About us   Current ADP Program   Projects   Organogram   Staff Information















LGSP ESMF

Bangladesh: Local Governance Support Project

ANNEX 10: ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

 

DRAFT

Introduction

 

  1. The Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperative (MLGRDC) has prepared this Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) for supporting the Union Parishads and local communities to deal with potential environmental and social safeguards issues that may arise in the use of fiscal transfers in the Local Governance Support Project (LGSP) for Community Infrastructure Works (CIWs).  The Government of Bangladesh (GOB) is preparing the project with financial support from the World Bank and other development partners.  According to the project financing policy, GOB is required to assess potential environmental and social safeguard issues in project preparation and adopt and implement appropriate measures to mitigate them.  The provisions proposed in the ESMF are to comply with the World Bank’s operational policies on Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01), Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12) and Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10) that are generally triggered in land-based projects. 

 

Background

 

  1. Consistent with the GOB’s commitment, as detailed in National Strategy for Accelerated Poverty Reduction (NSAPR), the project aims to strengthen institutions of local governance as an important step towards reducing poverty, enhancing and sustaining basic local service delivery systems.  It is envisaged that an effective governance system at the local level will help scale up the existing community-based systems and would promote a stronger collective demand for greater accountability of the state to citizens.

 

  1. LGSP has five components and will be implemented in all 4500 UPs in a phased manner. The components are : (a) fiscal transfer in the form of ‘block grants’ to Union Parishads (UPs) based on selected criteria and performance (a negative list will be given); (b) accountability to citizen; (c) Local Government capacity building; (d) policy evaluation; and (e) Social Protection Pilot in 15 UPs.  Of these, the block grants (BGs) component may require the proposed ESMF, as Local Governments (LGs) are expected to use these grants for the provision of small-scale rural community infrastructure works, such as rural roads, culverts, footbridge, drainage, small-scale irrigation facilities, water and sanitation facilities, and the like. 

 

  1. The CIWs that are most likely to be undertaken with relatively small ‘block grants’, are unlikely to cause environmental and social impacts of any significant consequences.  In order to avoid any potential adverse environmental impacts, all prospective CIWs will be subject to environmental screening in order to prevent execution of works with significant negative environmental impacts; decrease potential negative impacts through adaptations in design, location or execution; prevent or mitigate negative cumulative impacts; enhance the positive impacts of subprojects; and prevent additional stress on environmentally sensitive areas.

 

  1. A block grant assessment indicated that CIWs are constructed on public lands. New CIWs are more likely to be on public lands,  or sometimes on lands contributed by the beneficiary communities. As such, land acquisition or involuntary displacement may not be necessary.  It is however recognized that this could displace squatters and encroachers where they happen to be using public lands.  Where the selected CIWs are of critical nature and public lands are unavailable, it is expected that the beneficiary communities would also be willing to make voluntary contribution/donation of lands.  There could however be CIWs, such as rural roads, drainage canals, etc., which may require lands from many landowners.  Lands for such CIWs may not all be available through contribution; there could be landowners who may not be that well-off to afford voluntary contribution, but might be willing to accept ‘contribution against compensation’. In such instances, the beneficiary communities will have to collectively compensate for lands needed from such marginal/ vulnerable landowners. Traditionally it is known as ek awaz (one voice), where large land owners contribute land to a small owner to compensate his loss.

 

  1. The squatters and encroachers could be territorially anywhere and of any ethnicity.  But the UPs with significant concentration of indigenous population, as those in Bandarban, Rangamati and Khagrachari in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, would need to consider other impact issues that are different from those inhabited by the mainstream or non-indigenous population.  Some UPs, or the Wards therein, in other districts – especially in the north-west and north-east -- may also have sizable communities of indigenous peoples who live in settlements with the mainstream population.  Whether or not, or the extent to which the OP 4.10 might apply would be known as the UPs in these regions elect to build particular CIWs. 

 

The participatory decision making process and accountability requirements in the use of the block grants will facilitate inclusion of indigenous population in sharing benefits. 

 

ESMF’s Safeguards Objectives

 

  1. The ESMF provides general policies, guidelines, codes of practice and procedures to be integrated into the implementation of LGSP.  Consistent with existing national legislation, the objective is to help ensure that activities under the proposed project will:

 

  • Protect human health;
  • Enhance positive environmental and social outcomes;
  • Prevent negative environmental impacts as a result of either individual CIWs or their cumulative effects;
  • Prevent or compensate any loss of livelihood; and
  • Ensure compliance with World Bank safeguard policies.

 

Basic Principles

 

  1. The Framework is based on an assessment of the nature, scope, and scale of safeguards impacts under CIWs that UPs undertake with the presently available BGs and those likely to be undertaken with relatively larger BGs, and their capacity to address environmental and social safeguards issues.  The following principles will apply for selection and implementation of CIWs:
  • Prior to selection of specific CIWs, the UPs would undertake community consultation regarding their objectives, scopes as well as environmental and social safeguard implications, especially with respect to environmental impacts and use of public and private lands.
  • All proposed CIWs projects to be funded by block grant will be subject to an environmental and social screening in order to prevent execution of projects with significant negative environmental and social impacts and the UPs will not elect to undertake CIWs whose could result significant negative impact.
  •  The UPs will not elect to undertake CIWs that may require private land acquisition, and will try to keep the development works limited to improvement of the existing infrastructure, and use their own or other public lands where new CIWs would be built. 
  • Where use of private land is essential for critical CIWs, UPs may seek voluntary contribution from the concerned landowners, and/or members of the beneficiary communities would collectively explore alternatives to voluntary contribution, including ‘contribution against compensation’.

 

Safeguard Screening & Mitigation Guidelines

 

  1. Safeguard screening will consist of an examination of requirements of the possible CIWs, and guidelines that will apply in terms funding eligibility and impact mitigation.  The following guidelines, practice codes and requirements will apply in selection, design and implementation of particular CIWs:
  • Negative List.   The CIWs that have characteristics as those described in the ‘Negative List’ will be ineligible for funding under LGSP (in Attachment 1);
  • Guidelines for Environmental Management: Principles, policies and  codes of practice for the mitigation of potential environmental impacts ( Attachment 2);
  • Guidelines for Land Use.   Principles, policies and guidelines for use of public and private lands and adverse impact mitigation; impact assessment procedure; and implementation and monitoring arrangements (Attachment 3); and
  • Guidelines for Indigenous Peoples Plan.   Principles and guidelines to identify and deal with adverse impacts on indigenous peoples (IP), and a consultation framework for adoption of mitigation and development measures, where CIWs would adversely affect IPs (Attachment 4).

 

ESMF & CIW Implementation

 

  1. UPs will be supported by a minimum of two committees for the implementation of LGSP - (a) Project Implementation Committee (PIC), and (b) Project Support and Monitoring Committee (PSMC). These committees will be formed in open meetings, where communities will nominate members and will consist of representation from poor, women, professionals and other groups. UP and community may decide to have more than one PIC or PSMC e.g. one PIC/PSMC for each sub-project/scheme. The UP Chairman and secretary will not be a member of any Committee and no one can be members of more than one committee. The PIC will be chaired by a ward member, and if there is more than one PIC, women ward members will chair at least in 30% of PICs. The PSMC will be chaired by a community member, while membership will include government technical staff (LGED, DPHE, agriculture and livestock extension workers, teachers, health workers) and members of community with technical knowledge. Each Committee will have around 7/9 members.  While the UPs would manage and allocate the BGs, the PIC will oversee implementation of the selected CIWs, and will arrange for collective mitigation of their environmental and social impacts.  PSMC will provide technical support in design, implementation and mitigation

 

  1. All sub-projects of the UP under the Block Grant will be implemented through PIC and supervised and monitored during implementation by PSMC. PIC along with the community, especially the concerned persons, will screen and select the desired CIWs to propose to Union Parishads. PSMC will visit the CIWs locations and verify the records with the communities, especially with those who would contribute lands for the proposed CIWs for approval of ward or UP level proposals. The PICs will select and implement all CIWs in an UP, while the PSMC will provide technical support as and when necessary, and will play an oversight role during implementation, and independently prepare a completion record for each CIW (Attachment 1A).

 

Screening and Mitigation Responsibilities

 

  1. At the ward levels, the Project Implementation Committees (PICs), along with the concerned persons, will conduct the environmental and social screening exercises and select the desired CIWs to propose to Union Parishads.  Depending on scope, likely impacts and the proposed mitigation measures, the PSMC may decide to visit the CIW locations and verify the findings with the communities, especially with those who might be displaced from public lands and who would contribute lands for the proposed CIWs.  For screening, the PICs may seek technical support of PSMC which will have membership of Upazila level government professionals.

 

  1. 13.       While the UPs will manage and allocate the BGs to the wards, the PICs will implement the selected CIWs, and arrange for collective mitigation of their environmental and social impacts.  In addition to technical support for CIW design and implementation, the PSCs will also provide support to interpret and apply the environmental and social impact management guidelines adopted in this ESMF.

 

Grievance Redress

 

  1. Outside of their official conflict resolution mandate, the UPs will set up a procedure to address complaints and grievances regarding LGSP procedural irregularities and environmental and social guidelines (Attachment 1 through 4 mentioned above).  The procedure will not pre-empt an aggrieved person’s right to seek redress in the courts of law.  All complaints will first be discussed at the open ward meetings.  If this fails, the PIC can refer the complaints to the PSMC and then UPs with the minutes of the hearing taken place at the ward level, and discussion will be held in open UP meetings.  If UP fails to resolve the matter, it can refer the case to the UNO or MLGRDC.  A decision agreed with the aggrieved person at any level of hearing will be binding on the UP.  The UPs will keep the records of all complaints and grievances which may remain unresolved.

 

 

Capacity Building

 

  1. The UPs have a limited institutional capacity to implement the ESMF.  Except for a Secretary, who usually keeps track of all activities in a union, the 13 others, including the Chairman, are elected community representatives.  As such, GOB has planned to organize specific capacity-building training programs for UPs, PICs, PSCs and communities in the first year of LGSP.  Furthermore, as a part of the overall institutional capacity building for the local government institutions, an NGO and a selected Upazila technical officials of relevant GOB agencies (such as, LGED, DPHE, Agriculture, Health, Education, etc) will be trained in different aspects of the project, including interpretation and implementation of environmental and social impact management guidelines.  The UPs can avail the services of the NGO and Upazila technical staff as and when necessary.  All training programs will be funded under the capacity building component of LGSP.

 

Approval and Disclosure

 

  1. As required by the World Bank’s project financing policy, the ESMF will be subjected to review and clearance by the designated regional sector unit of the Bank and formally agreed with the GOB, before formal appraisal of the project.  A Bangla version of the ESMF will be disclosed to the public in Bangladesh by the Bank at its Country Office Information Center, and by the MLGRDC at the Upazila headquarters.

 

Attachment 1

 

NEGATIVE LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES OF COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS (CIWs)

 

 

The negative characteristics of CIWs, which will make them ineligible for support under LGSP, are based on their probable environmental and social impacts.  With the available implementation experience, it is apprehended that local capacity may not be adequate to manage the impacts listed below.  However, it should be noted that the list is not immutable and can be modified as the UPs gather experience and develop capacity to deal with environmental and social issues.

 

 

NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ARRTIBUTES

 

CIWs with any of the attributes listed below will be ineligible for support under the proposed operation.

 

Transportation

§         Closing of gaps, culverts etc in existing roads which may affect water flow significantly.

Water Supply

§         Tube-wells with Arsenic contamination higher than national standard (i.e., currently 50ppb) or base below the 10-year flood level.

§         Water supply schemes with high probability of bacterial contamination or characteristics which may make water unsuitable for drinking.

Health

§         Health facilities without adequate hazardous waste management capacity

Sanitation and Waste Management

§         1. New or significant expansion of disposal facilities with negative health impacts to nearby water sources or population.

§         2. New or significant expansion of disposal sites requiring involuntary public participation.

Agriculture and Markets

§         Construction or rehabilitation of mechanized tube-wells for irrigation in deep aquifers which may lead to aquifer depletion.

§         Construction or rehabilitation of seasonal dams with adverse downstream affects.

§         Drainage of traditional wetlands for agricultural use.

§         Subprojects requiring pesticides that fall in WHO classes IA category

Natural Resource Management

§         Activities supporting commercial logging in forested areas.

§         Activities involving the use of unsustainably harvested timber or fuel-wood.

§         Activities involving significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats.


 

Attachment 1 (Contd.)

 

NEGATIVE SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES

 

CIWs that involve involuntary resettlement of people/households will be ineligible for support under LGSP.  Such CIWs are those that

 

§         Require private land acquisition

§         Require involuntary contribution of private lands

§         Affect private homesteads

§         Communities are unable to compensate for lands that are available on ‘contribution against compensation’ basis.

§         Render households using public lands destitute

§         Affect mosques, temples, graveyards, cremation grounds, and other places/objects that are of religious and cultural significance

§         May significantly restrict access to common property resources and livelihood activities of groups and communities

 

 

CIWs that affect indigenous peoples with long-term consequences will be ineligible support.  These CIWs are those that

 

§         Threaten cultural tradition and way of life

§         May severely restrict access to common property resources and livelihood activities

§         May affect places/objects of cultural and religious significance (places of worship, ancestral burial grounds, etc.)

 

 


Attachment 1A

 

CIW IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION RECORD

(To be completed by PSC for each CIW undertaken in the Union)

 

Fiscal Year Block Grant Used:  ………………..

 

Name of District:  ……………………………   Name of Upazila:  ……………………………….

Name of Union:  …………….……………….…………..;   Ward No.:  …………….

Name of PIC Chair:  …………………………………………………………………..

Name/type, use and location of CIW:  ………………………………………………………………

 

Part A: General Information on All CIWs

 

1.   Scope of Work: 

New construction

Improvements

Repair/Renovation

 

 

 

 

2.         CIW implemented during (months):  …………………………………………..

3.         The CIW is located in an area (ward or part of a ward) where residents are:

            [ ] All mainstream or non-indigenous peoples

            [ ] All indigenous peoples

            [ ] Majority mainstream or non-indigenous peoples

            [ ] Majority indigenous peoples

4.         Amount of fund requested for the CIW (Taka) ……………………………....

5.         Amount of fund actually received for the CIW (Taka) ……………………...

6.         Brief description of the works as originally proposed by PIC when requesting the UP for

funds: …………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

7.         Brief description of the actual works done with the fund received: ….………………....……

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8.         If there are differences between the proposed and executed works, they are (briefly):

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

9.         In PSC judgment, the differences have been caused by: …………………………………......

……………………………………………………………………………….………………………...

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

10.       In PSC judgment, quality of the CIW works done (choose one):

[ ] Fully satisfactory

[ ] Satisfactory

[ ] Marginally satisfactory

[ ] Unsatisfactory

 

Part B: Where CIWs Built in Uninons/Wards Without Indigenous Population

 

11.       Was PSC (or any member of PSC) involved in Environmental & Social Screening

of the CIW?:               [ ] Yes              [ ] No

 

12.       If additional lands were used for the CIW, the number of:

Persons/households displaced from public lands: ………….

Private landowners made voluntary contribution: ………….

Private landowners made “contribution against compensation”: …..…….

 

13.       If additional lands (public & private) were used, the number of persons/households

received compensation/assistance:

Those who have been displaced from public lands: ………..

Private landowners who made “contribution against compensation”: …………

 

14.       Compensation/assistance was provided in:

[ ] Cash            [ ] Kinds           [ ] Both cash and kinds

 

15.       Sources of compensation/assistance funds:

            [ ] Cash contribution by the community

            [ ] Cash contribution by well-off community members

            [ ] Others (specify): ………………………………………………………………

 

Part C: Where CIWs Built in Unions/Wards With Indigenous Population

 

16.       Where CIW has been built or renovated in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples (IPs),

the number of IPs/IP households,

            Displaced from public lands: …………

            Displaced from lands with legal titles: ………..

17.       Whether or not the concerned IP communities involved in Environmental and Social

Screening of the CIW?:                       [ ] Yes              [ ] No

 

18.       Was there an IP impact assessment?              [ ] Yes              [ ] No

 

19        Whether or not the affected IPs, IP communities and their organization consulted during selection and implementation of the CIW?:             [ ] Yes              [ ] No

 

20.       Number of IPs/IP households received compensation/assistance:

Those who have been displaced from public lands: ………

Private landowners who made “contribution against compensation”: ……….

 

21.       Compensation/assistance was provided in:

            [ ] Cash            [ ] Kinds           [ ] Both cash and kinds

 

 

22.       Source of compensation/assistance funds:

            [ ] Cash contribution by the community

            [ ] Cash contribution by well-off community members

            [ ] Others (specify): ………………………………………………………

 

23.       If the PIC had an agreement with IPs about mitigation measures and development

activities:        [ ] Yes              [ ] No

 

24.       If there was an agreement, they have been implemented,

[ ] Fully

[ ] Partially

[ ] Not at all

 

Part D: Grievance Redress

 

24.       No. of complaints/grievances the PIC received on this CIW: ……………

25.       No. of complaints/grievances on this CIW the PIC referred to the PSC: …………..

26.       No of complaints/grievances PSC resolved: …………….

27.       Three of the most important complaints are:

a.      ……………………………………………………………….……………….

b.      ………………………………………………………………….…………….

c.       …………………………………………………………………….………….

 

Part E:  PSC’s remarks and suggestions on CIW selection and implementation, as well as

on adverse environmental and social impact mitigation guidelines and measures:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part F:  Signatures of the PSC Chair & Members:


Attachment 2

 

GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

 

The vast majority of LGSP subprojects are expected to have only positive or minor environmental impacts. However, as many subprojects will be implemented, cumulative impacts are expected to be more significant. UPs must therefore bear in mind the cumulative consequences of numerous small-scale subprojects, and ensure that these do not adversely affect the environment in an irreversible manner.

 

In general, most subproject types are likely to have positive cumulative impacts on the environment:

 

·         reforestation, improved stoves, electrification, replanting with aquatic plants, restocking with indigenous fish, establishing parks or protected areas and establishing new ponds all have a positive effect on biodiversity and/or forests; and

·         training, education and institutional strengthening lead to increased awareness of, and increased capacity to deal with environmental issues.

 

However, some subproject types are more likely to have negative cumulative impacts on the environment:

 

·         small-scale irrigation, small scale drainage, and small scale embankment construction may affect the aquatic environment, by lowering or raising water levels, and decreasing water quality.

 

Other subproject types may have both positive and negative cumulative impacts on the environment:

 

·         waste water disposal, latrines and improved drinking water supplies may all have positive cumulative effects on human health, but the first two (if improperly implemented) may affect ground and surface water quality, while the latter may affect groundwater levels;

·         rural roads increases mobility and access; what this leads to environmentally, depends on many other variable, many of which are related to economic issues.

 

 

Environmental Review and Implementation

 

The environmental categories of the subprojects in LGSP are the following.

 

·         ‘C+’ : Subprojects that have only positive or no environmental impacts.

·         ‘C’: Subprojects that have impacts which are small in scale.

·         ‘B’ : Subproject that have impacts which are larger and more complex.

·         ‘A’: Subprojects whose potential impacts involve significant environmental risks, and which will not receive funding under the LGSP.

 

The environmental review is to be carried out through the filling of an environmental review (ER) form (2A). On the basis of entries in the ER form, it should be possible to decide if the subproject is environmentally beneficial or benign. In the case it is so, the subproject should be assigned ‘C+’ category. No action would be required in respect of environmental management in the subproject.

 

If some impacts are identified in the ER which are small in scale, do not require special study other than ER, and can be addressed through standardized techniques or technical methods, the category of the subproject should be ‘C’.  The standard remedial measures given in EMF manual to offset the environmental impacts are to be provided in the ER form. These measures should be included in the project design.

 

If any subproject has environmental impacts more substantial than those in the ‘C’ category, the subproject should be assigned category ‘B’. As the impacts are larger and more complex, such subprojects will require preparation of a Limited Environmental Assessment (LEA) and incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures into the subproject design. A general format for a LEA is provided here (2B) and this should prepared by an experienced specialist.

 

Any subproject with potentially greater impacts than category ‘B’ subprojects and impacts that involve significant environmental risk are classifies as category ‘A’. Such subprojects will not be funded under the LGSP.

 

To summarize the following are the key steps in the Environmental Management of CIWs for  subprojects in  ‘C+’ and  ‘C’ category in which most of the subprojects are likely to fall. A more detailed procedure has to be followed for category ‘B’ subprojects as explained earlier.

 

1. Completion of an ER form and assignment of a category for each subproject.

2. Inclusion of recommendations of ER in subproject plan (if any).

3. Approval of ER in the subproject review process.

4. Ensuring implementation through supervision during construction.


Attachment 2A

Bangladesh Local Governance Support Project (LGSP)

Environmental Review (ER) Form

(This form filled with appropriate information is to be attached to each subproject document)

 

Union Parishad: _____________________    Ward: _________    Upazilla: _________________________

Subproject In-charge: ____________________________________________________________________

SUBPROJECT NAME/ OBJECTIVES: _____________________________________________________

 

SPECIFICATION STATUS

1. Encroach onto an important natural habitat      Yes [ ]                          No [ ]

2. Affect sensitive ecosystems                           Yes [ ]                          No [ ]

3. Use firewood for fuel                                                 Yes [ ]                          No [ ]

4. Use petroleum-based fuel                                           Yes [ ]                          No [ ]

5. Involves use of pesticides                                           Yes [ ]                          No [ ]

6. Diversion or use of surface waters                             Yes [ ]                          No [ ]

7. New or rebuilt irrigation or drainage systems   Yes [ ]                          No [ ]

8. Require the construction of a seasonal dam     Yes [ ]                          No [ ]

9. Involves latrines, septic or sewage systems                 Yes [ ]                          No [ ]

10. Waste generation                                                     Yes [ ]                          No [ ]

     (e.g. slaughterhouse, medical waste, etc.)

11. Residues that may be used as fertilizers:                    Yes [ ]                         No [ ]    In part [ ]

EVALUATION

1. Produce significant amount of pollutants:                     Yes [ ]                          No [ ]

2. Type of pollutants (if yes in 1):                                    Air [ ]      Water [ ]       Soil [ ]

3. Quantity of pollutants (per month): ________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

4. Probable cumulative impacts                          Yes [ ]                          No [ ]

5. Means of disposal available:               Yes [ ]              No [ ]               In part [ ]

6. Fate of pollutants:      _____________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

 

7. Remedial measures and any other issues/ Comments:   ________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Environmental Category[1]                                C+ [ ]     C [ ]       B [ ]         A [ ]                   

Needs further Evaluation                               Yes [ ]                          No [ ]

Needs LEA                                                    Yes [ ]                          No [ ]

                       

Prepared by (Name):     _________________________________

 

SIGNATURE: _________________________________

DATE:                         _________________________________


Attachment 2B

Bangladesh Local Governance Support Project (LGSP)

Limited Environmental Assessment (LEA) Format for Category ‘B’ Subprojects

(This report has be prepared by a qualified specialist)

 

 

 

1.     General Description of the Sub-project

 

The subproject should be described in reasonable detail including its justification even with substantial environmental impacts.

 

2.     Baseline Description of the Affected Environment

 

 The environmental baseline for subproject including all the potentially impacted parameters should be discussed. These may include the Physical-chemical, Biological and Socio-economic Environment.

 

3.     Specification of Expected Negative Environmental Impacts

 

All possible environmental and socio-economic impacts of the subproject should be identified.

 

4.         Mitigation Measures

 

Cost effective mitigation measures should be identified and measures for their integration into the project design including implementation and monitoring should be recommended.


Attachment 2C

 

Typical Subproject Environmental Impacts and their Mitigation

 

Transportation

1.  Improvement of Tertiary and secondary level roads

2. Tertiary and secondary level culverts and bridges

3. Footpaths

Potential Environmental Effects

Mitigation Measures

Disruption of drainage:

Hampers free drainage, causes stagnant pools of water, road breaks during monsoon

 

·      Design to provide adequate drainage and to minimize changes in flows.

·      Provision of sufficient number of cross drains.

 

Erosion:

Erosion of road slopes.

.

·      Construction in the dry season.

·      Roadside plantation of suitable plants especially with Vetivers which are known to be highly effective.

Water Supply

1. Tubewells,

2. Water point rehabilitation

3.  Dug wells and  Ring Wells with Hand pumps

4. Spring protection in hill areas

5. Community reservoirs

6. Water harvesting facilities

7. Water treatment plants

8. Piped water supplies

Potential Environmental Effects

Mitigation Measures

Inundation:

Tubewell contamination due to inundation during flood

 

·           Base above the 10-year flood level

Diseases caused by poor water quality:

Contamination by seepage from stagnant pools, latrines, municipal waste, agricultural areas or from leakage.

 

·            Appropriate location, apron and drainage around tubewells and dug wells to prevent formation of stagnant pools.

·            Provision of cover and hand-pump to prevent contamination of dug wells.

·            Where pit latrines are used, tubewells should be located more than 10m from any water source.

·            Leak detection and repair of pipe networks.

·            Bacteriological testing of water quality from time to time.

Arsenic Prone Areas:

Contamination of tubewell water with higher than standard

·         Installation in Arsenic free aquifers

·         Testing of water for Arsenic

 

Depletion of water source:

Over-exploitation of aquifers.

·            Abstraction limits for mechanical pumps and limits to numbers.

 

Health

1. Health centers(Dispensaries, Maternity clinics, Laboratories etc)

Potential Environmental Effects

Mitigation Measures

Disease caused by inadequate collection and disposal of

Medical and other wastes:

·            Promote separate collection and disposal system for medical or hazardous wastes.

·            Arrange for final disposal site.

Sanitation and Waste Management

1. Public toilets/pit latrines

2. Soak pits and septic tanks

3. Sewerage facilities

4. Composting sites

5. Waste disposal facilities

6. Sewage treatment lagoons

Potential Environmental Effects

Mitigation Measures

Contamination of water supplies:

Contamination of surface waters due to flooding or over-flowing  and contamination of groundwater because of seepage.

 

·            Where pit latrines are to be located more than 10m from any water source. The base should be sealed and separated vertically  2m or more  of sand or loamy soil from the ground water table.

·            Where nightsoil latrines or septic tanks are built they should be sealed.  Outflows should drain either to a soak pit located at least 10m from any water source or be connected to a working drain.

·            Maintenance training to be delivered along with new facilities.

Vector borne diseases:

Breeding of insects

·            Prevent creation of stagnant pools of water.

Agriculture and Markets

1. Animal Health Facilities (Vaccination yards, Tick dips etc)

2. Post harvest handling facilities

3. Slaughterhouses and yards

4. Agro-processing facilities

5. Construction of market places including Livestock markets

6. Fish landing sites

7. Seasonal Earth dams

8. Terracing in hilly areas

Potential Environmental Effects

Mitigation Measures

Health and safety in work place:

 

·            Ensure adoption of known good practices at the work place.

Siltation and erosion:

·            Ensure adoption of local best practices.

Reduction of water available to downstream water users:

·            Ensure mitigation measures to avoid this

Vector borne diseases:

·            Prevent creation of stagnant pools of water.

Education

1. Construction of classrooms and Teacher housing

2. Provision of classroom furnishings

3. Laboratories

4. Sports fields/recreation facilities and fencing

Potential Environmental Effects

Mitigation Measures

Impacts during construction:

 

·            Management of construction period health and safety especially for school children.

·            Removal and proper disposal of construction wastes.

Energy

1. Rural electrical distribution

2. Improved Cookstoves

3. Biogas

4. Photovoltaic cells based  power supplies for emergency and public facilities

Potential Environmental Effects

Mitigation Measures

Unsustainable grazing:

·            Livestock grazing requirements for new herds for biogas projects should be ensured.

Natural Resource Management

1. Afforestation ( Community Based projects on public land)

2. Community tree nurseries

3. Anti-erosion interventions (e.g., Slope, Stream and river bank protection with Vetiver)

4. Demonstration nutrition gardens

5. Wetland development

5. Rangeland improvements

6. Eco-tourism and hunting areas

Potential Environmental Effects

Mitigation Measures

Wastes in unspoiled areas:

·            Arrange collection and disposal of wastes.

 

Increased use of pesticides:

·            Use local best practice and IPM.

 


Attachment 3

 

GUIDELINES FOR USE OF PUBLIC & PRIVATE LANDS

 

Land Availability & Mitigation Issues

 

1.         The potential resettlement issues are expected to arise where the UPs decide to build new CIWs or expand the existing ones on public and private lands.  Use of public lands may affect persons/households who may have been using them for residential and livelihood purposes.  With the restriction on land acquisition, private lands, wherever required, the UPs will obtain them through:

 

§         Voluntary Contribution.  As a common practice in the rural areas, the concerned members of the community may elect to contribute lands or other assets without compensation. 

 

§         Contribution Against Compensation.  Voluntary contributions are seen more feasible where the concerned landowners are well-off and fewer in number, and the CIWs, such as school houses and similar social infrastructures, are built in one spot.  Contributions for others, such as roads, irrigation and drainage canals, etc, may involve a larger number of landowners, some of whom might be quite marginal and vulnerable.  Where lands are required from multiple owners and some of them are found to be marginal, the UPs and beneficiary communities can offer this option.

 

Mitigation Objectives

 

2.         The principles and guidelines provided in this framework are to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on public land users and private landowners, mitigate the impacts that are unavoidable, and assist to improve, or at least to restore, their living standards and income earning or production capacity to pre-project levels.  The following are more specific mitigation objectives of LGSP:

  • Avoiding or minimizing displacement of persons and households who may have been using public lands for residential and livelihood purposes;
  • Establishing guidelines and procedures to ensure that private land contributions are voluntary and sought and accepted in transparent manners without causing unacceptable adverse impacts on the owners.
  • Collectively deciding on community-based mitigation measures where private lands are required for critical CIWs and adverse impacts are to be shared together by many landowners.  Such CIWs are likely to be rural roads that are to be expanded, drainage and irrigation canals, etc.

 

 

Safeguard Categorization & Action Plan

 

3.         Given the scope of development works the UPs could undertake with small BGs (about US$ 5,700)[2] and the restriction on land acquisition, it is determined that the CIWs would have no social safeguard impacts of any significant consequences.  On the contrary, significant positive social and livelihood impacts are expected from the CIWs.  As such, the project is categorized S3, and there would be no need for safeguard action plans[3].

 

4.         The UPs would document the impacts and affected persons/households, mitigation measures agreed with them, and verifiable evidence that the agreed measures have been implemented.  The cases of voluntary private land contributions and contribution against compensation will also be documented with appropriate evidence, which will remain open to verification by IDA and other interested organizations (Documentation formats suggested in Attachment 3A & 3B).

 

Land Use Principles

 

5.         The UPs will select to improve or build CIWs and design and implement them in manners to avoid or minimize use of additional public and private lands.  The following principles will also apply:

  • Where additional lands are required, the following measures will be considered to,
    • Use as much of public lands as possible
    • Completely avoid displacement from private homesteads
    • Avoid or minimize displacement of homesteads from public lands
    • Use lands of lower value in terms of productivity and uses
    • Avoid affecting premises that are used for business/commercial activities
    • Avoid affecting religious sites like places of worship, cemeteries, and buildings/structures that are socially and historically important.

§         UPs will not undertake CIWs that will significantly restrict access of the communities, especially the socio-economically vulnerable members, to common property resources that have been a source of their livelihood.

 

Impact Mitigation Principles

 

6.         The following principles will be applied to avoid or minimize adverse impacts, and adopt mitigation measures where the CIWs affect persons/households on public lands, or require private land contributions against compensation:

  • The UPs will in general avoid adversely affecting persons/households who are socio-economically vulnerable.
    • Where adverse impacts are absolutely unavoidable, the UPs will ensure that the beneficiary communities collectively rehabilitate the affected persons/households with measures acceptable to them.
  • Where displacement of public land users is unavoidable, the UPs will assist the affected persons/households to relocate on available public lands in the vicinity.
    • The affected persons/households would be allowed to relocate on the same parcel of public land, where land is still available after the works on a CIW.
    • The community will collectively provide financial and material assistance to the affected persons/households to move and rebuild their houses.
    • In cases of displacement of businesses, such as small-scale roadside shops, the communities will assist them to relocate in the vicinity to ensure that they remain operational and do not lose income.
  • Where voluntary contribution of private land is unavailable, contribution can only sought against compensation.

 

Eligibility for Compensation and Assistance

 

7.         The persons/households affected directly and indirectly by the selected CIWs are eligible for compensation and assistance.  To determine eligibility, the following criteria will be applied:

 

  • Private Landowners:  Persons who have legal rights to the affected lands and other assets, such as houses/structures, trees, etc, built and grown on them;
  • Squatters/Encroachers:  Persons/households which do not have legal rights to the affected lands, but use the lands for residential and other livelihood purposes. 
  • Others, who do not have legal rights to the affected lands and any assets built or grown on them, but whose livelihood activities are significantly affected by a chosen CIW (e.g., by restricting access to fishing and other income earning activities).

 

Compensation/Assistance Principles

 

8.         Depending on a project affected person’s (PAP) preference, the UPs and the beneficiary communities may consider using both financial and material forms of compensation and assistance.  The UPs will ensure delivery of the agreed compensation/assistance in a timely and transparent manner.  Compensation for the affected assets will be according to the following principles:

 

  • Replacement cost for an equal amount of land of same productive quality.
  • Replacement cost of houses/structures at the current prices of same building materials, plus the current cost of labor to build them.
  • Current market prices of trees that are to be felled (owners will retain ownership of un-felled trees).
  • Other acceptable in-kind compensation.
  • Compensation in cash will be made in public.

 

9.         The beneficiary communities and the landowners will jointly determine the replacement costs of land based on the most recent transactions made in the same or adjacent localities, by taking into account types of land, productive quality and accessibility.  Current prices of other assets, such as building materials, trees, etc, will be in accord with those in the local markets.

 

Consultation

 

10.        Community consultation will be a vital part of the CIW selection and implementation process.  In addition to general consultation about the benefits and feasibility of specific CIWs, the UPs will make absolutely certain that the users of lands (with and without legal rights), that are needed for a CIW, are consulted very early in the selection process.  Consultations will focus on the issue of availability and the conditions under which the lands could be used.  In cases where the would-be affected persons are women, the UPs will arrange culturally appropriate consultations.

 

11.        The UPs will prepare minutes of the consultations, indicating dates, compensation issues discussed, and the details of the agreements reached.  The affected persons will be provided with copies of the minutes signed by the affected persons and the UP Chairman /Ward Member (a format is provided in Attachment 3C).  Copies of all such signed minutes will be kept in the CIW files and will be made available for inspection during supervision. 

 

Verification

 

12.        The UPs will keep the Community Meeting Minutes, including records of persons/households which may have been displaced from public lands, voluntary contribution and contribution against compensation of private lands, agreements of compensation and evidence of compensation payment.  To the extent applicable, these will be kept in each CIW file with all other records, and will be available for inspection by IDA, concerned GOB officials and interested civil society groups.

 


 

Attachment 3A

IMPACT ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION DATA SHEET

(To record information on all selected CIWs and the lands to be used to build them)

 

Fiscal Year Block Grant Used:  ………………..

 

Nmae of Upazila:  …………………………………………..

Name of Union:  …………….……………….…………..;   Ward No.:  …………….

Name of chairs of PIC and PSC:  ………………………………………………………

Name/type and location of CIW:  ………………………………………………………………………..

Use of the CIW:  ………………………………………………………………………………………..

 

1.   Scope of Work: 

New construction

Improvements

Repair/Renovation

 

 

 

 

 

2.   CIW implemented during (months):  ………………………………………………..

 

3.   Private Land Used:

Total Amount:  ……………;

Total No. of Owners:  …………..

4.   Current Uses:  ……………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……

 

5.   Other Private

Houses/structures

Trees

Others (specify)

Assets Affected

 

 

 

 

6.   How the private lands obtained:

Amount

No. of Contributors

Voluntary contribution

 

 

Contribution against compensation

 

 

 

 

7.   Public Lands Used:

Total Amount:  ……………

 

8.   Current Uses:  ………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

9.   No. of Current

Squatters

Encroachers

Others (specify)

Users Affected

 

 

 

 

10.   Other Assets Affected:

Houses/structures(No.):  ……………..;  Trees:  ….………..;  Others (specify):  ……………….

………………………………………..……………………………………………………………

 

11.   How Losses Mitigated

No. Paid

Total Amount Paid (Tk)

Contributors for compensation

 

 

Squatters

 

 

Encroachers

 

 

Others

 

 

 

12.   Documentation

 

Types of evidence of voluntary contribution obtained:

___ Written statements witnessed by community members

___ Others (specify) …………………………………………………………………………………

 

13.   Compensation Payment:  Signed proof of payment must be prepared for each

 

§         Contributor for compensation;

§         Squatter;

§         Encroacher; and

§         Others, if any, with the following information:

 

Name, Ward No., type and quantity of loss, amount of compensation agreed, and signature of compensation recipient.

 


Attachment 3B

 

FORMAT TO DOCUMENT CONTRIBUTION OF ASSETS

 

The following agreement has been made on (Day-Month-Year) ...................……  between (the Owner(s)

.........................................…………………………....  resident of (Ward, Union) ..................................

and the Community of Ward (No.) ………… of ……………………………………………….  Union

(Recipient).

 

 

1.   That the Owner(s) holds the legal right to the land (Dag No., Khatian No., Mouza, etc) .…………….

….…………………………………………….. and other assets situated on it.

 

2.   That the Owner(s) hereby contributes to the Recipient portion (in Square-Feet) of this asset for the

construction and development of (CIW name) ………………………………………….………………….

for the benefit of the villagers and the public at large.

 

(Either, in case of Voluntary Contribution:)

 

3.   That the Owner(s) will not claim any compensation against the contribution of this asset.

 

(Or, in case of Contribution Against Compensation:)

 

4.   That the Owner(s) will receive compensation against the contribution of this asset as per the attached Schedule.

 

5.   That the Recipient agrees to accept this grant of asset for the purposes mentioned.

 

6.   That the Recipient shall construct and develop the …………………………………………… and take

all possible precautions to avoid damage to adjacent land/structure/other assets.

 

7.   That both the parties agree that the ……………………………………………….. so constructed/

developed shall be public premises.

 

8.   That the provisions of this agreement will come into force from the date of signing of this document.

 

 

 

………………………………………..……..                    …………………………………………….…

Signature of the Owner(s)                                           Signature of the Recipient (Ward Member)

 

 

Witnesses (Signature, name, father’s/husband’s name, and address):

 

1.   ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 

 

2.   ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 


 

Attachment 3C

 

SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION FOR USING PRIVATE & PUBLIC LANDS

 

(For each person or household which has made contribution against compensation and squatters & encroacher who has been paid compensation or assisted in any other form)

 

 

 

Fiscal Year Block Grant Used:  ………………..

 

Nmae of Upazila:  …………………………………………..

Name of Union:  …………….………………..….…………..;   Ward No.:  ………….….

Name of CIW:  …………………………………………………………...………………..

 

CIW implemented during (months):  ………………………………………………………

 

Name of Compensation Recipient:  ………………………………………………………

            Father’s/Husband’s Name:  ……………………………………………………….

 

Compensation Schedule

 

Affected Items

Amount/units to be compensated for

Agreed Compensation

 

Land (sft)

 

 

 

 

Houses/structures (Floor area in sft):

 

 

Structure type (bamboo, mud, brick, etc.)

 

 

Trees (no.)

 

 

Others (specify)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________                                    ________________________________

Signatures of Local Union Parishad Member                               Signature of Affected Person

 

 

Include record of any complaints raised by affected persons:  ……………………………………………...

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 

 


Attachment 4

 

GUIDELINES FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLAN

 

1.       The largest proportion of the country’s indigenous population lives in Bandarban, Rangamati and Khagrachari in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT).  Majority of the UPs in these districts are predominantly inhabited by IPs.  Likewise, most of the UP representatives are members of the IP communities.  In varying proportions, indigenous peoples (IPs) also live in almost all districts outside of CHT, most notably in those in the north-west and north-eastern regions.  Some UPs, or wards therein, may have sizable communities of IPs who generally live in settlements with the non-indigenous mainstream population. 

 

2.       Most of the lands in CHT are public which, however, vary between UPs under Sadar Upazilas and those in the interior.  Many IPs and non-IPs in the Sadar UPs have reportedly acquired legal rights to the lands they use.  Private lands in these UPs -- if needed in small amounts – are received in private contributions.  In UPs outside of CHT, where most IPs have legal titles to the lands they live in or cultivate, private lands are also obtained in contributions.  The various activities undertaken with the block grants are reported to have the same beneficial impacts on IPs and non-IPs. 

 

Objectives of Indigenous Peoples Plan

 

3.       The main objectives of the Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) are to ensure that the CIWs funded with the BGs under LGSP do not adversely affect IPs, and that they receive culturally compatible social and economic benefits.  This will require the UPs to carefully screen all CIWs to determine presence of IPs in CIW locales and ensure informed direct participation of the IPs in the CIW selection and implementation process.  Depending upon prevalence of IPs and their needs and concerns, the UPs will work with the following strategic objectives:

§         Select CIWs and determine their scopes to avoid or minimize, to the extent feasible, adverse impacts on IPs. 

§         Where adverse impacts on IPs are unavoidable, will adopt and implement socially and culturally appropriate measures to mitigate them.

§         Wherever possible, will adopt special measures – in addition to those for impact mitigation – to reinforce and promote any available opportunities for socioeconomic development of the IP communities.

 

Identifying the Indigenous Peoples

 

4.       Although the IPs of Bangladesh are well recognized locally, the UPs will examine the following characteristics to make formal identification:

§         Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identity by others;

§         Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories;

§         Customary cultural, economic, social or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and

§         An indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region.

 

Basic Principles

 

5.       To avoid or minimize adverse impacts and, at the same time, ensure benefits for IPs, the UPs all over the country will apply the following basic principles in selection and design of particular CIWs:

§         Ensure that IP communities in general and their organizations, are fully included in CIW selection, design and implementation process. 

§         Together with IPs, carefully screen the CIWs for a preliminary understanding of the nature and magnitude of potential impacts, and explore alternatives to avoid or minimize any adverse impacts. 

§         Where alternatives are infeasible and adverse impacts on IPs are unavoidable, the UPs, together with IPs and others knowledgeable of IP culture and concerns, will make an assessment of the key impact issues.

§         The UPs will immediately undertake the necessary tasks in order to adopt appropriate mitigation measures.  The most important in this respect is intensive consultation with the IP communities, community elders/leaders, and formal and informal IP organizations, civil society organizations like NGOs, and others who are interested in and have knowledge of IP issues. 

Consultation will include the CIWs’ objectives and scope; the likely key adverse impacts on (and benefits for) IPs; IPs’ own perception of the impacts and feedback; and a preliminary assessment of economic opportunities which the UPs could promote – in addition to mitigation of the adverse impacts.

 

Identifying IP Social Concerns

 

6.       Impacts on IPs will vary in terms CIWs and their scopes, presence and size of IP population in the CIW locales, as well as the magnitude of potential adverse impacts and social risks.  To the extent applicable for a particular CIW, information on the cultural and socioeconomic characteristics and potential vulnerability will be used to identify the IP social concerns and adopt alternative mitigation measures (major issues and indicators suggested in Attachment 4A). 

 

Impact Mitigation & Development Measures

 

7.      To use public and private lands and to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on IPs, the UPs will apply the same guidelines proposed in Attachment 3.  Eligibility and standards for compensation will also be according to those proposed in the same attachment. 

 

8.       The UPs will also explore, together with the IP communities, the possibilities of reinforcing any existing and promoting new culturally compatible development activities/measures that will benefit the IPs.  Such measures may include providing credits where IPs are found to engage in production of marketable goods; small-scale horticulture and orchards (in CHT, e.g.); basic water supply and sanitation facilities; and those, such as schools, that could also be used by the communities as a whole.

 

IP Consultation Strategy

 

9.       As required for informed consultation, concerned UPs will provide IPs with all CIW-related information, including that on potential adverse impacts.  To facilitate consultation the UPs will,

 

§         Prepare a time-table for dialogues during CIW selection, design and implementation processes, and consult them in manners so that they can express their views and preferences freely.

§         In addition to the communities in general, consult IP organizations, community elders/leaders and others with adequate gender and generational representation; and civil society organizations like NGOs and groups knowledgeable of IP issues.

 

10.   Consultation will in general concentrate on the adverse impacts perceived by the IPs and the probable (and feasible) mitigation measures, as well as exploring additional development activities that could be promoted under the project. The UPs will keep Minutes of these consultation meetings in the CIW files and make them available for inspection by IDA, GOB officials and other interested groups and persons.


Attachment 4A

 

The following major impact areas and indicators are suggested for assessment of IP concerns and social risks.

 

Cultural Characteristics

§         Relationships with areas where they live -- relating to religious/cultural affinity with the ancestral lands, existence of livelihood opportunities, etc.

§         Presence of customary social and political organizations – characteristics indicating internal organization and cohesion of the communities, and their interaction with those of the non-indigenous population.

§         Interactions and relationships with other indigenous peoples’ groups in the same and other areas.

§         Presence of IP organizations, like NGOs and CBOs, working with IP development issues, and their relationships with mainstream organizations engaged in community development activities.

§         Identification of any cultural aspects that are likely to be affected or made vulnerable because of the proposed development works.

 

Settlement Pattern

§         The extent to which the indigenous settlements are physically separated from those of the non-indigenous peoples, indicating interactions and mutual tolerance between the groups.

§         Characteristics indicating physical organization of homesteads, and the existing community facilities, such as schools, water supply, etc.

§         Present distance between the settlements and the proposed CIW.

 

Economic Characteristics

§         Prevailing land tenure -- indicating legal ownership and other arrangements that allow them to reside in and/or cultivate the lands in their areas. 

§         Access to common property resources -- prevailing conditions under which they may have been using natural resources like forests, water bodies, and others that are considered important sources of livelihood.

§         Occupational structure -- indicating relative importance of household’s present economic activities, and the extent to which they might be affected or benefited because of the proposed CIW.

§         Level of market participation -- engagement in activities that produce marketable goods and services, and how and to what extent market participation would be affected or enhanced.

 Environmental and Social Review of Subproject by the PIC and PSC

 

 

 


 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PIC integrate ER/LEA/social recommendation in Subproject Design and Submission of ER/LEA with Subproject Proposal to UP

 

UP Review of ER/LEA/social during Appraisal Process: Seek Support from PSC and UZ if required

UP approves/Revises/Rejects sub-project after appraising ER/LEA/social

 

Supervision during Construction: Seek Support from PSC and UZ technical staff if required

Oversight during construction by UP: Seek Support from PSC and UZ technical staff if required

 

 

 

Environmental and Social Assurance: During the annual assurance process by using Appropriate Agencies

 
 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] The category assigned here is to be inserted in the subproject summary sheet

[2]   These are generally distributed equitably among the nine wards, which makes the scopes of CIWs far more limited. 

[3]   A RAP is not required if land needs to be acquired are donated voluntarily or purchased on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis.  The conditions of the land acquisition must be documented in the subproject application.  (Source: Environmental and Social Management Framework For World Bank Projects With Multiple Subprojects, A Toolkit, Part B: ESMF Template, August 2004, p. 11.)

 

Copyright © 2004 Local Government Division, Ministry of LGRD & Co-operatives. All rights reserved.
Powered by Zi Soft.net TM