THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
THE REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT OF ZANZIBAR
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
Ministry of Education and Vocational Training
ZANZIBAR SECONDARY EDUCATION PROJECT
(ZSEP)
Environment and Social Management Framework
(ESMF)
January, 2007
Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 Overview 5
1.2 Purpose of the Environmental and Social Management Framework 5
1.3 Principles of the ESMF 8
1.4 Preparation of the ESMF 8
1.5 Layout of this ESMF Report 8
CHAPTER TWO: DESCRIPTION OF THE ZSEP ACTVITIES 9
2.1 Project Development Objectives 9
2.2: Components of the ZSEP 10
CHAPTER THREE: BASELINE DATA 14
3.1 Size and Geographical Location 14
3.2: Population and settlement patterns 15
3.3: Climate 16
3.4: Soils 16
3.5: Ecology 17
3.6: Socio-economic profile 17
CHAPTER FOUR: POLICY FRAMEWORKS IN ZSEP 22
4.1 Administrative and Regulatory Frameworks in Education 22
4.2: Framework for Environmental Management 24
4.3 World Bank’s Safeguard Policies 29
4.4 Impact Screening under World Bank and RGZ Procedures 33
4.5 Comparison of World Bank and RGZ Policies on Environment and Social Impact Assessment 35
4.6 Disclosure 35
CHAPTER FIVE: THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROCESS 36
5.1 Generic Environmental Concerns 36
5.2 Generic Social Concerns 45
5.3 Potential Impacts of the ZSEP 46
5.4 Procedure for Impact Assessment under ZSEP 55
5.5 Procedure for Impact Mitigation under ZSEP 60
5.6: Procedure for Monitoring of the ESMF 62
CHAPTER SIX: ASSESSMENT OF CAPCAITY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ESMF 64
6.1 Analysis of Institutional Roles and capacity building needs 64
6.2: Requisite Capacity Building 65
CHAPTER SEVEN: ASSSESSMENT OF REQUISITE FINANCES 68
7.1: Overview of the budget 68
7.2: Total costs 69
BIBLIOGRAPHY 70
ANNEXES 72
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
The Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar (RGZ) has requested loans or credits from the World Bank for the implementation of the proposed Zanzibar Secondary Education project. This report is the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) to be used for the project, in order to ensure that all environmental and social safeguards are adequately addressed by the project components.
1.2 Purpose of the Environmental and Social Management Framework
The activities of the ZSEP encompasses: The proposed intervention will focus on four main outputs namely: (i) Improved access to and equity in secondary education; (ii) Improved quality of secondary education; (iii) Capacity Building for the education system; and (iv) HIV/AIDS, Gender and Environmental Awareness and Sensitization.
The core components involving infrastructure development include: Component focused on improving access and equity to Secondary Education through:
• The construction of ten senior secondary schools, eight of these are located in rural areas and will therefore include hostel accommodation (100 spaces for males and 100 spaces for females) and staff housing (10 Staff houses). The other two are located in urban areas and will not require residential facilities but will be larger (24 classrooms as compared to 12 classrooms) and will be required to be multi-storey buildings due to the shortage of land.
• The construction of nine junior secondary schools (Forms I to IV) with 4 located on Pemba and 5 located on Unguja. Two of these (one on each island) will be in urban areas and will be required to be multi-storey buildings. Three of the schools on Unguja and one of those on Pemba will be 8-classroom schools; the remainder will be 12-classroom.
• The construction of a new teacher training college on Pemba. This will have very similar accommodation to a senior secondary school – 12 classrooms, 3 science laboratories, 1 computer laboratory, multipurpose hall, library, 200 hostel spaces and 10 staff houses, - plus ancillary facilities.
• The rehabilitation of three schools on Pemba and three schools in Stone Town. The rationale for the selection of these schools is that they represent the more complex secondary schools – multi-storey construction, difficult sites, and historic buildings.
In order to increase the supply of teachers especially for Pemba, the project will support Construction of a new facility for Benjamin Mkapa Teacher Training College in Pemba. Other components will focus on Quality Improvement through provision of inputs aimed at improving the quality of education through provision of textbooks, reference books, equipment, and training of teachers through both pre-service and in-service training and improving the capacity of the teacher training institutions. To enhance the quality of teaching at the secondary level, the project will provide support for pre-service and in-service training of teachers over a five year period.
The components of the project are described in more detail in Chapter 2. However, since the final locations for these new schools are as yet not identified, Operational Policy 4.01 of the World Bank requires the RGZ to prepare an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) to screen for and manage the environmental and social impacts of the project, and to strategically manage its overall environmental and social impact. The ESMF is based on the aim of fully mainstreaming environmental and social considerations into the participatory process for identifying, planning, implementing and monitoring activities or sub-projects.
The RGZ is further required to disclose the ESMF document in-country as a stand alone document so that it can be accessed by the general public, local communities, potential project-affected groups, local NGO’s and all other stakeholders as well as at the Infoshop of the World Bank.
1.3 Principles of the ESMF
The ESMF has been prepared on the basis of the following principles.
Firstly, this ESMF, and the World Bank safeguard policies, are taken as an opportunity to contribute to the objectives of the projects, and their intended development of Zanzibar’s policy on environment through the application of the World Bank safeguard policy on Environmental Assessment. Secondly, sustainable development is the underlying philosophy to the National environmental Policy (NEP) of Zanzibar. Therefore this ESMF is designed in order to maximize the contribution of the projects to sustainable development of education infrastructure in Zanzibar in line with national policy aspirations for a healthy environment For example, implementation of the ZSEP has potential to contribute to capacity for environmental management down to grassroots level in Zanzibar through partnering with all stakeholders in steering project development.
1.4 Preparation of the ESMF
This ESMF is the result of a preparation study with the following objectives:
▪ To assess the potential areas of environmental and social impact of the proposed ZSEP Project;
▪ To inform the project preparation process of the potential environmental and social impacts of potential project activities and propose relevant mitigation measures;
▪ To establish clear directives and methodologies for the environmental and social screening of project activities that will be supported by the proposed project.
The key deliverable of this study is this ESMF Report, and an accompanying Resettlement Policy Framework, both addressing the ZSEP Project.
1.4.1 Activities completed in preparation of the ESMF
Activities completed during the preparation to date include:
▪ Familiarization with background documentation;
▪ A field visit to proposed ZSEP project sites in both Ungunja and Pemba and including meetings with Field Officers, CBO representatives was undertaken from 12th to 22nd December, 2006.
▪ Meetings with project staff in the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training and other relevant arms of the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar took place at the same time.
▪ Preparation of this ESMF report.
1.5 Layout of this ESMF Report
This ESMF report is structured as follows.
Chapter One: Introduction (this section)
Chapter Two: Description of the Project and sub-components
Chapter Three: The Baseline Environment
Chapter Four: Policy and Legal and Institutional Frameworks
Chapter Five: The Environmental and Social Management Plan
Chapter Six: Capacity Assessment for Implementation
Chapter Seven: ESMF Implementation Budget (to be prepared)
Annexes provide:
· A list of people met during ESMF preparation (Annex A);
· Itinerary of the preparation study field visits (Annex B);
· A description of stakeholder consultation carried out to date (Annex D);
· Proposed Terms of Reference for a Project Report (Annex E);
· Guidelines on environmental and social impacts of sub-project types
(Annex F); and
CHAPTER TWO: DESCRIPTION OF THE ZSEP ACTVITIES
2.1 Project Development Objectives
Realization that inadequacy of skills in English poses a major barrier to the effective economic mainstreaming of Tanzanians on the Isles, the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar (RGZ) undertook in-depth analysis of the major constraints and challenges affecting the education sector and published this in 2005 as the Zanzibar Education Sector Country Status Report (ZESCSR). At secondary level, ZESCSR identified the following issues:
▪ Inadequate access. Only three new designated secondary schools have been built since independence and none have been built for the past fifteen years! Most of the schools operate double-shift and, despite this, average class size is over 60.
▪ Poor English language proficiency. The language of instruction in primary school is Kiswahili and many students are unable to cope with the transition to teaching in English at secondary level. In addition, many secondary teachers have poor skills in English.
▪ Under-qualified and unqualified teachers. Only 58% of the teachers in secondary schools are qualified and there are acute shortages of teachers in English, mathematics and science. In addition, teachers are deployed inefficiently.
▪ Lack of teaching/learning materials. MoEVT does not provide textbooks, and laboratory and ICT equipment is in very short supply.
Subsequently, secondary education was identified as the most urgent priority for reform and based on the ZESCSR, MoEVT has developed a new Zanzibar Education and Training Policy (ZETP) which addressed structure and focus for education and has been approved by the Zanzibar House of Representatives. ZETP is also seen to support the Zanzibar’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan (MKUZA) objective of ensuring equitable access to demand-driven quality education which is gender responsive.
Recognizing that secondary education benefits the young people receiving it and the country providing it, MoEVT has identified secondary education as its highest priority and requested the World Bank to lead partners in supporting this sub sector. The development objective is to improve completion of lower secondary education with successful performance among students.
2.2: Components of the ZSEP
To address more immediate needs, the proposed intervention will focus on four main outputs namely:
▪ Improved access to and equity in secondary education;
▪ Improved quality of secondary education;
▪ Capacity Building for the education system.
The following components and the specific inputs have been discussed as proposals to be discussed and finalized during preparation.
Component 1: Provision of infrastructure to improve access to, and quality of, secondary education –
To meet the demand for school facilities for the numbers currently enrolled and to accommodate the projected increase in secondary school enrolment, to improve accommodation and laboratory and classroom facilities for all students, and to ensure that sufficient numbers of trained teachers are available, the project will support:
Sub-Component 1A. Infrastructure for schools. The construction of 19 new schools, including 8 schools with some boarding facilities to serve remote rural communities and 3 with facilities to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Ten of these schools will provide education to A-level, the remainder will provide education to O-level (lower secondary). All schools will be constructed with appropriate sanitary facilities and laboratory spaces, and supplied with furniture and laboratory equipment. The component also includes the rehabilitation of 6 existing schools – 3 of which are located in Stone Town. This subcomponent will provide 23,000 school places.
Sub-Component 1B. Facilities for a teacher training college. Increased teacher supply will be necessary to accommodate the expansion of enrolment; it is estimated that the system will need approximately 1,400 additional teachers over the next 5 years. Accordingly, the project will also support the construction of new facilities for Benjamin Mkapa teacher training college in Pemba, which is currently operating in temporary accommodation and training only primary teachers. This expanded facility will enable the college to expand its activities to train both primary and secondary teachers, and to offer specialist training for teachers of mathematics and sciences.
Component 2: Support for quality of education through teacher training, curriculum reform, and provision of learning materials
In addition to expansion of physical infrastructure, the project will include a series of measures to support the quality of education, including provision of in-service teacher training, provision of textbooks and other learning resources, and provision of support for planned curriculum reforms. These interventions will target both upper-primary and secondary education.
Sub-Component 2A. Teacher training. At secondary level the project will support the in-service upgrading of teachers of mathematics and science, to compensate for existing skill shortages in these crucial subject areas. Approximately 500 secondary teachers will be trained, with an in-service course focused on improved classroom instruction.
In-service teacher training will also be provided to primary teachers, to strengthen the preparation of students for secondary education. Approximately 1,000 teachers of primary mathematics and sciences will be provided with training to assist them in adapting to the revised primary curriculum, which will require that they teach their subjects through English from Standard 4 upwards. In addition, all 5,000 primary school teachers will be offered English language courses to improve their fluency in spoken English, and increase the usage of English in general communication in primary schools.
Short in-service courses will also be provided to approximately 300 school head teachers and 100 inspectors, preparing them for their role in supervision and pedagogical support for teachers. Additional support, including office equipment and vehicles will be provided to strengthen the capacity of the inspectorate. Additional training will also be provided for school management committees, to strengthen their role in the management, supervision and maintenance of the schools.
The in-service training will be developed and delivered using institutional arrangements already familiar in Zanzibar, which have proved effective in in-service training of unqualified primary teachers, and upgrading of secondary teachers. Courses will be developed by expert groups including teacher trainers, inspectors, and expert teachers. Delivery will be done through a network of existing teacher centers, by designated expert teachers who will receive special training to prepare them for this task. These inputs will be supported by distance teaching materials, and supervision of the teachers in their schools. Course participants will be assessed on their learning, and each course will be evaluated regularly and provision made for modifications at each stage.
Staff from the Teacher Training Colleges, the State University of Zanzibar and the Zonal Teacher Centers will be utilized to support the professional development of teachers. In parallel, the pre-service teacher training courses will be revised to reflect the new curriculum, and the increased use of English in primary schools. MoEVT will also prepare structures to ensure ongoing monitoring and regulation teacher supply, and teacher deployment policies and practices.
Sub-Component 2B. Provision of instructional materials in key subjects for all secondary schools and students. This subcomponent will support the purchase and distribution of secondary school textbooks in four[1] subjects for all students in secondary school. In addition, the component will support the purchase and distribution of scientific equipment and consumables to all schools teaching science. The component will also purchase and distribute library books and other learning materials for all secondary schools. These purchases and the supply to schools will follow the development of a sustainable cost-sharing policy to ensure that supplies continue beyond project life, while also ensuring that needy but poor students are not disadvantaged.
Sub-Component 2C. Revision of primary curriculum and provision of appropriate learning materials. The project will provide support for the development of curriculum and assist the orientation of teachers in the new curriculum as well as commission the development of textbooks in five subjects to be taught through English and supply these to all pupils in upper primary school. The policy decision to teach some subjects through English at the upper primary level is intended to improve the pupils’ readiness for secondary school. Government will prepare to implement the necessary changes in initial teacher education curricula to align with the revised structures, including: (i) preparing diploma level secondary teachers to teach to Form 4; (ii) preparing primary teachers of mathematics and science to teach through English from standard 5; and (iii) enhancing the English language skills of all primary teachers.
In addition, the component will purchase a package of instructional materials for each school and a package of materials for blind and deaf pupils for three schools.
Sub-Component 2D. Support for science education for girls. Dedicated science camps have had some success in promoting science education among girls and assisting science teachers. Building on the successful science camps for girls, this component will support the preparation, including assisting science teachers, as well as the delivery of one residential science camp each year for girls.
Sub-Component 2E. Provision of Life skills, including HIV/AIDS, gender and environmental awareness. This component will support the development of a new manual for life skills and workshops to assist teachers of subjects such as biology and geography incorporate life skills into their teaching. The component will also support extracurricular workshops to promote life skills. These will be provided in each secondary school every two years.
CHAPTER THREE: BASELINE DATA
3.1 Size and Geographical Location
Zanzibar is a small archipelago constituting of Unguja (Commonly referred as Zanzibar Island), Pemba and several small surrounding islands. It is part of the United Republic of Tanzania (URT) and it has its own Government. The Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar takes care of the internal affairs of the state. Zanzibar is located in the Indian ocean, separated by a 40 km channel from the mainland coast, lying at 390 East and 60 South of Equator. The island of Unguja and Pemba have an area of 1660km2 and 981 km2 respectively equivalent to a quarter million ha of land.
Administratively, Zanzibar is divided into 5 regions (3 in Unguja and 2 in Pemba) comprised of 10 districts as shown in table 1.1 below. The administrative capital and seat of government is Zanzibar Town while the administrative center at Pemba is the Chake Chake town. Each district however has an administrative center from which government service is coordinated.
Table 1.1: Administrative set-up for Zanzibar
|Zanzibar |Regions and Districts |
|Unguja Island |North Unguja Region |
| | North ‘A’ District |
| | North ‘B’ District |
| |South Unguja Region |
| | South District |
| | Central District |
| |Urban West Region |
| | Urban District |
|Pemba Island |North Pemba Region |
| | Wete District |
| | Micheweni District |
| |South Pemba Region |
| | Chake Chake District |
| | Mkoani District |
| | Wete District |
3.2: Population and settlement patterns
According to Tanzania Census (2002), Zanzibar inhabits 981,754 people of which 620,957 are in Unguja and 360,797 are in Pemba. The annual population growth rate was estimated to be 3.54% giving a projected population of 1,089,540 inhabitants in 2004 with 712,553 in Unguja and 370,020 in Pemba. The average household size is 5 persons per household (Masoud 1990). The population density as at 2002 was 399 persons per Km2 indicating that Zanzibar is among the most highly populated islands in the world and this was expected to increase to 413 persons per square kilometer by 2004. Given the finite nature of land, especially in the isles, increasing population density has major implications on future land demand for conflicting uses such as for agriculture to feed the growing population and secure export crops, forestry to supply wood demands to an increasing population, housing and settlement, industries, recreation, conservation, etc.
Table 1.2: Total Population of Zanzibar by District and Region
| | | | | | |
| |1978 |1988 |2002 |2003* |2004* |
|Zanzibar |476,111 |640,685 |981,754 |1,033,653 |1,089,540 |
|Unguja Island |270,807 |375,873 |620,957 |664,850 |712,553 |
|Pemba Island |205,304 |264,812 |360,797 |368,803 |376,987 |
|North Unguja Region |77,017 |96,989 |136,639 |139,958 |143,358 |
|North ‘A’ District |48,124 |59,990 |84,147 |86,191 |88,285 |
|North ‘B’ District |28,893 |36,999 |52,492 |53,767 |55,073 |
|South Unguja Region |51,749 |70,313 |94,244 |97,228 |100,320 |
|South District |21,952 |25,061 |31,853 |33,386 |34,992 |
|Central District |29,797 |45,252 |62,391 |63,843 |65,328 |
|Urban West Region |142,041 |208,571 |390,074 |427,663 |468,875 |
|Urban District |110,506 |157,626 |205,870 |225,709 |247,459 |
|West District |31,535 |50,945 |184,204 |201,955 |221,416 |
|North Pemba Region |106,290 |137,189 |185,326 |189,344 |193,449 |
|Wete District |58,923 |76,125 |102,060 |104,226 |106,438 |
|Micheweni District |47,367 |61,064 |83,266 |85,118 |87,012 |
|South Pemba Region |99,014 |127,623 |175,471 |179,459 |183,538 |
|Chake Chake District |47,208 |60,051 |82,998 |84,929 |86,905 |
|Mkoani District |51,806 |67,572 |92,473 |94,530 |96,633 |
Source: 1978, 1988 & 2002 Population Census ; *Data for 2003 & 2004 are projections
[pic]
3.3: Climate
The climate of Zanzibar is tropical and maritime, and follows the monsoon winds (Poyry, 1987) i.e. the northeast trade winds from December to February and the southeast monsoon from March to November (NCDP, 1980). The main rain season (masika) occurs between March and June, caused by the southeast monsoon winds. The short rains (vuli), usually starts in October and ends in December. However, some inter-monsoonal precipitation takes place. Record shows that one fifth of total rainfalls between the rain seasons (Poyry, 1987), which is dominated by a binomial rainfall pattern (NCDP, 1980; Kombo, 1994).
According to Khiari (1992), the whole pattern of rainfall of the islands has changed in terms of amount and reliability. Consequently the current rain season have been observed to start late and end early and abrupt; hence shorter period of rain with less water. These changes have negative impact on forest planting targets as planting programmes depends on the onset, duration and reliability of rainfall. The average rainfall for the island is about 1500 mm per annum. The maximum and minimum annual rainfall is 1800 mm and 1400 mm respectively. February to late March is the driest period of the year with about 20mm of rainfall. The highest temperatures occur during the short dry season with a maximum mean of 33oC in Unguja and 29oC in Pemba. The minimum temperatures for Unguja and Pemba are 23.3oC and 21.1oC, respectively (Wirth et al, 1988).
3.4: Soils
The Zanzibar soils are mainly categorized into two classes; the shallow, infertile, rocky coral rag soils in the east and deep, fertile soils in the west. In the coral rag shifting cultivation is the dominant farming system where as the deep soils support permanent agriculture and plantations crops hence, they are densely populated compared to coral rag areas (Review Mission, 1991). Predominantly, Zanzibar bedrock and parent material consists of limestone of marine origin. Lager proportion of western side of the islands has been overlain with alluvial sands, silts and clays with freely drained reddish soils formed from these sediments termed "kichanga". Darker "kinongo" soils, derived from limestone parent materials, are found towards east. These soils become darker in colour with increasing humus content and pH as one moves further eastward. The soil depth decreases until finally coral rock is exposed on the surface with soil confined to pockets in depressions on the rock surface (Borsa, 1991). The remaining "kinamo" heavy soil type is found in isolated areas (Review Mission, 1991).
3.5: Ecology
The islands (Unguja and Pemba) are typical coastal low lying ecosystems basically influenced by the Indian Ocean and underlying coral limestone geology. Both islands are endowed with mangrove vegetation estimated to cover nearly 6.1%(16000 ha) of the total land area which is about 232,800 ha. The mangrove forest area is the second largest natural forest vegetation, after the coral rag thicket which is estimated to cover 40% of the total land area. As will appear below, the local economy is largely influenced by activities targeting exploitation of the marine and coral rag forest ecosystems.
3.6: Socio-economic profile
The economy of Zanzibar is mainly depending on cloves for export, subsistence agriculture and the newly adopted tourism industry. Since early 90's there has been a shift from monopolist economy to free enterprise as a measure towards economic recovery programme. Agricultural sector contribute about 50% share of GDP and employs nearly 70% (ZFDP, 1993) of labour force that earns about 90% of export value. The manufacturing sector has a potential for development if entrepreneurs could be found. The share of the public sector in the state's GDP is quite high. The major contribution has come from wholesale, retail trade and public administration. At present the Government of Zanzibar is the largest single employer in the country (ZFDP, 1991).
Economic Situation: Zanzibar economy is still highly dominated by and dependent upon the agricultural sector, mainly the production and sell of cloves and clove products. The good performance in past years is attributed to a very high production volume and a reasonable high external market price of the commodity compared to recent years. Nevertheless, the share of agricultural sector to the overall output has been steadily declining from the level of 41.0 percent in 1995 to around 38.2 percent in 1999. Besides agriculture, trade tourism and other service sectors are major contributors to economic growth. The share of trade (including tourism has gradually increased from the level of 19.8 percent in 1995 to around to over 21.0 percent by 1999. Zanzibar imports almost 80 percent of her basic requirements (including from mainland Tanzania). The prices and tax variations of most commodities have an inflationary pressure to consumers. Zanzibar has a very narrow export basket constituted by a few commodities, because import values are higher, Zanzibar has persistently operated a negative trade balance.
Agriculture Sector: Agriculture is the main contributor to GDP which is sometimes as high as 41.0 percent in 1995. Because the sector is predominantly dominated by cloves and clove products which brings in more than 70 percent of export and employs more than 60 percent of the labour force, growth fluctuations is eminent in most periods. Other cash crops include copra, seaweed, spices, fish products and some vegetables. The sector is very much constrained by lack of credits, use of out dated technology and insufficient extension services. Production of cloves has been varying from year to year based on the cyclical, production of the bud. In most times, Zanzibar experiences a bumper crop harvest after every 4 year cyclical. In recent years the highest production level was recorded in 1996 with 12,000 tons, followed by the lowest amount of 254 tons realized in 1998. Similarly, the world market price for cloves has been declining over the years. The highest price was attained noted in 1997 at US$ 9,000 per ton, compared to what was the price in 1977 of US$ 600 per ton.
Besides agriculture, fishing is another important economic activity in Zanzibar engaging more than 25 percent of the people especially those living near the coastal areas in the islands. Nevertheless, the type of fishing is still traditional and artesian, where production is low and subsistent.
Livestock keeping is of subsistence level too, based on both local and modern methods of breeding. The subsector constitutes an average level of 10.0 percent of GDP, however the production is still low resulting in the importation of cattle, eggs and even chicken from mainland.
In recent years seaweeds has come up as a supplement to cloves as a cash crop production. Between the years 1991 to 1998 a number of women along coastal villages engaged themselves in the production and sell of this crop. However, in recent years, the seaweed market was faced with problems of changing market demand and price fluctuation and uncertainly thus demoralizing the usually helpless small farmers.
Manufacturing sector: Zanzibar has a very small manufacturing sector. Its share to the overall GDP is in the average of 6.0 percent. It is almost stagnant, growing at a very low rate of less than 1.0 percent year. The sector is based towards chemical products and consumer goods such as food, beverages, tobacco and textile. Exports of finished /processed goods is insignificant contributing less than 5.0 percent of total export earnings. This proportion is attributed by products made under Economic Processing Zone (EPZ) type of manufacturing of manufacturing, limited furniture products and other wood products
Energy: The energy sector in Zanzibar is constituted by electric power, petroleum and petroleum products supplemented by firewood and its products. Coal and gas is rarely used both in domestic as well as for industrial use. Zanzibar gets 70 percent of its electric power needs from mainland Tanzania through a submarine cable and the rest, for Pemba is thermal generated. Between 70-75 percent of the electricity generated is domestically used while less than 20 percent is industrially used. Fuel wood, charcoal and kerosene is widely used as sources of energy for cooking and lighting for most parts of rural and urban areas.
By far, fuel wood (firewood and charcoal) comprise the main source of house hold energy on account of which, all fuelwood in Zanzibar town is commercialized. Zanzibar relies on wood imports from mainland Tanzania to bridge deficits in local supply.
Mining: All geological survey so far conducted have indicated that Zanzibar has no significant mineral deposits. In this respect, the mining sector of Zanzibar is constituted by stone quarrying used for construction and lime making. It is a very insignificant proportion but based on the importance of the resource to the construction sector, stone mining becomes an important ingredient to the lives of rural people especially those living in coral rag areas. Nerveless, non-sustainable management of quarrying business presents a major ecological concern in Zanzibar today.
Transport and Communications: The share of this sector to GDP has increased from 5.1 percent in 1998 to 5.5 percent by 1999. Zanzibar has a total road network of 1,600 kilometer of roads of which 85 percent are tarmac or all weather surface. The remaining is earth road which is annually rehabilitated to make it passable throughout the year. Zanzibar has now a thriving improved sea transport network which by using public owned ships and private speed boats serves the ports of Zanzibar, Dar es Salaam, Pemba, Tanga, Mtwara and Mombasa. Using the two main airports of Unguja and Pemba, Zanzibar is well connected to the rest of the world. The Zanzibar main airport can now handle bigger planes, which has resulted in an increase in passenger and cargo inflows and outflows. Similarly, Zanzibar is well served by the newly restructured public telecommunication company (TTCL) and 4 private owned mobile systems. Through, these systems the whole of Zanzibar (Unguja and Pemba) is widely covered and connected to most parts of the world.
Building and Construction: Construction of both public and private infrastructure constitutes another small proportion of the overall output. In recent years, this sector has generated a proportion of 3-3.5 percent of GDP.
Financial Sector: Accessibility to credits and other financial resources is an important ingredient towards social and economic development. Although, Zanzibar has very little control on monetary policy issues and the levels of its financial institutions is very low, yet the existing national bank of PBZ, NBC, Postal Bank and other small financial institutions play a significant role in serving the economy.
Employment: By 2003, Zanzibar had an employed force of 33,870 out of which, the government accounted for 75.2 percent (25,788) of the total, the private sector engaged 13.9 percent (4,379) and public enterprises had 6.0 percent (2,043). Employment in non-government organizations and foreign companies operating in Zanzibar engaged 4.9 percent (1,666) of total employment force. Thus, the government and its institutions is the single largest employer (budget speech for 2003/04). It is the government policy as defined within the Zanzibar Vision 2020 to promote the private sector as the main employer and the generator of more employment opportunities.
A total of 10,000 school leavers enter the job market annually. However, the majority of the youths are ill prepared professionally because the education system fails to provide necessary professional skills or trades with the result that such youth have nothing to do except loitering, drug abuse and working as commercial sex workers (budget speech, 2003/04). As part of the strategy to arrest the deteriorating youth situation, the Ministry of Education and vocation Training is reviewing its education curricula and master plan to focus more weight on technical education, functional education and labour market demands, a policy strategy that will be partly operationized through the ZSEP.
Economic Prospects: The economy of Zanzibar is continuously is largely affected instability of clove prices in the world market, fluctuation if in oil prices, and the rise in prices of many intermediate goods and machinery which Zanzibar imports. The good weather as well as the improved prices in external market is however expected to stimulate economic performance but real growth is expected from the current emphasis on non-agricultural sectors mainly industrial and services sectors. This with the current and on-going pace of investment and stability, the economy was expected to sustain at an average level of 5.0 percent the early 2ist century.
CHAPTER FOUR: POLICY FRAMEWORKS IN ZSEP
4.1 Administrative and Regulatory Frameworks in Education
4.1.1 Project Administrative set-up
The ZSEP will only operate in the Isles. Under the constitution, Zanzibar enjoys a certain degree of autonomy including an autonomous Ministry of Education and Vocational Training for governance of matters on education. This is the institution that will take charge of implementation of the ZSEP. Implementation of the project will be carried out through the existing structures of the MoEVT, involving its different departments, district education boards and education institutions.
A Kiswahili version of the organization structure for the MoEVT is presented below. The Permanent Secretary is the executive responsible for overall management of education in the MoEVT while the Commissioner for Education is the Technical Head of all education matters.
Fig 4.1: Organo-chart for the MoEVT
Error! Objects cannot be created from editing field codes.
Administratively, Zanzibar is divided into 5 Regions and 10 districts. Delivery of services in education within the Isles is effected through the 10 districts each of which has a District Education Officer charged with responsibility of overseeing activities of the 10 Departments.
4.1.2 Institutional arrangements and coordination
The MoEVT will provide overall policy guidance and supervision to the ZSEP. Through the commission for Policy, Planning, Budget and Research, the ministry will clarify the roles including capacity building requirements at all levels for project implementation. This will be achieved through development of a Project Implementation Manual to specify action and involvement of players at all levels to ensure harmony in project implementation. The PIM will also provide guidelines on the code of conduct for all project actors to ensure compliance with RGZ and World Bank requirements for project management.
In pursuit of its mandate, the Ministry of Education and Vocation Training is in the process of developing a Sector Wide Approach (SWAp) Plan to coordinate activities in the education sector. Simultaneously to this initiative, the Government has asked the World Bank to spearhead support for secondary education through a separate investment credit (ZSEP) as a means of addressing urgent needs in secondary education and the challenge for MoEVT is , to ensure that ZSEP objectives and interventions remain fully consistent with the full sector-wide program under development and is expected to further help consolidate the SWAP concept.
4.1.3 Policy Framework for the Education and Training Sector
For the past three decades, the policy of education in Zanzibar was guided by the declaration of compulsory and free basic education for all. The Eucation Act No.6 of (amended in 1993) provides the overall policy orientation of the sector. Although education was declared free, community and individual contributions are encouraged and contribute much in the construction of classrooms. Supply of school stationery's and private cost of schooling is the responsibility of parents. The policy of education has also been guided by international declarations and conventions such as:-
▪ Millennium Development Goals for Education
▪ Jomtien Declaration on Education for All (EFA) in the year 2000
▪ The convention on Children's Rights (CRC).
▪ Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against women (CEDAW).
These global commitments aims at empowering the poor including the women to pursue their fundamental human rights, such as education, development and protection. As part of her commitment to these conventions and to providing basic education, Zanzibar has adopted the following policy and legislative tools;-
▪ The Zanzibar Education Act of 1982 (amended in 1993) which defined the right to education for every citizen and legalized basic education as free and compulsory.
▪ Zanzibar Education policy of 1991 (amended in 1995) with specific objectives of ensuring that all eligible children were enrolled into and were attending school, provision of good and relevant quality education and provide equal educational opportunities.
Towards implementation of the Education Policy, the RGZ produced in 1996, the Zanzibar Education Master Pan (ZEMAP) for the next ten years. ZEMAP identified objectives and programs addressing access, equity, quality and relevance for basic education that would position Zanzibaris to productively enter the 21st century. It recognized that the RGZ budget provision to education could not meet the objectives alone and called on the community and civil sector to be partners with the government in this enterprise. It also called on external organizations to partner with the GOZ and civil society in the provision of needed contributions to assist it to meet its goals.
In 2000, the GOZ released Vision 2020, a comprehensive statement of objectives for the whole country in all sectors that reinforced the objectives of ZEMAP. The Zanzibar Poverty Reduction Plan (ZPRP) was developed to serve as a strategy for implementation of Vision 2020, and further delineated the needs of the Education Sector. In 2002 the Zanzibar Education Sector Status Report provided further indication on the status of ZEMAP and yielded new data that confirmed that there was a continuing need to vigorously address the issues identified in ZEMAP if quality learning was to be achieved.
Based on the ZESCSR, MoEVT has developed a new Zanzibar Education and Training Policy which addressed structure and focus for education and has been approved by the Zanzibar House of Representatives. In line with this policy, the RGZ and the community have been actively addressing the goals and objectives for education through such programs as increasing the number of schools and classrooms, promoting equity, developing teacher centers, and promoting distance learning. This is the policy framework under which the ZSEP was conceived and developed.
4.2: Framework for Environmental Management
4.2.1: Administrative set-up
Under Article 27 of the Constitution of the union Government of Tanzania, the public is called upon to ensure that the natural resources of the country are managed properly:
(1) Every person is obliged to safeguard and protect the natural resources of the United Republic, State property and all property jointly owned by the people
(2) All persons shall by law be required to safeguard State and communal property, to combat all forms of misappropriation and wastage and to run the economy of the nation assiduously, with the attitude of people who are masters of the fate of their nation.
This constitutional exhortation places the responsibility of environmental management on the shoulders of all citizens and residents of Zanzibar. The NEP also recognizes that environmental management is not the responsibility of a single government department but places the role of coordination of environmental matters to the department of environment under the Ministry of Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock & Environment.
The Department of Environment: According to the Under the Environmental Management for Stainable Development Act No. 2 of 1996- the supreme environmental law in Zanzibar, absolute responsibility for the environment in Zanzibar is vested in the Ministry responsible for environment. Section 16 Act No. 2 of 1996 however allows for creation of a Department of Environment which draws its authority from the Minister responsible for environment. Under Section 19 of Act No. 2 of 1996, the DOE is charged with among others, the responsibility of over-seeing formulation and implementation of national environmental policies, thus making it the technical advisor on all matters touching on environmental management in Zanzibar. For purposes of this ESMF, the DOE is the technical reference point in environmental management.
4.2.2: Policy Framework for Environmental Management
The Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar published the National Environmental Policy for Zanzibar document (NEP) in 1992 and specific sectoral policies such as those on land, mining, energy, water, agriculture, population and fisheries. The NEP recognizes the EIA process as a means of ensuring that natural resources are soundly managed, and of avoiding exploitation in ways that would cause irreparable damage and social costs.
The NEP seeks to provide the framework for making the fundamental changes that are needed in order to incorporate environmental considerations into the mainstream of decision making. The NEP seeks to provide guidance and planning strategies in determining how actions should be prioritized, and provides for the monitoring and regular review of policies, plans and programs. It further provides for sectoral and cross-sectoral policy analysis, so that compatibility among sectors and interest groups can be achieved and the synergies between them exploited. The overall objectives of the NEP are, therefore, the following:
▪ To ensure the sustainability, security and equitable use of resources in meeting the basic needs of present and future generations without degrading the environment or risking health and safety.
▪ To prevent and control the degradation of land, water, vegetation, and air, which constitute our life support systems.
▪ To conserve and enhance our natural and man-made heritage, including the biological diversity of Tanzania’s unique ecosystems.
▪ To improve the condition and productivity of degraded areas, as well as rural and urban settlements, in order that all Tanzanians may live in safe, healthy, productive and aesthetically pleasing surroundings.
▪ To raise public awareness and understanding of the essential links between the environment and development, and to promote individual and community participation in environmental action.
▪ To promote international cooperation on the environment agenda, and expand participation and contribution to relevant bilateral, sub regional, regional, and global organizations and programs, including the implementation of treaties.
4.2.3 Legislative Framework Environmental Management
The RGZ published the Environmental Management for Sustainable Development Act (No 2 of 1996) as the overriding framework legislation for environmental protection in the Isles.
Table 4.1 shows the various policies and laws that relate to environmental management.
Table 4.1: Laws relating to environmental management in Zanzibar
|Act |Key Elements |Implementing Authority |
|The Environmental Management for |The Act provides the basis for sound environmental |Department of Environmental headed by a |
|Sustainable Development Act No. 2 of |management and binds the government and its people to work |Director |
|1996 |towards ensuring a clean and healthy environment for all. | |
|The Forest Resources Management and |Purpose is to promote the protection, conservation and |Department of Commercial Crops, Fruits and |
|Conservation Act No 10 of 1996. |development of forest resources for the social, economic and|Forests |
| |environmental benefits of present and future generations of | |
| |the people of Zanzibar. | |
|Wild Animals Protection Decree Cap 128|These decrees protect wildlife and vegetation by restricting|Department of Commercial Crops, Fruits and |
|and |the utilization of wildlife to license-holders. The use of |Forests |
|Wild birds protection Decree, Cap 129 |sensitive wildlife habitats is restricted during certain | |
| |times of the year or for specified periods. | |
|Zanzibar Municipal Council Act, No 3 |Both Acts provide for environmental protection at grassroots|Zanzibar Municipal Council, District Assemblies|
|of 1995. |level by giving legal recognition to community –based |and Town Councils. |
| |environmental management plans. | |
|The Districts and Town Councils Act | | |
|no. 4 of 1995. | | |
|The Stone Town Conservation Authority |This Act provides for the conservation and sustainable |The Stone Town Conservation and Development |
|Act No. 3 of 1994. |development of the rich history of Zanzibar’s Stone Town |Authority. |
| |while allowing for its commercial utilization. | |
|The Town and Country Planning Decree |These regulations complement Act no. 3 of 1994 by providing |Stone Town Conservation and Development |
|(CAP 85);-Stone Town Panning |guidelines for routine management of affairs of the stone |Authority. |
|Regulations of 1994. |town. Relevant to the ZSEP, these regulations specify | |
| |categories of building that are listed for special | |
| |protection. | |
4.2.4 International Conventions
Under the Union with Tanzania, Zanzibar is a party to many international agreements on Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Desertification. Those considered critical to ZSEP are highlighted below:-
▪ Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Paris (1972); - the case of developments in Stone Town, Zanzibar.
▪ Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)- Important habitats such as Jozani-Chwaka Bay complex
▪ Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (1973)-Overexploitation of marine environments is a major concern in Zanzibar.
▪ UN Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification particularly in Africa (1994)- Deforestation is currently a severe problem in Zanzibar.
▪ Lusaka Agreement on Co-operative Enforcement Operations Directed at illegal Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora (1994)
▪ Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987)-
▪ Phyto-sanitary Convention for Africa, Kinshasa (1967)
▪ UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982)
▪ UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992 )
4.2.5 The EIA Process in Zanzibar
Formulation of guidelines for EIA as provided for in the Environmental Management for Sustainable Development Act is yet to take place. As such, the only guidelines for EIA are those outlined in Act No. 3 of 1996. The EIA procedure involves the following:
Registering a project: The proponent is required to register the project with the DoE by way of preparation of a Project Report. If it’s an investment project, the proponent submits a project profile to ZIPA which then distributes it to concerned Departments for comments to determine the need or otherwise for an EIA. ZIPA then calls a technical meeting;- the Zanzibar Invest Committee meeting to review report and determine whether EIA is required. It is at this stage that the decision is made whether to conduct an EIA or not and the project is classified to determine the level at which the environmental assessment should be carried out.
Screening: Where an EIA is deemed necessary, the Investor is required to contact with DOE which screens the project to develop TOR and suggest consultants to undertake EIA.
Review of the EIS: EIA is then undertaken and report submitted to DOE for review. A Technical Review Committee established by the NEMC reviews the EIA and decides whether the EIA is acceptable or not.
If the EIA is approved, the DOE issues an EIA Certificate to confirm that the project may proceed. The process takes 60-90 days but the TOR expires within one year of issue if the respective EIA has not been undertaken. The EIA procedure in Zanzibar requires public consultation.
Auditing the completed project: The DOE undertakes periodic and independent audits of the project. Depending on its findings, it will issue an Environmental Auditing Report.
4.3 World Bank’s Safeguard Policies
Under OP 4.01 concerning environmental assessment, the ZSEP WKCDD is Category B and this ESMF has therefore been designed to ensure that all investments under the ZSEP will comply with all the Environmental laws of the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar and the Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies of the World Bank. In this chapter, the World Bank’s safeguards policies likely to be triggered by the ZSEP are highlighted while brief texts are provided in Annex One. They include:-
▪ Environmental Assessment (OP4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01)
▪ Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04)
▪ Forestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36)
▪ Pest Management (OP 4.09)
▪ Cultural Property (OPN 11.03)
▪ Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20)
▪ Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
▪ Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37)
▪ Projects on International Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP 7.50)
▪ Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, GP 7.60)
In preparing this ESMF, a consideration of the type of future investments planned vis-à-vis the baseline data presented in Chapter 3 against the requirements of the Bank Safeguard policies, has led to the determination that Three World Bank safeguard policies will be triggered namely:-
i) OP 4.01 on Environmental Assessment
ii) OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and,
iii) OP/BP 4.11 on Physical Cultural Resources
Brief commentaries on reasons why each safeguard will be triggered and safeguard measures are presented below:-
(i) Environmental Assessment (OP4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01)
OP 4.01 requires environmental assessment (EA) of projects proposed for Bank financing to help ensure that they are environmentally sound and sustainable, and thus to improve decision making. The EA is a process whose breadth, depth, and type of analysis depend on the nature, scale, and potential environmental impact of the program investments/activities under the ZSEP. The EA process takes into account the natural environment (air, water, and land); human health and safety; social aspects (involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, and cultural property) and trans-boundary and global environmental aspects.
The environmental and social impacts of the ZSEP will come from the secondary school construction program/activities of the schools and any other construction/rehabilitation type activities that the ZSEP will be financing. However, since the location of these schools will not be identified before appraisal of the project, the EA process calls for the GoT to prepare an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) report which will establish a mechanism to determine and assess future potential environmental and social impacts of the construction activities under the proposed ZSEP, and then to set out mitigation, monitoring and institutional measures to be taken during implementation and operation of the school construction program, to eliminate adverse environmental and social impacts, offset them, or reduce them to acceptable levels.
The policy further calls for the ZSEP as a whole to be environmentally screened to determine the extent and type of the EA process. The ZSEP has thus been screened and assigned an EA Category B status in which, an ESMF is a mandatory requirement. The EA process proposed in this ESMF pertains to a category B Project.
OP 4.01 further requires that the ESMF report must be disclosed as a separate and stand alone document by the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar and the World Bank as a condition for bank Appraisal of the ZSEP. The disclosure should be both in Zanzibar, where it can be accessed by the general public and local communities and at the Infoshop of the World Bank and the date for disclosure must precede the date for appraisal of the program.
Category B projects are likely to have potential adverse environmental impacts on human populations or environmentally important areas – including wetlands, forests, grasslands, and other natural habitats – and are less adverse than those of category A projects. These impacts are site specific, few if any of them are irreversible, and in most cases mitigation measures can be designed more readily than for category A projects. The EA process for category B projects examines the potential negative and positive environmental impacts and recommends any measures needed to prevent, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts and improve environmental performance.
This process requires the MoEVT to use the screening form and checklist contained in Annexes 3.0 and 4.0 respectively, to identify potential adverse impacts of their school construction program and thereby determine the corresponding mitigation measures to incorporate into their planned activities. Section 9.0 sets the relevant process and requirements for environmental and social management.
(ii) Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
Significant efforts are to be made in the design and screening stages of the secondary schools construction program financed under the ZSEP, to avoid impacts on people, land, property, including people’s access to natural and other economic resources, as far as possible. Notwithstanding, land acquisition, compensation and resettlement of people seem inevitable for some selected school sites. This social issue is of crucial concern to the Government of Zanzibar and the Bank, as its impact on poverty, if left unmitigated, is negative, immediate and widespread. Thus, OP 4.12 will be triggered in those cases. Thus a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) is under preparation by the RGZ for approval by the Bank in compliance with OP 4.12. The RPF sets the guidelines for the Resettlement and Compensation Plans (RAPs) that would have to be prepared when any program investment triggers this policy. The RAPs would be prepared by the School Boards and would have to be submitted to their respective District Environmental Coordinator for approval. The RAPs would also have to be approved by the Bank as a condition for that particular school construction to be financed.
(iii) Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11)
Under this ESMF, the ZSEP will not support subprojects that involve the significant conversion[2] or degradation of critical natural habitats. The latter described as land and water areas whose ecological functions have not been essentially modified by human activities, and that are protected by government (e.g. parks, World Heritage Sites) or by tradition (e.g. sacred groves); have known high suitability for biodiversity conservation; or are critical for rare, vulnerable, migratory, or endangered species. OP 4.04 will largely not be triggered as the ZSEP will not finance construction in protected areas. However, given that the project will support rehabilitation of properties in Stone Town, which is preserved as cultural heritage site, this ESMF has inbuilt modalities for dealing with requirements of OP/BP 4.11.
(iv) Other WB safeguard policies are deemed not to be applicable to the ZSEP. OP 4.09 (Pest Management) is not triggered as ZSEP does not target agriculture.
Construction of schools under ZSEP touches on OP 4.36 (Forestry) on account of consumption of timber and wood during construction and the need to sustainably supply fuel wood to the institutions. However, given that OP 4.37 (Safety of Dams) introduces specific safety requirements applicable only to dams more than 15 meters in height. The ZSEP will not support construction of any dams and the policy is therefore not applicable.
It is not anticipated that the ZSEP may have any adverse impact on people identified as indigenous, and therefore OD 4.20 is not applicable.
4.4 Impact Screening under World Bank and RGZ Procedures
Criteria for Impact Screening under World Bank Policies: The screening process used by the World Bank classifies proposed projects into one of four categories, depending on the type, location, sensitivity, and scale of the project and the nature and magnitude of its potential environmental impacts. Going by World Bank categories, environmental and social impact assessment for projects is required as follows:-
Category A: A proposed project is classified as Category A if it is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented. These impacts may affect an area broader than the sites or facilities subject to physical works.
Category B: A proposed project is classified as Category B if it’s potential adverse environmental impacts on human populations or environmentally important areas—including wetlands, forests, grasslands, and other natural habitats—are less adverse than those of Category A projects. These impacts are site-specific; few if any of them are irreversible; and in most cases mitigation measures can be designed more readily than for Category A projects.
Category C: A proposed project is classified as Category C if it is likely to have minimal or no adverse environmental impacts. Beyond screening, no further EA action is required for a Category C project.
Category FI: A proposed project is classified as Category FI if it involves investment of Bank funds through a financial intermediary, in subprojects that may result in adverse environmental impacts.
This ZSEP has been classified as environmental category B under these World Bank Guidelines, in which case, an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) have been prepared in accordance with Bank conditions.
Impact screening under Act No. 3 of 1996: The First and Second schedules of Act No. 2 of 1996 specify categories of project which do and do not require to be subjected to EIA studies respectively. According to the DOE, projects in between require environmental screening through development of Project Reports. Thus, given this delineation of minimum size threshold under the First Schedule of Act No. 2 of 1996, it is considered that most sub-projects proposed under ZSEP may not require an EIA process. However subprojects such as the proposed Benjamin Mkapa Teachers Training College and the proposed 10 model secondary schools, though not explicitly falling under Second Schedule do however have aspects toughing on this schedule; a feature that makes them attract some form of environmental screening. The procedure for such screening will be outlined elsewhere below.
4.5 Comparison of World Bank and RGZ Policies on Environment and Social Impact Assessment
Zanzibar through the Environmental Management for Sustainable Development Act No. 2 of 1996 makes it mandatory for all major development projects to be preceded by an EIA study leading to development of an EIS. Part IV of Act No. 2 of 1996 provides a comprehensive framework for environmental assessment of projects, and this requirement is recognized in other legislation such as the Forest Resources Management and Conservation Act No 10 of 1996. Thus, under RGZ laws, environmental assessment is fully mainstreamed in all development process consistent with World Bank policies. Indeed, under Act No.2 of 1996, even RGZ projects are under obligation to undertake EIA studies before implementation. This ESMF therefore is consistent then, with both RGZ and World Bank Policies.
Where there is a conflict between the Laws of RGZ and the Bank, World Bank safeguard Policies will prevail.
4.6 Disclosure
OP 4.01 further requires that this ESMF report must be disclosed as a separate and stand alone report by the Executing Agencies and the World Bank, as a condition for World Bank Appraisal of the projects. In keeping with this requirement, and the further detail set out in, the draft report will firstly be made publicly available to project-affected groups in Zanzibar by placing a public notice in a national newspaper and making the report available at the MoEVT and posting on the net. This measure will also satisfy the Act No. 3 of 1996 requirement that EIA reports are disclosed and be subjected to review by the public. Following revisions, the ESMF will be officially submitted to the World Bank, and made publicly available on the Infoshop at least 30 days prior to the Board date.
CHAPTER FIVE: THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROCESS
5.1 Generic Environmental Concerns
From diverse sources (National Environment Policy, DOE-Pers. Comm., , etc) the following have been identified as the critical environmental problems facing Zanzibar today:
▪ Degradation of Marine Environments (habitat and biodiversity)
▪ Land degradation through over-harvesting of mangrove and coral rag forests, solid waste dumping and non-sustainable quarrying methods.
▪ Water contamination from sewage and other waste
▪ Settlement in congested, dilapidated settlements,
Brief commentaries and summaries for specific impacts are provided in tables and sections below with a view to setting the background against which potential adverse impacts (on the social and physical environment) from the activities of the ZSEP can be assessed.
5.1.1 Degradation of marine environments
The entire coastline of Unguja and Pemba islands is threatened by degradation associated with non-sustainable human activity such as such as coastal construction, dumping of solid and liquid effluent including untreated sewage, non-sustainable fishing through use of nets, poison and blasts, dynamite fishing in coral reefs, anchor damage, collection of life coral, over-exploitation of Turtles through slaughter and collection of eggs. The problem is partly driven by an economy that is largely dependent on exploitation of primary resources and also compounded by inadequacy of policy guidelines on exploitation of marine resources. If left unchecked, this is a scenario that had potential to undermine the strategic economic interest of Zanzibar through erosion of biodiversity and undermining other sectors of the economy such as fisheries and tourism.
In appreciation of the need to conserve biodiversity, the RGZ formulated a National Conservation Strategy in 1996 which addressed the cause of biodiversity decline and the factors underlying such trends. The overall objective of the Strategy is to reduce the negative impacts on biodiversity in Zanzibar, and develop sustainable economic and social use of indigenous ecosystems and species. Components of the strategy include;-
i) Develop a body of resource managers capable of conserving biodiversity.
ii) Improve Legal and Policy framework for biodiversity conservation.
iii) Increase financial resources available for biodiversity conservation.
iv) Manage ecosystems by using integrated plans to provide economic benefits.
v) Increase conservation action in the field, prioritized to maximize effects on biodiversity
vi) Increase knowledge of poorly studied biodiversity
vii) Monitor trends of biodiversity.
viii) Build public support and participation in biological diversity conservation through education and awareness.
5.1.2 Land degradation
The national Environmental Policy identifies land degradation to be one of the main ecological concerns in Zanzibar today. The isles command unique ecosystems world renown as reservoirs of biodiversity. In Unguja Island, the most famous biosphere is the Jozani-Chwaka Bay Conservation Area estimated to cover 5,000ha that consists of the Jozani Forest Reserve, mangroves and the coral rag forest and thus comprises the largest terrestrial natural forest in Unguja Island, representing the remnants of biological resources that were once spread throughout Unguja. The Mangrove formation of Chwaka Bay is the largest stand of mangrove forest in Zanzibar Island with estimated area of about 2,800ha equivalent to 15% of the forest cover of Zanzibar (Leskinen and Ali, 1997). The Josani-Chwaka Bay complex is home to many rare and endemic species, and is thus and important reservoir for biodiversity. At global level, the area forms part of the Eastern African Arc Mountains, ranked one among the 25 biodiversity ‘hot spots’ and a centre for endemism world-wide (see Masoud, 2001).
It is commonly acknowledged (Review Mission, 1991) that deforestation in Zanzibar first set in the 1830s at the onset of the clove-planting programme. Currently, deforestation rate in Zanzibar is estimated at 400,000 hectares annually (Persson, 1994) and is associated overexploitation mainly harvesting of coral rag and mangrove forests to provides poles and to supply wood for use by households, institutions and small scale industries while other cover is lost through the traditional shifting cultivation.
| | | | |
|Table 5.1: Degradation of Marine Environments |
|Immediate Causes |Root Causes |Impacts |Severity ranking |
| Massive construction in the shoreline, | Inadequate policy guidelines on development of coastal | Endangering biodiversity. |Moderately severe |
| |areas. | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| Accumulation of solid waste particularly plastics, | Close proximity of the coastline to settled areas which| Erosion of livelihoods especially those based| |
| |causes waste to be washed into the ocean, |on traditional fishing, | |
| Dumping of solid waste in creeks and mangrove areas | Inadequate capacity of the local sewage network which | Erosion of the touristic appeal of the | |
| |is over a century old. |landscape through littering and foul smell at the | |
| | |beach front. | |
| Dumping of liquid effluent including untreated | Design of storm and sewage drainage which empties | Build-up of waterborne diseases. | |
|sewage, |directly into the ocean | | |
| Non-sustainable fishing techniques including use of | Inadequate enforcement of requirements of the Fisheries | | |
|nets, poison, dynamite and fishing in coral reefs, |Act, | | |
| Marine damage by Anchor, Collection of life coral, | | | |
|Turtle slaughter and eggs correction, |Overexploitation of forest resources to supply, fuel wood, | | |
| Over-hunting of certain spp such the Anders duiker. |charcoal, building poles and sticks for seaweed farming. | | |
| | An economy that is largely dependent on agriculture and | | |
| |exploitation of natural resources. | | |
According to available information (DCCFF, 2002) annual firewood consumption in Zanzibar is estimated at 3,068,977m3, of which, households in Pemba accounts to 77%, while those in Unguja Island account for only 23%. The coral rag forests accounts for 93.62% in Unguja Island while in Pemba clove tree is the most preferable source of firewood at the household level. This demand is not met locally and substantial wood has to be shipped into Zanzibar from mainland Tanzania.
Other forms of land degradation are associated with nom-rehabilitation of quarries which leaves gaping craters posing hazards to people and their livestock while providing breeding grounds for water borne disease vectors. As well, shifting cultivation through which land is cleared of vegetation, cultivated for several seasons and then abandoned is a major contributor to deforestation and degradation of soil quality.
Zanzibar is also the home of the endemic Zanzibar Red Colobus and the elusive Zanzibar Leopard. The Zanzibar leopard (Panthera pardus adersi) is an elusive and possibly extinct subspecies of leopard endemic to Unguja Island in the Zanzibar archipelago. Increasing conflict between people and leopards in the 20th century led to their demonization and determined attempts to exterminate them. Efforts to develop a leopard conservation programme in the mid-1990s were shelved when wildlife researchers concluded that there was little prospect for the animal's long-term survival.
[pic][pic] [pic]
Plate 5.1: Images of land degradation in Zanzibar; - mangrove fuel wood ready for the market and an abandoned quarry currently used as a grazing field.
[pic]
5.1.3: Occupation of old, dilapidated buildings in Stone Town
Four of the schools targeted for rehabilitation under ZSEP are situated in The Stone Town[3]- the ancient city constructed by Portuguese colonizers in mid 1800s. The design and construction of Stone Town borrows heavily form the 19th Century civilization of Eastern Europe which has however phased out in favor of modern planning methods. In spite of this, the congested settlement of stone town characterized by congested storied structures devoid of reinforcement, narrow alleyways that serve as streets and which is now recognized and preserved as a World Heritage site is also under residential and commercial use.
[pic]
[pic][pic][pic]
Plate 5.2: Images of the Stone Town; - World Heritage Site, a collapsed building and, the Hamamni Secondary School targeted for rehabilitation
[pic]
Risks associated with human habitation of Stone Town buildings include permanent exposure of people to hazards associated with collapsing of buildings, inadequate delivery of services due to lack of room to pass plant and equipment, inability to install infrastructure that would interfere with the structural stability of old buildings and inadequacy of space to expand public facilities including recreational facilities. The problem of stone town is compounded by lack of facilities outside Zanzibar town which causes many people especially students to commute to Stone Town to attend school. Further, the Stone Town houses a number of government departments and since government is the single most important employer in Zanzibar, it is understandable that stone town remains congested.
As part of this ESMF study, the structural soundness of the Stone Town Schools targeted for rehabilitation was assessed through visual observations and it emerged that most of the buildings are either dilapidated or are failing. This observation is in agreement with finding of a survey undertaken in 2002 and which observed that, some 85 percent of the structures - is either in deteriorating or poor condition. More particularly, 62.5 percent are deteriorating and 22 percent are already in poor condition. In addition, eighty-five buildings collapsed between 1982 and 1992, while a further fifteen structures are today partially in ruins. Only 226, or 13.2 percent of the 1,709 buildings in the Stone Town, are considered in good condition. It is thus not clear to this ESMF that continued human habitation of buildings approaching the end of economic life is justified.
5.1.4 Water contamination from pollution
All water in Zanzibar is under threat. Shallow groundwater is under threat of contamination from sewers, leaking sewage and percolation of contaminated runoff water. Blackish and sea waters are also under threat from direct discharge of untreated sewage and runoff water and through location of municipal dump yards along creeks and estuaries. Indeed, the latter practice was observed to pose major challenge to mangrove ecosystems at Unguja.
Being a coastal ecosystem, Unguja Island is faced with the problem of perpetual intrusion of saline water into the groundwater. The hazard is always triggered by overexploitation of groundwater which releases the saline water table to flow freely in boreholes. Already, many boreholes in Unguja yield saline water and this is a trend that should be checked through control on groundwater development.
|Table 5.2: Land Degradation |
|Immediate Causes |Root Causes |Impacts |Severity ranking |
|Over-exploitation of forest resources including |Deforestation |Impacts from deforestation |Very severe |
|mangrove and coral rag forests to supply fuel |A rapidly increasing human population most of which is rural |Dwindling wood resource base causing bulk of wood supply in | |
|wood, charcoal, building poles and sticks for |based and thus dependent on exploitation of primary resources. |Zanzibar town to be imported from the mainland. | |
|seaweed farming. | |Destruction of wildlife habitat causing some endemic species to| |
|Non-sustainable quarrying methods |Reliance on wood as the main source of energy supply to |be endangered | |
| |households, cottage industries and institutions. |Undermining viability of other sectors such as fisheries and | |
| | |tourism. | |
| |Inadequate community involvement in resource conservation |Impacts from non sustainable quarrying | |
| |planning. |Non-rehabilitated quarries undermine agricultural production | |
| |Non-sustainable quarrying methods |Abandoned quarries provide breeding grounds for WBDVs. | |
| |Inadequacy of guidelines for quarry rehabilitation, thus |Risk of accidents to people and their animals | |
| |abandoned quarries are left untreated. | | |
| |Inadequate public sensitization on need to safeguard the | | |
| |environment. | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|Table 5.3: Accident hazards posed by collapsing buildings |
|Immediate Causes |Root Causes |Impacts |Severity ranking |
|Human habitation of congested, dilapidated |Inherited a pre-historic settlement design which is now |People live in permanent risks of accident from collapsing |Moderate |
|settlements |protected as a World Heritage Site. |buildings | |
|Requirements for modern urban planning. | | | |
| |Lack of incentive for people to settle out of Stone town. |Absolute lack of recreation facilities for residents including | |
| | |school children. | |
| |Stone Town is the business hub for Unguja owing to | | |
| |opportunities created by the harbor, tourism and government |Overstretching of available infrastructure for water supply, | |
| |business. Many people settle, therefore work and live in Stone |storm drainage, solid and liquid effluent removal. | |
| |Town. | | |
| | | | |
| |Inadequacy of facilities outside Stone Town causing many | | |
| |students to travel to stone town to attend school. | | |
|Table 5.4: Water Contamination from Pollution |
|Immediate Causes |Root Causes |Impacts |Severity |
|Introduction of dissolved nutrients, industrial |Weak policies, laws and regulations for environmental protections |Degradation of water quality, rendering water unsuitable for |Moderate |
|pollutants, sewage and runoff water, |(e.g. EIA); insufficient enforcement and monitoring especially in |domestic, agricultural, industrial and other uses. | |
|Non-point pollution from agriculture and rural |respect to industrial facilities; low budgetary provision for |Degradation of meager water resources. | |
|settlements due to improper handling of wastes and |enforcement of existing regulations, lack of sufficient human |Spread of infectious diseases (diarrhea, malaria, bilharzias, | |
|chemicals. |resources. |dysentery, and intestinal worms). | |
| |Overwhelming of current capacity of infrastructure by an ever |Low labour productivity due to diseases | |
|Washing of solid waste into water sources. |increasing urban population, |Increased mortality rates especially among vulnerable groups | |
| | |such as small children, the displaced and the elderly. | |
| |Inadequate investment in new infrastructure possibly due to | | |
| |budgetary constrains | | |
| |Non-point sources: Unsustainable land use practices in combination| | |
| |with lack of security of land tenure. | | |
| |Inadequate zoning regulations and/or enforcement; inadequate | | |
| |environmental and land use planning. | | |
| |Low environmental awareness and sense of value or environmental | | |
| |protection. | | |
5.2 Generic Social Concerns
The main social issues in Zanzibar today are:
Acute Poverty – It is estimated that 22% of the Zanzibar population live in poverty and this is distributed unevenly throughout the islands with up to 60% living in poverty in some rural areas. Economic growth in Zanzibar has averaged 6% in 2004 and GDP per capita was estimated at $300 in 2004 (compared to $260 on mainland Tanzania). Thus, compared to Tanzania mainland, which is considered one of the poorest countries in the world, Zanzibar is slightly better off but still poor.
HIV/AIDS – Life expectancy in Tanzania has declined to 48years as result of the aids epidemic. HIV/AIDS affects both education coverage and quality. It dampens the demand for education as affected households have fewer resources to spend on education either because of reduced income due to morbidity of income earners or diversion of scarce resources for health care. Children in these households are often taken out of school to care for ill parents or have to work to make up for lost household income, and an increasing number are becoming orphans. At the same time, the epidemic affects the supply of educational services at all levels through increased mortality, morbidity and absenteeism among teachers and education personnel.
The Crisis in Education – An exceedingly small proportion of the Tanzanian age group completes secondary education. At most 5% of the age group completes lower secondary and 1.5% completes upper secondary. As a result, less than 5% of the labor force has obtained secondary education. The main cause is restricted initial access and low retention. Only about one in four or five primary school completers proceeds to lower secondary education in Tanzania.
Low coverage of secondary education reflects constraints on supply and demand for secondary school places. The pressure to expand secondary school places is likely to rise rapidly in the coming years as an increasing number of students complete their primary school education, especially with the introduction of free primary education that has raised the gross enrollment rate in primary education to 100% in 2002 compared to 77% in 2000.
Gender Issues – Women are often poorer than men, own less land and livestock and have fewer years of schooling. There is roughly gender equality in access to primary schools, though imbalances exist in completion rates and access to secondary schools. Gender imbalances are rooted and sustained by traditional and cultural values. In 1990, the Government established the Ministry of Women Affairs and Children with a view to promote gender equality. A gender committee has been created to ensure that sectoral investments respond to the priority needs of both men and women. The new land legislation has represented an encouraging step towards securing the right of women to own, dispose of and inherit land[4].
5.3 Potential Impacts of the ZSEP
5.3.1 Potential Positive Environmental and social Impacts of the ZSEP
Each School to be supported under the ZSEP will be assessed for impacts under its own merit taking due recognition of the size, geographical and ecological setting for each project. The potential impacts highlighted in sections below are based on observations made on several sites targeted either for rehabilitation or new construction. Preliminary impact prediction has been made based consideration of the potential interaction between civil works and the baseline environment of the site also against the background of generic social and environmental concerns as identified elsewhere above.
Typical project impacts are summarized in table 5.5 and 5.6 below. These include:-
Capacity building for professional staff: The ZSEP is possibly the first major project to be implemented in the Education Sector in Zanzibar. As such, it is a project whose planning, implementation and supervision requires strong back-up in terms of capacity building and exposure of local professional staff. Ultimately, the ZSEP will leave behind, not only physical and software infrastructure, but also a highly trained profession cadre of staff with capacity to replicate such initiatives elsewhere; a contribution viewed as one of the main positive impacts of the project.
Capacity building for environmental management: It is further anticipated that implementation of this ESMF will increase in Zanzibar, the practice of subjecting development projects (especially education projects) to an environmental management process, in the prevailing situation where a national environmental policy and regulatory framework are weakly enforced. The ESMF offers the opportunity to identify potential program impacts, mitigate them verifiably through monitoring while building capacity for environmental management at al levels of project management down to the School Boards and local communities led by Shehas.
More directly, positive impacts of the project will manifest as follows:-
Improvement in quality of secondary and tertiary education in Zanzibar: By rehabilitating and equipping old dilapidated school buildings with modern facilities for the teaching of science subjects, IT and co-curricula education, the ZSEP will impact positively on delivery of quality education and thus facilitate production of school leavers who are better equipped to compete for professional training spaces at national level or for the job market. ZSEP, therefore, is strategic in development of the national professional human resource base of Zanzibar.
Improvement of the safety and quality of life for students: The observation of this study is that facilities currently available in the best secondary schools are at best pathetic- a picture best illustrated by the condition of dormitories at Fidel Castro High School- on of the best in Unguja and Pemba. Provision of quality facilities including reinforcement of dilapidated structures in old town will further enhance the safety of occupants thus greatly toning down potential for occurrence of diseases associated with exposure and, the hazards associated with occupation of failing buildings. This may be the single most important impact of rehabilitation works.
Improvement in enrollment rate: The other drastic positive impacts are associated with anticipated significant increase in the enrolment rate at the secondary education level by increasing the number of classroom/places in the public, schools system throughout the country. Further, through provision of additional teachers, the national schooled labour force is set to increase drastically and this is strategic to penetration of the job market in Zanzibar and beyond. Further, provision of adequate space in secondary schools will phase out the current double shift system in which students only get to spend half a day in school and are out at home in half the time. By facilitating the students to spend maximum time in school, this will improve the opportunity of one to one teacher-student contacts which is conditional to effective transfer of knowledge.
Potential impact on HIV/AIDS awareness: Through increase enrollment in secondary education, additional opportunities for public health awareness and education for protection and prevention against HIV/AIDS will be available for secondary school going age among boys and girls. It is this age group that is particularly vulnerable to this epidemic.
Elimination of inequity of access and throughput in education among geographical areas, income groups and between genders: By virtue of communities being traditionally asked to contribute towards secondary school extension, usually within a combined primary/secondary school system, education development poses a financial burden to households. . As well, high per student cost on households and the public sector in secondary education is a major constraint to access to education. Indeed, the burden of financing education is acknowledged as a major drain to house hold incomes and a major contributor to inequity in access. Thus, by lifting off the burden of financing refurbishment of secondary education infrastructure in Zanzibar, ZSEP will remove a huge burden from households and thus facilitate channeling of funds are channeled to other equally needy cases. Simultaneously, ZSEP will remove financial obstacles that deter children from less endowed families from accessing education and thus improve the chances of such households to penetrate the economic system in Zanzibar and beyond. ZSEP as currently designed is seen as a major affront against rural poverty in Zanzibar.
Impacts on the rural and national economies: In the short-term, ZSEP will create opportunities for employment in civil works while operation of the institutions is likely to create fulltime employment to some people. Others will benefit from business opportunities created by market for construction materials and supply of foodstuffs and fuel wood to the new institutions. This will boost the rural economy and is an affront against rural poverty.
Contribution to national housing schemes: Provision of housing to staff members in model schools and the Benjamin Mkapa Teachers College amounts to creation of additional decent housing for beneficiary families.
Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts from the ZSEP
Careful selection of sites for new construction together with adherence to this ESMF will greatly reduce occurrence of adverse social and environmental impacts under the ZSEP. However, adverse impacts are still likely to manifest in the following areas:-
Rehabilitation will temporarily displace target schools: The most dramatic and conspicuous adverse impact from implementation of ZSEP is associated with displacement of target schools during the period of construction repair works. An given the scarcity of secondary schools in Zanzibar, opportunity for relocating the affected schools will be limited and this could also amount to disrupting of services in the host schools. Unless carefully planned, displacement of schools is likely to hurt learning by inconveniencing both staff and students and could lead to some children dropping out of school altogether.
Impacts of material supply for construction: During construction, inadequate supervision of project contractors could create loopholes for environmental abuse through non-sustainable sourcing of building material. This is likely to cause long-term impacts such as those associated with non-sustainable quarry practices and deforestation for supply of building wood. The latter two are major concerns in Zanzibar currently.
Impacts associated with operation of completed facilities: Operation of boarding schools and colleges will require continues supply of inputs, predominantly household energy, water and electricity and will continuously generate effluent such as solid waste, waste water, sewage, smoke, etc while creation of institutions in formerly agricultural lands will change the local hydrological condition leading to more generation of surface runoff with potential to trigger or aggravate soil erosion problem. Operation of institutions, therefore, has potential to aggravate the twin problems of degradation of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems which is already a major concern in Zanzibar today.
Impacts associated with non-elimination of barriers to education: Unless caution is taken to involve local communities in the preparation of their District and Regional Secondary Schools Development Plans by their Local Governments, adverse impacts such as exclusion of vulnerable groups from participating in and benefiting from project activities, barriers to access to/ enrollment in secondary schools due to stigmatization, harmful cultural practices, acute poverty among vulnerable groups, discrimination, etc may still persist and this may undermine achievement of ZSEP goals which are partly motivated by the International Declaration of Education to all. As well, non-negotiated land acquisitions/use resulting in involuntary resettlement/ displacement including encroachment on cultural and sacred sites are likely to cause strive which may undermine project development and progress.
Table 5.5: Matrix for potential positive social and environmental impacts under the ZSEP
|Component |Activity |Primary Impact |Secondary Impact |Duration |Severity ranking |Weighting |
|General |Subjecting the entire project|Sensitizing society on environmental |Will improve environmental |Long-term |High |2P |
| |to an EA process |requirements |awareness | | | |
| | |Generation of a database on social and |Improves public awareness |Long-term |Moderate |P |
| | |physical environment of project | | | | |
| | |Project implementation will draw |Creation of a forum for |Long-term |Moderate |P |
| | |collaboration across sectors |interdepartmental cooperation | | | |
| |Programme development and |Capacity building for MoVT staff and |Such skills will be useful outside|Long-term |High |2P |
| |implementation |others |project work | | | |
|Rehabilitation of old |Demolition and rehabilitation|Creation of employment in design, |Addition income to households |Short-term |High |2P |
|schools | |construction and supervision | | | | |
| | |Provision of improved and expanded |Improve quality of education |Long-term |High |2P |
| | |facilities for learning | | | | |
| | |Revenues paid to respective authorities |Adds to revenue base |Short-term |Low |0 |
|Construction of new |Site selection, clearing and |Stakeholder collaboration and involvement |Strengthen ties |Long-term |Moderate |P |
|schools |leveling | | | | | |
| |Construction of |Employment in construction work |Additional income |Short-term |Moderate |P |
| |superstructures | | | | | |
| | |Market for construction materials |Contributes to local and national|Short-term |Moderate |P |
| | | |economy | | | |
|Operation of completed structures |Creation of additional capacity for |Contribution to national skilled |Long-term |High |2P |
| |secondary and teacher training in Zanzibar|human resource base | | | |
| |Short and long-term impacts on HIV/AIDS |Children will be more aware of |Long-term |High |2P |
| |through sensitization of more students |HIIV/AIDS while spending more | | | |
| |under a school environment |time in school will reduce chance | | | |
| | |exposure | | | |
| |Creation of employment in new facilities |New bas for livelihood created |Long-term |High |2P |
| |Creation of market for foodstuffs, fuel |New base for livelihoods |Long-term |High |2P |
| |wood etc to boarding institutions | | | | |
| |Creation of accommodation for teaching | More households will now access |Long-term |High |2P |
| |staff. |more decent housing | | | |
Table 5.6: Matrix for potential adverse social and environmental impacts under the ZSEP
|Component |Activity |Primary Impact |Secondary Impact |Duration |Feasibility of |Severity ranking |Weighting |
| | | | | |mitigation | | |
|Rehabilitation of old |Demolition and rehabilitation|Displacement of entire school |Disruption of learning process |Short-term |Varied |High |2N |
|schools | | | | | | | |
| | | |Inconvenience to school staff and |Short-term |Reversible |Low |0 |
| | | |students, | | | | |
| | | |Congestion and stretching of |Short-term |Reversible |Low |0 |
| | | |facilities in host schools | | | | |
| | |Generation of construction |Littering of the town |Short-term |Reversible |Low |0 |
| | |debris | | | | | |
| | |Occupational hazards to |Possible injuries and associated |Short-term |Varied |Low |0 |
| | |construction workers |social costs | | | | |
| | |Occupational Health and safety |Erosion of the touristic appeal of|Long-term |Irreversible |High |2N |
| | |hazards to workers |stone town | | | | |
|Construction of new |Site clearing and leveling |Removal of soil and vegetation |Destruction of biodiversity |Long-term |Reversible |Low |0 |
|schools | | | | | | | |
| | | |Creation of soil debris |Short-term |Reversible |Low |0 |
| | | |Dust, noise and other nuisance |Short-term |Reversible |Low |0 |
| | |Encroachment on sacred sites and |Creates social tension and strive |Long-term |Irreversible |Moderate |N |
| | |cultural heritage sites | | | | | |
| | |Displacement of other land users |Undermine agriculture, human |Short-term |Reversible |Moderate |N |
| | |by school |settlement etc | | | | |
| |Construction of |Consumption of quarry stone and |Impacts at material borrow areas |Long-term |Reversible |Moderate |N |
| |superstructures |sand | | | | | |
| | |Consumption of timber and other |Impacts on national forests |Short-term |Reversible |Moderate |N |
| | |wood | | | | | |
| | |Occupational health and safety | Injuries and associated social |Varied depending on |Varied |Varied |0 |
| | |hazards |costs |degree of injury | | | |
|Operation of completed structures |Overload of existing |Overloaded sewage, storm drainage,|Long-term |Reversible |Moderate |N |
| |infrastructures |etc | | | | |
| |Generation of solid and liquid |Littering of the neighborhood |Long-term |Reversible |Moderate |N |
| |waste | | | | | |
| |Change in the local hydrology |Generation of more surface runoff |Long-term |Reversible |Moderate |N |
| | |and soil erosion | | | | |
| |Pressure on resources |Consumption of wood fuel |Long-term |Reversible |Moderate |N |
| | |Consumption of water resources |Long-term |Reversible |Low |0 |
|Final weighting | | |Total P =23 |
| | | |Total N=12 |
| | | |Net weight= 11P |
| | | |Positive impacts outweigh adverse impacts |
P=High positive impact, P= moderate positive impact, 0=low impact, N=moderate adverse impact, 2n severe adverse impact. [pic]
| | | |
5.3.3 Net social and environmental impacts of the project
Overall, the ZSEP is likely to have a positive impact on the environment in Zanzibar, in the short, medium and long term. Firstly, the project benefits in terms of social and environmental impacts outweigh the adverse impacts. The ZSEP will pose no direct risks to biodiversity, natural habitats and wetlands, as it will not fund activities in protected areas, national parks or wetlands. Further, out of 18 possible adverse impacts, half are short-term in manifestation and will clear once construction ends. Indeed, the bulk of impacts also have readily available means for total and effective mitigation; - out of the 9 long-term impacts, 8 are possibly reversible leaving only four fairly irreversible factors, the key of which is associated with changes in the Stone Town Architecture. The latter impact is fairly easy to mitigate since in order to fully comply with requirements of the World Convention on Heritage Sites- and preserve the integrity of Stone Town, all construction work in Stone Town will have to adhere to guidelines set by the STDCA who will also undertake routine supervision.
Requirement for monitoring to ensure sustainability of this esteemed social and environmental profile of the project will be detailed elsewhere below. The environmental and social screening form and checklist contained in Annex 2.0 and Annex 3.0 are specifically designed to ensure that adverse social impacts from ZSEP activities are identified and captured in the planning stages and there-in effectively mitigated. Both environmental and social mitigation measures would be verifiable monitored during the various stages of the program cycle.
5.4 Procedure for Impact Assessment under ZSEP
5.4.1 Overview
The sections below will illustrate specific steps (Summarized in Fig. 5.1) involved in the environmental and social assessment process leading towards clearance and approval of activities under ZSEP. The steps incorporate requirements stipulated in the (Environmental Management for Sustainable Development) Act No. 2 of 1996 and as amplified by the Department of Environment.
5.4.2 Procedure for environmental screening of sub-projects under ZSEP
This section prescribes safeguards that ensure that sub projects financed under ZSEP remain sensitive to both WB and RGZ requirements for a safe environment. It must be emphasized that given the observed concurrence between the RGZ and WB safeguards on environmental management, by ZSEP complying with Act No. 2 of 1996, it will simultaneously have addressed the World Bank requirements. However, given the observed triggering of other WB safeguards, certain ZSEP subcomponents will also be subject to screening under other legislation notably the Stone Town Conservation Authority Act No. 3 of 1994.
Three screening procedures are recognized based on the three categories likely to be financed under ZSEP as follows:-
▪ Rehabilitation of schools outside Stone Town
▪ Rehabilitation of schools within Stone Town
▪ Development of new institutions
Fig. 6.1 below illustrates logical screening process for each category of projects. The figure also indicates the stage and level of involvement of each player taking part in the screening process.
Screening in rehabilitation of schools outside Stone Town: Screening for such schools will be fairly straight forward. The MoEVT will prepare and approve architectural plans for the rehabilitation and then appoint contractors and a supervision team. During construction, MoEVT will monitor impacts as per table 5.1 of this ESMF. For this category of projects, the MoEVT is the sole actor.
Screening in rehabilitation of schools within Stone Town: The procedure here will start with the MoEVT preparing and approving architectural plans for the proposed development. The plans will then be submitted to the Stone Town Development and Conservation Authority who will then scrutinize and approve/reject the same as per their established procedure (See Annex 4). Once the STDCA approves the plans, the MoEVT will appoint Contractors and Supervisory Team. Construction will be supervised jointly by both the MoEVT and STDCA.
Fig 5.1: Schematic presentation of screening procedures
|Category of sub-project |Action Level and Logical sequence of events |
| |MoEVT |Dept of Lands |STCDA |Dept of Environment |
|Rehabilitation works: |(i) Preparation and approval of | | | |
|(a) Schools situated |architectural plans | | | |
|outside Stone Town | | | | |
| |(ii) Ministry recruits contractor and | | | |
| |appoints supervisory team | | | |
| |(iii) Ministry monitors environmental | | | |
| |impacts as per this ESMF | | | |
|(b) Schools within Stone |(i) Preparation and approval of | |(ii) Plans are scrutinized and approved | |
|Town |architectural plans | |by STCDA | |
| |(iii) Ministry recruits contractor and | |(iv) Joint supervision with STDCA | |
| |appoints supervisory team | | | |
| |(v) Ministry monitors environmental | | | |
| |impacts as per this ESMF | | | |
|Development of new |(i) MoEVT identifies and undertakes | | | |
|Institutions |preliminary impact assessment (ESMF) | | | |
| |(ii) Ministry approaches Dept of lands to|(iii) Dept of Lands scrutinizes | | |
| |obtain authorization on the target land |request from MoEVT as per Land-Use| | |
| | |Plans and makes recommendations | | |
| | |for or against | | |
| |(iv) Ministry prepares and approves | | | |
| |architectural plans | | | |
| |(v) Ministry prepares and submits Project| | |(vi) DOE screens sub-Project based on |
| |Report to DOE | | |project report and approves or rejects. |
| | | | |(vii) Where approved, DOE issues EIA |
| | | | |certificate for specific sub-project. |
| |viii) Ministry recruits contractor and | | | |
| |appoints supervisory team | | | |
| |(ix) Ministry monitors environmental | | | |
| |impacts as per this ESMF | | | |
| |(x) Ministry monitors environmental | | |(xi) DOE Monitors impacts as per Act No. 2 |
| |impacts as per this ESMF | | |of 1996 |
Who are the key actors in this process. During construction MoEVT will monitor implementation of impact mitigation as per this ESMF.
Screening in the construction of new institutions: The procedure prescribed for this category is lengthy and will involve diverse actors as follows:-
Firstly, and for each site, the MoEVT will identify the land targeted for development of institutions and satisfy that the land satisfies the criteria set by this ESMF (Annex 2). MoEVT will then approach the Dept of lands at respective district level who will then scrutinize the proposal to ensure that it is in line with the local Land-use Development Plan.
Once concurrence of the Dept of Lands is obtained, MoEVT will then prepare architectural plans and submit the same to the Dept of Environment in for of a stand alone project report in line with Part V of Act No. 2 of 1996. DOE will follow its procedure for project screening as specified in sections 38, to 40 of Act No. 2 of 1996 following which an EIA Certificate will be issued to MoEVT.
Upon grant of the EIA Certificate, the MoEVT will appoint a contractor who will simultaneously implement the plan and execute impact mitigation measures as identified in this ESMF and as will be recommended by the DOE. The MoEVT will monitor implementation of the Impact Mitigation Plan and file reports to DOE who will also under take monitoring as per Act No. 2 of 1996.
This ESMF has scrutinized subprojects proposed for financing under the ZSEP and concluded that none of them strictly peaking triggers Schedule Three of Act No. 2 of 1996. As such environmental assessment of the sub-projects under ZSEP is anticipated to end at the levels indicated above. However, should the DOE deem it necessary for a full cycle EIA to be undertaken, then, Act No. 2 of 1996 will take precedence.
Streamlining of stakeholder roles in the screening of sub-projects: From Fig 5.1 above, more features of the ZSEP screening process start to emerge as follows:-
i) The Department of Environmental Affairs will only be involved in the screening of new sites. This is because sites for rehabilitation works have already been identified and none of the proposed works triggers the Third Schedule of Act No. 2 of 1996. Screening for rehabilitation works will be on the basis the Contract for Construction to be administered by MoEVT during construction work.
ii) The Stone Town Development and Conservation Authority will only be involved in the screening rehabilitation targeting schools under the Authority. Their environmental screening will be similar to those of schools outside Stone Town.
ii) The Department of Lands will only be involved in screening of sites targeted for new construction. A checklist for their use (Annex Three) is also provided.
Such streamlining and clarification of roles will eliminate delays in project implementation. It also illustrates the overwhelming responsibility for environmental management placed on the shoulders of the MoEVT. Requisite capacity building for the MoEVT has been amplified in sections below.
Modalities for Stakeholder Consultation: Consultations undertaken for this ESMF (Annex Six) reveal that the ZSEP enjoys overwhelming support among diverse categories of stakeholders. However, to anchor the ZSEP deeper with stakeholders, this ESMF identifies further course of stakeholder consultations.
At selection of new sites: Decision on new sites should be preceded by wide consultations bringing in the relevant RGZ departments at district Level, the Sheha Councils, local citizenry and advocacy groups in the area.
▪ Contacts with STDCA during review of proposals for rehabilitation of Stone Town Schools,
▪ Mandatory consultations during preparation of Project Reports
▪ Mandatory public review of Project Reports as required of the DOE by section 44 of Act No. 2 of 1996.
▪ Consultations during preparation of the RAP,
▪ Consultations with School Boards during screening of all schools targeted for rehabilitation.
▪ Public review of the ESMF: In line with OB 4.01, this ESMF will be availed for public review in designated places in Zanzibar and will also be posted on the World Bank’s Infoshop. The ESMF will also be posted on the official website of the RGZ.
5.5 Procedure for Impact Mitigation under ZSEP
An Environmental Management Plan for the ZSEP is presented in appendix xx. Impact mitigation for the ZSEP sub-projects will be mainstreamed into the Project Development Cycle. Given that most critical short-term impacts and the bulk of long-term impacts manifest at the construction and operation stages respectively, this ESMF has identified appropriate monitoring procedures be put in place to facilitate impact tracking at both stages. As per this ESMF, the bulk of mitigation will take place at the Design Stage when mitigation measures will be identified and mainstreamed into the project design. Thus this ESMF recommends key mitigation tools for the ZSEP as follows:-
Approved architectural plans/ design report: this report to be prepared and approved by MoEVT for all projects will seek to ensure that the proposed sub-projects are sensitive to social and conservation requirements. For schools to be rehabilitated outside Stone Town, the Design Report will be the only tool for impact mitigation and monitoring for which reason, it will be preceded by a site screening to be undertaken by MoEVT on the basis of Annex 2.
For schools within Stone Town, the Design Report and its attached site screening report will further be approved by the STCDA using its own established procedures.
The Project Report: A Project Report will be prepared by MoEVT for all new construction pursuant to Sections 38 and 39 of Act. No 2 of 1996. The key feature of the project Report will be an EMP specifying how anticipated impacts of the sub-project will be mitigated. The project report will be reviewed by DOE following procedures as outlined in Section 39 (2) of Act No. 2 of 1996 and upon approval, an EIA Certificate will be issued for the respective sub-project. The project reports will be prepared by MoEVT or their appointed environmental advisors.
The Resettlement Action Plan: In order to fully address all impacts triggered by anticipated displacement of schools to pave way for rehabilitation works, an RAP will be prepared by MoEVT and discussed with all stakeholders before construction work can begin. Similarly, RAPs will be prepared for all new sites where the Project Reports identify displacement of people as a potential impact.
The RAP will be prepared by the MOEVT or their appointed Resettlement Advisor.
Contract for Construction: Clauses binding project contractors to implement impact mitigation as part of construction will be included in to contacts for construction. The MoEVT will ascertain that all contracts bear respective clauses for environmental and social mitigation.
5.6: Procedure for Monitoring of the ESMF
Monitoring for the ZSEP will take place at diverse levels. Monitoring of progress, outputs and effects of implementing the ZSEP will be detailed in the project Implementation manual to be prepared by MoEVT. Monitoring of environmental and social impact Design reports and will be captured in the Project reports submitted to DOE. In this section, emphasis is laid on procedures for monitoring implementation of the Impact Mitigation Plan prescribed in this ESMF, in which case, therefore, focus is on compliance monitoring. The tool for use in compliance monitoring is the EMP provided in Annex Five. Key features of the monitoring programme are as follows;-
5.6.1 Monitoring Criteria:
Core criteria for monitoring this ESMF are as follows;-
Approved Architectural Plans/ Design Report: This is the document that will be screened to determine how potential impacts of sub-projects will be addressed in the rehabilitation works.
The Project Report: Based on the Project Reports, the DOE will screen potential impacts of sub-projects and advice on the adequacy or otherwise of the Impact Mitigation Plan proposed for each sub-component. Upon being satisfied of the adequacy of the Project Report, the DOE will issue an EIA Certificate to signify that construction of respective construction sub project can start. The EIA Certificate will also specify conditions that MoEVT will observe during construction and operation of new sub-projects, including the need to file annual audit reports to the DOE as per Act No. 2 of 1996.
The Contract for Construction: Based on the contract for construction, the MoET will supervise activities of contractors to ensure mitigation measures prescribed for implementation during construction have been implemented.
The Resettlement Action Plan: The MoEVT and other state agencies will scrutinize the RAP to ensure that its recommendations on restitution of any disturbance/ displacement triggered by the ZSEP have been fully expedited.
The Facilities Management Plan: This document will be prepared by School Boards as part of their contribution to the ZSEP. Once filed and approved by the ZSEP, it is the document that MoEVT Inspectorate will use to monitor progress in implementing Impact Mitigation during operation of completed sub-projects.
5.6.2 Roles in Monitoring of the ESMF
Respective monitoring responsibilities are identified in table 5.2 below. The key players in monitoring impact mitigation are the MoEVT, while the Dept of lands, STCDA and DOE also playing roles in specified cases. Overall MoEVT has an overwhelming role in effecting monitoring.
Table 5. 2: Roles in monitoring of the ESMF
|Monitoring Action |Monitoring Criteria |Monitoring Responsibility |Monitoring Phase |
|Screening of rehabilitation sub |Screening Form to be filled as part|MoEVT |Design phase |
|projects outside Stone Town |of Design Report | | |
|Screening of rehabilitation |Screening Form and Design Report |MoEVT/ |Design phase |
|sub-projects within Stone Town |prepared by MoEVT for approval by |STDCA | |
| |STCDA | | |
|Screening during selection of |Screening at site identification by|Dept of Lands |Design phase |
|construction sites |Dept of Lands |MoEVT | |
| |Project Report prepared by MoEVT | | |
| |for approval by DOE |DOE | |
|Monitoring implementation of IMP at|Contract for supervision |MoEVT |Construction Phase |
|construction | | | |
|Monitoring IMP during operation |FMP prepared by School Boards |MoEVT |Operation phase |
|phase |Statutory filing of annual audit | | |
| |reports to DOE |School Boards | |
CHAPTER SIX: ASSESSMENT OF CAPCAITY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ESMF
6.1 Analysis of Institutional Roles and capacity building needs
An analysis of the capacity of institutions to serve their roles in ZSEP as identified in the EMP has been analyzed in Table 6.1 in respect of two criteria namely :-
▪ Level on involvement of the Institution in executing key roles of the ESMF namely;- Impact Screening, Impact Mitigation, Supervision of Mitigation and Impact Monitoring;
▪ Availability of personnel and skills to execute roles identified for each institution.
Gaps in capacity amongst stakeholder institutions have been documented as follows;-
MoEVT: The MoEVT is the single most important player in implementing the ESMF as it is heavily involved in all aspect of the ESMF (screening, mitigation, supervision of mitigation and monitoring). This ESMF recognizes that MoEVT has adequate supervisory capacity down to district level but the staff lacks any significant exposure and skills required to execute environmental management as required in this ESMF. In particular, it is not clear that MoEVT has capacity to prepare the Project Reports so pivot all too environmental assessment of new construction sites.
The Department of Environment: The DOE would also provide periodic monitoring to ensure no adverse cumulative impacts for e the environmental advisor to all stakeholders involved in management of the ZSEP and to facilitate this role, it is important that DOE be fully conversant with the design and implementation procedure of ZSEP. Thus a 1 day seminar to facilitate this will be conducted for HQ and District staff of DOE.
The Department of Lands: As the custodian of land matters in Zanzibar, this department will play a crucial role in clarifying the tenure situation for all land targeted for development by both government and citizens and thus mitigating potential for conflict over land. Further, through preparation of physical development plans, this department guides the land-use process to ensue that all developments are in harmony with the local social and physical environment. The Department of lands will be involved in screening sites targeted by MoEVT for development of new institutions. It is therefore important that the department be sensitized, through a one (I) day seminar, on the design of ZSEP.
The Stone Town Conservation and Development Authority (STDCA): This authority will be involved in screening of proposals for rehabilitation of schools within Stone Town. The Authority implements the Stone Town Conservation Act no. of 1994 and has its own procedures and staff qualified in conservation of Heritage sites. Staff of the Authority however have no skills in environmental conservation and will require capacity building in this area.
The School Boards: School Boards will not be heavily involved in design and implementation of the ZSEP. However, during operation, School Boards will play the crucial role of preparation and implementation of Facility Management Plans to guide mitigation of impacts associated with operation of completed sub-components. Though schools have qualified teachers and even environmental clubs, environmental skills are essentially lacking. It is thus important that members of school boards be given induction training on how to design and administer Facility management Plans.
6.2: Requisite Capacity Building
Training will be required as follows:-
Module One: Curriculum for the Environmental Training for MoEVT
Attendance: HQ and district staff of MoEVT
Duration: 1 Wk
▪ Review and discussion of Zanzibar’s national environmental policies, procedures and legislation.
▪ Review and discussion of the Bank’s safeguards policies.
▪ Review of Environmental and Social Management Process- The ESMF/ RAP for ZSEP
▪ Design and administration of Screening form and Checklist to determine adverse impacts from sub project activities.
▪ Strategies for consultation, participation and social inclusion.
▪ Terms of Reference for a Project report.
▪ How to measure cumulative adverse impacts.
▪ Design of appropriate mitigation measures.
▪ How to review and clear the school design packages.
▪ How to embed the Environmental and Social Management process into the civil works; role of the of the Contract
▪ The importance of public consultations in the ESMF process.
▪ How to monitor mitigation measures.
▪ Table 6.1: Analysis of stakeholder roles and capacity
|Institution |Assessment of capacity to serve roles based on availability of personnel and skills |Recommendations |
| |Impact Screening |Impact Mitigation |Supervising Mitigation |Impact Monitoring | |
|MoEVT |Will screen projects and prepare | Will mitigate impacts at Design Stage |Will supervise mitigation at |Will oversee compliance by School Boards in |I wk environmental course for HQ and|
| |Project Reports for DOE screening | |construction |filling annual audit returns to DOE |district level staff |
| |Has personnel but lacks environmental|Has supervisory personnel but lacks |Has supervisory personnel but lacks |Has supervisory personnel but lacks | |
| |skills |environmental skills |environmental skills |environmental skills | |
|STCDA |Will screen and approve projects |Has skilled personnel for conservation of |Will Construct/ supervise |Has role to monitor construction. |1 day Sensitization seminar on |
| |targeting Stone Town, |Heritage sites |construction in Stone Town | |Environmental Screening in ZSEP |
| |Lacks environmental skills |Lacks environmental capacity |Lacks skills to supervise IMP |Lacks environmental skills | |
|Dept of Lands |Will screen sites targeted for new |No roles during construction |No roles in construction |No major monitoring role |As for STCDA |
| |construction | | | | |
|Dept of Environment |Will screen Project Reports for all new|Strong role in Mitigation through |No role in supervision |Statutory monitoring review of annual audit |1 Day seminar on design of ZSEP and |
| |subprojects, |screening of EMPs for sub-projects | |reports submitted by School Boards |proposed environmental screening |
| |Has skilled personnel down to district |Has skilled personnel down to district | |Has skilled personnel down to district level |process |
| |level |level | | | |
|School Boards |Minor screening role for rehabilitation|Management of created by displacement and |Co-supervision of construction on |Will prepare and administer FMPs and file |To nominate 2 Persons to attend 1 wk |
| |sub-projects |onsite supervision of contractors. |behalf of MoEVT |annual audit reports to DOE. |course on environmental management in|
| |Teachers have no environmental skills |Teachers have no environmental skill |Teachers have no environmental |Teachers have no environmental skills |ZSEP. |
| | | |skills. | | |
Module Two: Proposed Training Program for School Boards
Duration: 3 days
Attendance: Two participants from respective School Boards
▪ Environmental and Social Management process
▪ Review of Environmental and Social Management Process.
▪ Review of Standard school designs.
▪ Use of Screening form and Checklist to determine adverse impacts
▪ From sub project activities.
▪ How to measure cumulative adverse impacts.
▪ Design of appropriate mitigation measures.
▪ How to review and clear the school design packages.
▪ The importance of public consultations in the ESMF process.
▪ How to monitor mitigation measures.
▪ How to embed the Environmental and Social Management process into the civil works.
▪ Contract.
Selected topics on environmental protection 1day
▪ Land use, land degradation and soil erosion in the local community area.
▪ Safe management of waste disposal and implications on public health.
▪ Environmental management in Institutions of Learning.
▪ Disaster Preparedness for floods and Droughts.
Training Cost Estimates
The Training Program is to be implemented by the MoEVT. Cost will be compounded in the entire budget for ESMF currently under preparation.
CHAPTER SEVEN: ASSSESSMENT OF REQUISITE FINANCES
7.1: Overview of the budget
This final chapter outlines the cost implications of administering the ESMF recommendations. In preparing the budget as outlined in Table 7.1, it has been assumed that costs of involvement of the MoEVT and other stakeholders in RGZ will be met internally through routine budgetary allocations and own revenue. Further, the bulk of impacts from civil works will be mitigated during construction and thus financed under the contracts and BoQs for construction. Thus, the budget proposed here-in, therefore, covers those extra expenditure heads that have been triggered by this ESMF and which were therefore not originally factored into the ZSEP. Given this consideration, the main cost heads for the ESMF budget then reduce to the following:
▪ Financing of the RAP;
▪ Financing technical assistance to the MoEVT in the production of a Resettlement Action Plans and Environmental Project Reports as per this ESMF; and,
▪ Financing of the proposed capacity building (training) for implementation of the ESMF
Table 7.1: Budgetary requirements in implementing the ESMF
|Item |Cost Head |Costs (USD) |
|Screening projects outside STCDA |Internalized to MoEVT | |
|Screening in STCDA |Internalized to MoEVT and STDCA | |
|Screening of new sites | |
|Coordination costs to MoEVT |Internalized to MoEVT | |
|Costs to Dept of Lands |Internalized to Dept of Lands | |
|Preparation of Project reports by MoEVT |MoEVT to hire consultant |20,000 |
|Preparation of RAP |MoEVT to hire consultant |20,000 |
|Architectural design, BoQs, Tender and contract |MoEVT to hire consultant |20,000 |
|documents for sub projects | | |
|Preparation of Facility Management plans |Internalized to School Boards | |
|Mitigation of impacts at construction | |
|Displacement |See RAP |4,700,000 |
|Occupational Health and Safety impacts |Contract for Construction | |
|Disposal of debris |Contract for construction | |
|Material source areas |Contract for construction | |
|Social decadence |Contract for Construction | |
|Impacts in STCDA |Internalized to STDCA | |
|Supervision by MoEVT |Internalized to MoEVT | |
|Supervision by STDCA |Internalized to STDCA | |
|Mitigation during operation-the FMPs | |
|Disposal of sewage and other liquid effluent |Internalized to School Boards | |
|Disposal of surface runoff |Contract for Construction | |
|Disposal of solid waste |Internalized to School Boards | |
|Impacts on Energy supply |School Boards in collaboration with DCCFF to | |
| |mount agro forestry outreach to build up wood | |
| |supply around schools | |
|Monitoring Costs | |
|MoEVT |Internalized to MoEVT | |
|STCDA |Internalized to STDCA | |
|Dept of Environment |Internalized to DOE | |
|School Boards |Internalized to School Boards | |
|Training costs | |
|2 wk Environmental training for MoEVT staff at | |30,000 |
|Unguja and Pemba | | |
| 5 No. 1 day course for other stakeholders | |20,000 |
|Total Budget | |4,810,000.00 |
7.2: Total costs
The extra expenditure triggered by this ESMF amounts to $ 4, 810, 000 (Us dollars four million, eight hundred and ten thousand) to be sourced as total price escalation in the ZSEP.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
2.
3. Mamlaka ya Hifadhi na Uendelezaji Mji Mkongwe:2006 Mji Mkongwe Wa Zanzibar Urithi wa Kimataifa,Warsha ya Wamiliki na Wakaazi wa Eneo la Mji Mkongwe, 2006.
4. Ministry of Education,1985: General Maintenance Manual, Maintenance Section Ministry of Education,1985.
5. Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar:2004: The Zanzibar Investment Promotion And Protection Act,2004,Legal supplements (part 1)to the Zanzibar GovernmentVol.cxiii6074 of 3rd December 2004,Zanzibar Government Press,2004
6. Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar ,1997:The Forest Resources Management and Conservation Act No10of 1996,1997:Legal supplements (part1)to the Zanzibar Government gazette vol. No.5769 of 6th December ,1997.Zanzibar Government Press,
7. Revolution Government of Zanzibar,1994:The Stone Town Conservation and Development Act,1994 .Zanzibar Government Press,1994
8. Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar,1992: National Environment Policy for Zanzibar, Commissioner for Lands and Ministry of Water ,Construction Energy Land and Environment,1992
9. The Agha Khan Trust for Culture, 1996: Historic Cities Support Programme-Zanzibar: A Plan for The Historic Stone Town. Gallery Publications.1996.
Glossary of terms
Boriti, mapau, nguzo and Fito: are decreased size classes of building poles Harvested from natural forests (Williams and Basha, 1996)
Chao: A pile of stone made purposely to cover husks during core making. They are permanently made and inherited from one generation to another.
Diwani: Local ward leader. Usually elected during the five-year interval national election. A ward may include one or more villages.
Kaskazi: The north monsoon season from October/November to March
(Williams and Basha, 1996)
Masika: The long rainy season from March to June – It starts when the north monsoon switches (Williams and Basha, 1996).
Sheha: The local administrative leader, the head of the shehia appointed by the government (Williams and Basha, 1996).
Shehia: The smallest administrative unit in Zanzibar, usually incorporating one but sometimes two or more (Williams and Basha, 1996).
Vuli: The short rains which falls in October/November.
Maulid: A special religious occasion marking the memory for the birth of the Muslim leader – Muhammad.
Pima: Local measurement for length. It is about 1.50 of a meter.
Nyungu: A vapour from a boiled mixture of leaves, stem part and/or roots from different plant species. The species may include mgeuka,
mdimu msitu, mpepe, mchofu, mgo, mpilipili doria, mkwamba,
mrimba, mdimu mkali and kijiti cha mchangani.
Jimbo: A mixture of plant leaves ground and rubbed throughout infants’ bodies to prevent infant diseases or induce special characteristics of the plants.
Mafusho: A mixture of dried leaves burnt to produce curative smoke for spiritual diseases.
ANNEXES
Annex One : World Bank Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies
Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01). Outlines Bank policy and procedure for the environmental assessment of Bank lending operations. The Bank undertakes environmental screening of each proposed project to determine the appropriate extent and type of EA process. This environmental screening process will apply to all sub-projects to be funded by ZSEP.
Natural Habitats (OP 4.04). The conservation of natural habitats, like other measures that protect and enhance the environment, is essential for long-term sustainable development. The Bank does not support projects involving the significant conversion of natural habitats unless there are no feasible alternatives for the project and its siting, and comprehensive analysis demonstrates that overall benefits from the project substantially outweigh the environmental costs. If the environmental assessment indicates that a project would significantly convert or degrade natural habitats, the project includes mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank. Such mitigation measures include, as appropriate, minimizing habitat loss (e.g. strategic habitat retention and post-development restoration) and establishing and maintaining an ecologically similar protected area. The Bank accepts other forms of mitigation measures only when they are technically justified. Should the sub-project-specific EAs indicate that natural habitats might be affected negatively by the proposed sub-project activities, such sub-projects will not be funded under the ZSEP.
Pest Management (OP 4.09). The policy supports safe, affective, and environmentally sound pest management. It promotes the use of biological and environmental control methods. An assessment is made of the capacity of the country’s regulatory framework and institutions to promote and support safe, effective, and environmentally sound pest management. This policy will most likely not apply to ZSEP.
Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). This policy covers direct economic and social impacts that both result from Bank-assisted investment projects, and are caused by (a) the involuntary taking of land resulting in (i) relocation or loss of shelter; (ii) loss of assets or access to assets, or (iii) loss of income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected persons must move to another location; or (b) the involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons. This policy is triggered by the ZSEP and therefore the Government has prepared and disclosed the required Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF).
Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20). This directive provides guidance to ensure that indigenous peoples benefit from development projects, and to avoid or mitigate adverse effects of Bank-financed development projects on indigenous peoples. Measures to address issues pertaining to indigenous peoples must be based on the informed participation of the indigenous people themselves. Sub-projects that would have negative impacts on indigenous people will not be funded under ZSEP .
Forests (OP 4.36). This policy applies to the following types of Bank-financed investment projects: (a) projects that have or may have impacts on the health and quality of forests; (b) projects that affect the rights and welfare of people and their level of dependence upon or interaction with forests; and (c) projects that aim to bring about changes in the management, protection, or utilization of natural forests or plantations, whether they are publicly, privately, or communally owned. The Bank does not finance projects that, in its opinion, would involve significant conversion or degradation of critical forest areas or related critical habitats. If a project involves the significant conversion or degradation of natural forests or related natural habitats that the Bank determines are not critical, and the Bank determines that there are no feasible alternatives to the project and its siting, and comprehensive analysis demonstrates that overall benefits from the project substantially outweigh the environmental costs, the Bank may finance the project provided that it incorporates appropriate mitigation measures. Sub-projects that are likely to have negative impacts on forests will not be funded under ZSEP.
Cultural Property (OPN 11.03). The term “cultural property” includes sites having archeological (prehistoric), paleontological, historical, religious, and unique natural values. The Bank’s general policy regarding cultural property is to assist in their preservation, and to seek to avoid their elimination. Specifically, the Bank (i) normally declines to finance projects that will significantly damage non-replicable cultural property, and will assist only those projects that are sited or designed so as to prevent such damage; and (ii) will assist in the protection and enhancement of cultural properties encountered in Bank-financed projects, rather than leaving that protection to chance. The management of cultural property of a country is the responsibility of the government. The government’s attention should be drawn specifically to what is known about the cultural property aspects of the proposed project site and appropriate agencies, NGOs, or university departments should be consulted; if there are any questions concerning cultural property in the area, a brief reconnaissance survey should be undertaken in the field by a specialist. ZSEP will not fund sub-projects that will have negative impacts on cultural property.
Safety of Dams (OP 4.37). For the life of any dam, the owner is responsible for ensuring that appropriate measures are taken and sufficient resources provided for the safety to the dam, irrespective of its funding sources or construction status. The Bank distinguishes between small and large dams. Small dams are normally less than 15 m in height; this category includes, for example, farm ponds, local silt retention dams, and low embankment tanks. For small dams, generic dam safety measures designed by qualified engineers are usually adequate. This policy will most likely not apply to ZSEP.
Projects on International Waterways (O 7.50). The Bank recognizes that the cooperation and good will of riparians is essential for the efficient utilization and protection of international waterways and attaches great importance to riparians making appropriate agreements or arrangement for the entire waterway or any part thereof. Projects that trigger this policy include hydroelectric, irrigation, flood control, navigation, drainage, water and sewerage, industrial, and similar projects that involve the use or potential pollution of international waterways. This policy most likely will not apply to the ZSEP.
Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60). Project in disputed areas may occur the Bank and its member countries as well as between the borrower and one or more neighbouring countries. Any dispute over an area in which a proposed project is located requires formal procedures at the earliest possible stage. The Bank attempts to acquire assurance that it may proceed with a project in a disputed area if the governments concerned agree that, pending the settlement of the dispute, the project proposed can go forward without prejudice to the claims of the country having a dispute. This policy is not expected to be triggered by sub-projects. This policy is unlikely to be triggered by sub-projects to be funded by ZSEP.
Annex Two: Environmental and Social Screening Form for use by MoEVT
The Environmental and Social Screening Form (ESSF) has been designed to assist in the evaluation of design proposals for the new secondary school construction and rehabilitation program. The form is designed to place information in the hands of implementers and reviewers (i.e. the School Management Boards and District Environmental Coordinators) so that impacts and their mitigation measures, if any, can be identified and/or that requirements for further environmental analysis be determined.
The ESSF contains information that will allow reviewers to determine the characterization of the prevailing local bio-physical and social environment with the aim to assess the potential project impacts on it. The ESSF will also identify potential socio-economic impacts that will require mitigation measures and or resettlement and compensation.
Name of Village/Town/Area in which School is to be built:
Name of Contact Person on School Board:
Name of District where school is to be built:
Name, job title, and contact details for the person who is responsible for filling out this form.
Name:
Job Title:
Telephone number:
Fax number:
E-Mail address:
Date:
Signature:
1. Brief School/Project Description
Please provide information on the number of students who will attend the school, the range of their ages, and the standards they will be in, in the following year. Also provide area of acquired land and approximate size of total building floor areas.
2. The Natural Environment
(a) Describe the land formation, topography, vegetation in/adjacent to the Project area__________________
(b) Estimate and indicate where vegetation might need to be cleared
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(c) Are there any environmentally sensitive areas or threatened species (specify below) that could be adversely affected by the project?
(i) Intact natural forests Yes______No______
(ii) Riverine forest Yes______No______
(iii) Wetlands (lakes, rivers, seasonally inundated areas) Yes______No______
(iv) How far are the nearest Wetlands((lakes, rivers, seasonally inundated areas)? __________________km
(v) Habitats of endangered species for which protection is required under Tanzania law and/or international agreements. Yes______No______
(d) Protected areas
Does the sub project area (or components of the project) occur within/adjacent to any protected areas designated by government (national park, national reserve, world heritage site etc.)
Yes______No______
If the project is outside of, but close to, any protected area, is it likely to adversely affect the ecology within the protected area areas (e.g., interference with the migration routes of mammals or birds)
Yes______No______
(vi) Others (describe). Yes______No______
If “Yes”, to any one of the above, tick the following boxes as appropriate:
▪ The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The Architectural and Engineering drawings, included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The Proposed civil works contract included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
3. Rivers and Lakes Ecology
Is there a possibility that, due to construction and operation of the project, the river and lake ecology will be adversely affected? Attention should be paid to water quality and quantity; the nature, productivity and use of aquatic habitats, and variations of these over time.
Yes______No______
If “Yes”, tick the following boxes as appropriate:
▪ The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The Architectural and Engineering drawings, included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The Proposed civil works contract included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
4. Geology and Soils
Based upon visual inspection or available literature, are there areas of possible geologic or soil instability (erosion prone, landslide prone, subsidence-prone)?
Yes______No______
Based upon visual inspection or available literature, are there areas that have risks of large scale increase in soil salinity?
Yes______No______
If “Yes”, to any one of the above, tick the following boxes as appropriate:
▪ The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The Architectural and Engineering drawings, included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The Proposed civil works contract included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
5. Landscape/aesthetics
Is there a possibility that the school will adversely affect the aesthetic attractiveness of the local landscape?
Yes______No______
If “Yes”, tick the following boxes as appropriate:
▪ The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The Architectural and Engineering drawings, included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The Proposed civil works contract included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
6. Historical, archaeological or cultural heritage site.
Based on available sources, consultation with local authorities, local knowledge and/or observations, could the school alter any historical, archaeological or cultural heritage site or require excavation near same?
Yes______No______
If “Yes”, tick the following boxes as appropriate:
▪ The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The Architectural and Engineering drawings, included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The proposed civil works contract included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
7. Resettlement and/or Land Acquisition
Will involuntary resettlement, land acquisition, or loss, denial or restriction of access to land and other economic resources be caused by project implementation?
Yes______No______
If “Yes” Involuntary Resettlement OP 4.12 is triggered. Please refer to RPF for appropriate mitigation measures to be taken.
8. Loss of Crops, Fruit Trees and Household Infrastructure
Will the project result in the permanent or temporary loss of crops, fruit trees and household infra-structure (such as granaries, outside toilets and kitchens, etc)?
Yes___No_____
If “Yes”, tick the following boxes as appropriate:
▪ The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The Architectural and Engineering drawings, included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The proposed civil works contract included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
9. Noise pollution during Construction and Operations.
Will the operating noise level exceed the allowable noise limits?
Yes___No_____
If “Yes”, tick the following boxes as appropriate:
▪ The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The Architectural and Engineering drawings, included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The proposed civil works contract included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
11. Solid or Liquid Wastes.
Will the project generate solid or liquid wastes?
Yes____ No___
If “Yes”, tick the following boxes as appropriate:
▪ The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The Architectural and Engineering drawings, included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
▪ The proposed civil works contract included in this school application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.
12. Public Consultation
Has public consultation and participation been sought?
Yes____ No___
If “Yes”, describe briefly the measures taken to this effect.
CERTIFICATION
We certify that we have thoroughly examined all the potential adverse effects of this secondary school application. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed secondary school as described in the application and appended design reports (e.g. EMP, RAP, completed screening form, proposed civil works contract, etc. ), if any, will be adequate to avoid or minimize all adverse environmental and social impacts.
Representative of School Board (signature): ………………………..………………………………
Service Provider (signature):
……………………………………………………..
Date: …………………………………
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
The Secondary School Application can be considered for approval. The application is complete, all significant environmental or social issues are resolved, and no further subproject planning is required.
A field appraisal is required.
Note: A field appraisal must be carried out if the school application:
▪ · Needs to acquire land, or an individual or community’s access to land or available resources is affected or changed, or any individual or family is displaced
▪ · Encroaches onto an important natural habitat, restricts access to resources within that area, or may affect ecologically sensitive ecosystems (e.g. rivers, streams, wetlands)
▪ · Involves, or results in: a) diversion or use of surface waters; b) construction and/or rehabilitation of latrines, septic or sewage systems; c) production of waste (e.g. slaughterhouse waste, medical waste, etc); d) new or rebuilt drainage systems; or e) reservoirs or water points.
The following issues need to be clarified at the school site:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………....
A Field Appraisal report will be completed and added to the school application file.
Name of Local MoEVT (print):
………………………………………………….
Signature:
…………………………………..
Date:
…………………………………..
Annex Three: Environmental and Social Appraisal Form for Use by Dept of Lands
The Environmental and Social Appraisal Form (ESAF) has been designed to assist in the evaluation of design proposals for the new secondary school construction and rehabilitation program. The form is designed to place information in the hands of the MOEVT so that school applications for environmental and social clearance can be reviewed and cleared.
The ESAF contains information that will allow reviewers to determine the characterization of the prevailing local social and bio-physical environment with the aim to assess the potential project impacts on it. The ESAF will also identify potential socio-economic impacts that will require mitigation measures and or resettlement and compensation.
School Application Number:………………..
Part 1: Identification
1. School Name:
2. School Location:
3. Reason for Field Appraisal:
4. Date(s) of Field Appraisal:
5. Field Appraisal Officer and Address:
6. Service Provider Representative and Address:
7. School Board Representative and Address:
Part 2: Description of the School Application
8. School Application Details: Provide details that are not adequately presented in the secondary school application. If needed to clarify school application details, attach sketches of the subproject component(s) in relation to the community and to existing facilities
Part 3: Environmental and Social Issues
9. Will the project:
Need to acquire land? Yes…… No…….
Affect an individual or the community’s access to land or available resources?
Yes…… No…….
Displace or result in the involuntary resettlement of an individual or family?
Yes…… No…….
If “Yes”, tick one of the following boxes:
▪ The Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) included in the subproject application is adequate. No further action required.
▪ The RAP included in the subproject application must be improved before the application can be considered further.
▪ A RAP must be prepared and approved before the application can be considered further.
10. Will the project:
Encroach onto an important natural habitat? Yes…… No…….
Negatively affect ecologically sensitive ecosystems? Yes…… No…….
If “Yes”, tick one of the following boxes:
▪ The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) included in the school application is adequate. No further action required.
▪ The EMP included in the school application must be improved before the application can be considered further.
▪ An EMP must be prepared and approved before the application can be considered further.
11. Will this project involve or result in:
▪ Diversion or use of surface waters?
▪ Construction and/or rehabilitation of latrines, septic or sewage systems?
▪ Production of waste (e.g. slaughterhouse waste, medical waste, etc.)?
▪ New or rebuilt irrigation or drainage systems?
If “Yes”, tick one of the following boxes:
▪ The application describes suitable measures for managing the potential adverse
▪ The application does not describe suitable measures for managing the potential adverse environmental effects of these activities. An Environmental Management Plan must be prepared and approved before the application is considered further.
12. Are there any other environmental or social issues that have not been adequately
addressed?
If “Yes”, summarize them: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
and tick one of the following boxes:
▪ Before it is considered further, the application needs to be amended to include suitable
▪ measures for addressing these environmental or social issues.
▪ An Environmental Management Plan needs to be prepared and approved before the application is considered further.
▪ Part 4: Field Appraisal Decision
▪ The school application can be considered for approval.
Based on a site visit and consultations with both interested and affected parties, the field appraisal determined that the community and its proposed secondary school application adequately address environmental and/or social issues as required by the ZSEP’s ESMF and meets the requirements of Environment Act, in Zanzibar and the World Bank OP4.01
Further subproject preparation work is required before the application can be
considered further.
The field appraisal has identified environmental and/or social issues that have not been
adequately addressed. The following work needs to be undertaken before further consideration of the application:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
All required documentation such as an amended application, EMP, RAP, Screening Forms, draft Civil works contracts, etc., will be added to the school application package before it is considered further.
Name of Local Government Authority designated staff …………………………………………………………….
Signature:
……………………………………………..
Date: …………………………………..
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA’s) and Ecosystems
▪ Areas prone to natural disasters (geological hazards, floods, rain storms, earthquakes, landslides, volcanic activity, etc.)
▪ Wetlands: ( Flood plains. Swamps, lakes, rivers, etc.) water bodies.
▪ Areas susceptible to erosion e.g. (a) hilly areas with critical slopes and (b) unprotected or bare lands.
▪ Areas of importance to threatened cultural groups.
▪ Areas with rare/endangered/or threatened plants and animals.
▪ Areas of unique socio-cultural, historic archaeological, scientific, tourist areas.
▪ Polluted areas.
▪ Area subject to desertification and bush fires.
▪ Coastal areas and Marine ecosystems., such as coral reefs, Islands, lagoons and estuaries, continental shelves, beach fronts and inter tidal zones.
▪ Areas declared as, national parks, water shed reserves, forest reserves, wildlife reserves and sanctuaries, sacred areas wildlife corridors and hot spring areas.
▪ Mountainous areas, water catchment areas and recharge areas of aquifers.
▪ Areas classified as prime agricultural lands or range lands.
▪ Green belts or public open spaces in urban areas.
Burial sites and graves.
Annex Four : Procedure for project screening under the Stone Town Development and Conservation Authority
This is the Authority charged with responsibility for regulating all development and rehabilitation works within the Stone Town. It is thus crucial to the ZSEP since three schools within Stone Town; - Tumekuja, Hamamni and Forodhani are targeted fro rehabilitation under ZSEP. The authority has a stringent system for vetting developments with the Stone Town to ensure safeguarding the historical wealth of the area. Stone Town declared to World Heritage Site in 2000.It is thus conserved under International Standards. The procedure involves critical steps as follows;-
i) Application in writing to the Director through the Sheha-(there are five Shehas under Stone Town). Applicant should attach ownership documents (Lease of Structure, Title Deed, Sale Deed) but where not available, the Sheha endorses application.
ii) Application letter should detail the opposed renovations and if proposed renovation involves changing of existing facility, Plans of the existing facility and proposed changes should be furnished. Drawings should preferably be made after consultation with the Authority.
iii) The application and drawings are scrutinized by a Technical Committee at STCDA level chaired by an appointee of the Director General. Committee comprises of Building Technicians, Architects, Engineers, Conservators etc
iv) If faults are found in the Drawing, the proponent is advised amend and resubmit for further scrutiny by the Technical Committee, which sits twice a week. As part of the scrutiny, the Committee undertakes visits to the target site and also invites proponent to make presentation in a plenary session. When satisfied, the Technical committee issues authorization in form of a Construction Permit, which has attendant conditions.
v) In making a decision the Technical Committee is guided by; Regulations reigning in Stone Town as captured in the Master Plan for Stone Town Development, Engineering concerns, Architectural concerns etc.
vi) All Development in Stone Town is guided by the Zanzibar Town Master Plan.
vii) Implementation of the approved project is closely monitored by the STCDA staff. Stone Town has five (5) Zones each of which is served by a Supervisor. For developments such as new construction, extension or major repairs, the Permit specifies a Site Inspector who oversees work progress and reports to the Technical meetings on twice weekly basis or more regularly in case of unusual happenings.
viii) Towards enforcing the permit conditions, the STCDA has a Building Brigade fully conversant with requirements in the area of jurisdiction. It is usually preferred that this Brigade be used in all local construction. The STCDA is empowered under law to demolish any structure constructed contrary to requirements. Further, Permits are issued in phases after satisfaction with progress in past phases. At completion, a Permit for Occupation is issued. Each zone is inspected daily by the Zone Inspector to ensure control of illegal structures. Fines for offences under the Stone Town Development and Conservation Act are quite punitive to deter illegal activity.
ix) All new construction must be approved by the Stone Town Advisory Board appointed by the President as per the Stone Town Authority Act.
x) Towards environmental protection, the same Technical Committee of STCDA is charged with responsibility of environmental protection. All new projects are subject to environmental screening as per the Environmental Management for Sustainable Development Act of 1996.
Appendix Five: Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan for the ZSEP
|Component |Activity |Primary Impact |Secondary Impact |Mitigation action |
| | |Occupational health and | Injuries and associated social |PPEs for all |Contractor |Construction |Clauses in |
| | |safety hazards |costs |workers | | |contract for |
| | | | |Supervision by | | |supervision |
| | | | |qualified | | | |
| | | | |professionals | | | |
| |Generation of solid and |Littering of the neighborhood|Facilities Management Plan to be |School Boards |Before project |Approved FMP |MoEVT |
| |liquid waste | |developed. | |hand-over | | |
| |Change in the local |Generation of more surface |Project Report to specify |MoEVT |Design |Approved Design Report|MoEVT |
| |hydrology |runoff and soil erosion |conservation measures as detailed | | |Approved Project |DOE |
| | | |in the project design report. | | |Report. | |
| |Pressure on resources |Consumption of wood fuel |Project Report to specify |MoEVT |Design |Approved project |DOE in |
| | | |sustainable souring and management| | |report |consultation with |
| | | |of institutional energy needs | | | |DCCFF |
| | |Consumption of water |Project design to identify |MoEVT |Design |Approved project |DOE. |
| | |resources |sustainable water supply. Same to | | |report | |
| | | |be specified in project report. | | | | |
ANNEX SIX: LIST OF PEOPLE MET IN ZANZIBAR
1. Abdalla M. Abdulla-Commissioner of Policy Planning & Budget, Ministry of Educational and Vocational Training, Zanzibar, Tanzania.
2. Masona Mohamed Salim; Head of Policy Planning and Monitoring Division In MOEVT.
3. Mohamed Khamis Mohamed;Headteacher Muungano Primary School
4. .Mwanahawa Abdalla Dadi;Assistant Head teacher Muungano Primary School.
5. Sharriffa Mohamed Aleyi;Building Inspector Urban West Region .Zanzibar.I
6. Mohamed Mohhamed Ali ;Teacher at Tumekuja Secondary School.
7. Scoud Hassan;Ag Headteacher Tumekuja Secondary School.
8. Omar Wadi Omar:Teacher at Tumekuja Secondary School.
9. Mrs Said Omar: Department of Lands.
10. Hamsa Rijal; Head of Environmental Education and Focal Point for Department on SMOL.
11. Badru Mwamvula: Ag Director of Commercial Crops, Fruits and Forestry. Zazibar.0777492431
12. Yussuf Haji Kombo: Head of Conservation Section Department of CCf&f, Zanzibar.
13. Dr Bakari SaadiAssei ;Director of DCCF&F,Zanzibar.
14. Hamisi Subion Mohammed ;Coordinator Planning and Budget, Pemba.
15. Abdulla salim abdalla: Planning Officer . Chale Chale District.
16. Salim Abdulla Kaalsi; Building Inspector –Southern Pemba.
17. Baruk Kamisi Moiyaka;District Educational and Vocational Training
Officer
18. Amed Said Sukwa;Sheba wa Sheria ya Uweleni-Assistant.
19. Mohamed Ussay Shaama :Head teacher Uweleni.
20. Joha Shaban Mutwawa:Afisa ya Maendeleo ya Jamii Wilaya ya Mkoani representing Dc.
21. Shahe Hassan Mohamed;Teacher Uweleni.
22. Bi Ubwa Yahya-Head teacher Uweleni.
23. Hamisi Juma Osma: DEO Mkoani District.
24. Mohamed Rashid: Head teacher Kiwani Primary School, Neighbouring Mawani New Site.
25. Sabila Mohamed Ali-Shelia Kiwani Machano
26. Khamisi Saki::Chairman Kiwani Primary School. Committee Mzee wa Kijiji.
27. Ali Sale Juma; Headteacher Kiwani Sec School.
28. Salima Yahya Ali;Member of the Shelia
29. Hilali Ali Abdulla ;Deputy Head teacher Kiwani Primary School.
30. Khamis Rashid Nasor; Heaadteacher Fidel Castrol Secondary School.
31. Suleiman Hamad Salim;Laboratory Assistant Fidel Castrol Secondary School.
32. Salim Hamed; Mainenance Teacher.
33. Sili Said Rashid; Teacher Waki Primary School
34. Maryanne Ali Seif; Teacher.
35. Amirya Said Rashid; Teacher
36. Fatuma Mohamed Yahya; Teacher;
37. Nasser Mohamed Ali; Teacher
38. Salleh Rashid Mbwale; Teacher
39. Suleiman Abeid Osman; Deputy Head teacher Waki Primary School.
40. Haffif Salim Suleiman ;Watchman -Community member;.
41. Juma Bakari Alawi; Head of Pollution Control.DOE Pemba.
42. Faki Salim Faki: Deputy Principal Benjamin Mkapa TTC.
43. Khamis Said Hamid; District Education Officer ,Wete.
44. Bakar Ali Omar; Building Inspector ,North Pemba.
45. Musa Juma Haji;Ag Head teacher Mchanga Mdogo Secondary School.
46. Faki Seyyum Faki; District Vocational Training Officer,.Mcheweni District.
47. Hidaya Omar Hamisi;District Education Officer Micheweni District.
48. Suleiman Shame Hamadi; Archives and Antiquities Clerk; Micheweni District
49. Makame Hamisi Makame; District Planning Officer,Wete District
50. Fakhili Haji Hassan; Headteacher Utaani Secondary School.
51. Bi Hadija Mufsin: Shelter & Lands Officer,Ministry of Water and Construction . Chake District
52. Tahir Musa Omar-Head of Lands Department. Pemba.
53. Salim Rashid Abdulla: Head of Department of Survey and Planning.
54. Hassan Juma Khamis; Building Inspector South
55. Ramadhan Mohi Ahmanda; Chief.
56. Suma Haji Ali.
57. Jumbe Khamisi Hamidi
58. Abdul Fatah Mumo Simai.
59. Sudi Haji Jecha
60. Haji Khamis Haji.
61. Nemshi Abdulla .
62. Mzee Rajab Mzale; Diwani
63. Ayoub Haji Jecha; Headteacher
64. Miraji Abdulla Mwendo.
65. Abdulla Issa Makame; Assistant Head teacher.
66. Tabu Mohamed Hassan.
67. Gharib Omar Abdulrazak
68. Abdulgewaba Ayuob Haji.
69. Jeni Suleiman Kitete.
70. Shafi Kassim Ramadhan
71. Haji Khamis Mohamed
72. Nuhu Pandu Haji
73. Hamid Mohamed Rajab
74. Haidari Pandu Haji
75. Nadhifu Abdulfatal Musa
76. Abdulwahid Abdulrahwan
77. Tatu Ame Suleiman; Deputy Headteacher Uzini Secondary School
78. Ali Nasser Mohamed; Section Leader –Section three Uzini Secondary School.
79. Ali Haji Ubwa-Teacher Uzini Secondary School.
80. Juma Omar Haji; Building Inspector.
81. Musa Awesi Bakar-University of Dar es Salaam Student-but on attachment to Stone Town.
82. Mafunda Ali Abdawa_:Conservation Offices Stone Town.
83. Suhart Suffani Alawi; Civil Engineer Old Town.
wb316232
C:\Documents and Settings\wb316232\My Documents\Zanzibar\ESMF + RPF\Zanzibar ESMF edited.doc
02/03/2007 7:41:00 AM
-----------------------
[1] English, History, Geography, Mathematics. The Teaching and Learning Materials Project, supported by USAID will provide textbooks in science subjects (Chemistry, Biology and Physics) for all students.
[2] Significant conversion means eliminating or severely reducing the integrity of a natural habitat through long-term change in land or water use. It may include, for example, land clearing; replacement of natural vegetation; permanent flooding; and drainage, dredging, filling, or channelization of wetlands. It can occur as the result of severe pollution. And, it can result directly from subproject activities or indirectly (e.g. through induced settlement along a road).
[3] Stone Town or Mji Mkongwe, in Swahili, is the old part of Zanzibar City, the capital of the island of Zanzibar, a part of Tanzania. The old town is built on a triangular peninsula of land on the western coast of the island. It consists of a warren of narrow alleys to houses, shops bazaars and mosques. Transport around town is by foot, bicycle or motorbike: cars are too wide to drive down many of the inner streets. Its Swahili architecture incorporates elements of Arab, Persian, Indian, European and African styles. The Arab houses are particularly noticeable because they have large and ornately carved wooden doors and other unusual features such as enclosed wooden verandas. The site has probably been occupied for around three centuries with buildings only being constructed with stone since the 1830s.
The town was the centre of trade on the East African coast between Asia and Africa before the colonization of the mainland in the late 1800s after which the focus moved to Mombasa and Dar es Salaam. The main export was spices and particularly cloves. Slaves were also obtained from the mainland and traded with the Middle East.
The town also became a base for many European explorers, particularly the Portuguese, and colonizers from the late 1800s. Immigrant communities from Oman, Persia and India lived here. These were often engaged in trade or in the case of the Omanis were rulers of the island and its dependent territories. Stone Town has been designated by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site. According to the 2002 Tanzania National Census, the population of the Urban District, to which Stone Town belongs, was 206,292
[4] See the Resettlement Policy Framework for this project for more information on land regulation.
-----------------------
Fig. 3.2: Key Stages of sub project as it applies to Environmental and Social Management only. Other key stages of the sub project cycle omitted for clarity.
Fig. 3.2: Key Stages of sub project as it applies to Environmental and Social Management only. Other key stages of the sub project cycle omitted for clarity.
E1561
................
................
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
- the history of the united states
- the people s history of the united states
- the founding of the united states
- the life history of the united states
- the economy of the united states
- the republic of rome
- understanding the constitution of the united states
- democratic republic of the congo
- democratic republic of the congo area
- the republic of tea
- the republic of tea flavors
- the republic of tea walmart