Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (ISDS)
Section I – Basic Information
Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: September 1, 2004
A. Basic Project Data
A.1. Project Statistics
Country: Nepal
Project: Rural Access Improvement Project
Total project cost (by component):
Appraisal Date: January 15, 2005
Report No.:AC1013
Project ID: P083923
TTL: Binyam Reja
Loan/Credit amount($m):
IDA: 30
Board Date: April 30, 2005
Other financing amounts by source:
($m.)
Managing Unit: SASEI
Sector: Roads and highways (100%)
Lending Instruments: Specific Investment Loan
Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency recovery?
Yes? [ ]
No?
Environmental Category: B
A.2. Project Objectives
[X ]
Project Development Objective (PDO). Participating communities utilize improved rural
transport infrastructure and services and benefit from improved access to social services and
economic opportunities.
Outcome Indicators. The PDO will be monitored with the following indicators:
(a)
50 percent increase in motorized and non-motorized trips by beneficiaries to key
social and economic centers by End of Project (EOP).
(b)
20 percent reduction in travel time by beneficiaries to key social and economic
centers by EOP.
Output Indicators: The project will have the following outputs to contribute to achieving the
PDO.
(c)
90 percent of population in participating hill districts is within four hours of
walking to an all-season road. (Baseline: 77% percent)
(d)
90 percent of population in participating Terai districts is within two hours of
walking to an all-season road. (Baseline: 81%)
(e)
Conducive regulatory and institutional framework for rural transport service
provision is adopted in districts.
(f)
30 districts have updated DTMPs and use it for investment and maintenance
prioritization and budgeting.
(g)
DOLIDAR and Participating DDCs receive favorable evaluation from
Independent Reviews on their performance.
A.3. Project Description
The project consists of the following components:
A.
Rural Transport Infrastructure Improvement Component (Total Cost: US$37.86)
All-season Rural Roads Subcomponent (Total Cost: about US$21 million). This subcomponent
will support candidate districts to rehabilitate and upgrade about 1000 km of existing district
roads to all-season standard. The civil works will include construction of drainage, culverts,
small bridges and causeways, improving surfaces, and widening (when necessary) to minimize
closure during the rainy season.
Dry-season Rural Roads Subcomponent (Total Cost: about US$5.1 million). This
subcomponent will support candidate districts to upgrade about 340 km of existing trails and
tracks to dry-season road standard in remote hill districts. The civil works will be carried out
following a phased construction method and the environmentally friendly Green Roads
Construction Method.
Rural Road Maintenance Subcomponent (Total Cost: US$3.3 million). This sub-component
will support candidate districts to carry out road maintenance of about 3000 km of maintainable
rural roads in participating districts. The works will cover routine, recurrent and periodic
maintenance. The source of funding will come from districts own resources and Roads Board
Nepal (RBN). Participating DDCs will prepare annual maintenance plans and seek funding from
the RBN; the proposed RAIP will fund any shortfall. In addition, before seeking funding under
the above subcomponents, DDCs will have to show that their maintenance requirement is fully
funded
Trail Bridges Construction (Total Cost: about US$7.6 million, excluding TA). This subcomponent will be parallel financed with the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
(SDC). It will support the construction of about 313 short-span trail bridges in 13 RAIP districts
and 15 other non-road served districts, and associated technical assistance. The subcomponent
will be implemented with SDC TA support to be executed by Helvetas Nepal.
Demand-driven Community Infrastructure and Pilot Rural Transport Services Subcomponent .
(Total Cost: US$1.2). This will be an open subcomponent from which qualified communities can
access RAIP funding for the development of small, rural infrastructure in their communities, such
as the construction of markets, agriculture improvement, and community trails and roads. It will
also support the implementation of a pilot rural transport services, which will come out of a
recommendation from the rural transport
B.
Institutional and Policy Development and Implementation Support Component
(Total Cost: US$ 5.06 million)
Training (US$1.25 million). This subcomponent will provide the implementation of the ILOsponsored Training Needs Assessment. It will support the preparation of training course
materials, training of trainers, and providing extensive training and certification on major aspects
of rural infrastructure development and management. The course identified by the TNA and to be
provided during project implementation include:




Labor-based Road Works Technology and Practical field training
Procurement and Contract Management
Financial Management and Accounting
Environment and Social Management
 Routine Maintenance Planning and Organisation
 Green Road Construction
 Trail Bridge Construction
DDC and DOLIDAR Capacity Development and TA Subcomponent (US$.70 million). This
subcomponent will include (a) TA to participating DDCs to support the implementation of
approved programs, sub-projects and associated local initiatives, including financial management
and accounting, project development and implementation, design and supervision of works, social
mobilization and community participation and monitoring; (b) TA and advisory services to
DOLIDAR for the implementation of ODAP and for various capacity-building priorities and
longer-term functional and organizational change goals set by HMGN for this sector.
Accessibility Planning, Investment Needs Assessment and Updating DTMPs (US$0.6 million).
This subcomponent will support: (a) the preparation of a GIS-based Transport Master Plan for
Nepal, and develop a spatial profile of population/settlements that are/are not connected to an allseason road and undertake a needs assessment to determine the investment requirements to
connect settlements; (b) support DOLIDAR and DDCs to mainstream the use of Integrated Rural
Accessibility Planning (IRAP) for multi-sector accessibility planning and, on this basis, prepare
DTMPs in 30 districts; and (c) support the identification and preparation of a follow up operation
in the sector.
Rural Transport Services Study and Policy Development (US$0.25 million). This
subcomponent will support an assessment of the demand and supply of rural transport services.
The study will assess the mobility and transport needs of the rural population and study travel
patterns of rural population. It will examine the industrial organization of rural transport service
providers, including reviewing institutional, regulatory, and entrepreneurial impediments for an
adequate and effective rural transport in Nepal. On this basis, the Study will recommend a Rural
Transport Policy, which will be discussed widely within Nepal and approved by HMGN during
project implementation. Furthermore, the study will make a recommendation to pilot a
government intervention to promote motorized and intermediate transport services in selected
participating districts.
Socioeconomic Impact Monitoring Study (US$0.25 million). Support a study to undertake an
assessment of the magnitude and distribution of the direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts of
rural access transport interventions and determine the extent to which interventions under the
proposed RAIP cause changes in the well being of target population. TA services under the
supervision of DOLIDAR will undertake the study. A baseline survey will be undertaken before
project implementation starts, and two repeat surveys will be undertaken: one after civil works
are completed; and the second two to three years after project closing. The funding for the latter
will come from HMGN, while the first two surveys will be funded under the proposed RAIP.
The TOR and procurement plan for the consultancy service will be ready by appraisal.
Goods, Logistical Support, Increment Cost Component (Total Cost; US$1.6 million). To
facilitate the implementation of the above components, the project will support the procurement
of goods, and fund logistical and incremental costs by DOLIDAR and participating DDCs during
project implementation. The specific goods to be procured are being identified by DOLIDAR and
DDCs, and will be ready by appraisal.
A.4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis:
District Selection. Participating districts will be selected based on a District Participation Framework
(DPF), which has been prepared by DOLIDAR and endorsed by MOLD and NPC. The purpose of the DPF
is to create institutional incentives and competition among districts by setting an objective, fair and
transparent rules for selecting candidate districts. The DPF will also help ensure districts’ readiness to
implement the project and secure continued good performance throughout project implementation period.
Accordingly, the DPF comprises a District Selection Criteria for districts to be candidates, an Entry
Condition for districts to participate in the proposed project, and a Performance Criteria for districts to
receive continued funding support from the project. The District Selection Criteria, which includes
district’s poverty level (as ranked according to HMGN criteria), existing level of accessibility, potential for
agriculture development, connectivity to the Strategic Road Network (SRN), effective participation under
RIP, and synergy with other donor development programs, has been already applied to select 21 candidate
districts shown in the Map below.
Specific Road Selection. Participating DDCs have submitted their first year works. DOLIDAR is
completing the environment and social screening for 13 districts for a total of 24 subprojects. All proposed
subprojects are part of the District Transport Master Plan, which was prepared by DDCs following a
participatory process. Future subprojects are also to be drawn from DTMPs and will undergo
environmental and social screening by DDCs and DOLIDAR.
Salient physical characteristics relevant to safeguard analysis. There are two distinct physical terrains:
Hill and Terai (plains) found in the project districts. The geology of the Himalayan mountains in the hill
districts is extremely fragile and prone to erosion and landslides. The alignment of the roads will be closely
coordinated with the environmental assessment process to determine the best location. The road
improvement component of this project will also include slope stabilization and drainage control works to
prevent further damage. In the Terai districts, the examining the drainage patterns will be important to
determine the alignment of the roads. Most roads will be north-south roads, where potential of flooding is
less than east-west roads. Culverts will be placed in the appropriate areas to prevent flooding.
B. Check Environmental Category A [ ], B [X], C [ ], FI [ ]
Comments:
The project has been categorized as “B” since the project’s civil works will be implemented following
environmentally friendly “green roads” construction approach, which emphasis phased construction and
bioengineering for slope stabilization. In addition the civil works involve small works for: (i) the
upgrading of existing dry weather roads to all weather roads; (ii) upgrading existing tracks/trails to dry
weather roads; and (iii) maintenance of existing district roads.
Environmental Assessment and development of an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) has
been carried out during the preparation of the project. The EMF clearly defines the environmental
screening procedures, environmental impact assessment and mitigation mechanism, preparation of
environmental management plans, monitoring system and institutional mechanism for implementing the
EMF. The safeguard policies for Natural Habitats, Cultural Property and Forests have been triggered since
there may be a some likelihood of a rural road passing close to protected areas, forested land or culturally
significant sites. However, the policy under this project is that any activity that will adversely affect any of
the three areas will be avoided. In the case of unavoidable adverse environmental impact, mitigation
measures will be included in the design and implementation of the project.
C. Safeguard Policies Triggered
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01)
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04)
Pest Management (OP 4.09)
Cultural Property (draft OP 4.11 - OPN 11.03-)
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20)
Forests (OP/BP 4.36)
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37)
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)*
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50)
*
Yes
[ X]
[ X]
[]
[ X]
[X ]
[ X]
[X ]
[]
[]
[]
No
[]
[]
[X ]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[X ]
[ X]
[X ]
By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties'
claims on the disputed areas
Section II – Key Safeguard Issues and Their Management
D. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues.
D.1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe
any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts.
The project is not expected to have significant, adverse, large-scale irreversible environmental or social
impacts.
The type of environmental impacts that will result from road works involve slope stability, erosion and
landslides on the mountainous terrain caused by improper alignment, inadequate drainage control, and
inappropriate road construction practices such as disposal of waste material and destruction of vegetation.
Other environmental issues that may arise are disruption of natural drainage areas; reduction of water
quality; air and noise pollution during construction; encroachment on culturally sensitive areas; and cutting
of trees for road widening and fuelwood by the construction workers. Another issue that the project will
ensure the proper management of is the health and safety of the construction workers and their labor camps.
Every sub-project will require either an IEE or EIA that will result in a detailed Environmental
Management Plan (EMP) which will outline the mitigation measures necessary for each site. All areas
close to areas designated as protected areas or of cultural value will be avoided during alignment. The
environmental assessment process will also include hazard assessment to ensure that the alignment avoids
any potential landslide areas.
Most of the sub-projects to be financed under the project are expected to be small, and cause minimal
negative social impacts. To the extent possible, alternative designs and locations will be considered to
avoid land acquisition and minimize adverse social impacts. Where minor road alignments widening or
other improvements require small scale land acquisition, land will be acquired on a voluntary basis. In the
event that minor land acquisition is unavoidable the project will be designed to cause the least amount of
social, cultural and economic disruption. Project affected families (PAFs) will be compensated, relocated
and rehabilitated, if required, so as to improve their standard of living, income earning capacity or at least
to restore them to a living standard they are likely to have achieved if the project had not taken place.
Special measures will be taken to protect socially and economically vulnerable groups such as female
headed families, ethnic and indigenous groups and people living in extreme poverty. These include
mechanisms to ensure their inclusion in decision making throughout project preparation and
implementation, and social/economic uplift through training on income generating activities.
D.2 Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the
project area.
Considering the types of sub-projects eligible for financing under the project, and the screening criteria
(agreed with IDA) used to identify the sub-projects, it is anticipated that there will be no cumulative
adverse impacts, since the screening process eliminates sites that may result in any serious adverse
environmental and social impacts. Multiple safeguard policies have been triggered largely as a
precautionary measure, to focus attention on potential safeguard issues during implementation monitoring.
D.3. Describe the treatment of alternatives (if relevant)
Key alternatives that have been examined for the project are detailed in the PAD. To the extent possible,
alternative designs and locations will be considered to avoid land acquisition and minimize adverse social
impacts.
At the time of determining road alignment, locations with sensitive sites such as land instability, wildlife
habitat, bio-diversity, and cultural/historical sites will be avoided as much as possible. Each site-specific
environmental impact will be jointly identified by the community representatives, DDC officers and
DOLIDAR. Detailed mitigation measures will be agreed upon and signed in an MoU as part of the
Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The environmental codes of practice for rural roads construction
has been outlined in the “Environmental and Social Management Framework” (ESMF) document.
D.4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard issues. Provide an assessment of
borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described.
The borrower has undertaken an Environment and Social Assessment and has developed an integrated
Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF) to identify, assess and manage social and
environmental impacts in accordance with HMGN policies and IDA’s Operational Policy OP 4.01 on
Environmental Assessment, Operational Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and Operational
Directive 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples. To supplement the ESMF, the borrower has prepared local level
guidelines in Nepali – “Environmental Management Guidelines for Rural Road” to be used by DDCs and
other local level agencies to ensure effective environmental management implementation.
The ESMF provides guidance on framework to be followed for environmental management under the
project. It describes the desk and field screening of sub-projects, IEE and EIA processes, preparation of
Environmental Management Plans (EMP), implementation of environmental mitigation measures for each
stage of the project cycle, consultation and disclosure process, institutional mechanism for environmental
management, and capacity building programs. The local community and DDC will be involved extensively
in the preparation of the EMP and monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures.
To facilitate the assessment and management of social impacts, the ESMF details key social issues and
potential impacts of the project and defines the modalities for profiling socio-economic conditions,
identifying stakeholder groups, conducting social screening to assess potential impacts, voluntary land
donations, as well as the institutional structure to support social impact management, including monitoring
and evaluation mechanisms. Although no involuntary resettlement is anticipated under the project, a
Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) has been prepared and detailed in the ESMF, in the event that minor
land acquisition unavoidable, or if project activities result in loss of privately owned assets/structures or the
displacement of any people. The RPF defines the legal, institutional and implementation framework to
guide the compensation for lost assets, livelihoods, community property, and the resettlement and
rehabilitation of people in accordance with OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and relevant HMGN
guidelines and legislation. The RPF will be applicable to all subprojects funded under RAIP.
The ESMF also presents policy guidance to ensure compliance with the objectives of OD 4.20 on
Indigenous Peoples. A Vulnerable Communities Development Framework (VCDF) has been prepared to
define the policy and implementation framework to ensure that meaningful consultations with indigenous,
tribal, minority and vulnerable groups are carried out throughout project preparation and implementation,
that they benefit from project activities, and that adverse impacts on these people are avoided or
appropriately mitigated.
The capacity of the borrower, especially at lower levels, is weak in addressing environmental and social
issues as is the mainstreaming of such issues in its regular business processes. Recognizing this, the
Training Needs Assessment prepared for the project includes a specific emphasis on building capacity on
environmental and social issues and applicable mitigation strategies. DOLIDAR has also engaged the
services of a Social Development Adviser (SDA) and an Environmental advisor as part of the project
preparation team to provide oversight in the incorporation of social and environmental analysis,
participatory and community mobilization processes into project design and implementation as well as raise
awareness of these issues at the local level.
D.5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on
safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people.
The project will adopt a strong participatory approach in the selection, implementation, monitoring and
operation and maintenance of project facilities through the direct participation of beneficiary communities
(Road User Groups/Committees), DDCs, and other key stakeholders including local NGOs. The project is
community driven and the participation of local civil society organizations to support the mobilization and
formation of community based organizations is fully integrated into its design. The ESMF (developed on
the basis of consultations with communities) provides guidance on the overall consultation strategy and
public information tools to ensure community awareness and involvement in the project as well as
participatory monitoring and evaluation modalities. Particular effort would be made, through the social
mobilization processes and association with local NGOs/CBOs to increase participation of women and
other vulnerable groups.
F. Disclosure Requirements
Date
Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other:
Date of receipt by the Bank
…/…/… or Not Applicable
Date of “in-country” disclosure
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
Date of submission to InfoShop
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process:
Date of receipt by the Bank
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
Date of “in-country” disclosure
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
Date of submission to InfoShop
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework:
Date of receipt by the Bank
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
Date of “in-country” disclosure
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
Date of submission to InfoShop
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
Pest Management Plan:
Date of receipt by the Bank
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
Date of “in-country” disclosure
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
Date of submission to InfoShop
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
Dam Safety Management Plan:
Date of receipt by the Bank
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
Date of “in-country” disclosure
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
Date of submission to InfoShop
…/…/…
or Not Applicable
If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why.
Section III – Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level
(To be filled in when the ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting)
OP/BP 4.01 - Environment Assessment:
Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report?
If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit review and approve the EA report?
Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan?
OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats:
Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation of critical
natural habitats?
If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of other (noncritical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to
the Bank?
OP 4.09 - Pest Management:
Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues?
Is a separate PMP required?
If yes, are PMP requirements included in project design?
Draft OP 4.11 (OPN 11.03) - Cultural Property:
Does the EA include adequate measures?
Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts
on physical cultural resources?
OD 4.20 - Indigenous Peoples:
Has a separate indigenous people development plan been prepared in consultation
with the Indigenous People?
If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and approve the plan?
If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been reviewed and
approved by the Regional Social Development Unit?
Yes
X
X
X
Yes
No
No
X
X
Yes
Yes
X
No
X
X
NA
No
X
Yes
No
OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement:
Has a resettlement action plan, policy framework or policy process been prepared?
If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and approve the plan /
policy framework / policy process?
OP/BP 4.36 – Forests:
Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional issues and constraints been
carried out?
Does the project design include satisfactory measures to overcome these constraints?
Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, does it include provisions
for certification system?
OP/BP 4.37 - Safety of Dams:
Have dam safety plans been prepared?
Have the TORs as well as composition for the independent Panel of Experts (POE)
been reviewed and approved by the Bank?
Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) been prepared and arrangements been
made for public awareness and training?
OP 7.50 - Projects on International Waterways:
Have the other riparians been notified of the project?
If the project falls under one of the exceptions to the notification requirement, then has
this been cleared with the Legal Department, and the memo to the RVP prepared and
sent?
What are the reasons for the exception?
Please explain:
Has the RVP approved such an exception?
OP 7.60 - Projects in Disputed Areas:
Has the memo conveying all pertinent information on the international aspects of the
project, including the procedures to be followed, and the recommendations for dealing
with the issue, been prepared, cleared with the Legal Department and sent to the RVP?
Does the PAD/MOP include the standard disclaimer referred to in the OP?
BP 17.50 - Public Disclosure:
Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop?
Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a form and
language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local
NGOs?
All Safeguard Policies:
Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities been
prepared for the implementation of the safeguard measures?
Have safeguard measures costs been included in project cost?
Will the safeguard measures costs be funded as part of project implementation?
Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of
safeguard impacts and measures?
Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and
the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents?
Signed and submitted by:
Name
Task Team Leader:
Binyam Reja
Project Safeguards Specialist 1:
Afshan Khawaja
Project Safeguards Specialist 2:
Yuka Makino
Project Safeguards Specialist 3:
Approved by:
Name
Regional Safeguards Coordinator:
Comments:
Sector Manager:
Comments:
Yes
No
Yes
No
X
X
X
Yes
No
NA
NA
NA
Yes
No
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
Yes
NA
Yes
NA
No
Yes
No
X
X
Date
Date