Yes,’ give details: *type here+
Require large volumes of construction
materials e.g. grave, stones, water, timber,
firewood)?
If ‘Yes’, give details: *type here+
Use water during construction, which will reduce
the local availability of ground water
and surface water?
If ‘Yes’, give details: [type here]
Lead to soil degradation, soil erosion or soil salinity
in the area?
If ‘Yes’ give details: *type here+
Create waste that could adversely affect local soils,
vegetation, rivers and streams or groundwater?
If ‘Yes’, give details: [type here]
Create pools of water that provide breeding grounds
for diseases vectors (for example malaria or bilharzias)?
If ‘Yes’, give details: *type here+
Involve significant excavations, demolition,
movement of earth, flooding, or
other Environmental changes?
If ‘Yes’, give details: *type here+
Affect historically important or culturally important site
88
nearby?
If ‘Yes’, give details: *type here+
Require land for its development, and therefore displace individuals,
families or businesses from land that is currently occupied, or restrict
people’s access to crops, pasture, fisheries, forests or cultural resources,
If ‘Yes’, give details: *type here]
whether on a permanent or temporary basis?
If ‘Yes’, give details: *type here+
Result in human health or safety risks during
construction or later?
If ‘Yes’, give details: *type here+
Involve inward migration of people from outside
the area for employment or other purposes?
If ‘Yes’, give details: *type here+
Result in conflict or disputes among communities?
If ‘Yes’, give details: *type here+
Affect indigenous people, or be located in an area
occupied by indigenous people?
If ‘Yes’, *type here+
Involve the construction of a dam or weir,
depend on water supplied from an existing dam?
If ‘Yes’, give details: *type here+
Result in a significant change/loss in
89
livelihood of individuals?
If ‘Yes’, give details: *type here+
Adversely affect the livelihoods and /or the
rights of women?
If ‘Yes’, give details: *type here+
MITIGATION MEASURES
If you have answered Yes to any of the above, please propose adequate mitigation measures.
[type here]
ALTERNATIVES
Is it possible to achieve the objectives above in a different way, with fewer Environmental and
social impacts? If yes, describe these alternatives, and state why they have been rejected.
[type here]
OTHER OBSERVATIONS
Please describe any other observations, especially any related to the reason for the field
appraisal.
type here
CONCLUSION
Approval:
There are no Environmental or social risks
Community to be given responsibility to mitigate Environmental and social risks, based
on screening checklist and proposed mitigation measures described in this field
appraisal form
90
Cooperatives to provide detailed guidance on mitigation of risks to the community
based on screening checklist and proposed mitigation measures described in this field
appraisal form
Independent preparation of a Detailed Plan is required:
ESMP
RAP
PMP
If a RAP is required, will the project displace or restrict access for less than 200 individuals, or if
over 200, are losses for all individuals less than 10% of their assets?
If Yes, prepare an abbreviated RAP :
If No, prepare a full RAP :
Full details of resettlement requirements are provided in the accompanying Resettlement
Policy Framework.
Reject
Review form completed by [type here names of all contributors to the appraisal]
Name: [type here]
Position/ community: [type here]
Date: [type here]
91
Annex 4: Annual Report Form for the District Level or RSSP Environmental Officer
RSSP 3 project: Select relevant project
District/ RSSP: [type here]
Reporting year: [type here]
Date of report: [type here]
PROJECT SUMMARY
Please enter numbers of subprojects in the following table:
Ap
pro
ved
th
is
year
Application
included a
screening
Community
carried out
mitigation
MET
provided
advice on
mitigation
Field
Appraisal ESMF RAP PMP
CATEGORY B
Farm forestry or
agro forestry
,small scale
woodlots and
tree nurseries
Small scale
irrigation
scheme
Aquaculture
Participatory
forest
management or
reforestation
Rehabilitation of
wetlands
River bank
stabilization
92
Terracing of
farmland
Agricultural
interventions
Support to
income
generating
initiative
Other
Total
Please describe the key Environmental and social issues that have been identified from
screening of community microprojects
[type here]
Were there any unforeseen Environmental and / or social problems associated with any
Subproject?
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Have you or your predecessor been involved in the targeting or identification of subprojects?
□ Yes □ No
If `Yes`, please describe:
[type here]
Have communities been involved in the targeting or identification of subprojects?
□ Yes □ No
If `Yes`, please describe: [type here]
Please explain any participatory issues that have impacted ability of communities to identify
subprojects : [type here]
93
Please describe the activity of the following actors on Environmental and social issues in your
District this year
Activity
Government line agencies working with RSSP 3
on Environmental and/ or social issues [type here]
NGOs in partnership with RSSP 3 to examine
Environmental and/or social issues [type here]
DSG [type here]
DEC [type here]
Summarise any gaps /non –compliance in Environmental and /or social activities:
STRATEGIC IMPACT
Is the project contributing to improved watershed sustainability in this district?
Yes, is contributing to an overall improvement
No, it is worsening watershed degradation / it is having a negative impact on the
Environment
Too early to say
Please explain:
[Type here]
Is the project contributing to increased welfare in this district?
Yes, it’s contributing to an overall improvement
No, it is reducing income generating opportunities / having a negative impact on
94
socio development
Too early to say
Please explain
[type here]
Has there been any analysis of cumulative Environmental impacts in your district? If `yes`
please describe. If No,` tick here □
Activity, review or study Summary of key conclusions Was the work successful? Eg.
Were its recommendations
carried out? If not, why?
[type here] [type here] [type here]
Have there been any other Environmental or social analyses that have been carried out in the
district?
Examples of Activity, review
or studies
Summary of key conclusions Levels of success in achieving
objectives. If not successful,
why not?
[type here] [type here] [type here]
Has there been any analysis of catchment management plans in your district? If `Yes, please
describe. If No` tick here □
Activity ,review or study Summary of key conclusions Was the work successful? Eg.
Were its recommendations
carried out? If not, why?
95
[type here] [type here] [type here]
POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL
Please describe the activity of the projects in addressing policy constraints that affect
Environmental and social sustainability.
Are there any policy issues that limit Environmental and /or social sustainability that require
addressing at a national level?
Policy issue Reforms required
[type here] [Type here]
TRAINING
Please list the training you have received
under RSSP 3 projects or otherwise
List Two key areas of training you need in
order to carry out your role in managing
Environmental and social issues in the RSSP 3
projects
[type here] 1) [type here]
2) [type here]
Completed by: [type here the names of all those who have contributed to completion of
the form e.g. DEO and DDO]
Position: [type here position of all contributors to the report]
Date: [type here]
96
Annex 5: Indicators to measure the ESMF process, mitigation plans and performance
The following are some pertinent parameters and verifiable indicators/questions for the
evaluation of ESMF process, mitigation plans and performance results:
(1) Has the Environment and social consultants trained a specialists at the local level?
(2) Have the EMPs and Final Designs been cleared by the RDB and the World Bank?
(3) Do Civil Works Contracts include sufficient fiduciary obligations to facilitate
implementation of EMP?
(4) At what rate are the civil works been monitored by RSSP and by the REMA?
(5) How many violations of the contractors/transporters have been recorded and at what
rate are they occurring.
(6) How many recorded grievance cases have been settled within one year?