INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET ADDITIONAL FINANCING Report No.: ISDSA12516 Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 23-Apr-2015 Date ISDS Approved/Disclosed: 23-Apr-2015 I. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Basic Project Data Country: Kenya Project ID: P144966 Parent P113542 Project ID: Project Name: Kenya Informal Settlements Improvement Projects - Additional financing (P144966) Parent Project Kenya Informal Settlements Improvement Project (KISIP) (P113542) Name: Task Team Abebaw Alemayehu Leader(s): Estimated 13-Apr-2015 Estimated 29-May-2015 Appraisal Date: Board Date: Managing Unit: GSURR Lending Specific Investment Loan Instrument: Sector(s): General water, sanitation and flood protection sector (40%), Sub-national government administration (30%), General transportation se ctor (30%) Theme(s): Urban services and housing for the poor (60%), Municipal governance and institution building (20%), City-wide Infrastructure and Ser vice Delivery (20%) Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP No 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies)? Financing (In USD Million) Total Project Cost: 8.30 Total Bank Financing: 0.00 Financing Gap: 0.00 Financing Source Amount Borrower 0.00 Single Purpose Trust Fund 8.30 Total 8.30 Environmental B - Partial Assessment Category: Is this a No Repeater project? Page 1 of 7 2. Project Development Objective(s) A. Original Project Development Objectives - Parent The overall project development objective of the KISIP is to improve living conditions in informal settlements in selected municipalities in Kenya. This will be achieved by enhancing security of tenure and improving infrastructure based on plans developed in consultation with the community. B. Proposed Project Development Objectives - Additional Financing (AF) To improve living conditions in informal settlements in selected urban centers in selected counties in Kenya. This will be achieved by enhancing security of tenure and improving infrastructure base on plans developed in consultation with the community 3. Project Description This project has the following components. Component 1: Strengthening institutions and program management. This component will support institutional strengthening and capacity building of the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Lands, and the participating municipalities. It also finances the management activities associated with program implementation and establishment of a monitoringand evaluation system. Component 2: Enhancing tenure security. This component supports systematization and scale-up of ongoing efforts to strengthen tenure security in urban informal settlements. Component 3: Investing in infrastructure and service delivery. This component supports investment in settlement infrastructure, and, where necessary, extension of trunk infrastructure to settlements. Component 4: Planning for urban growth. This component supports planning and development of options that facilitate delivery of infrastructure services, land and housing for future population growth. 4. Project location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis (if known) Some 18 urban centers in 14 counties are eligible to participate in the project. These are: Nyeri (Nyeri county), Thika (Kiambu), Nairobi (Nairobi), Machakos and Mavoko (Machakos), Embu (Embu), Kitui (Kitui), Naivasha and Nakuru (Nakuru), Eldoret (Uasin Gishu), Kisumu (Kisumu), Kericho (Kericho), Mombasa (Mombasa), Kilifi and Malindi (Kilifi), Kakamega and Mumias (Kakamega), and Garissa (Garissa). However, participation is voluntary and requires municipalities to meet certain rules of access. The total population covered by these towns is about 6.4 million. Nairobi is the largest, with 3.2 million inhabitants, and Embu is the smallest, with about 37,000 residents. Most of these towns are administrative capitals of their counties. The number of people living in informal settlements is rising, due to rural to urban migration. Informal settlements are characterized by inadequate drainage with flooding during the rainy season, lack of clean water and sanitation facilities, poor solid waste management, and absence of other infrastructure. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Svetlana Khvostova (GENDR) Yasmin Tayyab (GSURR) Page 2 of 7 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered? Explanation (Optional) Environmental Yes Component 3 of the Project includes small to moderate Assessment OP/BP 4.01 scale infrastructure investments, including expansion of public facilities (for example, schools and clinics), water and sewerage systems, water kiosks and ablution blocks, and tertiary roads connecting settlements to the main roads, and the like. As activities at each settlement are demand driven, individual settlement designs are not known during project preparation. The initially chosen framework approach is still relevant at the Additional Financing stage. As the subproject designs have become available during project implementation, the Project has routinely screened and developed Environment and Social Impact Assessment (ESIAs) (using independent consultancies). The ESIAs for subprojects have been disclosed locally and in the Bank InfoShop. In addition, the updated Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) will be redisclosed as part of the preparation of this Additional Financing. Natural Habitats OP/BP No The Project is operating in urban areas with no identified 4.04 natural habitats. Where the project sites are close to water bodies, including rivers, the Project implementing team enforces maintenance and enhancement of riparian zones. Forests OP/BP 4.36 No The project does not involve forests or forestry. Pest Management OP 4.09 No The project does not involve pest management. Physical Cultural Yes There are no known cultural heritage sites within informal Resources OP/BP 4.11 settlements selected for project interventions. However, the ESMF includes chance find procedures to guide contractors in case of accidental discoveries of graves, shrines, or any other objects of cultural significance. Indigenous Peoples OP/ No The project is operating in urban areas, and given the BP 4.10 context, the policy is not triggered. Involuntary Resettlement Yes The original project has developed an Resettlement Policy OP/BP 4.12 Framework (RPF) to guide preparation of settlement specific RAPs, where displacement of people or loss assets is identified. RAPs for Nairobi, Machakos, Nakuru, Mombasa, Eldoret, and Naivasha have been prepared, consulted upon and disclosed in Kenya and in the Bank Infoshop. The RAPs have been implemented prior to beginning of civil works on project sites. In addition, the project RPF has been updated to reflect the new government structure and updated implementation arrangements and will be redisclosed. Page 3 of 7 Safety of Dams OP/BP No N/A 4.37 Projects on International No N/A Waterways OP/BP 7.50 Projects in Disputed No N/A Areas OP/BP 7.60 II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues 1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: The additional financing will support systematization and scale-up of ongoing efforts to strengthen settlement planning and tenure security in urban informal settlements. The investments eligible for financing under KISIP include roads, bicycle paths, pedestrianwalkways, street and security lighting, vending platforms, solid waste management, storm-water drainage, water and sanitation systems, electrification, public parks and green spaces, and expansion of primary schools, clinics, and facilities for early childhood education within the informal settlements. Environmental and social impacts will be localized, mostly construction related, and have easily identified mitigation measures. The impacts will be mitigated by the implementation of Environmental and Social Management Plans and Resettlement Action Plans linked to the bidding process. The screening criteria in the ESMF are used by the project to determine the nature and magnitude of impacts before these are taken up and management measures will be developed accordingly. Enhancement of positive impacts for the overall improvement of living quality in these settlements will be integrated with the community mobilization initiative, and community enhancement plans will be prepared for each settlement. There may be permanent and/or temporary displacement of people to a small extent due to the requirements for rehabilitation of infrastructure. To the extent possible, resettlement will be avoided or people displaced by the project will be resettled within the same settlements. The existing RPF provides guidance on the resettlement and compensation process and preparation of project specific RAPs. RAPs for new investments will be prepared as necessary and implemented before the beginning of civil works at the project sites. The project's ESMF and RPF have been updated by the client to reflect Kenya's devolution agenda and incorporate the new county governments into the project implementation process. The updated ESMF and RPF have been consulted upon, reviewed by the Bank team and will be disclosed in Kenya and at the Bank InfoShop. During project implementation, the subproject specific ESIAs and RAPs have been routinely prepared and disclosed following public consultations. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: Experience with implementation of the project thus far indicates that there are no potential indirect or long-term impacts due to the proposed activities. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. The settlement-specific ESIAs include consideration of project design alternatives. Based on the Page 4 of 7 implementation experience, the environmental and social impacts are minimized as a direct consequence of the settlement selection criteria adopted by the project. These criteria include: * Land tenure status: a settlement must be located on land that is owned by the government or on land with clear ownership status. * Location: a settlement cannot be located on a hazardous site or in an environmentally fragile area. * Settlement size and density: larger and denser settlements will receive priority to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from the investments. * Scale of potential displacement of residents: physical upgrading of the settlement should not entail large-scale displacement (and, thereby, relocation) of residents. * Proximity to trunk infrastructure: to maximize settlement coverage within a limited budget and to ensure that participating settlements receive connections to citywide infrastructure networks and maintenance systems, in the initial years of project implementation settlements that are in close proximity to core trunk infrastructure (such as roads and trunk lines for water, sewage or electricity) will receive priority. * Sustainability of the proposed rehabilitation is ensured through community's willingness to participate and remain engaged in the program. 4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard policy issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. The Ministry of Land, Housing, and Urban Development (MLHUD) has assigned environment and social/community development staff who are responsible for overseeing the preparation and implementation of environmental and social management plans at the settlement level. These officers have gained experience with overseeing preparation and implementation of the ESIAs, EMPs and RAPs prepared for KISIP. They are familiar and are experienced in managing the potential environmental and social issues that are likely to be encountered in this program. The team consists of three staff: one officer is seconded from the National Environmental Management Agency and two additional officers support the team on environmental and social issues. Additional support to safeguards is provided by the monitoring and evaluation team. The participating county administrations have environment and social development specialists on their project teams to ensure the appropriate monitoring and implementation of various management plans prepared as guided by the ESMF. The MLHUD has prepared an ESMF (disclosed in February 2011) to screen and mitigate the impacts associated with the proposed infrastructure facilities. This framework, which has been routinely used by the project, is providing guidance on the process to be followed for screening and mitigating the potential impacts. The MLHUD has also prepared the RPF (disclosed in January 2011) to assist the project in managing compensation and involuntary resettlement, and to guide preparation of RAPs, where necessary. As part of the preparation of project Additional Financing, the project ESMF and RPF have been updated to (a) update the implementation arrangements reflecting the change from municipalities to counties; (b) reflect the changes in legislative framework; (c) adjust decision flow for carrying out the environmental assessment for subprojects leveraging project team capacity; and (d) facilitate inclusion of recommendations identified in the environmental and social safeguards instruments into technical designs. The ESMF and RPF will be redisclosed to the public in Kenya Page 5 of 7 and in the Bank InfoShop. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. The key stakeholders include the residents of the settlements, staff of county administrations, civil society, elected representatives and NGOs working in the respective municipalities and the MLHUD. The preparation of the ESMF, the RPF and subsequent ESIAs and RAPs involved multiple focus group discussions with all participating city councils. The draft safeguards instruments have been discussed with these stakeholders and their feedback and suggestions has been incorporated appropriately. The project team will continue the stakeholder consultations, during the preparation and design of specific investments in the selected informal settlements. As part of the Additional Financing, the project team has carried out a supplementary capacity building program on safeguards to prepare the project team, including safeguards staff, and consultants for an increased pace of project activities implementation. Such training initiatives were carried out with support from the World Bank team. B. Disclosure Requirements Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other Date of receipt by the Bank 17-Apr-2015 Date of submission to InfoShop 17-Apr-2015 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors "In country" Disclosure Comments: Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process Date of receipt by the Bank 17-Apr-2015 Date of submission to InfoShop 17-Apr-2015 "In country" Disclosure Comments: If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources policies, the respective issues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of the Environmental Assessment/ Audit/or EMP. If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why: C Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level OP/BP/GP 4.01 - Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) Yes[X] No[ ] NA [ ] report? If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Practice Yes [ X] No [ ] NA [ ] Manager (PM) review and approve the EA report? Page 6 of 7 Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated Yes [ X ] No[ ] NA[ in the credit/loan? OP/BP 4.11 - Physical Cultural Resources Does the EA include adequate measures related to cultural Yes [ X] No [ ] NA [ ] property? Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the Yes [ X] No [ ] NA [ ] potential adverse impacts on cultural property? OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/ Yes [ X] No [ ] NA [ ] process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Yes [X] No [ ] NA [ ] Practice Manager review the plan? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the Yes [ X] No [ ] NA [ World Bank's Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public Yes [X] No [ ] NA [ place in a form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? All Safeguard Policies Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional Yes [ X] No [ ] NA [ ] responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included Yes [ X] No [ ] NA [ ] in the project cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project Yes [X] No [ ] NA [ ] include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed Yes [ X] No [ ] NA [ ] with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? III. APPROVALS Task Team Leader(s): Name: Abebaw Alemayehu Approved By Practice Manager/ Name: Maria Angelica Sotomayor Araujo Date: 23-Apr-2015 Manager: (PMGR) Page 7 of 7