Environmental Management Plan - All Documents



E-1108

Environmental Management Plan

for

Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management (NACOMA) Project

Dr Antje Burke, EnviroScience

Final

February 9, 2005

List of acronyms

|ASPEN |AFRICA SAFEGUARDS POLICY ENHANCEMENT |

|CBO |COMMUNITY BASED ORGANISATION |

|DEA |DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS |

|EA |ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT |

|EIA |ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT |

|EMP |ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN |

|GEF |GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY |

|IUCN |INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE |

|LA |LOCAL AUTHORITY |

|MET |MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM |

|MFMR |MINISTRY OF FISHERIES AND MARINE RESOURCES |

|MME |MINISTRY OF MINES AND ENERGY |

|MRLGH |MINISTRY OF REGIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING |

|NACOMA |NAMIB COAST BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT |

|NAD |NAMIBIA DOLLAR |

|NGO |NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION |

|PMU |Project Management Unit |

|RC |Regional Council |

|SC |Steering Committee |

|TOR |Terms of Reference |

|USD |United States Dollar |

|WB |The World Bank |

|WP |Work Program |

Table of contents

I. INTRODUCTION 4

II. Environmental assessment and management within the NACOMA context 6

III. Identified on-the-ground activities 8

IV. Required skills for EMP implementation 10

V. Budget for EMP implementation 12

VI. References 13

VII. Consultations 14

VIII. Disclosure policy 14

Annex 1. The Namibian EIA process and its application 15

Annex 2. Environmental management and good practice guidelines 17

Annex 3. Template for EIA management 25

Introduction

The Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management (NACOMA) Project is scheduled to receive funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through the World Bank to implement activities in support of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of coastal resources.

The Project development/global objective is: Conservation, sustainable use and mainstreaming of biodiversity in coastal and marine ecosystems in Namibia strengthened.

The implementing agencies for the NACOMA Project are the Namibia Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) and the Ministry of Regional and Local Government and Housing (MRLGH). The Project is designed to run in parallel with Namibia’s decentralisation process, which will ultimately transfer more responsibility and authority to the Regional Councils and Local Authorities on the coast. Namibian policy and legislation embraces sustainable development principles. However, effective implementation of sustainable development principles is not an easy task, and, like many other nations, Namibia has a long way to go in that regard. A first step in this direction is adequate biodiversity information and the effective use of this information in all facets of planning and subsequent implementation of activities. This is one of the key elements of the NACOMA Project, which runs as a common thread through all its four components. These are:

1. Policy, legal and institutional framework for sustainable ecosystem management of the Namib Coast;

2. Targeted capacity-building for coastal zone management and biodiversity conservation;

3. Targeted investments for biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and mainstreaming in critical ecosystems; and

4. Project management and performance monitoring.

As a result of the Project, enabling conditions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, including those related to mainstreaming into coastal management and development planning at the national, regional and local levels, will be improved, and a strategic approach will be put in place to address root causes of biodiversity loss and coastal degradation. The environmental and economic potential of the coast will consequently be sustained. The Project would, therefore, provide local, regional, national, international and global benefits.

During a 15-month planning process, involving stakeholders from the four coastal regions, national government, other donor projects and the private sector, an overall planning and implementation framework as well as needed on-the –ground activities were identified, which could potentially be funded under this Project. Although the overall objective of this Project is biodiversity conservation and sustainable natural resource use, some on-the-ground activities might nevertheless have some negative impact on the environment. In order to avoid, minimise and mitigate such impacts as far as possible, and make sure that environmental concerns are integrated into regional and local planning, implementation and monitoring of the Project, and in line with World Bank Environmental Safeguard policies, an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) was requested by the World Bank Safeguard unit (ASPEN) and is hereby presented.

The objectives of the Environmental Management Plan are five-fold:

1. To identify and summarize adverse environmental impacts of Project on-the-ground activities, for which mitigation is required, based on a list of likely kinds of activities eligible[1] for funding as agreed upon during the NACOMA stakeholders’ workshop held 11 – 13 August 2004 and approved by the Bank team (see Section III);

2. To propose a process, roles and responsibilities for environmental assessment of on-the-ground investments within the NACOMA context throughout the Project’s timeframe, which have been pre-identified by stakeholders and will be further refned during the Project lifetime;

3. To provide environmental management guidelines (“good practice guidelines”) for on-the-ground investments which have already been identified and which will be further identified during the implementation of the Project;

4. To identify training and/or capacity building program needed to implement the EMP; and

5. To provide a budget for implementation of the EMP during the NACOMA implementation phase.

This EMP has been developed with input by the World Bank Safeguard unit on the basis of the information provided at the time, largely based on a preparatory workshop held in Swakopmund in August 2004, a review of documents relating to the NACOMA Project and World Bank policies, and consultations with key stakeholders in Walvis Bay, Swakopmund and Windhoek.

The EMP concerns Component 3 only, as this is the one component, which involves on-the-ground activities with potential adverse environmental impact. Component 4, which involves Project management and performance monitoring, requires no environmental input by its nature. Component 1 and 2’s impact on the environment will be addressed in the Project Implementation Manual as part of these components’ work plans. These components may result in a variety of management plans; environmental input into the development of such plans will be documented, summarized, and submitted to the MET in order to comply with the Namibian requirement for environmental assessments of plans.

The Project Management Unit (PMU) will manage this EMP as part of its daily tasks in consultation with the Steering Committee. Environmental Impact Assessment will be undertaken by hired qualified consultants based on the Namibia EA Policy (for eligible activities which trigger the Namibia EA Policy – see Annex 1) or in accordance with the EA process provided by the EMP (for eligible activities which do not trigger the Namibia EA Policy). Environmental guidelines for specific on-the-ground Project activities under Component 3 will be implemented by the proponents of these activities and monitored by the PMU in consultation with the Steering Committee. Hired consultants will prepare additional ‘good practice’ guidelines, should these be required.

Environmental assessment and management within the NACOMA context

The NACOMA Project will operate in the Namib Desert coastal region, an area characterised by aridity, the influence of fog and a great variety of landforms. These provide diverse habitats for plant and animal life. As in other coastal regions, the interaction between marine and terrestrial ecosystems provides some unique adaptations amongst plants and animals, exemplified by the high level of endemism amongst certain groups of plants and animals. Two perennial rivers which also present the northern and southern boundary of the Namibian section of the Namib coastal region, and the ephemeral Kuiseb River in the central Namib support wetlands of international importance, while the islands along the southern section of the Namib coast are important breeding areas for seabirds. The Sperrgebiet global biodiversity hotspot supports remarkable plant diversity for an arid region, with many species endemic to small sections of the southern Namib coast, for example - around Lüderitz.

Five towns (from north to south - Henties Bay, Swakopmund, Walvis Bay, Lüderitz and Oranjemund) and few smaller settlements are scattered along this nearly 1000 km coastline. At present, four of these towns are established municipalities, while Oranjemund, a mining town inside the restricted Diamond Area, is scheduled to become a municipality in the future. Human impacts are mainly centred around these five development nodes. However, mining activities impact on the coastline on the southern- and northern-most stretches and recreational activities to the north of Swakopmund have impacted the central section of the coastline. Although the majority of the coastline falls into protected areas, adequate management of these protected areas is hampered by the lack of adequate legislation for some aspects (e.g. Environmental Management[2]) and insufficient implementation of existing legislation due to staff and budget shortages within the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, particularly within the Ministry’s regional divisions.

The NACOMA Project will support activities in biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource use throughout the Project’s lifetime and further in the future of this ecosystem. While three components of the Project are clearly defined, the site-specific nature of Component 3 (“targeted investments for biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and mainstreaming in critical ecosystems”) implies that only the main categories for eligible support could have been identified at preparation stage. Details of these investments will be identified and included in NACOMA’s annual work plans during Project implementation - in line with management plans, Regional Development Plans and other existing local, regional and national frameworks.

To ensure that activities will not have any negative environmental impacts, a transparent process that includes a decision-support tree (see Figure 1 below), has been developed by the consultant in consultation with Namibia’s authority responsible for environmental assessments (Directorate of Environmental Affairs - DEA - at the Ministry of Environment and Tourism), through which proposed activities should be screened for their environmental safety before implementation. The proposed process has been discussed with DEA and is considered a workable solution. The Namibian Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process includes a list of activities that would trigger an environmental assessment. This possibly includes some of the activities envisaged under the NACOMA Project, for example, government policies, programmes or projects dealing with the use of natural resources (see more on the Namibia EIA process in Annex 1).

The main eligibility criterion for on-the-ground activities is whether or not these serve the development and global objectives of the Project, following by whether they will have any negative impacts on natural habitats. If so, the locality and context of the activity becomes important and activities affecting areas or species of conservation importance (e.g. protected areas or species, endemic species, habitats with special ecological function) are treated differently from those affecting natural habitats or species without a special function or status. In a next step, a decision is required whether potential negative impacts are far-reaching (e.g. affecting groundwater) or localised.

The NACOMA PMU will undertake the EIA screening of activities in consultation with the SC and a regional representative of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism of the region where the activity should take place after WP submission. Should the screening result in the requirement of an EIA, these will be undertaken by hired consultants either based on the Namibia EA Policy (for activities that trigger the Namibia EA Policy) or based on the EMP guidelines for EIA (for activities that do not trigger the Namibia EA Policy) followed by their submission to the Ministry of Environment and Tourism for an Environmental Clearance, following Namibia’s EA policy (see section IV for more information on EMP implementers).

This EMP provides ‘good practice’ guidelines, each serves as a short “manual” to be used ‘in the field’ for the categories habitat restoration, indigenous plant nurseries, eco-tourism services and eco-tourism infrastructure in areas without a special biodiversity status (see Annex 2). Once additional activities are identified, additional “manuals” should be created by hired consultants and used by the activities’ executing entities/persons.

Figure 1. Decision-Support Tree for NACOMA Activities under Component 3

[pic]

Identified on-the-ground activities

Potentially eligible[3] activities (‘positive’ list)

The activities and types of activities, which may be eligible for funding and included in the management and development plans, as identified during the preparation of the NACOMA Project, are divided into two categories, i.e. activities related to (a) biodiversity conservation; and (b) rehabilitation and sustainable use of prioritized ecosystems. These include (in alphabetic order):

(a) Biodiversity conservation and rehabilitation

▪ Conservation planning

➢ Identification of additional coastal biodiversity hotspots through support, for example, for aerial surveys and spatial planning[4];

➢ Identification of priority conservation and protection measures throughout the coastal region

➢ Support to priority targeted research activities (e.g. study of lesser known taxa, surveys of key habitats, indigenous knowledge, fungal pathogens on Welwitschia) in order to guide management planning and monitoring

▪ Conservation management and monitoring

➢ Creation of conservation sites (e.g. Walvis Bay Nature Reserve, Marine Protected Areas)

➢ Monitoring of hotspots based on initial baseline assessment and follow-up monitoring and enforcement (patrols, control measures)

➢ Provision of adequate equipment for local staff (office and monitoring)

▪ Habitat restoration

➢ Vegetation cover restoration using indigenous plants

➢ Soil erosion control in biodiversity priority areas

➢ Pilot demonstration of biodiversity friendly restoration of land after mining and exploration

▪ Protection of water resources

➢ Identification of key coastal waters, their resources, uses and conservation needs

➢ Development of coastal waters plan (feeding into land-use planning process)

(b) Sustainable use of prioritized ecosystems

▪ Support to pilot environmentally friendly aquaculture and mariculture practices and technology

▪ Support to pilot environmentally friendly livestock management

▪ Plant nurseries

➢ Habitat restoration

➢ Medicinal plants

▪ Support to other environmentally friendly natural product processing (e.g.,!nara plant, fish, guano, shell)

▪ Eco-tourism

➢ Small-scale infrastructure (camp sites and associated small scale facilities, e.g., desert paths, view sites, sign posts)

➢ Services (training for tourism guides, training for impact assessment, information sheets, brochures, development of new biodiversity friendly eco-tourism products, in partnership with the communities and the private sector).

Ineligible activities (‘negative list’)

Following the August workshop, it was suggested that certain types of activities would not be eligible for funding as they do not contribute to the Project’s objective and/or carry considerable adverse environmental and social impact. These include:

• Activities where resettlement policy would apply

• Social infrastructure

• Income generating activities that are not related to ecosystem services or resources

• Agricultural activities that would result in a net loss of forests

• Agricultural expansion

• Large scale agricultural activities

• Commercial logging

• Forestry production activities, especially conversion of hill forest land to other land use

• Large Scale Drainage and irrigation

• Construction of dams and reservoirs

• Artificial enlargement of lakes with surface areas of 20 ha or more

• Drainage of wetland wildlife habitat or of virgin forest covering an area of 5ha or more

• Irrigation schemes covering an area of 50ha or more per community

• Activities that would negatively impact cultural property

• Acquisition of land (whether individually or communally owned)

• Housing development

• Large-scale industrial plants and industrial estates, including major expansion, rehabilitation or modification

• New land development

• River basin development (i.e., large scale development and construction, including riparian areas that would impact downstream systems)

• Manufacture, transportation and use of pesticides or other hazardous and/or toxic materials

• New construction or major upgrading of roads or highways

• Construction of ports

• Mining and quarries

• Firewood production or briquette manufacture

• Construction of railways

• Power generation and transmission

• Construction or rehabilitation of places of worship

• Waste treatment and disposal of hazardous materials

• Construction of incineration plant

• Construction of recovery plant (off-site)

• Construction of wastewater treatment plant (off-site)

• Construction of secure landfill facility

• Animal farming (i.e., animals that would negatively impact on biodiversity goals)

• Petrol stations or mechanical shops

Required skills for EMP implementation

Although Namibia's environmental assessment policy is followed by most large development projects, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism lacks manpower and expertise to ensure that Environmental Management Plans of Namibia EAs’ for such projects are implemented. This often remains the responsibility of the developer and no independent monitoring of EMP implementation takes place. Hence, the implementation of the EMP within the NACOMA Project should be a focal point and adequate capacity is required to ensure that this can be achieved.

Table 1 below lists all skills and experience required to implement the NACOMA EMP. As the would-be incumbents of the position of Project coordinator and Environmental Advisors should certainly have some of these skills, the training needs would need to be adjusted according to the qualifications and experience of the incumbent(s).

Table 1: EMP Implementers Leaders and their Required Skills

|Task |Leader |Needed Skills | |

|Management and |PMU |Field-based knowledge of environmental sensitive areas and key species of | |

|supervision of EMP | |conservation concern in the Project area | |

| | |Knowledge of available environmental planning information | |

| | |Knowledge of environmental management monitoring and –reporting | |

| | |Reporting skills | |

| | |Presentation skills | |

|Environmental Impact |Consultant(s) |Field-based knowledge of environmental sensitive areas and key species of | |

|Assessments of Project | |conservation concern in the Project area | |

|activities | |Practical knowledge of environmental and biodiversity conservation | |

| | |legislation and its implementation | |

| | |Knowledge of Namibian environmental impact assessment process and practical | |

| | |implementation | |

| | |Environmental management monitoring and reporting | |

| | |Reporting skills | |

| | |Presentation skills | |

| | |Time management skills | |

|Implementation of |Implementer of |Field-based knowledge of environmental sensitive habitats and key species of | |

|guidelines |activity |conservation concern in their specific Project area | |

| |(e.g., RC, LA, private|Environmental management monitoring and reporting | |

| |sector, communities, |Environmental code of conduct in protected areas and biodiversity priority | |

| |CBOs, NGOs) |areas (e.g. track and camp discipline, waste management) | |

The EIA process requires public participation, which should be handled through a public meeting for every activity undergoing EA. During these meetings, the proposed activity will be presented to interested public for comments. The developed Project’s Participation Plan may be used for that purpose.

Budget for EMP implementation

The budget for implementing the NACOMA EMP is based on preparation costs of 10 EAs at NAD 105,000 per EA = NAD 1,050,000 = USD 175,000 (at a rate of 6 NAD/USD).[5]

In providing a budget for the EMP-related activities, the following assumptions are made:

▪ Experienced incumbents will undertake environmental assessment.

▪ The monitoring of implementation of environmental guidelines will be undertaken on a 6-monthly basis (together with Project supervision) by the PMU, requiring one trip through the relevant coastal regions.

▪ Costs for the management of the EMP by the PMU, including site inspections and application of the decision tree, are included in Component 4’s budget.

References

Ministry of Environment and Tourism (1995). Namibia’s Environmental Assessment Policy. Government of the Republic of Namibia, Windhoek.

Ministry of Environment and Tourism (in prep). Capacity needs assessment for implementing the biodiversity strategy. Environmental Planning Consultants, Windhoek.

NACOMA (2004). Rapid Assessment of the development plans, biodiversity conservation projects and socio-economic situation of the Namib coastal region. Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management (NACOMA) Project, preparation phase. EcoAfrica, Draft October 2004.

NACOMA (2004). Analysis of the institutional capacity in the Namib Coast Regional Councils in relation to the Namibian decentralisation process. Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management (NACOMA) Project, preparation phase. EcoAfrica, Draft October 2004.

Glasewski, J. & Kauvee I. (2004). Review of policy and legislation pertaining to coastal zone management. Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management (NACOMA) Project, preparation phase. Draft October 2004.

NACOMA (2004). NACOMA project preparation workshop, Swakopmund 11-13 August 2004, Workshop proceedings.

NACOMA (2004). Typology of NACOMA activities under Component 2: Targeted activities in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of prioritized ecosystems.

The World Bank (1999). Operational Manual OP 4.01. Environmental Assessment, Annex A-C.

The World Bank (1999). Environmental assessment sourcebook update. Number 25 Environmental Management Plans. Environment Department, The World Bank, Washington.

The World Bank (2004). Revised Operational Manual BP 4.01. Environmental Assessment.

The World Bank (2004). Environmental and Social Management Framework for World Bank Projects with Multiple Small-Scale Subprojects. ESMF toolkit template Part B.

The World Bank (2004). Environmental and Social Management Framework for World Bank Projects with Multiple Small-Scale Subprojects. ESMF toolkit template Part C 14, resources sheets.

The World Bank (undated). Environmental management plan for Gonarezhou National Park.

The World Bank (in prep.). Project appraisal document on a proposed grant from the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund.

Consultations

All people who were consulted with in person are listed below. Other, brief, consultations with different stakeholders were also undertaken via telephone, but others could not be reached during the short time frame.

|Mr !Gonteb |Development Planner, Erongo Regional Council |

|Mrs C. Guriras |Economic Planner, Erongo Regional Council |

|Ms. A. Iita |Coastal Zone Scientist, Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources |

|Mr. K. Kakujaha |Environmental Officer, Municipality of Walvis Bay |

|Mr. Lorenz |Chief Health Officer, Municipality of Swakopmund |

|Mr. Maketo |Chief Warden, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, central coastal region |

|Mr. T. Nghitila |Director, Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism |

|Dr G. Schneider |Director, Geological Survey, Ministry of Mines and Energy |

|Mr D. Uushona |Chief Manager Solid Waste and Environmental Management, Municipality of Walvis Bay |

Disclosure policy

The draft and final EMP was distributed to all stakeholders who were personally consulted during the compilation of the document (see people listed above). In addition, MET regional staff and representatives of the Regional Councils of the Hardap, Karas and Kunene region also received a copy of the document. All these stakeholders were invited to provide comments to the draft document.

The final EMP will be cleared by MET and will be disclosed on its DEA webpage and in the Bank InfoShop (World Bank' s public information center) before the Project’s appraisal.

Annex 1. The Namibian EIA process and its application

Environmental assessments in Namibia are guided by the Environmental Assessment Policy of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (1995). In this policy the environmental assessment process is described in general terms, which has been supplemented subsequently by more specific guidelines for particular sectors (e.g., mining and water infrastructure). However, in practise each activity will require the definition of scope and terms of reference for the particular environmental assessment. The decision-making authority is the Ministry of Environment and Tourism through its Directorate of Environmental Affairs (DEA). The DEA is involved in the setting of the scope of the study and its resulting Terms of Reference, and is tasked to issue an “Environmental Clearance”, if satisfied with the standard of the environmental assessment. This policy is planned to be enacted in the Environmental Management Bill.[6] The technical process will likely not change, but institutional arrangements are still under discussion.

Namibia’s Environmental Assessment Policy includes a list of projects, which is used to determine whether or not a proposed activity requires an environmental assessment. Within the context of the NACOMA Project, some activities may be applicable to the Project, and would thus require an environmental assessment[7] under the DEA.

In theory, the Environmental Assessment (EA) process in Namibia is hence triggered by some of the potential targeted investments in biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource use. Namibia’s EA process focuses on avoidance and mitigation of negative environmental impacts. Typically, EAs are undertaken for major infrastructure projects and mining. Although the policy specifies that land use planning and similar activities also require an EA, environmental aspects are usually integrated in these types of projects, rather than handled in a separate EA.

For the purpose of the NACOMA Project, however, all activities will be screened for adverse environmental impact, including those that may not trigger an EA following the Namibian EIA process, and a process will be implemented that ensures that all activities are reviewed and their implementation monitored for environmental soundness.

Figure 2 below describes the typical steps in the environmental assessment process in Namibia, which should be followed for those activities that trigger the Namibia EA Policy. A process for activities, which do not trigger the Namibia EA Policy, is proposed in Annex 2.

Figure 2: Typical Steps in the Environmental Assessment Process in Namibia

|Input | Steps | |Input |

| | | | |

| |Project proposal | | |

| | | | |

| | | |Directorate of Environmental |

| |Scoping and setting of ToR | |Affairs |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Public |Consult Interested and Affected Parties | | |

| | | | |

| |Identify alternatives, baseline | | |

|Proponent |situation, impacts and mitigation options| | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| |Environmental Assessment Report | | |

| | | | |

| |Environmental Management Plan and | |Conditions of approval |

| |Environmental Contract | | |

| | | | |

| | | |Directorate of Environmental |

| |Environmental Clearance | |Affairs |

Annex 2. Environmental management and good practice guidelines

This section describes the process, roles and responsibilities for environmental management to be taken for each activity/group of activities in the framework of the EMP. The ‘measures’ row indicates whether the group of activities can be implemented, requires more detail, or requires a formal environmental assessment. Activities under Component 3 that will need to be mitigated by the implementation of environmental good practice guidelines are later described

Eenvironmental management guidelines for potentially eligible activities

|Activity |Conservation planning |

|Description |Many activities related to conservation planning were identified during Project planning. These |

| |include: |

| |Identification of additional coastal biodiversity hotspots through support, for example for aerial |

| |surveys and spatial planning for appropriate and coastal biodiversity hotspot zoning based on |

| |IUCN-defined categories |

| |Identification of priority conservation and protection measures throughout the coastal region |

| |(spawning areas, Namib desert dunes, Omdel Reserve) |

| |Support to priority targeted research activities (e.g. study of lesser known taxa, surveys of key |

| |habitats, indigenous knowledge, fungal pathogens on Welwitschia) in order to guide management |

| |planning and monitoring |

| |Most of these activities, except for research, are office-based and would be undertaken in existing|

| |facilities. At most, they would require the purchase of computers and software. Research activities|

| |would require a research permit from the Ministry of Environment and Tourism. This process |

| |guarantees that any adverse impacts on natural habitats and biota are avoided (e.g. research |

| |activities which require sampling of animals and plants or habitat variables (e.g. soil, water) are|

| |scrutinized and depending on the protection status of the species or habitats under study, |

| |destructive sampling techniques will not be allowed or limited). Any activities related to zoning |

| |of conservation areas and other priority habitats will, however, need to be undertaken in |

| |consultation with all relevant stakeholders (e.g. MET, MFMR, MME). This participatory process will |

| |facilitate that environmental concerns are taken into account. |

|Decision process |No impacts on natural habitats |

|Responsibility |EMP management and supervision: PMU |

|Measures |Research: Implementation following MET permit procedure |

| |Zoning activities: Implementation of activity in consultation with relevant stakeholders |

|Activity |Conservation management and monitoring |

|Description |Creation of conservation sites (e.g. Walvis Bay Nature Reserve, Marine Protected Areas) |

| |Monitoring of hotspots based on initial baseline assessment and follow-up monitoring and |

| |enforcement (patrols, control measures) |

| |Provision of adequate equipment for local staff (office and monitoring) |

| |The protection and management of biodiversity hotspots is designed to improve the status of |

| |biodiversity priority areas and species and no impacts are therefore foreseen. |

|Decision process |No negative impact on natural habitats. |

|Measures |Implement activities in consultation with people affected by these activities and all relevant line|

| |ministries. |

|Activity |Habitat restoration |

|Description |Activities listed with regard to restoration are the following: |

| |Vegetation cover restoration using indigenous plants |

| |Soil erosion control in biodiversity priority areas |

| |Pilot demonstration of biodiversity friendly restoration of land after mining and exploration |

| |Although these are designed to improve disturbed habitats, the methods employed and the position of|

| |the habitat to be restored in relation to other natural habitats, need to be known to ensure that |

| |no negative effects ensue. For example impacts on indigenous plant populations, where plants are |

| |needed for re-vegetating areas. |

|Decision process |Potential impact on natural habitats -> guidelines to ensure no impacts on protected areas, |

| |protected and/or endemic species or habitats with special ecological function |

|Responsibility |EMP management and supervision: PMU; implementation of guidelines for activity: implementing |

| |agency |

|Measures |Follow good practice guidelines for obtaining plant material, access and movement of machinery |

|Activity |Protection of water resources |

|Description |Activities include: |

| |Identification of key coastal waters, their resources, uses and conservation needs and |

| |Development of coastal water plan |

| |These are desk-based activities, which have no negative impacts on the ground. |

|Decision process |No negative impact on natural habitats. |

|Responsibility |EMP management and supervision: PMU |

|Measures |Implement activity. |

Sustainable use of prioritised ecosystems

|Activity |Support to environmentally friendly aquaculture and mariculture practices and technology |

|Description |Aquaculture has been identified as a possible activity. Although the focus will be on planning and |

| |developing more biodiversity-friendly methods, impacts on the environment related to the farming of|

| |freshwater or marine organisms could be manifold. These relate to the effect on natural |

| |environments (terrestrial or marine), e.g. pollution related to processing, and depending on the |

| |locality, potential genetic pollution of indigenous populations. |

|Decision process |Potential impact on natural habitats -> potential impact on biodiversity priority areas -> or if |

| |not, impact potentially far-reaching (e.g. introduction of exotic species, water pollution, etc.) |

|Responsibility |EMP management and supervision: PMU; Environmental Assessment: Consultant/s; EMP implementation: |

| |implementing agency |

|Measures |Formal Environmental Assessment based on Namibia EA |

|Activity |Support to pilot environmentally friendly livestock management |

|Description |This has been identified as a possible activity and would focus on the planning and development of |

| |more biodiversity-friendly interventions. This activity is hence designed to reverse the negative, |

| |far-reaching impacts of livestock farming. However, no information on type- or locality of |

| |intervention is available at present. |

|Decision process |Potential impact on natural habitats (e.g. by moving livestock farming into hitherto not farmed |

| |areas) -> further impacts unknown |

|Responsibility |EMP management and supervision: PMU |

|Measures |More information on activity (locality, type of intervention) and revisit decision-support tree |

|Activity |Plant nurseries |

|Description |Indigenous plant nurseries could be developed to generate plant stocks for habitat restoration or |

| |medicinal plants, which are presently exploited in the wild. This activity will require the |

| |establishment of facilities as well as indigenous plant stocks. There will likely be impacts on |

| |soil, plant and animal life related to the clearing and construction of appropriate facilities. |

| |Material will need to be obtained from natural populations of plants. The ‘harvesting’ of plants |

| |and seeds will need to be controlled to avoid negative long-term impacts on natural populations. |

| |Protected plant species require permits. Negative impacts will depend on the locality and the |

| |source material. Control procedures can be implemented to avoid these negative impacts. |

|Decision process |Potential impact on natural habitats -> guidelines to ensure no impacts on protected areas, |

| |protected and/or endemic species or habitats with special ecological function |

|Responsibility |EMP management and supervision: PMU; implementation of environmental guidelines for activity: |

| |implementing agency |

|Measures |Follow good practice guidelines: avoid construction impacts and ensure obtaining plant material has|

| |no impacts on natural plant populations |

|Activity |Support to other environmentally friendly natural product processing |

|Description |The processing of !nara plants, fish, guano and shells were suggested as activities. The type of |

| |processing, the source of the natural resource, as well as the locality where facilities would be |

| |build, will determine the magnitude of the impact on natural habitats and species. |

|Decision process |Potential impact on natural habitats -> further impacts unknown |

|Responsibility |EMP management and supervision: PMU |

|Measures |More information on activity (locality, sources of natural resource) and revisit decision-support |

| |tree |

|Activity |Eco-tourism small-scale infrastructure |

|Description |Options for small-scale eco-tourism infrastructure are: |

| |Support to small-scale infrastructure (camp sites and associated small scale facilities, e.g. sign |

| |posts, view sites, desert paths) |

| |Eco-tourism developments are most likely to take place in or in the vicinity of biodiversity |

| |priority areas. The question whether or not small-scale eco-tourism infrastructure can be allowed |

| |at the selected location, will depend on the nature of the site (i.e. whether this is a sensitive |

| |habitat, e.g. breeding area for birds, population of range-restricted plants, etc.). There may also|

| |be very local environmental impacts related to construction activities, the sourcing of materials, |

| |resource use and disposal of effluents and waste which need to be addressed. |

|Decision process |Potential impact on natural habitats -> potential impact on biodiversity priority areas -> or if |

| |not, follow environmental guidelines |

|Responsibility |EMP management and supervision: PMU; Environmental Assessment: Consultant/s |

|Measures |Formal Environmental Assessment based on Namibia EA or follow good practice guidelines if not in a |

| |natural habitat with a special status |

|Activity |Eco-tourism services |

|Description |The following eco-tourism services were listed: |

| |Training for tourism guides |

| |Development of new biodiversity friendly eco-tourism products in partnership with the communities |

| |and private sector |

| |Information sheets and brochures |

| |Targeted eco-tourism services may be supported to pilot biodiversity-friendly approaches, build |

| |capacity and help with the development of new products and business planning. These services will |

| |likely take place in biodiversity priority areas with differential type of access. Outside |

| |protected areas, these activities could also have impacts on biodiversity important habitats and |

| |species. Particularly motorized tours and sports as well as crafts based on natural resources could|

| |have localized impacts. |

|Decision process |Potential negative impact on natural habitats -> potential impact on protected areas or natural |

| |areas without special status |

|Responsibility |EMP management and supervision: PMU; Environmental Assessments: Consultant/s; implementation of |

| |guidelines for activity: implementing agency |

|Next step |Formal Environmental Assessment for protected areas, for natural habitats without special status |

| |follow good practice guidelines |

Good practice guidelines

Good practice guidelines are presented under activity headings in alphabetical order:

|Small-scale eco-tourism infrastructure |

|Anticipated effect |Mitigation measures |Monitoring |Responsibility |Schedule |

|Clearing could destroy animals|Avoid environmentally sensitive habitats for position of |Inspect site prior and during|Implementing agency or |3-monthly during construction |

|and plants |infrastructure |construction: |individual | |

| |Minimise area to be cleared for construction of facilities |littering | | |

| |Clearly demarcate construction areas, including access and restrict |sewage | | |

| |movement of people and machinery to these demarcated areas |cleared areas | | |

| |Implement appropriate waste and sewage disposal strategy for | | | |

| |construction team | | | |

|Water use |Minimise water use |Water use |Implementing agency or |6-monthly throughout duration of Project |

| | | |individual | |

|Human waste could result in |Ensure adequate toilet facilities are available and maintained |Pollution |Implementing agency or |6-monthly throughout duration of Project |

|pollution |regularly |Littering |individual | |

| |Develop waste disposal procedure in line with regulations appropriate| | | |

| |to the site | | | |

|Eco-tourism services |

|Anticipated effect |Mitigation measures |Monitoring |Responsibility |Schedule |

|Certain tourism activities, |In protected areas and habitats with special ecological status: |Document area before |Implementing agency or |6-monthly throughout duration of Project |

|particularly motorised tours |Undertake EIA |establishment of activity |individual | |

|and sports could negatively | |Check status of roads and | | |

|affect natural habitats and |In natural habitats without a special status: |tracks | | |

|biota by crushing plants and |Restrict all motorised traffic to existing tracks and roads |Check for littering | | |

|animals, creation of tracks |Maintain all roads and tracks in good condition to avoid vehicles | | | |

|and littering |creating multiple tracks next to the road | | | |

| |Allocate areas for off-road bicycling, hiking, horse-riding and | | | |

| |similar non-motorised activities in collaboration with Ministry of | | | |

| |Environment and Tourism representative | | | |

| |Implement pollution prevention and waste management procedures | | | |

|Crafts based on natural |Crafts from natural products: |Check status of natural |Implementing agency or |6-monthly throughout duration of Project |

|resources could deplete the |Determine source and quantity of material in consultation with |material |individual | |

|natural resource and have |Ministry of Environment and Tourism official |Check status of site where | | |

|negative impacts by creating |Avoid impacting on natural habitats |material is sourced | | |

|vehicle tracks during |If impacts on natural habitats cannot be avoided (e.g. clay), |(littering, disturbance of | | |

|transport |rehabilitate the site |habitats) | | |

| |Avoid littering. | | | |

| |If necessary, develop waste disposal strategy in consultation with | | | |

| |MET | | | |

|Habitat restoration |

|Anticipated effect |Mitigation measures |Monitoring |Responsibility |Schedule |

|Removal of indigenous plants |Sources of material to restore plant cover to be determined in |Obtain permit for plant |Implementing agency or |6-monthly throughout duration of Project |

|from undisturbed areas and |collaboration with relevant authorities (Ministry of Environment and |material (live plants as well|individual | |

|creation of tracks for access |Tourism and National Botanical Research Institute) |as seeds) | | |

| |Obtain plant material manually and access source populations on foot.| | | |

| |To access population, drive only on established tracks. | | | |

|Movement of machinery |As far as possible, restrict movement of machinery to disturbed areas|Document site to be restored |Implementing agency or |Site inspection before and after implementation |

|impacting on undisturbed areas|and established tracks and roads. |before and after |individual | |

| |Where this is not feasible (e.g. turning area required), designate | | | |

| |one area and only use this and also rehabilitate at the very end. | | | |

|Plant nurseries |

|Anticipated effect |Mitigation measures |Monitoring |Responsibility |Schedule |

|Clearing could destroy animals|Avoid environmentally sensitive habitats for position of nursery |Inspect site prior and during|Implementing agency or |3-monthly during construction |

|and plants |Minimise area to be cleared for construction of facilities |construction: |individual | |

| |Clearly demarcate construction areas, including access and restrict |littering | | |

| |movement of people and machinery to these demarcated areas |sewage | | |

| |Implement appropriate waste and sewage disposal strategy for |cleared areas | | |

| |construction team | | | |

|Water use for irrigation |Minimise water use |Water use |Implementing agency or |6-monthly throughout duration of Project |

| |Investigate the use of partially treated effluent water (“grey | |individual | |

| |water”), if in vicinity of effluent treatment facilities | | | |

|Material from natural |Sources of material to be determined in collaboration with relevant |Obtain permit for plant |Implementing agency or |6-monthly throughout duration of Project |

|populations of plants could |authorities (Ministry of Environment and Tourism and National |material (live plants as well|individual | |

|deplete these populations |Botanical Research Institute) |as seeds) | | |

Annex 3. Template for EIA management

|Activity |(Heading for activity) |

|Description |(Describe the activity by outlining: |

| |Nature of activity |

| |Where does the activity take place |

| |What are the natural habitats in the surrounding |

| |What are the biota in the surrounding |

| |Would these of the habitat be affected by the proposed activity?) |

|Decision process |(Use decision-support tree to determine which measures are required) |

|Responsibility |(Name who will responsible for review and supervision of Project activity, and where appropriate |

| |for implementing environmental guidelines) |

|Measures |(Outcome according to decision-support tree) |

-----------------------

[1] ‘Eligible’ here refers to conformity with NACOMA objectives and WB safeguard policies.

[2] Environmental Management legislation has been in the process of development for nearly 10 years, but has not yet been promulgated.

[3] ‘Eligible’ here refers to conformity with NACOMA objectives and WB safeguard policies.

[4] In line with IUCN-defined categories for zoning activities and spatial planning.

[5] The budget estimation is required for the overall Project budget planning.

[6] See Footnote 2.

[7] The full list includes all types of infrastructure projects, reclamation of land, human settlements and more, which may be applicable to NACOMA.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download