Comments removed Nov 3 - World Bank
[pic]
Government of the Republic of Sierra Leone
Ministry of Energy and Water Resources (MoEWR)
Bumbuna Hydroelectric Environmental and Social Management Project
(IDA Grant H150-SL)
Environment and Social Management Plan (ESMP)
[Update of 2005 Environment Management Plan (EMP)/
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)]
[pic] [pic]
Bumbuna Dam 2004 Bumbuna Dam 2009
April 2010
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
II. Bumbuna Watershed -- Environmental Management
III. Loma Mountains National Park
IV. Dam and Reservoir Resettlement Action Plan
V. Transmission Line Resettlement Action Plan
VI. Community Development Growth Poles
VII. Safety Measures Downstream From the Reservoir
VIII. Bumbuna Trust
IX. Implementation Arrangements and Resources
Annex 1. Environment Management Plan (EMP) 2005 – Matrix of Environmental and Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Nippon Koei-UK) Final Report, July 2007
Annex 2. Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project, Environmental Impact Assessment, Environment Management Plan Proposed Activities and Resources Nippon Koei UK, January 2005
Annex 3. Letter Establishing the Loma Mountains National Park
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AfDB African Development Bank
BCA Bumbuna Conservation Area
BHP Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project
BPIU Bumbuna Project Implementation Unit
BTC Bumbuna Trust Company
BTD Bumbuna Trust Deed
BWMA Bumbuna Watershed Management Authority
BW-MCSAP Bumbuna Watershed Management and Conservation Strategy and Action Plan
DFID Department for International Development (UK)
DHMT District Health Management Team
DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon
DSRP Dam Safety Review Panel
EA Environmental Assessment
EAU Emergency Action Unit
EFA Environmental Foundation for Africa
EHS Environment, Health and Safety
EHSO Environment, Health and Safety Officer
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMP Environmental Management Plan
EPA Environmental Protection Act
EPD Department of the Environment
EPI Expanded Programme on Immunisation
EPP Emergency Preparedness Plan
ESAP Environmental and Social Advisory Panel
ESCG Environmental and Scientific Consulting Group, Freetown
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the United Nations)
FSL Full Supply Level
GEF Global Environment Facility
GIS Geographic Information System
GOI Government of Italy
GOSL Government of Sierra Leone
GWh Giga-watts per hour
ha Hectare
HEP Hydro-Electric Power
HH Household
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
HQ Headquarters
IDA International Development Association
IEC Information, Education and Communication
IFC International Finance Corporation
IRBM Integrated River Basin Management
ISWL Insulated Shield Wire Line
IUCN World Conservation Union
IWES Institute of Women and Ethnic Studies
IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management
JSDF Japan Social Development Fund
km Kilometre
kV Kilovolt
LAIR Livelihood Assessment and Income Restoration
LAWCLA Lawyers Centre for Legal Assistance
LMNP Loma Mountains National Park
LSA Late Stone Age
MoAFS Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Forestry
MCH Aid Maternal and Child Health Aid
MCH FP Provision of Mother and Child Health Services (Family Planning)
MCHP Maternal and Child Health Post
MoEWR Ministry of Energy and Water Resources
mg Milligramme
Mm3 Million Cubic Metres
mm millimetre
MoHS Ministry of Health and Sanitation
MPT Multi-Purpose Tree
MVA Megavoltampere
MW Megawatt
NaCSA National Commission for Social Action
NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
NCC National Compensation Commission
NEP National Environmental Policy
NEPB National Environmental Protection Board
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
NKUK Nippon Koei UK Co. Ltd.
NPA National Power Authority
OP Operational Policy (World Bank)
OCP Onchocerciasis Control Programme
ORT Oral Dehydration Therapy
PAPs Project Affected Persons
PCDP Public Consultation and Disclosure Plan
PDO Project Development Objective
PF Process Framework
PHU Peripheral Health Unit
PIU Project Implementation Unit
PMU Project Management Unit
PMF Probable Maximum Flood
ppm Parts per million
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
PRG Partial Risk Guarantee (World Bank)
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
QAG Quality Assurance Group (World Bank)
RAG Resettlement Advisory Group
RAP Resettlement Action Plan
ROW Right of Way
RPF Resettlement Policy Framework
RFC Resettlement Field Coordinators
RFA Resettlement Field Agents
ROW Right of Way
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SHARP Sierra Leone HIV/AIDS Response Project
SIV Species Importance Value
SRDA Seli River Development Authority
STD Sexually Transmitted Disease
STI Sexually Transmitted Infection
TBA Traditional Birth Attendant
T-Line Transmission line
ToR Terms of Reference
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees
VRC Village Resettlement Committees
WCB Wildlife Conservation Branch
WHO World Health Organisation
INTRODUCTION
The Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project (BHP) was commissioned in November, 2009 as the first stage of hydropower development in the Seli River in Sierra Leone. As the first major hydropower facility, it constitutes the main reliable option for reducing dependence on fuel imports. It contributes to Sierra Leone’s poverty reduction strategy and economic growth in four ways. First, with the BHP, management and operations of electricity in the western interconnected system will significantly improve, especially in the industrial zones where the suppressed energy demand has been estimated at a base cost of unserved energy of 46 US¢/kWh, due to use of expensive and inefficient small diesel generators.
Second, delivery of critical Bumbuna power, which has been significantly delayed by conflict, is envisioned to transform dramatically the structural cost of electricity supplies in the country. Sierra Leone is one of the countries in the world with the highest costs of electricity generation and delivery.
Third, with extremely low coverage, at less than 4% of the population with access to electricity, the BHP aims to make electricity more affordable in the long run, both through sustainable introduction of hydropower and through application of a sound energy policy framework. The ESMP recommends some options for expansion of electricity to surrounding communities in Bumbuna and the Seli River area through low cost grid and off-grid systems.
Fourth, the BHP will contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by sustainably replacing high cost diesel generating electricity with hydropower. The BHP is also designed to conserve biodiversity and natural habitats in the upper catchment of Bumbuna. Additionally, the community development programs will promote conservation agriculture, swampland development, and encourage sustainable fisheries.
Project Location
The BHP is located about 200 km northeast of the capital city, Freetown. It is a 50 MW run-of-river hydroelectric system with an 88 m high, asphalt concrete faced rockfill structure, with a crest length of 440 m, and a volume of 2.5 million cu m of granitic rockfill. The reservoir has a surface area of 25 sq km at maximum operating level and a volume of 420 million cu m. It is Y-shaped with a 30 km long main branch and two secondary upstream branches of 7 km and 11 km. Two 9.0 m diameter, concrete and steel lined multipurpose tunnels were constructed through both the left and right dam abutments. Table 1.1 summarizes the main technical characteristics.
Table 1.1: Characteristics of the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Dam, Reservoir, and Facilities
|Dam height |88 m |
|Dam crest length and width |440 m; 4 m |
|Dam volume |2.5 million cu m |
|Catchment area (above dam) |4,000 sq km |
|Normal operating water level |240 m.a.s.l. |
|Reservoir volume |420 million cu m |
|Length and diameter of two tunnels |620 m; 9 m |
|Total diversion capacity |1,200 cu m |
|Total spillway capacity (design flood) |3,000 cu m/sec |
|Intake tower height |93 m |
|Powerhouse length x width x height |41 x 17 x 24 m |
|Head |80 – 47 m |
|High voltage transmission line (type and length) |161 kV single circuit; 200 km |
|Galvanized steel towers (number) |557 |
|Total average energy |315 GWh/y |
|Firm energy |153 GWh/y |
Source: Ministry of Energy and Water Resources and Salini Costruttori, Bumbuna Falls Hydroelectric Project, Phase 1 (50 MW), November 2009
The BHP layout consists of an asphalt concrete faced rockfill dam with a semi-outdoor power station located on the right bank downstream of the dam toe. The powerhouse has two Francis turbine units with a total installed capacity of 50 MW and an average annual energy production of 315 GWh. The right bank includes a diversion tunnel combined with an intake tower structure; a vertical shaft spillway; a gate-controlled outlet structure; and off-takes for the turbine discharge. The environment bypass is also located in the right bank. On the left bank are the diversion tunnel combined with a vertical non-gated shaft spillway and terminal flip bucket. The other ancillary facilities include access roads, river slope protection works, downstream flow measurement weir, and a permanent camp for staff and dam operators.
[pic]
BHP viewing platform and intake tower
[pic]
BHP powerhouse
Project History
The BHP has a very long history. Since the time it was first conceived in 1970-1971, it has undergone four phases. The first phase, in 1970-1985, was for feasibility and site preparation works. The second phase, from 1986 to 1997, dam construction was about 85% complete when abandoned due to the civil war, which ended in 2002. In the third phase, post war construction and rehabilitation from 2002 to 2008 were focused on completion of the dam, powerhouse, and ancillary facilities. Rehabilitation of the 200 km long high voltage (161 kV) transmission line (T-Line) was started in August 2008 and completed in March 2009. Finally, in the fourth phase, from 2009 to the present, the impoundment and load testing were completed and the BHP was commissioned on November 6, 2009.
The 161 kV single circuit T-Line was constructed between Bumbuna and Freetown in 1994 to 1996. At that time, 540 towers were erected and 80 km of the line were in place. However, by the end of the civil war, more than 90 towers were damaged and close to 47% of the cables were missing, requiring massive repairs and costs to restring the line. Vegetation was cleared for access roads and towers, including through the Occra Hills Forest Reserve near Masiaka, which was a productive reserve designed to control erosion from steep slopes by planting exotic tree species. The T-Line path deliberately bypassed the Western Area Forest Reserve (see Figure 1 land satellite image).
[pic]
Figure 1: Land Satellite Showing Bumbuna Terrain and T-Line Network, 2006
The ESMP and the EMP follow the World Bank’s environment and social safeguards operational policies. The current project Environment Category A will not change in the second, post-commissioning phase. The same safeguards policies apply: Environment Assessment (OP4.01); Natural Habitats (OP4.04); Physical Cultural Resources (OP4.11); Involuntary Resettlement (OP4.12); Forests (OP4.36); and Safety of Dams (OP4.37). Since the proposed activities are extensions of existing programs, no new environment or social safeguards policies are triggered. This covers a comprehensive analysis of options; identification of Loma Mountains National Park (LMNP) as the environmental offset; update of the 2008 RAP for the dam and reservoir area, which was completed and rated satisfactory; and completion of the updated RAP for the T-Line. The independent advisory panels – DSRP and ESAP – will continue in Phase II. Since the start of the BHP, both panels have visited the project sites four times and have noted some implementation progress.
Environmental Impact Assessment. In October, 2005, the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) publicly disclosed the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in connection with the World Bank assisted Sierra Leone: Bumbuna Hydroelectric Environmental and Social Management Project (IDA Grant H150-SL, from hereon called the BHP Grant). Subsequently, in 2006, the EIA was updated with a section on an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). This EMP, together with the other plans for resettlement, public disclosure and participation, etc have been under implementation since the start of project activities in the Bumbuna area in January 2007.
This ESMP updates the EIA of 2005, including the issues which have been partially or fully addressed and provides the status of implementation of the mitigation measures. It covers the following areas: (i) identification of environmental and social management issues and mitigation measures; (ii) implementation arrangements; (iii) institutional capacities to implement the ESMP; and (iv) estimated resources for ESMP implementation.
Dam and Reservoir Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). The 2004/2005 RAP, completed by Electrowatt Ekono, was updated using a 2006/2007 shoreline survey. The update, 2008 RAP, identified directly affected villages, or those whose lands and other assets would be inundated after impoundment. Following guidelines in the World Bank (WB) operational policy on involuntary resettlement (OP4.12) and cultural property (OP4.11), the 2008 RAP process included: (i) a re-identification of project affected populations (PAPs), (ii) formulation of a new plan for resettling people and compensating them for losses incurred from flooding; and (iii) putting in place a process for carrying out income restoration and community development activities. The 2008 RAP involved jointly organized ground-truthing, site visits, and intensive consultations between the PIU and BCEOM/Techsult staff, who were the RAP update contractors. The consultations focused on the extent households and villages were affected by BHP’s operations, and on this basis, the approaches that would best address their immediate and longer-term needs.
Transmission Line RAP. The 2005 T-Line RAP was completed by Azimuth and Associates and disclosed in November 2005. The T-Line ROW was defined on the basis of a 7 m vertical clearance which allowed the RAP consultants to reduce the number of PAPs from 367 households to 129 as within a so-called “exclusion zone.” Some 60% of the PAPs are in the ROW of two urban centers – half in the 1.5 km between Hillcot Road and Kingtom sub-station and the other half in Makeni. This RAP was never enforced, and in the interim period, in-migration increased at a rapid rate. To update the RAP figures, a resurvey was started in June 2009, and is ongoing.
Safety Measures. In 2004, Salini Costruttori submitted a report Safety and Environment Management Plan contained planned dam monitoring, safety procedures, and on-site environment plans. This report was reviewed in the first visit of the DSRP. In (month?) 2008, Studio Pietrangeli completed a report on Dam Safety Procedures and First Impounding Plan. In August 2008, consultants from Norplan were hired to operationalize safety preparedness, including training sessions and dry runs. By October 2008, GoSL had organized the Emergency Action Unit (EAU) and set up a national coordinating committee composed of representatives from the National Security Office, police, military, health, and other stakeholders. Meetings with Paramount Chiefs, district officials, and local leaders were held to explain the importance of safety preparedness.
PROJECT COMPONENTS (2005)
In 2005, the World Bank Board of Executive Directors approved a project to complete the remaining civil works of the BHP. The works were to be funded by a partial risk guarantee (PRG) of up to US$38 million and a grant of $12.5 million focused on environment and social management tasks. In this context, as explained earlier, a separate EIA was prepared in 2005.
The 2005 Project has three components:
Component A – Hydroelectric and Transmission Infrastructure. This component focused on completion of hydro-electric and transmission infrastructure that had remained incomplete or were damaged since interruption of works in May 1997 as a result of armed conflict. With the availability of significant donor funding to complete the works, the partial risk guarantee (PRG) has become unnecessary. In addition, the parallel IDA-supported Power and Water Project (P087203) provided funding for the rehabilitation of the distribution network in the Western Area, Freetown, associated safeguard issues, and institutional aspects. Currently, all civil works have been completed and the BHP was commissioned in November 6, 2009.
Component B – Environmental Mitigation, Resettlement, Watershed Management and Benefit Sharing. This component has 4 distinct activities: (i) Bumbuna watershed management, (ii) Environmental Management, (iii) resettlement in the reservoir area, and (iv) resettlement along the transmission line. The environmental safeguards that have been implemented include the construction of the Environmental Bypass to maintain an environmental/social amenity flow downstream of a minimum of 6 cu m/sec at all times, partial clearing of biomass in the reservoir area (principally for safe navigation), approval for establishment of an environmental offset – the Loma Mountains National Park (LMNP).
Implementation of social safeguards in the dam and reservoir areas was satisfactory. All affected households received compensation; land for land exchange was completed; and food support for transition support was provided for two years. Supplementary agricultural and life skills training and socio-economic infrastructure, such as wells, boat building, health infrastructure and schools, are still ongoing.
Important biodiversity and socio-economic studies have been carried out in the Loma Mountains.
Not yet implemented are a comprehensive water quality monitoring program in the reservoir and downstream area of the dam; preventive actions to address water borne diseases, and the second animal rescue operation at the time the reservoir reaches its maximum level. A second animal rescue operation may be unnecessary, since monitoring has revealed that no animals were found trapped in trees or on islands.
No activity has begun in the first phase of activity for the Bumbuna Watershed Management Authority (BWMA) and the Bumbuna Trust Deed (BTD), which will be implemented with one year co-financing from the AfDB.
Component C – Technical Assistance. This component provided support to the Bumbuna Project Implementation Unit (BPIU), the ESAP and DSRP, and the communications action plan. Heavy reliance on foreign technical assistance, greatly increased the costs for this component while, overall, not providing the expected efficiency.
Government of Sierra Leone request
The Government of Sierra Leone requested that the uncommitted funds from the PRG (US$ 9.5 million) be used to complete activities under components B and C, as well as additional activities for dam safety emergency preparedness recommended by the DSRP under component A. The proposed changes will support attainment of Project objectives, contribute to strengthening the Recipient’s productivity and capacity and enhance fulfillment of environmental and social safeguards objectives. The proposed changes are as follows:
i. adjusting the outcome indicators of the ESMP and eliminating a number of indicators, which do not have sufficient baseline data;
ii. reformulating dam safety aspects in Component A into Component B and focus on dam safe operation and maintenance;
iii. completing environmental and social safeguard activities in Component B;
iv. reallocating funds, as appropriate; and
v. extending the closing date of the Grant to June 2012 to allow sufficient time to implement the project activities, in particular the environmental safeguard activities.
Development of Institutional Capacity for Implementation of the ESMP
The BPIU has separate units for environmental management and resettlement. At present, these units are managed by consultants financed through foreign-assisted grants. Recently, the MoEWR set up the Project Management Unit (PMU) to centralize the fiduciary functions and to encourage greater field-based management of projects. With establishment of the BWMA, it is envisioned that a more sustainable Environmental and Social Unit can be strengthened within the MoEWR.
The Resettlement Advisory Group (RAG), composed of government officials, Paramount Chiefs, village leaders, and representatives of Village Resettlement Committees, met three times to assess and approve the resettlement and compensation plans for the Dam and Reservoir RAP update and a separately organized RAG determined the compensation rates for the T-Line RAP in 2009.
Several safeguards awareness and training workshops were held, including a Biodiversity Workshop and a Social and Community Development Workshop in 2007.
BUMBUNA WATERSHED: ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
The Environment and Social Management Plan (ESMP) is an update of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) completed in January 2005 by Nippon Koei UK (NKUK) in association with BMT Cordah Limited and the Environmental Foundation for Africa (EFA-Sierra Leone). The ESMP makes use of information from an earlier 1996 EIA report, which included the EMP, submitted by Electrowatt Engineering Services Limited and Techsult Company Limited. The following completed reports are consolidated into this update:
• Public Health in the project area (NKUK, 2004)
• Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the dam and reservoir (Electrowatt-Ekono, 2005)
• RAP for the transmission line (Azimut, 2005)
• Bumbuna Retrospective Review/Options Assessment Study (Haas, 2005)
• Upper Seli Community Development Initiative Study (Vincent, 2005)
• Revised RAP for the dam and reservoir (BCEOM/Techsult, 2008)
• Revised RAP-Phase 1 for the transmission line (Laynaa Consultants, 2010)
2005 EIA- planned activity
The 2005 EIA provided a baseline description of the environment and natural resources in and around the dam and reservoir area. The studies covered: (i) water quality; (ii) vegetation; (iii) tree inventory; (iv) mammals and primates; (v) amphibians and reptiles; (vi) aquatic ecology; (vii) fish and fishery resources; (viii) birds, (ix) butterflies; and (x) human environment in the Kasunko, Diang, and Kalansogia Chiefdoms.
The 2005 EIA funding grant had one component for Environmental Mitigation, Resettlement, Watershed Management, and Benefit Sharing; and another for Technical Assistance. Environmental mitigation, watershed management, resettlement, technical assistance, and benefit sharing are all covered in the 2005 EIA and all were implemented by the MoEWR Bumbuna Project Implementation Unit, except benefit sharing. The benefit sharing programs planned to be funded through a Bumbuna Trust have not been implemented since a planned carbon offset did not materialize and no power revenues have been generated from Bumbuna. These programmes are not likely to be funded in the near future, so the plans for establishing a Seli River Basin Development Authority (SRBDA) and the Upper Seli Community Development Initiative (USCDI) were dropped.
This 2010 ESMP outlines a second, post-commissioning, phase of grant finance to implement seven activities:
• Bumbuna watershed management
• Loma Mountains National Park
• Implementation of the Bumbuna Dam and Reservoir Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)
• Revision and implementation of the T-Line RAP
• Community development growth poles
• Safety measures downstream from the reservoir
• Bumbuna trust
BWMA and BTD. Establishment of the Bumbuna Watershed Management Authority (BWMA) and the Bumbuna Trust Deed (BTD and activity to manage the Bumbuna watershed were designed as a mitigation measure for the environmental and social impacts on the Bumbuna Reservoir in the 2005 EMP. The BWMA will be a semi-autonomous organization under the Ministry of Energy and Power. The first activity the BWMA will undertake is preparation of the Water and Land Management Strategy and Action Plan (WLMSAP), which will outline activity to be financed under the BWMA. Design of the activities to be financed has as an objective to improve the sustainable use and management of the Bumbuna watershed and reservoir in order to: (i) protect the reservoir from excessive sedimentation; (ii) improve the living conditions of the local population through more productive agricultural practice and fisheries development in and downstream the reservoir; and (iii) effectively protect the remaining biodiversity, especially the remaining chimpanzee populations in the watershed.
At present slash-and-burn agriculture is widespread in the watershed. The agricultural improvement program- intensification of rice farming in wetland areas (farmer’s field schools) initiated for affected people (PAPs) in the watershed- has been successful. In the near future, a twin emphasis will be agro-forestry on steep slopes.
The BWMA and the Dam Operator will coordinate on water quality monitoring and management. The BWMA will be responsible to oversee the water quality monitoring and management of the Operator and also be responsible for water quality monitoring in the wider reservoir area and downstream of the dam. The Dam Operator will be responsible for water quality monitoring and management in the immediate up and downstream area of the dam.
The BWMA will also be responsible for (i) biomass clearing in the drawdown zone and (ii) ensuring safe navigation on the reservoir through marking hazards and clearing trees that are hazardous to passage and landing. These activities are designed as mitigation measures. Their environmental and social impacts will largely be positive; adverse impacts will be minimal.
Completed work
In addition to compliance with operational safeguards policies, the 2005 EIA and this ESMP cover issues examined in:
• feasibility studies preceding design of the BHP, including analysis of dam alternatives and downstream river flow
• dam safety and contingency assessments
• strategic and detailed environmental assessments
• assessment of the Sierra Leone legal and institutional setting
• public consultation and disclosure
• capacity assessment and training for carrying out the ESMP
• compensation and ongoing market rates study
The results of these studies appear in the following reports:
• Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the dam and reservoir (Electrowatt-Ekono, 2005)
• Revised RAP for the dam and reservoir (BCEOM/Techsult, 2008)
• RAP for the transmission line (Azimut, 2005)
• Revised RAP-Phase 1 for the transmission line (Laynaa Consultants, 2010)
• Bumbuna Retrospective Review/Options Assessment Study (Haas, 2005)
• Upper Seli Community Development Initiative Study (Vincent, 2005)
• Public Health in the project area (NKUK, 2004)
• Baseline bird survey
• Baseline butterfly survey
• Baseline reptile and amphibian survey
• Baseline small mammals survey
• Baseline flora survey
• Baseline fisheries survey
• Baseline primate survey and monitoring program
• Baseline archaeological field investigation
• Desk study of Bumbuna conservation area
• Community preparation and awareness
• Water and Land Management Strategy and Action Plan
• Land and soil management program
• Downstream fisheries management program
• Reservoir fisheries management program
• Environmental flow sufficiency
• Agroforestry and forestry program
• Agricultural development program
• Study and mapping of land use and vegetation
• Ecological and ecotourism survey
• Social and health measures
The World Bank financed the (i) Environmental Bypass, which can release a maximum of 6 m3/s, in order to maintain at all times a downstream environmental and social amenity flow; (ii) the largely completed reservoir biomass clearing program in the permanently inundated area to improve the safety of navigation on the new reservoir; (iii) biodiversity studies in the immediate catchment of the Bumbuna Reservoir to identify if the area contained critical natural habitat and to get a good sense of the value of biodiversity in the area. A basic conclusion from the biodiversity studies was the area to be inundated by Bumbuna Reservoir contained biodiversity of regional/global importance. A subsequent conclusion was that the original Bumbuna Conservation Area (BCA) environmental offset was not adequate and a proposal was made to include the Loma Mountain Non-Hunting Forest Reserve as an additional environmental offset, with an upgrade of its status to a national park. Consequent biodiversity studies in the Loma Mountain Non-Hunting Forest Reserve indicated a biodiversity of global importance and it was agreed that this area would be an adequate environmental offset. The establishment of the Loma National Park (LMNP) and the Bumbuna Trust Deed have been approved by Cabinet. The Bumbuna Watershed Management Authority (BWMA) and Bumbuna Conservation Area (BCA) legislation have been approved by Parliament..
The Water Quality Monitoring Program in the filling reservoir has just started. Initial steps have been taken to implement the Emergency Action Plan. An Emergency Action Unit (EAU) has been established to warn downstream communities in case of emergencies and large operational water releases.
[pic]
Environment Bypass in Bumbuna Dam Site
Environmental and social management responsibilities of the Operator. As described in the 2005 EIA, the Dam Operator is expected to undertake the following: (i) removing floating vegetation, which is a hazard for dam operation; (ii) monitoring and managing water quality in the immediate reservoir area close to the dam and immediately downstream of the dam; and (iii) on-site environment monitoring (disposal of toxic wastes; chance finds procedures if new excavations are planned; clean-up, and management of natural resources within the dam site).
The BWMA will be responsible to oversee the quality of water monitoring and management by the Operator. This oversight includes monitoring for the development of a Thermo-cline (temperature jump of >1 C between surface and bottom water of the reservoir dividing the epilimnion (upper warmer water layer in a thermally stratified reservoir) and the hypolimnion (lower colder layer) or a Chemo-cline (oxygen jump from around oxygen saturation in the surface layer to almost zero oxygen levels in the bottom waters of the reservoir). Based on monitoring results, the Operator will take action to improve water quality in the reservoir or downstream of the dam if needed. In addition to temperature and oxygen, water quality parameters to be monitored in the reservoir and downstream of the dam include: pH, suspended solids, phosphate, nitrate, chlorophyll, and COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand). The equipment to measure these parameters was financed under the original project and is present in a small water quality monitoring laboratory at the dam site.
The Operator will also be responsible for: (i) monitoring slope stability/landslides and soil erosion in the reservoir area and assessing the potential safety risks of land slides; (ii) identifying and managing mosquito breeding sites in the drawdown zone; (iii) maintaining an environmental/social amenity flow of 6 m3 in the dry season and 100 m3 in the wet season; (iv) managing waste (oils, lubricants, etc.); (v) restoring former construction areas, especially those possibly containing toxic wastes; (vi) monitoring adverse impacts on local stakeholders and liaison with the local communities; (vii) implementing the Emergency Preparedness Plan including the alarm system.
The first phase of the alarm system- warning to downstream populations in case of emergencies and sudden operational water release- and the Phase 1 equipment will be financed under the restructured project; financing and installing Phase 2 equipment will be the responsibility of the Dam Operator.
The Operator will be responsible for monitoring and managing public health issues related to the dam and its operation including workforce health and safety, and prevention of HIV/Aids infection through his workforce.
The 2005 EIA includes a programme of consultation with stakeholders in Freetown and in the project area, and a discrete Public Consultation and Disclosure Plan (PCDP) covering:
• EIA scoping
• consultation during EIA field work
• presentation of EIA findings in workshops, and
• implementation of EIA activities, including for the RAPs
A Catchment Stakeholder’s Forum and a Workshop on Biodiversity Studies were held in 2007 in preparation for setting up the Bumbuna Watershed Management Authority. The Government of Sierra Leone has approved and is soon to set up the Bumbuna Trust (BT). The Trust will manage the trust account from the proposed allocation of electricity revenues to cover the longer term funding for the BWMA and activities planned in the ESMP. The BWMA and the BTD have not yet started operating.
Monitoring of waterborne diseases has not yet started. This is becoming urgent since indications are waterborne diseases are on the increase now the reservoir is filling. Preventive actions to avoid an increase in water borne diseases need to be taken. These actions will be financed under the restructured project.
As the first animal rescue operation revealed, animals are not being trapped during the reservoir filling, the second animal rescue operation has been cancelled.
Dam safety measures will be improved under the restructured project.
Compliance with World Bank Policy OP 4.01 (EA), OP 4.04 (Natural Habitat), OP 4.36 (Forests) and OP 4.37 (Dam Safety) has not yet been fully achieved. Therefore, additional funds are needed to achieve compliance with these Bank operational safeguard policies.
|Studies |1996 |2005 |2006 |2008 |
| |Original Bumbuna EIA |“Omnibus” Bumbuna EIA (NKUK)|Additional Biodiversity |Loma Biodiversity Studies |
| |(Electrowatt/ | |Studies – 1month to 1 year | |
| |Techsult) | |Cost: $850,000) | |
| | | | |Cost:$220,000 |
|Archaeology | |No archeological sites or |No archeological sites or |No study done |
| | |artifacts found |artifacts found. | |
| | | |1 month study | |
|Botany | |155 tree species recorded |450 plant species recorded |675 species recorded. In previous |
| | | |plus 1,350 herbarium |study, Jaeger (1983) identified |
| | | |specimens i.e. 20% of all |1,576 species include 9 endemics |
| | | |woody forest species | |
| | | |recorded in the Upper Guinea| |
| | | |Region | |
| | | |1 month study | |
|Butterflies | |No butterfly study |313 species recorded. An |No butterfly study |
| | | |additional 131 species | |
| | | |recorded by C. Belcastro | |
| | | |between 1979 and 2004 make a| |
| | | |total of 444 species | |
| | | |1 month study | |
|Fish | |36 fish species recorded |62 species recorded- 52 |No fish study |
| | | |below Bumbuna Falls but only| |
| | | |30 above it | |
| | | |1 year study | |
|Herpetology | |12 amphibian and 6 reptile |Species recorded: 23 frog, 5|41 frog species recorded |
| | |species recorded |skink, 3 gecko, 18 snake 1 | |
| | | |chameleon, 1 agama, 1 | |
| | | |monitor lizard and 1 | |
| | | |crocodile | |
| | | |1 month study | |
|Birds |39 species recorded |128 species recorded |229 species recorded, |332 species recorded |
| | | |including 11 endemic to West| |
| | | |Africa and 5 of conservation| |
| | | |concern | |
| | | |I month study | |
|Small Mammals | | |Species recorded: 3 shrew, |Species recorded:14 shrews and |
| | | |18 bats, 10 rodents |rodents, 17 bats |
| | | |1 month study | |
|Primates and Larger | |33 mammal species |Total of 11 primate species |7 primate species, 1 hyrax, 2 |
|Mammals, | | |recorded including 33- 58 |carnivores, 2 large rodents, 3 |
| | | |chimpanzees in 4 |scaly ant-eaters, and 12 ungulates|
| | | |communities: five monkey |for a total of 27 large mammals |
| | | |species, 1 baboon species | |
| | | |and a number of large | |
| | | |mammals | |
| | | |1 year study | |
Additional Biodiversity Studies
The following studies were conducted during 2006:
• Primates (1 year)
• Fish (1 year)
• Butterflies (1 month)
• Small mammals (1 month)
• Flora/Botanical (1 month)
• Birds (1 month)
• Archaeology (1 month)
• Amphibians and Reptiles (1 month)
Post-commissioning planned activity
Environment management: BWMA. The 2005 EIA study recommended establishment of the Bumbuna Watershed Management Authority (BWMA) and the Bumbuna Conservation Area (BCA) in order to protect some of the biodiversity, especially the endangered species and last remaining chimpanzee populations in the reservoir area. In addition, the EIA also referred to creation of the Bumbuna Trust Company (BTC), now called the Bumbuna Trust Deed (BTD), which would manage funds for the BWMA and BCA. The original plan was to finance the BWMA, BCA and BTD from sale of Bumbuna Dam electricity, and carbon financing. However, neither financing mechanism is presently available since rejection of the methodology to obtain carbon financing for the Bumbuna Dam, and because the financial situation of the power sector in Sierra Leone, precludes financing for the BWMA, BCA and BTD from electricity sales.
The BWMA will be set up as a lean organization, based at the dam site, and responsible for the following activities:
• planning and implementing the Bumbuna Watershed Management and Conservation Strategy;
• creating environmental and conservation awareness regarding the BWMA program itself.
• protecting the reservoir from sedimentation by supporting sustainable land use practices and environmental management of the Bumbuna watershed;
• improving the livelihood of the people around the reservoir, who are among the poorest in Africa;
• developing and implementing sustainable wetland agriculture, agro-forestry on slopes and the conservation of biodiversity and forests;
• developing and managing fisheries within Bumbuna reservoir and below the dam;
• providing for safe navigation on the reservoir.
• monitoring water related diseases such as river blindness, bilharzia and malaria, including awareness creating regarding the prevention of waterborne diseases;
• exploring for potential eco-tourism;
• monitoring and managing water quality- water quality monitoring and management in the immediate area up and downstream of the dam is the responsibility of the Operator; the BWMA will be responsible water quality monitoring and management of the Operator-;
The BWMA programme will be implemented in a participatory manner in close association with the population of the Bumbuna watershed. The BTD will manage BWMA funds and also funds earmarked by the project for the establishing and managing the Loma Mountains National Park.
The key activities during the post-commissioning phase in the Bumbuna Watershed will comprise the following:
|Public Health |A monitoring programme on water related diseases and associated health |
| |issues |
|Navigation |Progressive demarcation of safe navigation lanes |
|BWMA |Establish and begin implementation |
| |Plan and begin implementation of the Bumbuna Watershed Management and |
| |Conservation Strategy and Action Plan |
| |Develop Land and Soil Management strategy and Action Plan |
| |Management of Land use and Vegetation Study and Mapping |
| |Management of agricultural development that will include Farmer Field |
| |Schools, NTFPs, agroforestry and forestry programmes |
|Ecotourism |Management of Ecology and Ecotourism Survey |
|Water Quality |Implement the water quality monitoring programme |
|Hydro - meteorological Stations |BWMA and Dam Operator will monitor stations to be installed upstream of the|
| |Dam. |
|Biodiversity |Manage Biodiversity Monitoring Programme. Conduct baseline biodiversity |
| |studies one year after full impoundment. Initiate monitoring of endangered |
| |species. |
|Social Programme |Develop and implement a programme that includes agribusiness, life skills, |
| |and sustainable agriculture to improve the livelihood of people around the|
| |watershed |
|Fisheries Programme |Design and manage a fisheries support programme |
|Education |Maintain close communication between the BWMA and watershed communities |
| |Provide education and information services to the communities and schools |
| |and contribute to community participation and awareness. |
|Biomass clearing |Progress biomass clearing |
|BTD |Establish the Trust Deed to manage funds for the BWMA and Loma Park |
implementation arrangements
The project’s inter-agency technical steering committee and proposed management structure (BWMA Board) for the BWMA and BTD will provide guidance for implementation of environment and social programmes. The PMU will have the overall oversight of the day-to-day implementation of the updated ESMP, Dam and Reservoir RAP and T-Line RAP, and the BTD.
During a 2010 transition period until the BWMA is established and until a permanent Dam Operator is identified, the PMU will be responsible for the removal of floating vegetation (which is the Dam Operator’s responsibility), and undertake progressive biomass clearing (BWMA responsibility). It is important that water quality monitoring (which is the responsibility of both BWMA and Operator) continues, especially establishing in 2010 a baseline for water quality in the reservoir and downstream of the dam. The Operator will be in charge of water quality monitoring and management in the immediate upstream and downstream area of the dam. Capacity for the BWMA to oversee water management, reservoir safe navigation through marking dangerous spots and clearing of trees at landing sites will need implementation as soon as the BWMA is in place. Meanwhile, these activities will be implemented through contracted third parties. An organogram is most notable for its absence. The BWMA Board will have oversight of these activities.
The BTD will manage funds earmarked for the BWMA and community based development activities in the Bumbuna watershed and, in coordination with MoAFS, it also will manage the funds for LMNP establishment and operation . The BTD will release funds to the BWMA for community development activities and, in coordination with the GEF-World Bank project, for LMNP management. Funds are expected for the establishment and first years of operation of the LMNP, and through other funding sources over a longer period of five or more years. This will be sustainable since the BTD is a permanent organization, just like the BWMA, and can receive funds from any outside party.
Borrower’s Institutional Capacity for implementation of the ESMP
The BPIU has separate units for environmental management and resettlement. Presently, these units are managed by consultants financed under the World Bank Grant. The Minister of Energy and Water Resources (MoEWR) has established a separate Project Management Unit (PMU) and an Environment and Social Unit within the MoEWR. Both are consistent with 2005 EIA recommendations. The ministry is currently hiring qualified staff, including some of the consultants from the former BPIU. Under this centralized ministerial PMU, coordination with the operation of the BWMA and BTD still needs to be finalized. In terms of coordination for the management of LMNP, the MoEWR will have completed in 2010 a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), coordination systems, and a Cabinet Paper for establishment of the LMNP.
The capacity of national consultants for implementing the ESMP and RAPs remains weak, so additional training and other capacity building will be needed. Planned are workshops to cover some on-site training and field-based mentoring from international consultants. In 2010-2011, the project will implement a separate safeguards monitoring and training program for staff from the entire ministry.
III. LOMA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK
2005 EIA – planned activity
The 2005 EIA recommended the following activities relating to the Loma Mountains: i) a one-year study of chimpanzees and other primates in the entire area of influence of the Bumbuna Hydro Power Project to determine the number, size, social organization, habitat requirements and range of all primate groups, so that mitigation measures for each group can be planned in detail; ii) a three-month survey of birds in the Loma and Sula Mountains to identify the species and numbers present and to determine if the same species are present as in the Bumbuna area; iii) a three-month survey to catalogue the butterfly species present in the various vegetation types in the Loma and Sula Mountains; iv) a three-month survey of reptiles and amphibians of the Loma and Sula Mountains to produce an inventory of species, estimates of population densities, and an analysis of habitat types and preferences; v) a three-month survey of small mammals and bats in the Loma and Sula Mountains to produce an inventory of species, estimates of population densities, and an analysis of habitat types and preferences; vi) a six-months survey of trees, flora and plant communities/habitats in the Loma and Sula Mountains, comparing species, quality and importance with those of similar areas elsewhere in West Africa; vii) a desk study using data collected by the above surveys, to assess the suitability of the Loma and Sula Mountains as potential environmental offsets to compensate for biodiversity losses at Bumbuna.
Completed work
Loma Biodiversity studies were conducted for 1 month except for the Primate and Large Mammal study that was conducted for two months. The following studies were conducted during 2008: Primates (2 months); Small mammals (1 month); Flora/Botanical (1 month) and Birds (1 month).
Amphibians and Reptiles results are from earlier studies in the Loma Mountains.
Post-commissioning planned activity
The main activities are to finance the establishment, management and protection of the Loma Mountains National Park. Some small-scale community development projects will also be financed as well. These small-scale community development projects will be screened for environmental and social impacts as mentioned under (i) above and environmental clauses will be included in contractor contracts.
All the activities are expected to have positive environmental and social impacts. The BPIU for the GEF project will be responsible for the implementation of this programme.
Key tasks for the Loma Mountains National Park during the post-commissioning phase will be:
|Forestry Division |Fully organize a planning and managing team . Forestry has designated Mr. |
| |Kalie Kamara as Site Manager for Loma. Mr. Kamara, with Forestry head office|
| |and assistance of the BPIU staff, will prepare a work program, budget and a |
| |procurement plan for the Loma subcomponent of the restructured programme |
| |with the assistance of the restructured Project. |
|Conservation? Programmes |The Forestry Division will initiate improved protection, research, |
| |ecotourism, improvement of access and improved agriculture in the area as |
| |soon as the restructuring becomes effective. |
|Community Consultations |This will be done in February/March of 2010. |
|Boundary Demarcation |Boundary surveys will be conducted by NKUK in partnership with Forestry (in |
| |March 2010) and with input from the Lands Ministry. Forestry will consider |
| |changes to the current boundaries for management and conservation of |
| |particularly flagship species. |
|Socioeconomic studies |This will be done in parallel with the consultations and Boundary surveys. |
|Settlement Court |This will be established following consultations and will deal with possible|
| |user rights, including access rights and other benefit sharing mechanisms |
|Cabinet Paper |This will be prepared by the Forestry Division and will include a definitive|
| |proposal for Park boundaries. |
|GEF/IDA |Integration of IDA and GEF support to Loma to avoid duplication of funds. |
|Loma Mountains National Park |Established as an offset to the biodiversity losses at Bumbuna. |
|Sustainable financing mechanism |Government commitment to setting aside a portion of Bumbuna tariff for the |
| |offset will be in place; this tariff to be managed via the Bumbuna Trust |
| |Deed. |
IV. DAM AND RESERVOIR RESETTLEMENT
ACTION PLAN (RAP)
Activities planned in the EIA: 2004/05 Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) and subsequent RAP updates in 2007 and 2008
The 2005 RAP identified only one village, with 16 households and a population of 135 people as directly affected and to be relocated. Several other land owners were identified to lose more than 20% of their land after impoundment. However, in 2007, the 2005 estimate was updated through the use of topographic surveys. The result of this update showed that 41 houses needed to be relocated and about 599 households were affected by inundation of structures and lands. In a final update of 2008, the total project affected persons were 5,033 from 38 villages
Following guidelines in the World Bank (WB) operational policy on involuntary resettlement (OP4.12) and cultural property (OP4.11), the 2008 updated RAP process included:
i) re-identifying of project affected populations (PAPs)
ii) formulating a new plan for resettling people and compensating them for losses incurred from flooding; and
iii) commencing a process for income restoration and community development.
The 2005 RAP specified two mitigation measures to address PAPs transition requirements. One was a livelihood assessment and income restoration (LAIR) program composed of agribusiness units, footpath realignment, boat building, training and capacity building for livelihood development, and food aid. This was implemented by a Sierra Leonean NGO, the Organization for Research and Extension of Intermediate Technology (OREINT). A second program, the Stabilized Agriculture Program (SAP) was meant to ensure that agricultural support would reverse the potential environmental effects of uncontrolled slash-and-burn farming- the predominant form of upland cultivation at the time. Proposed activities were swampland development and conservation farming through farmer field schools. The SAP was implemented by a local firm- Business Engineering Science and Technology (BEST) Limited.
Completed activities
The PAPs were determined on the basis of a shoreline of 244 Masl which was physically marked together with Village Resettlement Committee members to ensure that villagers were aware of the full inundation levels The results of ground truthing to identify PAPs appear in Table 4.1.
[pic]
Katene Resettlement Site
Table 4.1: RAP Findings (2008)
|Categories of Project Affected|Villages |Name |Chiefdom |House Holds |Population |
|Villages | | | | | |
|Category A: Villages that are |0 | | |0 |0 |
|not affected by impoundment | | | | | |
|Category B: Villages that lose |3 |Kadala Kasokira, Gbulia |Kalasongoia Diang |24 |283 565 |
|sacred sites | | | |69 | |
|Category C: Villages that only |3 |Kunsulima Mabaray Kamawole | Diang |70 |575 |
|lose access | | | | | |
|Category D: Villages that only |1 |Kamathor |Kalasongoia |15 |109 |
|lose land | | | | | |
|Category E: Villages that lose|1 |Banakoro |Diang | 5 | |
|land and access | | | | | |
|Category F: Villages that lose |1 |Kasasi |Kasunku |7 |73 |
|trees and sacred sites | | | | | |
|Category G: Villages that lose |1 |Kamawayway |Diang |6 |43 |
|trees and access | | | | | |
|Category H: Villages that lose |6 |Kasawulay, Kayiben, Kamaniki, Fulla Town, |Diang |15 |94 |
|land, trees, and access | |Kathanda. & Gbambali Dien Kawunkulu | | | |
|Category I: Villages that lose |12 |Kabendugu Kafogo Kamagbamaa, Kagboray, Kakutan,|Kasunku |213 |1,414 |
|land, trees and sacred sites | |Kamasaypanya, Kamera, Kasasi, Katene, |Kalasongoia |146 |1,383 |
| | |Kathengben, Kawunkulu, Kayakala, | | | |
|Category J: Villages that lose |1 |Kasalobah |Kasunku |4 |74 |
|land, trees, sacred sites and | | | | | |
|houses | | | | | |
|Category K: Villages that lose |5 |Waia, Kalatia, Kamabareh, Masamandugu . |Diang |79 |837 |
|land, trees, sacred sites and | |Kathoina |Kalasongoia |11 |99 |
|access | | | | | |
|Category L: Villages that lose |4 |Matombe, Kamasilon, Kamawone. Gboskoroma |Diang |20 |104 |
|land, trees, sacred sites, | | | | | |
|access and houses | | | | | |
|Total |38 | | |599 |5,033 |
The final PAP information differed significantly from the estimate in 2005: i.e.
• 41 households (186 people) in five villages – Matombe, Kasalobah, Kamawone and Kamasilon, -- were relocated, compared to the initial number of six houses. Households in Matombe, Kasolobah, Kamawone and Kamasilon were moved to new resettlement sites in Katene, Fadugu, Kunsulima and Kabendugu respectively. Matombe, Kamasilon and Kamahone were the only situations where the entire village was submerged; between them they lose access to 179.28 ha of village lands.
• 95 farm plots belonging to 171 farmers covering a total area of 117 ha that will be partially or fully inundated (104 hectares of these lands will be lost but will need 137 ha in replacement due to the lower productivity of dry land compared with wet land). These farm lands are cultivated under shifting rotation, in swamplands or in uplands, all interspersed with economic trees.
• 4,956 commercial value oil palms and 3,715 other economic trees (e.g. banana, kola, orange, mango, lime, pineapple, sisal, tola, etc) recorded. PAPs will be compensated for the value of economic trees lost.
• Waia, Gbulia and Kadala villages will not lose much farm land but foot paths and sacred sites will be lost. There will be some villages, especially in Diang Chiefdom where access will be restricted. These villages will be given priority, for example, in the construction of footpaths, such as in Waia (whose footpaths will be extensively flooded) followed by other villages. Surveys of these foot paths have already started under the Stabilized Agriculture Program (SAP).
• 48 sacred sites in 21 villages that will be flooded. The costs of ceremonies for transferring these sites, including some gravesites, will be covered in the RAP.
Table 4.2: Comparative RAP Findings in 2005 For reference see table 4.1
|Categories of PAPs |Villages |Households |Population |
|Category A: Villages that are not affected by impoundment (not flooded) |22 | | |
|Category B: Villages that would lose a small part of its land (less than 20%) |17 |236 |1,786 |
|Category C: Villages that would lose a considerable part of its land (more than |15 |186 |1,250 |
|20% up to 40%) | | | |
|Category D: Villages at a critical elevation and would require to move and will |0 |0 |0 |
|lose a considerable part of its land (more than 50%) | | | |
|Category E: Villages that will be completely submerged and will have to be |1 |16 |135 |
|relocated | | | |
|Category F: Villages outside of the reservoir area or downstream of the dam and |4 |n/a |n/a |
|that lost land to dam construction. | | | |
|Total (2005) |59 |n/a |n/a |
|Total (2008) |38 |599 |5,033 |
[pic]
Land Satellite of Bumbuna project area showing relative land uses (Source: 2005 Dam/Reservoir RAP)
[pic]
Map 4.1 Showing Seli River and Location of Affected Communities (Bumbuna Dam at bottom)
By 2008, the BHP was known to cover 38 affected villages upstream of the dam, and belonging to 3 chiefdoms -- Kalasongoia, Diang and Kasunko (see Map 4.2) Because these villages are mostly isolated and underdeveloped, except for Bumbuna town, which was rebuilt after the rebel war, and is generally accessible by road, these villages can be reached only by foot paths. As a result, hunger and deprivation were persistent along with high levels of malnutrition and infant mortality. Therefore, the BHP focused on providing short-term emergency support aimed at immediate assistance to get households started in establishing cultivated farm plots and small livelihoods with quick returns, and as well, special attention to improving access through foot paths rehabilitation, boat building, agribusiness and markets development.
The Bumbuna project affected communities are among the poorest, at subsistence levels below $1.00 a day.
The satellite imagery shows that shifting cultivators tended to favour steep slopes which make felling of trees much easier. Because the soils in such slopes are often shallow (from 0-5 cm to 0-50 cm to bedrock) the imagery also indicates some significant hillside soil erosion. Cultivation in these sloping lands is mostly for rice, ground nuts, cassava or maize. In the alluvial soils at the valley bottoms, the more dominant agriculture is wet rice cultivation during the rainy season and a more diversified cropping of cassava, sweet potatoes, and yams during the drier months. Following this observation, the SAP and LAIR focused on improving the productivity of swamp lands, which comprised close to 70% of the total type of arable land in the affected areas.
Most of the affected villagers belong to the Limba ethnic group, although the population is diverse, containing families from the Mende, Fula, and Temne. Krio is the language in most common use. Each group has its own set of cultural traditions and belief systems, the most dominant of which are traditional beliefs, Christianity, and Islam. Sacred sites of cultural and historical importance- sacred grounds, groves, shrines, and ancestral cemeteries- abound in the villages. Ethnic, cultural and gender differences were addressed variously by extension using village assemblies, established cooperatives and interest groups; and farmer field schools that ensured at least 50% were women farmers.
[pic]
Figure 4.2: Map of Sierra Leone showing the three chiefdoms affected by BHP
In the area directly affected by reservoir inundation, public infrastructure and services were largely non existent, with education and health provision among the lowest in Sierra Leone. Education levels were low, as measured by high illiteracy rates. Most affected families could not afford the costs of school, and many villages were too far away to send their children to the few available schools. Only a few towns had a health centre. One hospital was under construction in Bumbuna town and this catered to nearby villages. At present, the seriously ill go as far as Magburuka for medical attention. There is a clinic in Fadugo, but for affected villagers to access services, they walked an average of 20 km. As a result, morbidity and disease incidence were higher than the national average for malaria, water-related infectious diseases, and HIV/AIDS. None of the affected villages had access to the national power grid, and although poles were erected in Bumbuna town, very little electrification was available. Some of the villages had at least a hand pump or a well, installed through the European Union or by an NGO, but most villages collected drinking water from communal wells, dams, springs and streams, while water from the river was used for washing. The needs assessment survey, conducted over a period 5 months during the food aid, showed that communities were very receptive to expanding night time services in health centres and to have night time schooling to accommodate women and children working in farms during the day.
Table 4.1 describes activities undertaken under the LAIR program.
Table 4.1: Summary of LAIR Outputs to February 2008
| |Description of Outputs |Planned |
|Activities | |Post-Commissioning |
| | |Targets |
|Socio-economic Survey and Needs Assessment |A needs assessment completed in 15 communities using basic PRA |Expand to cover all 38 |
| |techniques Random sampling of communities combined with focus |communities |
| |group discussions targeting male and female youths, women and men | |
| |farmers, traders, fisher folk & artisans. | |
|Agribusiness Units (ABUs) operational |Eleven ABUs received basic training in life skills, small business|15 more ABUs |
| |development, food handling and storage, savings and loans, health | |
| |and sanitation including HIV/AIDS awareness - in the villages of | |
| |Kasokira (2), Kasoloba (2) Kabendugu (2),Kateneh (4) and | |
| |Kunsulima(1).Basic food handling and storage equipment have been | |
| |provided to all 11 ABUs. | |
|Boat Building |Three boat building training sessions completed; four boats |6 boats (2 per |
| |constructed and equipped with outboard engines and place in Waya |chiefdom); total of 20 |
| | |boats |
|Tools/equipment dug-out canoes |Basic tools package provided to Boat Management Committees in |Further strengthening of|
| |Kalansongoia, Kasunku and Diang chiefdoms |Boat Management |
| | |Committee |
|Tools/equipment motorized boats |These have been provided to the three Boat Management Committees |Completed |
| |of Kalansongoia, Kasunko and Diang chiefdoms respectively | |
|Water safety & Water Related Diseases |Sensitization on water related diseases and water safety was |25 more sensitization |
|Sensitization. |carried out in Fadugu town on the 28th December 2008 on the day of|workshops |
| |food distribution. Likewise a similar introductory session was | |
| |held in Bumbuna on 20 January 2009. There is a need for ongoing | |
| |appropriately targeted training sessions by trained trainers using| |
| |standard teaching materials collated in a Life Skills Training | |
| |Manual | |
|Food handling & storage equipment |Food handling and storage equipment have been provided and handed |Distribution to all 30 |
| |over to five ABUs in the Kasunku (4) and Diang (1) chiefdoms |ABUs |
| |respectively comprising of rice parboiling drums, large rubber | |
| |bowls, jute bags, tarpaulins, groundnut grinding machines and | |
| |metal trays | |
Monthly emergency food aid was orderly and lasted for two years.
As designed in the original BHP Project Appraisal Document, the objective of SAP was to encourage farmers to adopt alternatives to shifting agriculture. The plan was to provide incentives to farmers to: (i) improve use of water resources through on-farm water conservation and swampland water management; and (ii) adopt soil erosion protection and maintenance to double the level of soil fertility and shift to more intensified farming. However, since the first phase was for emergency relief, food security, and livelihood recovery through the restoration of agricultural production systems, SAP concentrated on the formation of farmer field schools and the immediate conversion of agricultural lands into food production units. In this regard, many SAP interventions were undertaken in collaboration with the LAIR Programme to enhance the sustainability of project interventions. The SAP outputs are presented in Table 4.2.
Some LAIR activities: boat building and agribusiness units (ABUs) for post-harvest processing
Table 4.2: SAP Outputs and Plans (2007 to 2010)
|Output |Outputs Under |Planned Target for |Total |
| |Short-term |Post-Commissioning | |
| |Emergency Relief | | |
| |(EARS & EFRWP) | | |
|(i) Minor Rural Infrastructure Development | | | |
| - footpaths constructed/rehabilitated |44 km |100 km |144 km |
| - temporary docking points constructed |24 |0 |24 |
| - feeder roads constructed/rehabilitated/upgraded |0 |93 km |93 km |
| | | | |
|(ii) Participatory Research and Extension | | | |
| - FFSs implemented in collaboration with MoAFS |7 FFSs |29 FFSs |36 FFSs |
| - improved food production techniques adopted |175 PAP |725 farmers |900 farmers |
| - land benefiting from sustainable food production |144 ha |596 ha |740 ha |
| | | | |
|(iii) Land and Water Management | | | |
| - uplands cultivated/improved conservation techniques |5.6 ha |27.4 ha |33 ha |
| - swampland development/improved water management |24 ha |76 ha |100 ha |
| | | | |
|(iv) Livestock Production and Animal Health | | | |
| - poultry re-stocking units. |7 FFSs |17 FFSs |24 FFSs |
| - small ruminant re-stocking units |0 |12 FFS |12 FFSs |
| - animal health units |0 |36 FFSs |36 FFSs |
| | | | |
|(v) Forest Management and Agro-forestry | | | |
| - privately owned tree nurseries |1 nursery |2 nurseries |3 nurseries |
| - agro-forestry plots |0 |18 ha |18 ha |
| - community forest established under JFMPs |0 |3 areas |3 areas |
SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY (2004)
A socio-economic survey was completed in 2004 using a sample of households in the project area. However, since the PAPs were not identified at that time, the survey could not be used as a baseline for monitoring PAPs conditions. The 2004 survey was done by a local consulting firm and covered 59 villages using the EIA study done in 1994 as the basis for selection of a sampling frame. The methodology applied semi-structured interviews using a standard household questionnaire with heads of households as respondents. Focus group meetings were held with each village, dividing participants into groups of youth, women and men, and with chief and elders. The focus group discussions often turned into a consultative meeting.
The survey showed that village sizes varied from Mabaray, with just one household and 10 persons, to Kafogo, with 1,152 persons in 179 households. On average, villages had small populations, as reflected in an average village size of 16 households.
The main livelihood was slash-and-burn agriculture, predominantly from fruit trees, palm oil, and swamp rice farming. Food crops cultivated included upland rice, cassava, sweet potato, yam, and various fruits- banana, pineapple, orange, grape fruit, mango.. Other sources of income included gold mining, palm wine tapping, fishing, petty trading and hiring out as labourers.. Some bartering was observed and markets were not well developed except in Bumbuna and Fadugo.
Services were, as expected, very limited. For example, the source for water supply for domestic use was unsafe for drinking, especially in Diang and Kalansongoia chiefdoms. Most of villages in Diang Chiefdom received their water from river, stream or pond sources. In contrast, Kasunku water came mostly from underground wells and pumps. To collect water, the average distance travelled was more than one kilometre (60% of households surveyed in Diang and Kalasongia).
The conditions for sanitation were found to be poor, with most households throwing refuse into nearby open areas or bush. Over 95% of households in Kasunko, for example, had no way of collecting and processing wastes. In Diang, about 27% of households disposed of wastes in private pits dug outside their house compounds.
Health services were lacking in most villages. Traditional medicine was the dominant type of medical treatment, especially in Diang where over 38% of respondents favored going to traditional healers. The health facilities were more advanced in Kalasongia.
In terms of perceptions of resettlement, the survey showed that the majority of respondents in Diang and Kalasongia Chiefdoms, 55.1 and 67.5% respectively, appeared to have already made up their mind about possible alternative sites for settlement. The situation in the settlements in Kasunko was different, where up to 91.7% of household heads reported that they had no preferences for relocation sites.
The two most important factors for resettlement were access to better housing conditions and better land for agriculture. About 38% of households said that they were willing to move to get better land and 37% for better housing. Less than 2% were convinced that moving would improve overall living conditions or increase job opportunities.
The following institutions were the key players in RAP implementation (see Figure 4.1)
• The Ministry of Energy and Power (MoEP) was, and continues to be, the main representative of the GoSL. This Ministry oversees negotiations with Paramount chiefs on acquiring land; provides leadership in the Resettlement Advisory Group; and (c) supervises project monitoring and external evaluation.
• The Project Implementation Unit’s (PIU) responsibility, on behalf of the MoPW, has provided overall RAP supervision and coordination; implemented the RAP through its Resettlement Unit (RU), which includes BCEOM/Techsult as a contracted agency; and has provide all necessary documentation to the RAP evaluator.
• The Resettlement Advisory Group (RAG) was the major decision making body and approved the compensation rates.
• The Resettlement Unit(RU) was responsible for implementing the compensation and resettlement plan; consulting and informing PAPs; providing compensation; organising resettlement and income restoration activities; coordinating with other involved institutions; and monitoring day-to-day activities.
• Village Resettlement Committees (VRC) were set up in most affected villages. Villages with less than 5 families were joined to an adjacent villages. The terms of reference for the VRC stipulated that representatives of vulnerable groups (especially women and young people) were adequately represented. Resettlement Officers visited each village at least twice a month during the PAPs identification process. The same frequency of visits is expected throughout the 3-year RAP implementation period.
• A Witness NGO, Coalition of Civil Society and Human Rights Activists (CCSHRA) has: monitored and reported on a monthly basis to ensure the process of resettlement and compensation are participatory and transparent; and participated in external evaluations.
• Partner NGOs implemented community development programs. The Organization for Research and Extension of Intermediate Technology (OREINT) was in charge of delivering community projects to PAPs villages under the Livelihood and Income Restoration (LAIR) program. The Business Engineering Science Technology (BEST) was contracted for the Stabilized Agriculture Program (SAP). OREINT administered the emergency food aid to PAPs over a period of one year.
• A Legal NGO was commissioned to serve as legal counsel.
• A Panel of Experts (from Sierra Leone) was supposed to assess the technical, socio-economic, and financial aspects of RAP implementation. However, this was not organized due to lack of funds.
Figure 4.1 Institutional Set-up for RAP Implementation
[pic]
In terms of compliance with the World Bank’s policy on cultural property (OP4.11), the 2004 EIA showed no evidence of significant historical and cultural sites within the vicinity of the reservoir area and dam. In 2005, a “chance find” procedure was completed. Subsequently, the 2008 RAP team found and recorded many sacred sites, mostly along the Seli River. Owning villages were compensated to cover the costs of “appeasing or pacifying the spirits” for disturbance by the reservoir.
The legal framework for RAP implementation in Sierra Leone was problematic, the relocation of houses and compensation were accomplished in a fashion consistent with Sierra Leone’s Constitution and Public Lands Act Cap 116. However, as noted in the 2005 RAP, the Public Lands Act does not apply to provinces and will in future either be expanded for nationwide coverage or amended together with the National Power Authority Act No. 6 of 1982 to allow for compulsory acquisition of land in the provinces. Another legal issue concerned compensation for land under customary law which varies between ethic groups and even by locality. Finally, Sierra Leone has a national agency for resettlement affairs (National Commission for Social Action or NaCSA), but its mandate is limited to coordinating and implementing efforts to resettle people displaced by the war.
Post-commissioning planned activities
Resurvey of Shoreline and PAPs Update. After full impoundment (November 2008), the PMU will resurvey the shoreline and complete the following six activities:
• Verification of any new PAPs and determination of their physical assets and compensation due;
• Provision of compensation at replacement value of physical assets and livelihood restoration for new PAPs identified after full impoundment;
• Continuation of RAP grievance mechanism; and
• Monitoring and evaluation
Two Resettlement Field Coordinators (RFCs), who are field based, manage Field Offices in Bumbuna Town and Fadugu, with a team of eight Resettlement Land Agents (RLA) and two office staff. Field Office responsibilities are to:
• Operate the grievance procedure,, documenting PAP grievances by date, time, name, nature of grievance/complaint, and resolution;
• Log all visitors and record meetings;
• Consult PAPs and others from host communities;
• Engage in focus group meetings, and other forms of consultation; and
• Monitor and evaluate the conditions of PAP livelihoods.
The Witness NGO will continue to monitor field activities, especially if compensation payments are to be made to new PAPs. The work of the RFCs will be managed by the PMU, and decision making regarding compensation payments, etc will be made by the Resettlement Advisory Group (RAG), which is composed of representatives from different stakeholders, such as PIU, other ministries, national team/task forces, local agencies, NGOs, vulnerable groups, AARFCs, etc, and which provided oversight of the previous 2008 RAP implementation process.
The following specific activities will be undertaken:
• Verify the reservoir shoreline and map the extent of flooding after full impoundment;
• Demarcate the reservoir shoreline;
• Identify newly inundated agricultural areas ( i.e. not identified in the 2008 RAP);
• Identify any new PAPs and their location with respect to the shoreline;
• Identify and demarcate any newly affected sacred sites, foot paths, or docking points; and
• Implement necessary activities defined in the 2008 RAP regarding compensation, consultations, grievance mechanism, etc.
Given the large extent of the reservoir and the urgency of immediately responding to PAPs’ needs, the RFCs will be expected immediately to:
Demarcate the shoreline using appropriate topographic instruments, and the use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) method, in addition to the conventional Total Station Method and ground-truthing;
Consult with PAPs regarding their current status;
Consult with village heads to identify new PAPs, if any; and
Carry out the grievance mechanism.
The shoreline survey will be to set up using at least 20 benchmarks that will form a triangulation network consisting of the reservoir area and other existing markers from the Bumbuna Dam (e.g. based on previous markers set up as benchmarks in the original topographic survey). The benchmarks should be verified along the upper reservoir level, the reservoir surface, and in areas that are easily accessible. An appropriate Total Station Instrument will be used for this purpose.
As previously demarcated in the original 2008 RAP, each angular measure will be executed four times considering 0.0020 grades as a maximum difference between the extreme values, and 5 mm + 5 ppm (part per million) in distance as a maximum difference between the extreme values measured and verified in the field. Field data will be processed using suitable software.
The new points, after impoundment, can be marked using tools that guarantee their stability and permanence, such as bolts on concrete, iron pins in bedrock fissures; more durable painted markers, etc. The RFCs shall prepare a detailed monograph for each of the summits of the adjusted benchmark/markers with a brief description of the location, photograph, and a diagram in order to allow, if necessary, the restoration of the original shoreline markers.
The RFCs will submit a technical report on the remarking of the shoreline and on the methods used in cross checking the data obtained during the shoreline survey by September 2010. The report will include the number and composition of the shoreline resurvey teams; technical description and number of survey equipment (GPS, etc) used; and results and schedule adopted. The report will include shoreline markings in a map, such as the one presented below on the Bumbuna Reservoir Area.
Livelihood Restoration Program. An assessment will be completed by June 2010 to:
• Identify PAPs changing needs according to new location/compensation status and increased expectations after BHP commissioning;
• Identify different social groups impacted by change from relocation and compensation and any adverse impacts of the changes brought about by the reservoir and other aspects of their new environment;
• Assess who may be more vulnerable from changes after commissioning according to age, gender, and livelihood;
• Assess and manage PAPs expectations and understanding of how they could meet their livelihood needs in the changing post-commissioning environment;
• Assess the extent to which expectations and understanding of PAPs can be met by livelihood support and life skills training;
• Provide information to plan support for vulnerable social groups;
• Advise Project Managers/PIU of the PAPs needs/expectations in their changing/changed circumstances; and
• Promote participatory decision-making and monitoring and evaluation, including potential for developing social accountability mechanisms.
The assessment interview ‘framework’ or checklist has been drafted to facilitate consultations on current needs. This was already started during the monthly food aid distribution. The focus was to assess future needs of the different groups in accordance with expectations of any changes in agriculture, livelihoods, and lifestyles, in general, due to the reservoir formation and expectations of livelihoods assistance that were developed in the BHP. For instance, although by January 2009, no out-migration took place, people may relocate or set up lands near the reservoir. Such movements would significantly affect development of post-commissioning programs, so they will be monitored.
For each of the three Chiefdoms the Assessment will be done according to the following categories:
• Adult men (25 Yrs +) – including elders, leaders, businessmen and other decision makers;
• Adult women (25 Yrs +) - including elders, leaders, businesswomen and other decision makers;
• Youth, Male (15-24 Yrs) – including the needs of advance level school children and young adults;
• Youth, Female (15-24 Yrs) – including the needs of advance level school children and young adults; and
• Vulnerable groups (all age groups) – including women-headed households; unemployed youth; disabled persons.
The assessment normally takes about an hour with a further 30 to 40 minutes for group formation, sensitizing/managing expectation and thanks. Data will be collected by field staff and LAIR officers who have survey experience in gathering basic needs information.
The following programs are planned for the post-commissioning) phase:
• Livelihood security and business development. The focus will be on basic training such as money management, post harvest crop handling, and crop marketing. Women are keen to participate in the livelihood business program, especially in micro finance and petty trading. Trainers will ensure gender equity in access to the livelihood support training.
• Expenditure planning. Each PAP household will be trained on use of funds, assets for livelihoods, and cash flow for livelihoods investments. The LAIR will extend various modules on acquiring assets to enhance livelihoods e.g. goats or tools for identified needs such as carpentry, fishing equipment, bellows for blacksmith works and saving for activities such as educational schemes, and medical needs. Livelihoods investment sub-projects will include goat, poultry, duck and pig raising; bicycles and carts; food processing and weaving.
• Boat building. BHP has created a reservoir which adds 23 km of navigable water on the Seli River. Demand exists for appropriate lake transport. Boat building, water safety and fisheries along with docking points and footpaths will be part of the SAP/LAIR Integrated Rural Transport System. Target outputs are: (i) 3 boat building enterprises(dug out canoes and plank boats) established and operational by March 2010; (ii) 20 fishing groups established by August 2010; (iii) 20 fish ponds for women constructed and operational by August 2010; (iv) 200 fisher/aquaculture persons trained and adopting improved fishing and processing techniques (October 2010); (v) fisheries input supply and marketing linkages between fishing groups and boat building enterprises (with outboard engines), and traders of fish produce established and operational (October 2010); (vi) lake transportation system established and 24 docking points operational (October 2010);
Lessons learned from the previous boat building program will be applied. Boat design will be more participatory, with specialists adapting to local preferences. Handing over of boats will be carefully managed to ensure an operating and management system is in place.. Handing over of boats will be done timely in recognition of the demand for transport during the rainy season. Boat building will include training on water safety. A transport system requires consultation, monitoring and follow up.
Stabilized Agriculture Program. Activities started to enhance agricultural production will be expanded in the post-commissioning phase:
• Expand the swampland development program and Farmer Field Schools;
• Assist in the detailed shoreline survey, specifically in areas that may affect swampland development;
• Provide land and water management remedial measures both on and off farm;
• Rehabilitate inundated footpaths in consultation with the affected communities for routing of replacement footpaths;
• Start a health program, in coordination with the Ministry of Health and Sanitation, and coordinate with Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security for control of pests, etc;
• Rehabilitate village water supply systems.
Specific outputs planned, for the 2-year post-commissioning phase are:
• Reduced Loss of Transported Goods and Reduced Transportation Costs through: (i) 24 community-owned docking points; and (ii) construction/rehabilitation of 12 km of footpaths linking the docking points to the main footpath network;
• Increased Land Productivity and Reduced Food Insecurity, through: (i) 25 FFSs under the GoSL’s “Feed the Nation” Program; (ii) adoption of improved crop production technology by 1,000 farmers on 2,000 hectares; (iii) 180 hectares of swamplands cultivated for crop production under improved water management techniques (within FFSs); (iv) 25 poultry or small ruminant (re-stocking) units operational (within FFSs); (v) 36 animal health units established (within FFSs); (vi) 18 community-based fish ponds established and operational (targeted at female members of FFSs) – linked to swampland development; (vii) multi-purpose and fruit tree nurseries established (one per Chiefdom); and (viii) 36 hectares of agro-forestry plots established (within FFSs).
• Improved Processing and Marketing, through: (i) 36 FFSs trained in marketing (180 households) and agro-processing (540 households); (ii) between 12 and 36 agro-processing and marketing units established and operational within ABUs; (iv) 7 strategic village market centers constructed and operational; (v) marketing information system (linking ABUs, village market centres, suppliers and traders) operational; (vi) 3 micro-credit schemes (established and operational (one per Chiefdom); and (vii) 180 to 540 rural households (farmers, fishers, agro-processors, artisans, market traders, etc) with improved access to micro-financing;
• Enhanced Life Skills, through: (i) 6,500 people demonstrating improved levels of nutrition, literacy, sanitation, awareness of water borne diseases and the dangers of water bodies, and prevention of HIV/AIDS; and (ii) women’s groups and programs established, adult literacy and employment rates amongst women, youth and disabled persons increased and youth recreation facilities and funding mechanisms identified.
LIMITATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The RAP had two notable limitations. First, the number of villages and the names of villages differed between official maps, records of the Statistical Department, and the names used by villagers in word and in local signs.. The RAP team tried to adjust and ensure consistency between the map labels and local markers since it was vital that locally used names of villages, especially those that were visited, coincided with those in the topographic map, but this could not be done. As a result, in many cases population census information could not be attached to any specific village. In fact, reliable demographic or population census data was for the most part unavailable. This was a serious issue since “being counted” was the first step in ensuring coverage of affected people..
This fundamental weakness in the original 2005 RAP was extended by identifying PAPs without clearly demarcating the shoreline or verifying the location of affected houses and lands in situ. Instead, the 2005 RAP relied mainly on the population census which was incomplete and inconsistent between the area of expected reservoir inundation, extant maps and local government population information.
Second, due to limited time and resources, follow-up of the 2004 socio-economic survey did not occur until 2008, when a dry season survey was combined with a needs assessment for community development planning. At this time, the monthly food aid distribution had begun. This distribution provided an opportunity to verify PAP conditions and undertake a full census of PAPs.. This 2008 survey was adopted as a baseline. although less-than-ideal because the survey was done after resettlement and compensation were completed.
The constrained time period for the RAP was necessary because delay would have entailed another year before the start of impoundment. At the same time, fast-tracking the work was problematic for ensuring a quality baseline. Although the resettlement process is usually carried out over a period of two years or more, here it was completed in only nine months.
A major contribution to success of the resettlement was the cooperation of villagers and local government officials, especially the Paramount Chiefs who facilitated the land-for-land exchange.
Three lessons arise from implementation of the LAIR and SAP programs. First, consistent follow up and consultation was hampered by affected villages being isolation in difficult terrain, by the small number of field based staff, and by reliance on Freetown-based university specialists and international consultants. Second, funds administration by the BPIU (now PMU), was not adapted to field requirements, especially in timely procurement of goods and services and delays
in obtaining and releasing funds . Lastly, schedule requirements were poorly managed, causing misunderstanding and uneasiness among the PAPs concerning provisions for livelihood support.
V. TRANSMISSION-LINE RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
2005 EIA- planned activity: the 2005 T-Line Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)
A Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the 161 kV T-Line was first undertaken in 2004 by Azimuth Consultants (Paul Wilcott and Associates) and the Final Report was disclosed in-country on 1 May 2005. Since this plan was completed prior to rehabilitation of the T-Line network, an update of the findings was undertaken by an international resettlement consultant (Mr. John Rice) in 2008. The update found more than 80% of claimant records from 1998 to 2004 used in the 2005 RAP were either lost or mistakenly calculated to reflect unrealistic claims. As a result, starting in 2009, a new claimant identification process was undertaken by a Sierra Leonian consulting firm, Laynaa and Associates.
Two approaches were identified in 2004 to address resettlement concerns in the T-Line and presented in the documents disclosed on January 26, 2005. The initial RAP proposed to compensate all households within a right-of-way (ROW) defined as a horizontal 30 meters, and vertical 7 meters clearance from the top of structures to the nearest conductor. This ROW would apply over the full length of the 200 km T-Line. However, during the course of RAP preparation, a second approach was introduced that conformed with accepted international practice for medium and high voltage T-Lines in developed countries in Europe and elsewhere. The second approach was to retain existing land uses and permit cables to overpass existing buildings and houses, subject to the minimum vertical clearance for safety reasons (e.g., to prevent flashovers and reduce the chance of accidental contact with conductors). This approach was adopted after consultations with project affected persons.
The 2005 RAP accepted, but did not verify, the 1995-1998 compensation claims. No database nor documentation files were established, except for a listing of names and alleged compensation rates. As of 2004, there were 367 households who submitted various types of unpaid claims, and another 6 households were added in 2005, representing structures that were found to be within the vertical clearance limit.
The differences in estimates of PAPs in 2005 (Azimuth), and the RAP update in 2008 (the ‘Rice’ update), are summarized in Table 5.1 below. As shown in Table 5.1, the total number of PAPs structures significantly differed in these two RAPs.
Table 5.1 Comparison of PAPs Identified in 1995-1998, 2005 and 2008
|Line Section |Project Affected Households |
| |1995-1998 Estimate |2004 and (2005) directly affected |2008 RAP Update-structures posing |
| | |PAPs |a T-Line security risk |
| | |in RAP | |
|Kingtom-Hillcot, Freetown |119 |119 (0) |30 (Regent to Kingtom) |
|Hillcot-Waterloo |37 |37 (0) |- |
|Waterloo-Lunsar |72 |72 (5) |4 |
|Lunsar-Makeni |64 |64 (0) |7 |
|Makeni-Bumbuna: |75 |75 (1) | |
|Bumbuna town | | |3 |
|Madif village | | | |
|Makeni town | | |3 |
| | | |45 |
|Total |367 |367 (6) |92 |
Completed work
Starting in 2008, some ground truthing was done by a team of RAP specialists, staff from the BPIU, and representatives of the GoSL surveyor’s office. This 2008 T-Line RAP Update was based on a redefined ROW which increased the vertical clearance between the highest point of the structure and the lowest conductor to 7.5 meters. The average distance between towers (or the tower span) is 364 meters length or area of 10,920 sq m, but of the entire distance, less than 20% were noted to be within significantly dense built-up areas. The 2008 T-Line RAP Update also sought guidance from an international panel of T-Line engineer that represented the T-Line supervisors, Studio Pietrangeli, and the BHP’s DSRP and ESAP. The Note defined the T-Line ROW as follows:
• The ROW is defined along the length of the T-Line by: (i) maintenance of a 7.5 m vertical clearance, measured between the highest point of physical obstacles on the ground and the local vertical position of the lowest conductor exposed to design conditions; and (ii) a horizontal width of 30 m (15 m on each side of the longitudinal axis) along the entire length of the T-Line. Although uniformly applied, treatment to be given to different reaches along the T-Line will necessarily be heterogenous since they include diverse land uses (e.g. urban, peri-urban, agricultural).
• Since the electric magnetic field (EMF) and electric field (EF) exposure levels are well below the ICNIRP guidelines of 100 microteslas (µT) for the Bumbuna-Freetown T-line configuration, existing structures and populations within the ROW can be retained provided they are below the vertical clearance limit and their land uses are consistently monitored.
The first phase of 2009 T-Line RAP implementation identified T-Line ROW occupants and the RAG authorized payments for moving and transition during the T-line network load testing phase. In addition, two months of food aid were provided to reduce the disturbance impacts. While food distribution was taking place, a socio-economic baseline survey was completed for all ROW occupants. During this transition period, between October to December 2009, around 30% to 40% of ROW occupants voluntarily moved out, having been sensitized about the possible health impacts of living under the line.
Planned post-commissioning activity
The RAG, which was organized in January 2009 to approve the compensation payments, will continue to be supported in the post-commissioning phase, primarily to approve the eligibility criteria and compensation rates. Based on initial consultations with the RAG, the GoSL was informed by the World Bank, in July 2009, that PAPs’ compensation would be provided to the following category of eligible claimants: “Eligibility of project affected persons (PAPs) for compensation to cover replacement costs of assets will include: (i) those whose property and assets were inside the ROW prior to construction of the T-line network in 1994; (ii) those households inside the ROW who were informed by the Bumbuna Project Implementation Unit (PIU), between 1994-2005, that they were eligible for compensation; and (iii) those whose lands were damaged during T-Line rehabilitation in 2008-2009.”
Since only 45 “legacy PAPs” provided documentation to substantiate their claims, the RAG recommended that livelihood restoration to these claimants, instead of cash, would be provided. The lands, crops and structures that were damaged during T-Line rehabilitation would be replaced at market costs and subject to RAG approval. Finally, structures and lands within the perimeter of the tower base would be compensated using the same methodology for the other T-Line networks, and as determined by the GoSL surveyors, so there is consistency in the valuation and payment methods
The DSRP and ESAP recommendations for the T-Line ROW, after commissioning, cover the following activities:
1. Continue enforcement of the ROW safe zone (area with no human occupants) and allow voluntary reoccupation of structures inside the ROW after commissioning; and simultaneously provide sensitization on safety, health, and line maintenance. The T-Line stretches in residential areas should be frequently inspected and people living inside the T-Line ROW should be periodically warned on the lethal dangers associated with activities causing violation of the minimum clearance (e.g. proximity to conductors through use of ladders or long sticks; use of water jets, mobile cranes, burning, etc
2. Verify land use and settlements within the ROW by inventory and ground truthing using maps, aerial photographs, socio-economic and physical surveys;
3. Remove structures that are within the vertical clearance limit, affecting T-Line security and continue to monitor the T-Line for structures (and trees) obstructing the vertical clearance;
4. Enforce immediate restrictions on new construction, population encroachments, unsustainable agricultural land uses (e.g. tree planting and burning) by issuing binding legal or administrative orders; at the same time, provide incentives to farmers for sustainable agriculture inside the ROW that can act as good ground cover. There is no proof that the proximity of a high voltage T-Line can create a health impact. However, it is common practice to avoid being close to a school;
5. Develop guidelines for effective operation, monitoring, and maintenance procedures for ensuring T-Line health and safety and incorporate these into the T-Line Operator terms of reference, with clearly defined responsibilities between the GoSL and the Operator for monitoring the ROW.
cOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GROWTH POLES
2005 EIA- Planned activity
2005 EIA community development was designed on consultations and focus group discussions organized in 2004 and 2005. Two reports – (i) Institutional Arrangements: The Upper Seli Community Development Initiative and proposed Bumbuna Trust (for equitable sharing and the delivery of non-power benefits from the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project in Sierra Leone) by Lawrence Haas (consultant) in February 2005; and (ii) Upper Seli Community Development Initiative prepared by James Vincent (ICARDS-Sierra Leone, February 2005) – contain summaries of the consultations and proposed activities, whose purpose was to provide benefit sharing programs to communities in and around the BHP area over a two-year period. A proposal for funding by the Japan Social Development Fund (JSDF) was prepared, but never submitted, for three reasons: (i) cost sharing funds from GoSL were not allocated since financing from a carbon offset- the Netherlands Clean Development Fund- did not materialize; (ii) the GoSL decided to focus largely on the 33 directly affected villages within the immediate vicinity of the reservoir; (iii) since the BHP was commissioned only in 2009, anticipated funding for the Upper Seli Community Development Initiative (USCDI) from a percentage of Bumbuna revenues was not available.
The original Upper Seli Community Development Initiative contained livelihood grants for: (i) a menu of micro financed sub-projects; (ii) small infrastructure for villages and districts; and (iii) youth capacity building. Over 30 village consultations and a peace building workshop were organized in the area with district and chiefdom leaders prior to the design of these activities.
The study by Vincent (2004) to elicit the views of other communities in the reservoir catchment and immediately downstream of the dam, but who are not directly affected by the construction activities or reservoir flooding, confirmed high expectation from these communities to share in BHP benefits, strong preferences for community-driven development (CDD) in design of benefits and for energy-based livelihood improvements.
The EIA prepared by Nippon Koei (UK) and associates recommended a number of initiatives in the EMP that required a high level of community participation, i.e.:
▪ Bumbuna Watershed Management Authority (BWMA) will coordinate land use and agriculture reform programs in the catchment of the reservoir, partly to control erosion and runoff, but also to advance sustainable land use practices and that these will require community participation;
▪ Bumbuna Wildlife Conservation Area (BWCA) will need to be managed to address wildlife impacts and to promote biodiversity conservation in the catchment. These activities need to be aligned with the Stabilized Agriculture Program (SAP) which is covered under the RAP; and
▪ Seli River Development Authority (SRDA), which was designed as the basin authority to move toward basin-level water resource management, and prepare initial strategic assessments related to the full Seli River hydropower development, and ultimately have responsibility to prepare a comprehensive basin management plan, will need to be coordinated with local leaders.
The EMP anticipated that once the above institutions were established during the completion phase of the BHP, their long-term sustainability would be enhanced by the creation of the Bumbuna Trust (BT), proposed specifically to provide the financing mechanism.
In February 2005, a full proposal for the USCDI was prepared in Freetown for a proposed grant financing of about $2.0 million for possible JSDF support. At that time, it was expected that the USCDI would support downstream communities, in parallel with ongoing livelihood restoration and community development being undertaken under the dam/reservoir RAP. The Map below shows the three Districts that were proposed to be covered by the USCDI.
The EMP also provided a rationale for expanding the benefit sharing programs from the BHP (as summarized in Table 6.1 below.
|Table 6.1: The value of a benefit sharing policy to the BHP |
|and to Future Hydropower development in Sierra Leone |
|Advances public consensus on | |
|hydropower development |Advances the legitimate interests of the citizens in the Seli River Basin to be first among |
| |beneficiaries of hydropower development in their basin; |
| |Properly done, generates “good faith”, builds ownership, reduces conflict and strengthens local and|
| |national public support for future hydropower schemes; |
| |Public support and partnership approaches are important if the full Bumbuna-Yiben scheme (275 MW) |
| |is to be developed in the Seli River Basin. |
|Improves enabling conditions for | |
|sustainable development |Advances thinking on water resource management in a basin context and development of the power |
| |sector in a manner that helps balance economic, social and environmental needs; |
| |Introduces a basin-level mechanism to build-upon in future, where water allocation, social and |
| |environmental management issues will become more significant (e.g. with the Yiben dam there is: (1)|
| |higher resettlement, which requires a comprehensive and benefit-sharing approach; and (2) |
| |inter-annual regulation of the Seli River flow, which requires greater intra-basin cooperation and |
| |environmental flows policies). |
|Promotes basin economic | |
|development |Encourages a basin identity and culture; |
| |Provides a mechanism to cooperate, share and transfer experience with new and innovative local |
| |development approaches among communities sharing the Basin; |
| |Provides direct financial support to community and entrepreneurial development needs that can be |
| |flexibly adapted as development conditions evolve. |
|Encourages additional inward | |
|investment in the basin |A visible demonstration of public support will help attract external project financing, |
| |particularly where the risks of community rejection and controversy are perceived as lower because |
| |benefit sharing provisions in place; |
| |A transparent, properly managed, fully accountable benefit-sharing Fund can be a catalyst for other|
| |inward investment to the basin. |
| |The future hydropower scheme would likely attract additional carbon credits. |
|Meets international expectations | |
|on dams and development financing|Benefit sharing is consistent with all international recommendations for the development and |
| |management of dam projects; |
| |It signals that the GoSL subscribes to current international thinking on sustainable development; |
| |It would contribute to wider support for the national policy of hydropower development, not only |
| |locally and nationally, but in the international NGO and financial communities. |
Source: Lawrence Haas, Institutional Arrangements: The Upper Seli Community Development Initiative and proposed Bumbuna Trust (for equitable sharing and the delivery of non-power benefits from the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project in Sierra Leone), February 2005
Local Government and Community Development
The 2004 and 2005 studies examined the institutional context for the proposed USCDI. The studies found that immediately after the war, GoSL and the international community focused on peacekeeping and national recovery. Programs coordinated by the National Commission for Reconstruction, Resettlement and Rehabilitation (NCRRR), for example, involved post-war resettlement, emergency shelter and other reconstruction works. This phase and a subsequent transitional phase have come to closure. Most emergency initiatives financed by the UN, NGOs and donors have shut down or been reformulated as longer-term development programmes.
Specifically for the USCDI, the most important institutional policies were those embodied in the Local Government Act (LGA-2004), which supports a longer-term development approach. It provides a new governance paradigm built upon the principles of transparency, inclusion, accountability, and sustainability. The LGA-2004 assigned functional responsibilities across national, provincial and local levels of government, and reactivated local government institutions. More importantly, it devolved decision-making and service delivery to local councils.
The decentralized approach shifted “project financing” approaches to local development to a more localized structure under the Local Government Finance Committee (LGFC). It was anticipated in 2005 that donor funding would provide budget support to local governments that was designed eventually to reduce dependence on such funding and to generate revenue from local taxes, including the revenues from Bumbuna.
This decentralized approach was expectedly a long-term strategy. Outcomes were not to come over a short period, because government had a limited tax base for the foreseeable future and strong reliance on donors who, at that time, immediately after the civil war, financed the bulk of central government’s recurrent and capital expenditures. When the USDCI programs were formulated, only a few of the 12 District councils had the capacity to take over project identification, approval, and implementation responsibility. Capacities needed to be developed to establish credibility in such areas as participatory planning, budgeting, managing finance, monitoring and evaluation.
The main institutions and actors at the national level and the roles of local governance reform, were summarized by Haas (2005) below in Table 6.2:
Table 6.2 Institutions for Community Based Programs
|Inter-Ministry Committee on | |Established with the Vice President as the Chairman and representations from local councils. |
|Decentralization and Local Government | |Responsibilities: |
|(IMC) | |Overseeing implementation of the LGA (2004); |
| | |Overseeing further development and implementation of local government and decentralization; |
| | |Protecting and promoting local democracy and participatory government; |
| | |Arbitrating disputes between Ministries, departments and agencies of Government, provincial |
| | |administrations and local councils. |
| | | |
|Ministry of Local Government and | |Line Ministry responsible for policy countrywide local government operations. Includes the |
|Community Development (MLGCD) | |Decentralization Secretariat and a Community Development Policy Unit. |
| | | |
|The Decentralization Secretariat | |Established to coordinate delivery of the decentralization program and provide a secretariat |
|(A Directorate of MLGCD) | |service to the IMC. Broadly based responsibilities in support of decentralization include: |
| | |refinement of the policy, legal and regulatory framework; |
| | |collaborate with the MoF on fiscal decentralization; |
| | |coordination/ monitoring of sector devolution plans (of MDAs); liaising with development |
| | |partners and civil society to coordinate support for the decentralization program; |
| | |monitoring, documenting, and evaluating the decentralization process and reporting to the IMC |
| | |and other stakeholders. |
| | | |
|Line Ministries, Departments and | |The various MDAs and their agencies being transformed from delivery to policy and support |
|Agencies (MDAs) | |roles (support for local governments) and have offices in each District. E.g. ministries of |
| | |Education, Science and Technology; Health and Sanitation; Agriculture; Roads and Public Works;|
| | |and Energy and Power. |
The National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA), which was established as a "Social Fund" in 2001 by an Act of Parliament to succeed the NCRRR is another important actor on the national scene. NaCSA says it has held back on investments in the three districts near the Bumbuna dam pending clarification of the benefit sharing programs. It was widely acknowledged that NaCSA needed to transform rapidly from a social fund agency that provided direct financial transfers to communities, by-passing existing government structures, to one which supported the empowerment of local governments consistent with the local government Act (2004).
Parallel to the NaCSA model are the district development plans meant to be implemented by 19 district councils of Sierra Leone. These plans were supposed to be prepared through participatory processes and be responsive to local priorities. For the proposed USCDI, the following general hierarchy for local government (see Table 6.3) was to be used:
Table 6.3 Local Government Institutions
|District | |An elected Chairperson and councilors (between 22-30) in each of the three |
| |The largest unit of local government. |District of the Upper Seli, including representative Paramount Chiefs |
| |Includes an elected Council led by a | |
| |Council Chairperson and supported by |Chief Administrator: An appointed civil servant who has overall responsibility|
| |various standing committees |for administration and council staff, including fiduciary responsible as the |
| |(development and operating) and an |signing authority for the development accounts at the district and ward |
| |administration headed by the Chief |levels. The Office of Chief Administrator has several staff. |
| |Administrator (CA) with a Treasurer. | |
| |Districts are responsible for the |Development Planning Committee: Consisting of Members of the Council. |
| |District Development Plan and annual |Responsible for preparation and approval of the District Development Plan that|
| |budget for the government-wide |compiles Ward Development Plans and introduces district-level initiatives |
| |budgetary cycle, the LGFC (grant |(i.e. those initiatives that involve more that one ward such as district |
| |system) and funding discussions with |roads) |
| |donors. | |
| | |Technical Planning Committee: Chaired by the CA. Includes Heads of all the |
| | |MDAs in the District (e.g. Heads of district branches of the line Ministries |
| | |for education, roads, heath, youth, energy and power sectors) |
| | | |
| | |Procurement Committee: Generally includes Council Members and beneficiary |
| | |group representatives that sit for specific projects. Must follows procedures |
| | |set out in the Local Procurement Act (2005) |
| | | |
| | |Sector Committees: Various sector committees to represent sector interests at |
| | |the District level (e.g. Youth, Health, Power and Energy) composed of Council |
| | |Members and Heads of the respective MDAs in the District |
|Ward | |Ward Development Committee: Chaired by the Paramount Chief. 12 people in |
| |Typically there are 4-5 Wards in a |total. Includes 10 elected representatives (5 men and 5 women) |
| |District, which represent the basic | |
| |electoral unit for the National |District Councils and various Committees |
| |Parliament. Two wards roughly |Ward Development Committees |
| |correspond to a Chiefdom in terms of | |
| |geographic area (though there are many |District Councils and Ward Development Committees are elected. WDCs must |
| |variations) |include 5 men and 5 women. The Paramount Chief sits on the Council and heads |
| | |the WCDs in their Chiefdoms |
| | | |
| | |Allocation of community land, dispute settlement to promote community harmony,|
| | |peace and security; customs, cultural and traditional practices. |
| | | |
| | |Annual and longer-term District Development Plans built on Ward Development |
| | |Plans and district-level initiatives |
| | |Ward Development Plans building on community and village level interests |
|Community | | |
| |Individual communities that range in |Village Development Committees (VDCs) : although status of the VDCs are not |
| |size from clusters of a few households |yet fully defined, they are mentioned in the Local Government Act (2004) |
| |to rural towns of several thousand | |
| |people |Local religious leaders (specifically, the Village Imam or Priest) |
| | |Secret Societies for men (Poro – with hunter traditions) and women (Sande) |
| | |Teachers, instructors, retired civil servants and other educated persons |
| | |living and working in the communities villages |
| | |Formative farmers’ trade groups in the basin |
| | |Rural development cooperatives |
| | |Civil society interests (e.g. academia, training institutions, youth |
| | |organizations) |
| | |Private sector interests (e.g. mining and agro-processing industries, |
| | |construction companies and smaller trading companies in the basin) |
| | |National and local media |
| | |SLANGO, an umbrella organization representing national and international NGOs.|
| | |NAF/SL, a national association of farming cooperatives that hopes to become |
| | |the voice of the community-driven rural development process. |
Completed work
The USCDI, as originally designed, was never implemented due to unavailability of funds from the Netherlands Clean Development Fund, Japan Social Development Fund, and a percentage of revenues from BHP. Instead, the BHP embarked on (i) a two-year program for immediate food security between August 2007 and August 2009; and to promote food self-sufficiency (ii) the simultaneous delivery of technical assistance and inputs to promote agricultural production and business development. Thus, starting in May 2007, the emphasis of the Stabilized Agriculture Program (SAP) and Livelihood Assessment and Income Restoration (LAIR) programmes was emergency relief. An Operating Manual was prepared for the 3 programs that supported implementation of the RAP – (i) Emergency Livelihoods Recovery Scheme (ELRS); (ii) Emergency Agriculture Response Scheme (EARS); and (iii) Emergency Footpath Rehabilitation Works Program (EFRWP).
Emergency Livelihoods Recovery Scheme (ELRS).
Food Aid Distribution/Food Support Program. In May 2007, a Food Support Operating Manual was designed following recommendations of the World Bank to distribute monthly food aid to more than 200 PAPs and host communities. The objectives of the food aid were to:
• ensure that PAPs had a minimum food supply, to address hunger and deprivation, during the transition period from October 2007- August 2008 before and immediately after impoundment of the Bumbuna reservoir;
• make available to PAPs households a secure food supply and means for quick recovery of their agricultural and livelihood activities; and
• provide a minimum nutritionally acceptable food “bundle” consistent with international standards (i.e. 50 kg of rice, 3 gallons of palm oil and 12 kg of beans each month), to address pre-existing malnutrition in the area.
By January 2009, food support was delivered to PAPs in the 33 directly affected villages within the Kalansongoia, Kasunku and Diang Chiefdoms. The food aid was able to:
• determine the food security status of each PAPs household, and document changes as compared to the situation in 2007 to 2008;
• consult with PAPs on a monthly basis, using needs assessment, socio-economic survey, and focus group discussions;
• assess why conditions of food insecurity and vulnerability occur and at which time of the year these conditions are highest, and thereby, target the food aid during these periods;
• identify groups of the population who are most likely to face conditions of food insecurity and vulnerability (e.g. women headed households, households with disabled members);
• identify where the vulnerable populations are most concentrated;
• identify where food aid has a comparative advantage in addressing the problems of food insecurity and livelihood vulnerability;
• build on the capacity of food distribution partners to develop and implement food security assessment activities; and
• develop a food security monitoring system to be implemented by BPIU (PMU) and partners.
Agri-business Development. Eleven ABUs have been established since 2007. These resulted in the establishment of agribusiness and marketing systems benefitting 450 households. There were 3-day pilot sessions in Fadugu, Kasolobah, and Kabendugu completed in 2008.
Agro-processing and Marketing. There were 3 training programs on agro-processing. Each FFS was given a basic set of materials for post-harvest activities like grain drying and storing; processing of nuts (grinding); and simple sheds for storing farm implements.
Life Skills Training. In 2007 to 2008, training was completed for PAPs before and after compensation for money management; 36 micro credit groups were started with women; 30 community based artisan groups and Community Development Committees were set up; 20 fishermen’s cooperatives were formed; and 3 boat building groups were trained on life skills.
Fisheries Development, Water Safety, Boat Building. The Integrated Rural Transport System was started as part of the livelihoods diversification, marketing and life skills sub-projects. In 2007 to 2008, the BHP concentrated on assisting carpenters and blacksmiths as part of boat builders groups. The following were achieved: 20 fishing groups participated in water safety training; 20 fish ponds for women were established and operational; 200 fisher/aquaculture folk trained and adopted improved fishing and processing techniques; 3 boat building enterprises established and operational; input supply and marketing linkages between fishing groups and boat building enterprises and suppliers were made; and 24 docking points were prepared.
Local Governance. The BHP conducted 3 sets of local governance training for each of the following: Koinadugu and Tonkolili District Councils, Diang, Kalansogia and Kasunko Chiefdoms, Village Development Committees, farmers associations, ABUs, fishing groups, etc. The training comprised the principles of good management, leadership and conflict resolution.
Emergency Agricultural Response Scheme (EARS)
The objective of EARS was to provide opportunities for PAPs to immediately engage in productive agricultural-based livelihoods following their relocation and/or loss of land. The training and farming operations were thus undertaken with technical and financial assistance from EARS. This differed from the original objective of SAP which was to replace the prevailing system of shifting agriculture with a more stable and less land-consuming form of agriculture. In this regard, many SAP interventions were undertaken in collaboration with the LAIR Programme to enhance the sustainability of project interventions.
The EARS was implemented to: (i) increase the number of farmer field schools (FFSs) from 7 (as targeted in the EMP) to 11; (ii) recruit and train 11 FFS Facilitators; (iii) increase the number of agriculture tools sets provided to PAPs to 330 (i.e. one per farmer as opposed to sub-group sharing arrangements for some items such as watering cans and wheelbarrows); (iv) increase in water management structures; (v) complete soil analysis of swamps to be developed (a requirement of the Land and Water Resources Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security); and (vi) increase in FFS training and extension.
EARS activities targeted some 900 impoverished rural households dependent on farming and forestry, and vulnerable groups such as poor and female-headed households dependent on primary-level subsistence farming, homestead gardening, seasonal fishing and palm oil/wine production for their basic livelihoods (see Table 6.4). The beneficiaries represented landless and marginal farmers, coming from remote and inaccessible communities, who lost many livelihood assets as a result of the civil war and the reservoir.
Table 6.4 Summary of Achievements under the Emergency Agricultural Response Scheme
|Activities |Monitoring Indicators |
| |Targets |Achievements |
|FFSs operational |7 |11 |
|Members of FFSs |175 |329 |
|Farmers trained |175 |329 |
|Short season crops planted by FFSs |5.6 ha |89.6 ha |
|Vegetable crops planted by FFSs |2 ha |0 ha |
|Agricultural tools distributed to FFSs |11 sets |7 sets |
|Poultry re-stocking packages to FFSs |7 |4 |
|Community animal health units |7 |0 |
|Swampland development |24 ha |7 ha |
|Tree nursery establishment |1 |0 |
The communities of Kateneh, Kasokra, Kasolobah, Kabendugu and Kunsilima formed themselves into five clusters of 11 FFSs with a total membership of 329 farmers, of which more than half are women. Membership details of FFSs are given in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5 Membership Details of SAP Farmer Field Schools
|Chiefdoms |FFS Clusters |FFSs |Members |
| | | |Male |Female |Total |
|1. Kalansogoia |Kateneh |Abohisorbeh |15 |16 |31 |
| | |Akutuyanday |19 |11 |30 |
| | |Bapitorkar |17 |16 |33 |
| | |Wuthumay Yama |14 |17 |31 |
| |Kasokira |N’masiyanday |13 |16 |29 |
| | |Abohinanday |14 |15 |29 |
|2. Kasunku |Kasolobah |Sorbeh |16 |19 |35 |
| | |Mabohanday |16 |17 |33 |
| |Kabendugu |Mamasitay |11 |14 |25 |
| | |Malhimoh |10 |14 |24 |
|3. Diang |Kunsilima |Kamawomi |14 |15 |29 |
|Total |5 |11 |159 |170 |329 |
Farmer Field Schools. FFS Facilitators were given training courses of six weeks by MoAFS district extension specialists. New production and post-harvest handling technologies were used in: (i) cultivation of short season varieties of crops such as cassava, cocoyam, rice and sweet potato, in particular ROK3 rice in swamplands; (ii) cultivation of vegetable crops such as bulb onions, cucumber, krain krain, lettuce, okra, spinach and sweet potato; (iii) fertilizer management in swamplands; (iv) pest control, in particular cane cutters; (v) group-based construction and operation and maintenance of appropriate water management structures in swamplands; (vi) methods of poultry rearing (housing, feeding, breeding, health, etc); (vii) improved methods of small ruminant production; and (viii) improved harvesting, threshing and on-farm storage techniques.
The Kateneh FFS Cluster was given 100 kg of improved short-season variety (ROK3) rice seeds for testing under traditional swampland farming systems during the 2007 rainy season. The FFSs returned 100 kg of seed to BEST Limited once the crop had been successfully harvested. Following this trial, 10 other FFSs were given 500 kg of improved short-season ROK3 rice seeds for testing and demonstrating under both upland and swampland conditions during the 2008 rainy season. The total area planted was 88 hectares (44 ha of upland and 44 ha of swampland). The FFSs will return the seed to BEST Limited once the crop had been harvested. Initial results indicate that the upland rice did not perform well with yields of less than 900 kg per hectare but the swampland rice was a success with yields in excess of 1.6 metric tonnes per hectare. However, the upland rice suffered from heavy rains and soil erosion in August 2008.
In addition, the EARS distributed 8 bundles of cassava stems (0.2 ha) to each FFS for planting in swamplands during the 2009 dry season. Another 60 kg of groundnuts (one hectare) to each FFS was distributed in January 2009.
Swampland Development. Inland valley ‘hanging’ swamps were developed because they offered the most fertile agro-ecological type in the area. Perennial and semi-perennial water flows were managed through water controlled canals that allowed 2 to 3 cropping periods per year. The aim was to demonstrate to farmers how they can double the productivity of their swamplands, and as a consequence reduce the necessity of farming on fragile steeply sloping uplands.
The water management technique introduced for swampland development distributes water equally over the swampland through construction of a head bund (diversion structure), two peripheral bunds or canals at the interface of the side slope and the swamp, and internal distribution ditches or outlets for each farmer’s plot. The success of this water management technique required a participatory community-based approach which could only be sustained through the establishment of a water users’ group. This group was a subset of the FFS. Because the engineering works were simple, and could be undertaken by the water users’ group themselves, about one-half of the groups were women. In addition, to ensure continued maintenance, signatures of the chairperson of the water users’ group and the village chief on each of the works sheets were required, and the works were audited before the FFS received the agricultural inputs.
Two water management schemes were surveyed and designed by staff from MoAFS District Land and Water Development Division (LWDD) with full participation of the relevant FFS. All construction works were undertaken by the FFS and the water user groups, under the supervision of field extension workers. In August 2008, heavy run off and soil erosion damaged 150 metres of the peripheral bunds at Kasokra, which were soon repaired with cane stick reinforcements by the FFS. The FFS clearly recognised the benefits of swampland development and a second crop of cassava, ground nuts, krain krain, onions and sweet potatoes were planted.
Poultry Restocking. The EARS was hoping to demonstrate the benefits of improved poultry production techniques (based on breeding of hybrid traditional chickens already tested by MoAFS’s “Operation Feed the Nation” program) to the 11 EARS FFSs. Like swampland development, construction of appropriate poultry sheds was based on community participation. The poultry sheds were stocked in January 2009 and FFS members were provided with the appropriate training in animal health and feeding. The most suitable time for restocking was in the dry season, given the high prevalence of diseases such Newcastle and coccidiosis in the rainy season.
Agro-forestry. The BHP was able to distribute 250 oil palm seedlings, 150 citrus seedlings and 100 fast growing (fuel wood) acacia seedlings to each of the 4 FFSs in Kasokra and Kasolobah FFS clusters were not able to plant on the uplands at the start of the 2009 rainy season. At present, the seedlings have been planted for safekeeping in shaded beds made in the swamplands.
Emergency Footpath Rehabilitation Works Program (EFRWP)
The objective of EFRWP was to realign footpaths dislocated by the Bumbuna reservoir and to initiate appropriate transportation systems along the shoreline (see Table 6.6).
Table 6.6 Summary of Achievements under the
Emergency Footpath Rehabilitation Works Programme
|Activities |Monitoring Indicators |
| |Targets |Achievement |
|Footpaths surveyed and designed |44 |72.2 |
|Footpaths realigned/rehabilitated |32 |32 |
|New footpaths constructed |12 |0 |
|Docking points established |24 |0 |
Planned post-commissioning activity
The BHP submitted a proposal to the Japan Social Development Fund (JSDF) to finance some benefit sharing activities. The original Upper Seli Community Development Initiative (USCDI) will not be carried out as planned in 2005. Instead, a modified version of planned programs has been proposed as part of a rapid response program to the global energy and food crisis. This JSDF proposed project will be implemented as a “stand-alone” but closely aligned with the rest of the post-commissioning programs. It will be implemented by the PMU, but will coordinate closely with NaCSA since its focus will be on community driven development (CDD).
The objectives of the JSDF project are to:
• reduce hunger and deprivation in 24 of the poorest communities in the Seli River area, some of which are located downstream of the dam site, by providing urgent food-for-work and cash-for-work schemes;
• improve livelihoods of the poorest households affected by the food and fuel crisis through establishment of rapid response growth poles (RRGPs), which are clusters of the poorest communities that are developed to become centers for economic growth through community managed, energy based livelihood, and small infrastructure sub-projects that maximize the use of the Seli River; and
• enhance local capacities in the RRGPs through business management, local governance, and life skills training, especially targeting youth and women’s groups.
The Rapid Response Growth Poles (RRGP) model, which is used in regional planning, is applied in this proposed JSDF project to: (i) create critical centers for more effectively channeling urgent support to the poorest communities; and (ii) develop alongside these communities complementary productive centers (groups of communities) that can act as catalysts for economic growth.
During the second phase of the BHP, after commissioning, five approaches will be adopted to ensure long-term sustainability of community development programs, forming some type of “exit strategy” based on self-sufficiency and good governance.
The second phase will make use of 5 approaches for long-term sustainability.
• institutional capacity building will be facilitated by hiring “coaches” who will assist in project design and management; oversight of operation and maintenance, and social accountability;
• Community User Committees (CUCs) will be formed for operating and maintaining small village sub-projects; CUCs will be institutionalized as part of the GoSL’s decentralization strategy;
• sub-projects that demonstrate financial soundness and effectiveness of monitoring will be given priority funding under a small grants plan where 5% of the grant goes to maintenance costs of the CUCs;
• Relief Centers and Communications Centers will be set up in accessible locations, as identified through village meetings and consultations, and using the NaCSA decentralized model; and
• the MoEWR plans to submit a Cabinet Paper to request for national budgetary allocation to cover the annual recurrent costs for the operation and maintenance of sub-projects, and for the operation of the Relief Centers and Communications Centers.
Livelihood Assessment and Income Restoration (LAIR) Program
In August 2007, local leaders from three of the poorest Chiefdoms (Diang, Kalansogoia, and Kasunko) expressed concerns about persistent hunger and the rise in morbidity and mortality rates due to malnutrition and malaria. Another series of consultations with affected villagers confirmed the difficulties experienced by farmers around the reservoir, and the occurrence of extreme cases of drought and flooding in the area. As a result, the LAIR program will conduct several activities aimed at restoring livelihoods and improving the socio-economic status of communities in the BHP area.
Health and Nutrition Survey. In its second phase, the LAIR program will conduct a health and nutrition survey to identify PAPs in most need of food and medical aid. The BHP will coordinate with MoHS for an assigned trained nurse/nutritionist to visit the area at least twice a month. After the survey, the BHP will determine the amount and types of medicines and other assistance to be distributed to the poorest households in the area.
Agribusiness Units (ABUs). The following targets are proposed for the second phase under agribusiness development of the ABUs: (i) 7 palm nut and palm oil processing production units operational within ABUs with technical skills and marketing training and linkages; (ii) 7 groundnut paste processing and production units operational within ABUs with technical skills and marketing training and linkages; (iii) 7 cassava/sweet potato chips processing and production units operational within ABUs with technical skills and marketing training and linkages; (iv) 8 rice storage and handling equipment units operational within ABUs; (v) 7 strategic village market centers operational; and (vi) marketing information system developed (linking ABUs, village market centers, suppliers and traders) operational.
Micro-finance (Credit, Women’s Savings and Loans). The needs assessment revealed demand for micro-finance. In response, the LAIR program will provide: (i) institutional arrangements for banking, financial security and appropriate training set up for 165 PAPs; (ii) 3 micro-credit schemes to be established; (iii) 36 micro-credit/women’s savings groups established; and (iv) 690 rural households (farmers, artisans, fisher folk, market traders, etc) with improved access to micro-financing.
Off-farm Livelihoods Diversification Support. The following have been identified for the post-commissioning phase: (i) 30 community livelihoods development plans designed; (ii) 30 community-based artisans groups established according to needs identified (e.g. blacksmiths, mat weavers, cloth weavers, carpentry, soap, tie die); and (iii) about 20 members trained in best practice on how to adopt improved technologies according to household need and market demand.
Stabilized Agriculture Program (SAP)
In September 2007, BEST Limited assisted PIU to prepare a tender document for the construction of 72.2. km of footpaths that will be inundated by the reservoir or are in need of rehabilitation to ensure project affected communities have open-ended access to neighboring communities and markets. The tender has three lots:
i) Bumbuna dam site to Wasakoroma (21.4 km);
ii) Wasakoroma to Kamawonikapetheh (19.3 km);
iii) Kamawonikapetheh to Kafogo (31.5 km).
Renewable Energy Scheme. The objective of the Renewable Energy Scheme (RES) is to support PAPs with renewable energy systems to include but not limited to solar energy systems to supply power to community centres and clinics and biomass energy for household use. The SAP did not undertake any activities under RES because of differences opinion between ESAP and World Bank Project Implementation Support Missions and PIU on the most appropriate systems to be provided to PAP communities.
Farmer Field Schools. The purpose of FFSs is to promote understanding of farming and to stimulate adoption of appropriate innovations. Not surprisingly, adoption rates of conservation farming have varied. But all of the ideas being tried on group plots are being taken up on their own farms by at least half those members trying them. These water conservation approaches, for example, have only been for trials. During the second phase, the SAP will concentrate on dissemination of conservation farming and sensitization to refrain from burning and cultivating the uplands in preference of tree crop production (in particular oil palm, citrus, avocado pear, coconut and cashew nut) and the cutting of fodder for goats.
Improved Crop Production. Cost-benefit analyses and impact assessments for integrated crop production (short season crops and agricultural tools), poultry production and footpath rehabilitation (for marketing) have been prepared. These will be applied in the second phase to an additional 25 villages. To do this effectively, the SAP field technicians will cooperate with the MoAFS district offices. There will also be more chiefdom meetings; numerous village consultations (over 100 throughout the duration of the livelihood restoration programs undertaken in connection with the BHP); and site demonstrations to expand the conservation farming approaches.
VII. SAFETY MEASURES DOWNSTREAM
OF THE DAM
2005 EIA- planned activity
The Short-Term Emergency Preparedness Plan prepared by the Project Consulting Engineers, Studio Pietrangeli, in 2008 provided a description of emergency scenarios foreseen by international best practice that could occur over the plant’s first impoundment up to its commissioning and handing over to the Owner. It deals also with emergency related operating and mobilization procedures to be followed by the dam operating personnel, and gives guidelines on the Emergency Action Plan (EAP) to be prepared by the Owner’s representative; in this case, the BPIU of the MoEWR. The Emergency Action Plan (EAP) is the formulation of different communication strategies and tools to be utilized for alerting communities living close to the dam site during unforeseen emergencies.
The hydrology of the BHP reflects the seasonal rainfall pattern characterized by a very wet rainy season, followed by a markedly dry period of 4 to 5 months. Since 1970, the stages of the Seli River have been recorded at Badela and Bumbuna by two gauges installed under a UNDP Program. The instream flow regime of the Seli River recorded at Bumbuna for the period 1970 - 1979 shows a mean annual discharge of 122.8 m3/s, with a maximum of 331 m3/s in September and a minimum of 6.1 m3/s in March. The highest peak flows are reached between August and October and normally range between 600 and 1200 m3/s. The maximum recorded flow of 1,052 m3/s occurred in September 1970. The design flood determined in the feasibility study through analysis of precipitation records for stations south of the catchment area and by infiltration measurements corresponds to a probable maximum flood with a peak flow of 2,970 m3/s.
The valley of the Seli where the reservoir will form is deeply cut into the crystalline bedrock of the Sula Mountains. The reservoir impounded by the dam will be Y-shaped with a total surface area of 21 km2 and a volume of 445 million m3 at the maximum water level (241.96 m.a.s.l.). The main section of the reservoir forming in the main river stem will be contained by the steep slopes of the valley and extend 30 km upstream, where it then branches into two. The two upstream branches that are 7 km and 11 km long will form in flatter land and rolling hills. The reservoir width will vary between 200 m and 1 km. The maximum storage capacity of the reservoir will be 350 million m3, equivalent to about 50 days of full generation output. This includes a flood routing capacity of 35 million m3. The inactive capacity (dead storage) will be 95 million m3. The maximum seasonal drawdown will be 31m (between the maximum operating level of 241.25 m.a.s.l. and minimum operation level of 210.00 m.a.s.l.). Actual daily fluctuations from peaking operations are not expected to be greater than 0.1 m.
Geotechnical investigations indicate that the degree of fracturing present in the upper strata of the bedrock on which the reservoir is formed gradually reduces with depth until it is practically nil after 10 m. This, combined with other factors such as the high piezometric pressure in the slopes above the reservoir, indicated that water tightness is assured along the bottom and sides of the reservoir.
Hydrological (water flow) data are available for the period 1921 to 1999, which was the basis for estimating the maximum, average, and minimum river monthly flows. After each rainy season, the hydrological and climatic pattern shows that water flows are continuous through January until March. Its minimum discharge in the river occurs during much of April. As the first rainfall reaches the reservoir hydrological basin, the runoff sharply rises in May. At this time, during the start of the rainy season, the civil works at the left tunnel (e.g. concrete plug, steel elbow erection and encasement, and ski jump) would have been completed.
As shown in the graph (prepared by Studio Pietrangeli, 2008), there are four stages of impoundment: (i) up to 181 m. gradual rise at the start of the rainy season in April; (ii) rising to 210 m in July; (iii) steep increase up to the maximum level of 240 m; and (iv) plateau level of 240 m elevation. After impoundment, the Contractor/Operator will provide daily information of planned discharges from the dam for the next 24 hours. This information will be broadcast twice a day through the local radio stations – Radio Bumbuna and Radio Maria. Other means of communicating the daily information will be used to ensure that local people are aware of the expected discharge from the dam and the flow regime for the next 24 hours.
Completed work
The BHP adopted an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) that was to be carried out by a Dam Safety Committee (DSC), composed of representatives of the BHP contractor, supervising engineer, and GoSL. In addition, the BPIU organized the Emergency Action Unit (EAU) and coordinated the work of an inter-agency GoSL committee for Bumbuna emergency procedures, including the Office of National Security, police, military, health, and local officials.
The purpose of the EAP was to ensure that appropriate procedures were in place in the event of an “emergency” characterized by a steep rise in water level, resulting in flooding and its associated risks to the health and safety of surrounding populations. At the extreme, the “emergency” may require the evacuation of people in and around the immediate vicinity of the dam and reservoir, or the so-called “Red Zone.” The EAP gives guidelines for a system to be utilized for alerting the communities; instructing their evacuation; and providing basic health and subsistence support after evacuation.
The EAP consisted of: (i) an alarm or emergency warning system; (ii) emergency communications; (iii) evacuation procedure; and (iv) post-evacuation arrangements. Carrying out these activities required the set up of an Emergency Action Unit (EAU), based in Bumbuna Town and with corresponding responsibilities and resources to implement the EAP.
Two general types of “alarms” are used that would trigger the emergency warning procedures. These are “Evacuation Alarms” and “Sudden Water Release Alarms.” An evacuation alarm is to be triggered in case of: (i) failure or impending failure of the dam; and (ii) impending danger of overtopping in case of flooding. During operation, the alarm would be triggered on the basis of the water elevation and the water surface rise rate. The time period, or limit, was defined to assure that at least six hours was provided for evacuation of the population within the Near Zone or those residing approximately one km and up to 5 kms from the dam site. These are villages that could be submerged within six hours from the beginning of dam crest overtopping. Based on the hydrological and topographic map, there are 23 villages inside the Near Zone, including Bumbuna Town.
The Dam Operator is responsible for sounding the alarm at the dam site, emitting a single continuous tone signal that could be heard in the Near Zone. Those living in the Far Zone will be alerted via radio communication and through the mobile alarm team. A second, siren system has not yet been installed, although cost estimates and a technical plan for installation were completed.
The Sudden Water Release Alarm is to be used in case of: (i) opening of the radial outlet gate during flooding; or (ii) accidental opening of the radial outlet. This alarm is sent to “alert” populations within the immediate vicinity, the Near Zone, and those on the river banks or in the river for restricted or no-use activities, including boating and fishing. The alarm is triggered at the dam site emitting a two-tone signal. Water alarm siren systems (primary warning system) in the Near Zone downstream of the dam will be used for special cases. In the Far Zone, similar use of radios and communications will be applied. Local police and Chiefdom authorities will be informed so they can assist in monitoring use of the river. This constitutes the secondary emergency warning system.
Local communities within the Near Zone will be warned about the risks of activities at and around the dam site, especially the danger that can be created between the dam and the Bumbuna Bridge by sudden water releases. There are several warning signs posted to restrict use within the immediate dam vicinity due to changes in flow levels. Flow regime information will be released for public information on a daily basis through the two radio stations in the local dialect. Published materials will also be written in the local language, making extensive use of illustrations. Examples of these communications materials are shown in Annex 4 (translated into local languages and recorded in cassette tapes for each village).
The EAP for communicating the alarm or early warning system has three basic steps (see flowchart below): (i) Trigger Alarm Notice (caution, alert, evacuation); (ii) Start Mobilization; and (iii) Enforce Control. During the transition, the interim arrangements call for the dam contractor, dam engineer, and Project Implementation Unit (PIU) to form a dam safety committee that monitors, on a daily basis, the conditions of water flow. The PIU representative, who is based in the Bumbuna campsite, is the first point of contact, and the main decision maker on when an alarm needs to be triggered based on information provided by the dam contractor and engineer.
[pic]
FLOWCHART OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR ALERTS OR EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS
BPIU, being the first point of contact for the alarm, was established as the responsible unit for ensuring that the communications network was operational. An Emergency Action Unit (EAU) was formed, with an office in Bumbuna Town, and comprised of representatives from the army, police, local authorities and the chiefdom, and the Office of National Security (ONS), but it was not clear at the time of commissioning who would be responsible for maintenance of the siren alarm system.
Post-commissioning activity
The Fourth Visit of the DSRP recommended several steps for ensuring that dam safety preparedness was in place after commissioning. The following steps will be adopted, following DSRP guidance.
Step 1: Trigger Alarm Notice (caution, alert, evacuation)
As noted above, the PIU, upon advice of the dam contractor and engineer, will issue an alarm notice of three types. A notice of caution is made on the basis of day-to-day flow information, warranting the restriction of activities along the river banks and in the immediate vicinity of the dam site (Near Zone). A notice of alert is made during sudden water releases such as those that occur when the radial outlet is opened during a flood or when it is accidentally opened. An evacuation alarm is sounded due to dam failure or impending failure, or as noted earlier, when there is impending danger of overtopping in case of flooding.
Along the river downstream, signs will be installed warning of a sudden water release eventually. The warning signs shall be placed near bridges, fords, rapids and near all those riverside localities known to be frequented by local people. Danger warnings will be written both in English and in local idioms and they shall be properly graphically illustrated.
|Types of Alarm Notice: |Alarm Triggered by: |Communicated through: |
|Caution |changes in ordinary discharge information |radio and broadcast; traditional means |
| | |(e.g. town crier); SMS mobile operator |
|Alert |sudden water releases |sirens; radio and broadcast; traditional |
| | |means (e.g. town crier); SMS mobile |
| | |operator; drum; mobile alert team |
|Evacuation |dam failure or impending failure |sirens; radio and broadcast; traditional |
| | |means (e.g. town crier); SMS mobile |
| | |operator; drum; mobile alert team |
Step 2: Start Mobilization
Mobilization of affected populations during times of emergency is an important aspect of the EAP. It is also the most difficult to implement. Between 45,000 to 50,000 people are estimated to be directly affected, or those within the Near Zone. Approximately 400 to 500 people regularly use the river for fishing, transport, washing clothes, and recreation. The 23 villages demarcated to be located within the Near Zone (marked as yellow in the Map) belong to three different Chiefdoms and two districts – Tonkolili and Koinadugu.
Directly affected people will be mobilized by: (i) informing and sensitizing them to possible changes in river flow conditions; (ii) engaging them in a “dry run” to be conducted once in daylight and at night time, and to be repeated yearly); and (iii) assuring them of their safety. Community sensitizations are to be conducted in each of the villages in the Near Zone through focus group meetings. Illustrated evacuation procedures will be distributed to each village. Facilitators are hired to conduct sensitization and awareness discussions at least four times a year.
A “dry run” was conducted in coordination with the Chiefdom officials. Each Meeting Point was carefully identified through sign posts, and the pathway from the village to the Meeting Point was clearly marked. At present, there is need to revisit these Meeting Points to ensure that they are cleared and maintained. Practice evacuation procedures were supervised by the EAU with the help of the Chiefdom officials but such dry runs need to be conducted each year, and with the recording or taping of a dry run to allow the EAU to evaluate the efficiency of the evacuation procedure. One dry run each year will be scheduled in the second phase.
Assuring people of their safety is a key aspect of success. The content of the sensitization will need to be designed carefully so that the important steps for cautious use of the river and dam site, safety in river and water use, and evacuation procedures are explained.
The primary radio communication System will be provided (with base station and one or more mobile units at the dam). Telephone communication (and SMS linked system) will be used as a back up.
Step 3: Evacuation Procedure
During an emergency, the siren in the dam site is sufficiently loud to ensure that people will prepare for immediate evacuation. In lieu of the siren, in the interim, the drum and town criers in each chiefdom will sound their own alarms after being informed by the PIU. These traditional systems of communication have worked well in the villages for many years. They are effective in mobilizing people and they have a system and language for communicating across villages.
The drums and town criers are supplemented by a mobile alert team (as shown in the figure) who will make use of a variety of communications to oversee the evacuation. The team will be equipped with mobile phones and SMS, including continuous broadcasts in the two radio stations. Each village in the Near Zone, will be given a wind-up radio that will be programmed to the emergency station throughout 24 hours each day.
People will be instructed to follow a foot path or escape route towards designated Meeting Points (which are on higher ground). These Meeting Points are clearly marked on the ground by a poster, and are indicated in the Map. The dry runs will demonstrate the procedure, and since it will be done yearly, be able to sensitize the population to the urgency of knowing where to go during times of evacuation.
The mobile teams will pick up groups of people and take them to one of two evacuation centers in Magburaka and Makeni.
Step 4: Post Evacuation Arrangements
The evacuation centers will be operated by the EAU. Food and medical supplies will immediately be delivered to these centers through the network set up with the army, police, and Office of National Security (ONS). Once an evacuation center is opened, the ONS will take charge of the post-evacuation arrangements, including coordination with the Ministry of Health, Red Cross, UN World Food Programme and other UN agencies, etc.
The BPIU will provide assistance to ONS, as needed. Local authorities will play a bigger role in post evacuation, including assisting affected people with rehabilitating their villages. The EAU will be set up and readily available within 24 hours at the Dam Site. It includes, but will not be limited to, a Mobile Alerting Team (MAT) available 24 hours a day. The Team will occupy an office in the Contractor’s facility at the Bumbuna Village, close to the Bumbuna radio station.
Post commissioning activities will focus on proper training of “friendly forces,” namely the military, police and fire force on safety, search and rescue operations, surveillance activities, evacuation procedures, warning systems, communication especially the use of hand-held sets, watch room, duties and reporting.
The EAU will be provided with the means to alert all the police stations and the military bases in the locality, in the event of failure or impending failure of the dam, as well as to inform the local communities living in the floodable areas, by means of water alarm sirens, radio, through the national mobile operators and by any other means deemed useful. Also, vehicle-mounted loudspeakers will be used to alert the population downstream.
Especially after commissioning, the EAU will be responsible for the following tasks (see emergency flowchart):
▪ alert all the police stations (Bumbuna, Magburaka and Makeni) and military bases (Teko in Makeni) in the locality, in case of failure or impending failure of the dam.
▪ inform the local communities living in the floodable areas by means of radio and through the national mobile operators (Comium and Celtel) and any other means deemed useful.
▪ inform the evacuation agencies (Police, Army, Fire force) that people are allowed to return to their villages, on the basis of the instructions received from the Bumbuna PIU Office.
▪ instruct communities regarding the procedures which shall be followed in case the dam is endangered and to organize periodic practical training.
[pic]
VIII. BUMBUNA TRUST
2005 EIA- planned activity
In April 2005, the BHP hired a consultant (Lawrence Haas) who submitted a report entitled, Institutional Arrangements: The Upper Seli Community Development Initiative and Bumbuna Trust. The report outlined the rationale, alternative organizational structures, and procedures for setting up the benefit sharing components of the BHP. Because these benefit sharing programs were to be funded through carbon financing and a percentage of Bumbuna revenues, they were never started.
As defined in this report, the EIA was to include establishment of the Bumbuna Trust, which is a legal arrangement in which assets are managed by one group (the trustees) on behalf of another group (the beneficiaries). In this case the assets are the funds attributable to hydropower generation in the BHP, i.e. the revenues from carbon credits, donor grants and power sales. The Trustee is a board representative of the varied development interests and the beneficiaries are the residents.
Trusts have a long history in English common law and countries with legal systems based on English common law, such as Sierra Leone. In developing countries, interest in Trust Funds for environment conservation and local development purposes grew out of the debt-for-nature swaps in the 1980’s, which was one reaction to the developing country debt crisis at that time. A primary motivation was the need for a mechanism to support longer-term sustainability beyond the initial infusion of funds, recognizing conservation and local development required long timeframes.
As planned in the EIA, the BT is supposed to:
• provide a stable, self-governing development instrument based on participatory principles;
• enable transparent approaches for the delivery of benefits;
• provide funds for targeting poor and disadvantaged communities;
• receive external financing;
• help leverage additional funding;
• help to meet donor requirements for fiduciary accountability;
• establish cost-effective monitoring; and
• facilitate partnerships (local and external partners) and partnership approaches.
These advantages may not be present (or seriously diluted) if equivalent financing is channeled through a line ministry program that is overburdened. Moreover, Trusts can be designed to reinforce rather than undermine government policy and capacity development.
The BT was envisioned in the EIA to be consistent with the increased emphasis on community-driven development (CDD) approaches. In Sierra Leone, it not only reflects the policy direction expressed by the Local Government Act (LGA 2004), but the concept of the BT also recognizes the underlying need for a longer-term and sustainable institutional set-up for Bumbuna.
Completed work
During the first year of operation of the BHP, three options for establishing the BT were devised following a Conservation Stakeholder’s Forum held in Freetown in March 2007. The first model, Single-purpose Trust, focused non-power benefits to communities. What was presented in the workshop was to have the BT:
• expand in geographic scale to cover all communities in the Seli River drainage area to cover both the directly and indirectly impacted communities in the upper Seli catchment and communities in the flood plains and lower catchment of the Seli River proceeding to the estuary zone;
• have more funding windows to cover rural credit, agriculture stabilization, and appropriate technology transfer; and
• receive financing from the carbon offsets, as well as other potential other financing (e.g. a percentage of power sales and grants from Donors and Financial Partners interested in one or more funding windows).
This model is illustrated below:
The proposed institutional arrangement, as designed, was to have a:
• Steering Committee or Board of Directors or Trustees;
• Stakeholder Advisory Forum representing other Districts in the Seli River basin and transform into the Bumbuna Trust Stakeholder Advisory Forum;
• Steering Committee and Stakeholder Advisory Forum prepared and would be transformed into a full and comprehensive Trust Deed, and the Trust registered as a legal entity;
• Project Coordination Unit to act as the Bumbuna Trust Secretariat, to perform a similar but expanded set of activities; and
• Procedures manual for the full Trust.
.
The second model is a Dual Purpose Trust. In addition to the delivery of benefits (under the benefit sharing principle) the BT would have an explicit mandate to finance environmentally sustainable development in the basin (under the principle of sustainable water resource development), linked to hydropower development of the basin.
In effect this means in addition to the delivery of benefits the BT would be a vehicle to fund, through different financing windows:
• Activities of the Bumbuna Watershed Management Authority (BWMA);
• Programs designed under the Bumbuna Wildlife Conservation Authority (BWCA); and
• Community development activities.
There are various possible institutional arrangements in this model but the essential concept is to bring the entities together under the umbrella of the BWMA.
A third model is that of a fully integrated Basin Trust that supports a number of activities on behalf of the basin citizens, including: (i) financing the delivery of non-power benefits through local government; (ii) acting as a catalyst and financing source for sustainable management of the natural resources in the basin; and (iii) providing a platform for equity investment on behalf of the basin citizens (e.g. national debt-for-equity swaps).
In addition, the model provides for an investment arm where the BT would take an equity position in future hydropower investments in the basin. The monetary benefits derived from this equity would flow into the BT and be used to deliver non-power benefits to basin citizens, including those who do not receive lighting or power services from power generation facilities in their basin. However, the overall principle is that basin residents are equally entitled to a share in these benefits. The institutional model is illustrated below.
[pic]
While these 3 models have been discussed, none of them was adopted. The establishment of the BT was less of a priority due to non-availability of funding sources.
Post-commissioning planned activity
A Bumbuna Trust Working Group may need to be formed to take the lead in establishing the BT. This working group may be reconstituted as a sub-committee of the BWMA and involving the PMU-MoEWR. A collaborative approach to finalize the Trust Deed would be adopted. The Stakeholder Advisory Forum that is proposed as a governance mechanism for the BWMA should discuss the options before recommendations are advanced to government for a final decision.
The activities to be undertaken are to:
• Recommend any enabling legal action (e.g. Cabinet decision) to establish and operate the BT including provisions for allocating a percentage of Bumbuna revenues to the Trust;
• Prepare the Deeds or Charter for BT; and,
• Recommend institutional arrangements for BT and other environmental and social management entities under the BWMA that are consistent with activities outlined in the ESMP.
The flowchart (below) shows the generic steps to establish the BT in the form of an Action Plan. It indicates the necessary steps to be completed during the post-commissioning phase of the BHP in order to enhance synergies, avoid unnecessary duplication, and rationalize implementation arrangements. This Action Plan calls for inter-ministerial and multi-stakeholder involvement in the BWMA. The schedule for the environment and social management actions throughout the post-commissioning or operation phase of the BHP are also covered.
[pic]
IX. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
AND RESOURCES
2005 EIA- planned activity
Activities to be financed during the post-commissioning or operation phase of the BHP were designed to mitigate the environmental and social impacts that may have arisen as a result of construction and operation of the dam, reservoir, and transmission line. It was essential that these mitigation measures are adequately implemented, and that benefits from BHP are sufficiently shared by surrounding communities.
The original (2005) project EIA and EMP recommended the establishment of the Bumbuna Watershed Management Authority (BWMA), the Bumbuna Conservation Area (BCA) and the Bumbuna Trust Company (BTC), now called the Bumbuna Trust Deed (BTD). The environmental and social impacts and mitigation measures, as outlined in the 2005 EIA and EMP are attached in Annex 2. The establishment and first years of the operation of the BWMA, BCA and BTD will be financed by from the extension of the grant from IDA and co-financed by the African Development Bank (AfDB).
The original EMP recommended the establishment of the BWMA and the BT would be financing mechanism. In addition, the 2005 EIA and EMP suggested that a Seli River Development Authority (SRDA) be formed, but for the second phase, the MoEWR decided to drop this set-up and consolidate all functions into the BWMA.
In terms of the environment offset in Loma Mountains, the Sierra Leone GEF Biodiversity Conservation Project, separate documents, including the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP), Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and a Process Framework (PF) have been prepared and disclosed. The establishment of the Loma Mountains National Park (LMNP) was mentioned in the GEF project’s EIA and EMP, RPF and PF and the letter establishing the park is attached in Annex 3.
The original EMP identified environmental management requirements for the Dam Operator and the preparation of an Emergency Action Plan. The implementation of the first phase of the Emergency Action Plan, including some sirens to warn the local population in case of an emergency, will be financed in BHP’s second phase. This EMP update outlines the priority environmental management actions, which are under the responsibility of the Dam Operator.
Completed work
Updates on implementation status of the EMP and RAP are currently posted in the BHP electronic website and available in hard copies at the headquarters of the BPIU (PMU) in Freetown and at the Resettlement Unit Field Offices in Bumbuna Town and Fadugo Town in the project site. A Stakeholder’s Forum in Freetown, as part of the consultation process for the establishment of the BTD, was held in March 2007. Three national Resettlement Advisory Group (RAG) meetings were held in November, 2007, and January and March 2008. The October 2008 RAG meeting focused on presentation of results of the evaluation of RAP implementation, including the follow-up socio-economic survey of project affected persons (PAPs). A separate RAG structure has been set up for the T-Line RAP.
The MoEWR facilitated the passage of legislation in Parliament creating the BWMA, and paving the way for upgrading the status of the Loma Mountains Non-Hunting Forest Reserve into a National Park. A Cabinet Paper was prepared for setting up the BT and BTD, which is expected to be operational alongside the BWMA. Field based staff for BWMA have already been identified and field offices established to start work, especially water quality monitoring.
Several capacity building programs were started in the BPIU (PMU) aimed at improving the financial and procurement systems. A qualified procurement specialist was hired by the BPIU, and by June 2010, all functions will be moved to a centralized PMU within MoEWR.
Post-commissioning planned activity
In the post-commissioning phase, the PMU will coordinate activities with other ministries and agencies on behalf of the MoEWR.. The BWMA will be implemented in the field, with a full time field office and staff based in Bumbuna. Two existing branches – the resettlement offices in Fadugu and Bumbuna Town will be maintained.
The second phase will have an expanded disclosure, information sharing, and consultation program consistent with an overall communications strategy. This will be for the BWMA’s work as well management of the LMNP. Additional visits of the DSRP and ESAP have been planned to assist the PMU in monitoring and evaluating the outputs and outcomes of the BHP. An independent review of the first phase of activities will also be completed by June 2010.
This updated EMP will be disclosed in country and again updated after one year.
Annexes
Annex 1. Environment Management Plan (EMP) 2005 – Matrix of Environmental and Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Nippon Koei-UK). Final Report, July 2007
Annex 2. Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project, Environmental Impact Assessment, Environment Management Plan Proposed Activities and Resources (Nippon Koei UK). January 2005
Annex 3. Letter Expressing Government’s Intention to Establish the Loma Mountains National Park
ANNEX 1: Environment Management Plan (EMP) 2005 – Matrix of Environmental and Social Impacts
and Mitigation Measures (Nippon Koei-UK) Final Report, July 2007
Environmental and Social Impacts and Mitigation [pic]
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
Source: Nippon Koei-UK, BMT Cordah Ltd, and Environmental Foundation for Africa, Environmental Impact Assessment, 2005.
ANNEX 2: Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project, Environmental Impact Assessment, Environment Management Plan Proposed Activities and Resources. Nippon Koei UK, January 2005
[pic]
Source: Nippon Koei-UK, BMT Cordah Ltd, and Environmental Foundation for Africa, Environmental Impact Assessment, 2005, Chapter 12.
ANNEX 3: LETTER EXRESSING GOVERNMENT’S INTENTION TO ESTABLISH THE LOMA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK
[pic] [pic]
-----------------------
E2524 rev
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- world bank unesco education
- world bank financial inclusion
- world bank poverty line 2019
- world bank financial inclusion 2020
- world bank business environment index
- world bank doing business 2020
- world bank ease of doing business 2019
- world bank doing business rankings
- world bank retiree portal
- world bank pension log in
- world bank retiree website
- world bank staff retirement plan