E2525 v7 PROPOSED REHABILITATION AND UPGRADE OF MIZINGANI ROAD BETWEEN FORODHANI PARK AND BANYAN TREE SQUARE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Executive Summary 1 INTRODUCTION The Stone Town Conservation and Development Authority (STCDA) propose the rehabilitation and upgrade of a portion of Mizingani Road on the seafront of the Stone Town, Zanzibar. The Mizingani Seafront Improvement Project forms part of the Zanzibar Urban Services Project (ZUSP) for implementation under an agreement between the World Bank and the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar (RGZ). Technical support for the above project is being provided to the STCDA by the Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC). Aurecon has been appointed as the independent environmental consultant to undertake an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and Environmental and Social Management Plan for the proposed upgrade of Mizingani seawall and road. The primary objective of the ESIA is to identify, clarify, predict, assess and quantify impacts, constraints and risks to inform the RGZ, AKTC and the World Bank of the social and environmental implications and public concerns associated with the project in question and the range of mitigation measures available. This ESIA provides a comprehensive assessment of the environmental issues associated with proposed development. These impacts and the various iterations of alternatives were derived in response to inputs from consultation with stakeholders, the authorities and the ESIA project team. An overview of the ESIA process and outcomes is provided within this executive summary. View of Mizingani Road from the Old Customs House towards Mercury's Restaurant 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes the following activities: i. construction of approximately 315 meters of the seawall, potential land reclamation of approximately 5 meters beyond the existing foot, including appropriate backfill and foundation work; ii. Refurbishment of the underground infrastructure including water, sewer, storm and sewer. These will be located below the roadbed of Mizingani Road; iii. Resurfacing of the road and introduction of traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures. The road will be of sufficient width to accommodate two-way travel, parallel parking and a small sidewalk along the base of the buildings (approx. 6-7 meters); and iv. Possible creation of a pedestrian promenade up to 5.8-meter wide, including planting, street lighting and street furniture along the sea side. The portion of Mizingani Road identified for the proposed development spans from Mercury's Restaurant opposite Banyan Tree Square, to the end of Sultan's Landing at Forodhani Park. Locality Map, project area indicated METHOD 1.2 M Y DOLOGY There ar three distinct phases to the to the ESIA process, as required in terms of th re s p he r Zanzibar Environmental Manage Developmen Act (EMSD (No. 2 o ement for Sustainable D nt DA) of namely the Initial Applica 1996) , n coping Repo and the A ation, the Sc ort Assessment Report. This Report co econd and th phases, viz. the scoping and ass overs the se hird hases. sessment ph ase s ce Pha 1:Terms of Referenc To be approved b ment of Enviro by the Departm onment nvironmental M as per the En Management f for Sustainab ble Developmeent Act, 1996 oping Phase Phase 2: Sco entification an Ide n of potential impact nd investigation sessment of im Ass ed during the S mpacts identifie Scoping ase ct ent Pha 3: Impac Assessme ase Pha Submis ssion To the Department of Environment Public Dis sclosure Undertaken by U ent of Environm y the Departme ment D Decision Making Phase ntal Assessment process in Z Process diagram for Environmen Impact A Zanzibar Scoping p 1.2.1 S phase The scop s mining the e ping phase is defined as a procedure for determ d to extent of and approach t onmental and social assessment and involves th following key tasks: an enviro he · Consultation with relevan stakeholde C nt ers; · dentification and screeni of alterna Id ing atives; · dentification of significant issues to be examin Id o Environmenta and Social ned in the E al mpact Repor (ESIR); an Im rt nd · D n ch Determination of approac for the ES SIR. 3 ch ring which th Scoping site visits were undertaken from 13 March 2010 to 31 Marc 2010 dur he study arrea and su urrounds weere visited and extens holder enga sive stakeh agement wa as ken. undertak 1.2.2 Assessment The assessment phase constitutes the final component of an ESIA prior to the submission to the institution responsible for the environment. The purpose of the ESIR is to describe and assess the range of feasible alternatives identified during the Scoping process in terms of the potential environmental impacts identified. The approach to the ESIR phase entails the following: · Undertaking a further review of relevant literature; · Appointing various specialists to undertake the specialist studies identified during the Scoping phase, · Undertaking a further site visit from 14 to 24 April 2010. Consultation with key stakeholders forms an integral component of this investigation and enables stakeholder to comment on the potential environmental impacts associated with the feasible alternatives and to identify additional issues which they felt may not have been adequately addressed in the Scoping phase. Finally, based on the assessment in the ESIR, a comprehensive suite of mitigation measures is developed and the associated impact reassessed for effectiveness and comparative analysis. 1.3 SCOPING PHASE The following components were undertaken as part of the ESIR scoping phase. 1.3.1 Scoping Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholders were consulted by means of three different approaches, namely key informant interviews, focus group discussions and stakeholder meetings. The various stakeholders included government officials, landowners, tenants, boat operators, fishermen, informal and formal businesses and non-governmental organisations. Concerns and expectations regarding the proposed project and their potential implications for project design, mitigation measures and steps to be taken during subsequent stages of the impact assessment were raised. Though many concerns and issues were raised the main concern regarding the project revolved around construction and operational access to the beachfront, which is used by boat operators, informal salesmen and vendors. Furthermore, concern about construction phase vibrations and their impact on surrounding buildings was also highlighted as a major concern. The feeling that the proposed project would be a "stepping stone" for further land reclamation and development was also raised by stakeholders as a potential concern. 1.3.2 Alternatives The development and identification of alternatives is an iterative process of investigation and consultation during which alternative sites, technologies, or activities are identified in the context of the proposed project. As the scope for site and technology alternatives is limited, the focus was on activity alternatives, i.e. the various shapes and extents which the proposed project could take. The following alternatives were identified: 1. Status Quo/ No-Go Option, the alternative of doing nothing and leaving the Mizingani Seawall and associated infrastructure as is; 2. Vertical wall replacement, the reconstruction of the existing seawall in its current location; 3. Revetment replacement, the reconstruction of the existing seawall as a revetment (sloped seawall) in its current location; 4. Vertical promenade, the reclamation of approximately 5 metres of seafront, the construction of a near vertical mass gravity wall and the development of a 5.8 metre promenade and associated infrastructure; 5. Revetment promenade, the reclamation of approximately 5 metres of seafront, construction of a revetment, development of a 5.8 metre promenade and associated infrastructure; 6. Tapered revetment promenade, the development of a revetment wall in association with approximately 5 metres of reclamation, the construction of a 5.8 metre promenade from Forodhani Park to the Mizingani centre steps where the revetment realigns with the existing wall alignment until Mercury's Restaurant; and 7. Tapered vertical promenade, the development of a near vertical mass gravity wall in association with approximately 5 metres of reclamation, the construction of a 5.8 metre promenade from Forodhani Park to the Mizingani centre steps where the revetment realigns with the existing wall alignment until Mercury's Restaurant. 1.3.3 Screening The above alternatives were considered in terms of the following issues: · Building material, the masonry alternative available, i.e. coral rag, limestone, cement blocks etc.; · Historical precedence, based on past iterations of the seawall and other mechanisms of shore protection; · Erosion mitigation, the likelihood and result of erosion as a result of the various alternative, especially the difference between a mass gravity wall and a revetment; · Overtopping, implications and likelihood of seawater spilling over the crest of the wall; · Footprint, the extent of the footprint of the various alternatives; and · Usage, community use of the current structure as well as potential use of the new structure. Based on a detailed discussion of the above criteria, several of the alternatives were screened out, carrying the following forward to the assessment phase: · No go alternative; · Alternative1: Vertical wall replacement alternative · Alternative 2: Vertical promenade alternative; and · Alternative 3: Tapered vertical Promenade alternative. Alternative 1: Vertical wall replacement Alternative 2: Vertical Promenade Alternative 3: Tapered vertical promenade 1.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT PHASE Following on from the scoping phase the impact assessment further explores the impacts identified during scoping, assesses those impacts, culminating in conclusions drawn from this assessment. 1.4.1 Stakeholder consultation Stakeholder consultation during the Impact Assessment phase included key informant interviews and focus group discussions. The following comments and concerns were raised by stakeholders who were consulted during the Impact Assessment mission: · Concern raised about traffic congestion and parking during the construction phase; · Concerned about access to buildings adjacent to project area during construction; · Potential damage of graves in palace cemetery; · Patronage to local businesses unlikely to be impacted by construction and may benefit from operation; · Concern about use of the banyan tree after implementation; · Concern about not being able to trade informally from Mizingani Road and that similar restrictions to Forodhani Park would be implemented; · Loss of beach area (reduced size); · Concern about potential licensing requirements to operate in the project area; · Concern about prohibited use of certain parts of the upgraded project; · Concern about use of sand for construction purposes leading to damage to the beach; · Possible loss of anchorage rights at Mizingani Beach; · Concern about local employment during the construction phase; and · Concern about transport of local school children during the construction phase. Issues and concerns raised were incorporated into the assessment of the identified impacts and mitigation measures to address the above, where relevant, have been recommended. 1.4.2 Design variations As a result of investigations and stakeholder engagement variations in the proposed design were proposed. These variations aimed to address some of the issues and concerns raised by the stakeholders and the project team as well as highlighting potential benefits from a planning perspective. Design variations were twofold: · Design options associated with the stairs from the seawall to the beach adjacent to Mercury's Restaurant; and · Variation in proportions and extent of the vertical promenade alternative. Stair Design Variations 1. Beach Stair Variation 1 ­ Like the original layout plan the stairs are set back into the promenade and end in line with the seawall. However, a boat ramp has been added to the centre of the stairs to facilitate access to the beach for boats constructed or repaired under the Banyan Tree. 2. Beach Stair Variation 2 ­ The stairs for this option begin at the edge of the seawall and lead down to the beach. There is no cut into the promenade. Again a boat ramp has been places at the centre. 3. Beach Stair Variation 3 ­ This option is ostensibly the same as Option 1, including the boat ramp, but the stairs are longer and extend further along the length of the promenade. 1 2 3 Beach Stair variations Width Variations 1. Width Variation 1: Original Promenade alternative A 5.8 metre promenade, a 7 metre wide road, 2.5 metre parking area and a sidewalk of varying width. The land reclamation for this option is 5 metres. 2. Width Variation 2: A 5.8 metre promenade, a 6 metre wide road, 2.5 metre parking area and a sidewalk of varying width. The land reclamation for this option is 4 metres. 3. Width Variation 3: A 5.8 metre promenade, a 6 metre wide road, 2.5 metre parking area and a sidewalk of varying but greater width than the other two alternatives. The land reclamation for this option is 5 metres. Width variations Though these design variations were not available for stakeholder engagement, comment for each was included in the impact assessment as applicable. 1.4.3 Assessment This section of the ESIR provides a detailed description of the potential impacts, as they relate to the proposed development of the Mizingani Road rehabilitation and upgrade, which may occur as a result of the implementation of the proposed alternatives. These impacts have been subject to detailed assessment and include potential biophysical and social- economic impacts that may arise during the operational phase (i.e. long-term impacts) and the construction phase (i.e. short-term impacts) of the proposed activities. Table 2 provides the key for the assessment tables provided below. Table 2: Key for summary impact tables indicating the colour coding for the significance of the various impacts High negative Red Medium negative Orange Low negative Yellow Very Low negative Green Neutral / NA Not shaded Very Low Positive impact Blue Low Positive impact Lilac Medium positive impact Rose High Positive impact Pink Based on the broad categories of impacts identified during the scoping phase the impacts contained in Table 3 were distilled out and consequently assessed. Table 3: Construction and operational phase impacts assessed during the impact assessment phase. Project Type of impact · Job creation during construction · Increased markets for local entrepreneurs · Multiplier effects on the local and national economy · Possible temporary economic displacement · Influx of job-seekers · Loss or reduction of access to the beach · Disruption to the intertidal zone · Construction generated turbidity Construction · Noise and air (dust) pollution · Vibration · Possible temporary sense of place disruption · Heritage Resources · Disruption of access to the Banyan Tree · Disruption of pedestrian movement · Interruption of traffic circulation · Restrictions on parking · Disruption of service Infrastructure · Job creation during operation · Business opportunities for local entrepreneurs · Promotion of pedestrian and traffic safety · Traffic circulation & volume · Increased civic pride · Heritage and cultural resources and WHS Status · Quality of Open Space · Addition of palm trees Operation · Addition of street lights and furniture · Service delivery · Possible permanent economic displacement · Loss or reduction of access to the beach · Alteration of seawall dimensions (width & height) · Splash erosion to building fabric · Seawall habitat · Intertidal area · Impoundment and erosion of sediment 1.4.4 Construction phase impacts The impacts for the construction phase, as indicated in Table 3 above, were assessed based on the duration, extent, intensity and probability to determine the intensity of the proposed impact as well as its significance. None of the construction phase impacts were deemed to have a highly significant impact on the environment (biophysical and social), given their relatively short duration and localized extent. As many of the construction phase impacts are of low significance, the implementation of a suite of mitigation interventions as described in the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) is considered to be appropriate. Table 4: Summary table of construction phase impact significance Alternative 1- Vertical Wall Replacement Alternative 2- Vertical Promenade Alternative 3- Vertical Tapered Promenade Impact With With With Without mitigation Without mitigation Without mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS LOW (+) MODERATE(+) LOW (+) MODERATE(+) LOW (+) MODERATE(+) Job creation during construction Fairly Likely Very Likely Fairly Likely. Very Likely Fairly Likely Very Likely LOW (+) LOW (+) VERY LOW (+) LOW (+) VERY LOW (+) LOW (+) Increased markets for local entrepreneurs Very Likely Very Likely Fairly Likely Very Likely Fairly Likely Very Likely LOW (+) LOW (+) LOW (+) LOW (+) LOW (+) LOW (+) Multiplier effects on the local and national economy Fairly Likely Very Likely Fairly Likely Very Likely Fairly Likely Very Likely LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) Possible temporary economic displacement Very Likely Unlikely Certain Very Likely Very Likely Fairly Likely LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) Influx of job-seekers Fairly Likely Unlikely Fairly Likely Unlikely Fairly Likely Unlikely VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) Loss or reduction of access to the beach Very likely Fairly Likely Certain Very likely Certain Very likely LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) Disruption to the intertidal zone Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) Construction generated turbidity Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) Noise and air (dust) pollution Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain MODERATE (-) LOW (-) MODERATE (-) LOW (-) MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Vibration Unlikely Fairly likely Unlikely Fairly likely Unlikely Fairly likely LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) Possible temporary sense of place disruption Certain Very Likely Certain Very Likely Certain Very Likely LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) Heritage Resources Certain Very Likely Certain Very Likely Certain Very Likely LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) Disruption of access to the Banyan Tree Fairly Likely Unlikely Fairly Likely Unlikely Fairly Likely Unlikely VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) Disruption of pedestrian movement Certain Very Likely Certain Very Likely Certain Very Likely MODERATE(-) MODERATE(-) LOW (-) LOW (-) MODERATE(-) MODERATE(-) Interruption of traffic circulation Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) Restrictions on parking Very Likely Fairly Likely Certain Very Likely Certain Very Likely LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) Disruption of service infrastructure Unlikely Fairly Likely Unlikely Fairly Likely Unlikely Fairly Likely 1.4.5 Operational Impacts The operational phase impacts were shown to reflect that there are significant social benefits to the development of the promenade. The potential impacts identified as relevant to the operational phase of this project are listed in Table 3 and the significance ratings summarized in Table 5 below. Cultural Mizingani Road's cultural significance in architectural and historical terms is re-enforced by its iconic significance as a landmark site and a gateway to the Island. It therefore is important as the public face of Zanzibar (Attwell, 2010). The heritage impacts were assessed to be positive with the exception of possible splash erosion caused by the hardened surfaces against the building facades. The conclusion drawn by the heritage specialist is that the upgrade of Mizingani Road, which is in-line with the approved Conversation Plan, is likely to have a catalytic impact on the heritage resources and achieve structural and restoration improvement as a result. As such the impact on heritage or cultural resources is likely to be minimal and within acceptable limits of change to a World Heritage Site. It is therefore deemed to support the ongoing conservation efforts of Stone Town. Socio-economic impacts It is clear that the potential social benefits come at the cost of the natural environment however the impacts to the marine environment are within acceptable limits as the intertidal zone will experience limited long term impact and no noticeable impact to the beach is anticipated. The social benefits range from improved civic pride to improved traffic circulation and pedestrian safety whereas economic benefits include business opportunities for entrepreneurs and job creation. Ecological impacts The marine environment along the site is highly impacted by anthropogenic interventions on and adjacent to the site including the coastal protection at Forodhani Park and the Port. The habitat loss of 5m of coastal intertidal zone is expected to be largely replaced by the coral rag used at the toe of the new structure and sand migration in the short to medium term. The beach is largely controlled by the Port structures and therefore is not anticipated to experience more than low negative impacts Table 5: Summary table of operational phase impact significance Alternative 1- Vertical Wall Replacement Alternative 2- Vertical Promenade Alternative 3- Vertical Tapered Promenade Impact With With With Without mitigation Without mitigation Without mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS VERY LOW (+) MODERATE(+) VERY LOW (+) MODERATE(+) VERY LOW (+) MODERATE(+) Job creation during operation Very Likely Certain Very Likely Certain Very Likely Certain VERY LOW (+) LOW (+) LOW (+) HIGH (+) LOW (+) HIGH (+) Business opportunities for local entrepreneurs Fairly Likely Very Likely Very Likely Certain Very Likely Certain VERY LOW (+) LOW (+) LOW (+) MODERATE(+) LOW (+) MODERATE(+) Promotion of pedestrian and traffic safety Unlikely Fairly Fairly Very Likely Fairly Very Likely LOW(+) MODERATE(+) LOW(+) MODERATE(+) LOW(+) MODERATE(+) Traffic circulation & volume Fairly Likely Certain Fairly Likely Certain Fairly Likely Certain VERY LOW (+) LOW (+) LOW (+) HIGH (+) LOW (+) HIGH (+) Increased civic pride Unlikely Fairly Likely Fairly Likely Very Likely Fairly Likely Very Likely VERY LOW(+) VERY LOW(+) LOW(+) LOW(+) LOW(+) LOW(+) Heritage and cultural resources and World Heritage Site Status Very Likely Very Likely Very Likely Very Likely Very Likely Very Likely LOW(+) MODERATE(+) LOW(+) MODERATE(+) LOW(+) MODERATE(+) Quality of Open Space Certain Fairly Likely Certain Fairly Likely Certain Fairly Likely Neutral Neutral LOW (+) LOW (+) LOW (+) LOW (+) Addition of palm trees Very Likely Very Likely Very Likely Very Likely LOW (+) MODERATE (+) LOW (+) MODERATE(+) LOW (+) MODERATE(+) Addition of street lights and furniture Certain Fairly Likely Certain Fairly Likely Certain Fairly Likely MODERATE(+) MODERATE(+) MODERATE(+) MODERATE(+) MODERATE(+) MODERATE(+) Service delivery Fairly Likely Fairly Likely Fairly Likely Fairly Likely Fairly Likely Fairly Likely LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) MODERATE(-) VERY LOW (-) MODERATE(-) VERY LOW (-) Possible permanent economic displacement Fairly Likely Unlikely Fairly Likely Unlikely Fairly Likely Unlikely LOW (+) MODERATE (+) LOW (+) MODERATE(+) LOW (+) MODERATE(+) Loss or reduction of access to the beach Very Likely Very Likely Very Likely Very Likely Very Likely Very Likely VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) Alteration of seawall dimensions (width and height) Certain Certain Very Likely Certain Very Likely Certain MODERATE(-) LOW (-) MODERATE(-) LOW (-) MODERATE(-) LOW (-) Splash erosion to building fabric Very Likely Fairly Likely Very Likely Fairly Likely Very Likely Fairly Likely LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) Seawall habitat Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) Intertidal area neutral neutral Certain Certain Certain Certain VERY LOW (-) VERY LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) Impoundment and erosion of sediment Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely MITIGATION: CONSTRUCTION PHASE MITIGATION: OPERATIONAL PHASE Job creation during construction Job creation during operation 1. Develop clear policy guidelines for local labour and monitor contractor's compliance 42. Maximize local employment 2. Advertise employment opportunities locally 3. Implement fair labour practices Increased markets for local entrepreneurs 4. Promote the employment of women and local community members 5. Formalize recruitment and employment 43. Assist vendors with licensing through ZMC 6. Implement a rotation system 44. Encourage ZMC to reconsider restrictions on trading under Banyan Tree 45. Install street lights Increased markets for local entrepreneurs Promotion of pedestrian and traffic safety 7. Assist with the production and erection of signage 8. Do not impede access to businesses 46. Educate road users about the use of a promenade 47. Establish a pedestrian crossing 48. Introduce traffic calming measures Multiplier effects on the local and national economy 9. Develop a procurement policy Traffic circulation and volume 10. Create a registry of SMMEs 49. Implementation of traffic calming measures at either end and in the of the identified section of Mizingani Road as well as in the centre by the steps Possible temporary economic displacement 50. Design of a road width of 6 metres to reduce the traffic speed 11. Minimize the disruption of access to the beach and businesses 51. Enforce a 40km/hr speed limit 12. Allow vendors to continue with their business activities Increased civic pride Influx of job-seekers 52. Erect information boars displaying the project area pre- and post upgrading 13. Disseminate the employment policy 53. Patrol the area 54. Erect and maintain street furniture, street lights and refuse bins Loss or reduction of access to the beach 14. Minimise the disruption of access to the beach and businesses Heritage and cultural resources and WHS Site Status 15. Allow public to continue with their activities e.g swimming 55. Match seawall construction material and final appearance to that use at Forodhani Park 56. Should reclamation be undertaken the position of the current wall should be acknowledged in the design and through the use of interpretive signage Intertidal area (Refer to Section 11.1.2.d) 57. Measures should be taken to interpret and link spaces from the sea edge to within Stone Town. 16. Footprint on the seaward side of the wall to be limited 17. Barriers or coffer structures should be taken to indicate the end of the construction site and no staff should venture seaward Quality of Open Space 18. Excavation should be carefully limited to the required size 58. Ensure appropriate landscaping and maintenance of landscaped areas Turbidity - None Addition of palm trees No mitigation measures have been identified. However, care should be taken in the choice of palm Noise and air (dust) pollution tree species to ensure visual permeability 19. Limit construction hours 20. Expedite the relocation of the IPA Impact of the addition of street lights & furniture 21. Impose and monitor rules regarding noise caused by construction workers 59. Choice of light fixtures and furniture should be in keeping with the surrounding buildings and Forodhani Park Vibrations 60. Light should be directed down and along the street as opposed to up and out to sea 22. Final design to specify construction techniques and acceptable vibration range 23. undertake Comprehensive building survey to understand pre-construction conditions Service delivery 24. Monitor vibrations and effect on adjacent buildings No mitigation measures have been identified, though it should be noted positive impacts associated service infrastructure are dependent on future implementation and connection Sense of Place 25. Use the site boundary hoarding to communicate about the project, decorate it with bright local Access to the beach murals or pictures of the seafront 61. Design beach access point to facilitate access to the beach for people and boats. Heritage Resources Possible permanent economic displacement 26. Ensure no-go areas clearly demarcated and access is restricted 62. No additional restrictions imposed on the project area 27. Public comment and complaints register should be kept on site during the construction phase 63. Consider community recommendations in project design details 28. The Stone Town Conservation and Development Authority should be contacted immediately 64. Final design should have the least possible impact on the beach should any damage result or chance finds be discovered Alteration of the seawall dimensions (height and width) Banyan Tree No mitigation measures recommended as design of "top-blocks" is limited in height, matched in 29. Minimise damage to root system by limiting excessive excavations texture and colour and is already visually broken. The width of the promenade is based on the 30. Upon discovery of significant roots the assistance of a qualified horticulturalist should be sought space available as the wall itself is not moved. No mitigation measures have been identified. on appropriate mitigation measures. Splash erosion of buildings Pedestrian movement 65. Use of permeable or semi-permeable surface on sidewalk adjacent to any buildings 31. Clear demarcation and barriers should be erected to facilitate smooth movement of pedestrians 66. Angle of sidewalk such that back-splash limited and water drains away from and not along or 32. Movement along the onto the beach should be secured and contained towards the buildings 67. Monitoring of facade health with specific focus on splash erosion Traffic circulation 33. Clear signage erected indicating status of the road and alternate routes Seawall habitat 34. Appropriate traffic management measures either end of construction area for turning vehicles No mitigation measures have been identified. 35. "Stop-and-go system" to facilitate the access and egress of construction vehicles. 36. No other construction allowed on Mizingani Road simultaneously. 37. Strict enforcement of one-way access along Mizingani Road; Intertidal area 68. Scour protection at the base of the wall should consist of coral rag. Restrictions on parking 38. Issue parking vouchers/permits to landowners/tenets and existing regular users for duration of Impoundment and erosion of sediment the construction No mitigation measures have been identified. 39. Negotiate free parking in Banyan Square in the evenings Interruption of Services 40. Implementation of an environmental and social management plan addressing management procedures for the interruption of services and management of accidental spillages 41. Public complaints register The mitigation measures described in above are incorporated into the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) for the project (Refer to Appendix L) and, where relevant, into the contract conditions to be issued to the contractors. Measures must also be put in place to monitor and assess implementation of these mitigation measures and to take corrective action where necessary. 1.5 ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS A total of 17 construction and 17 operational phase potential impacts were identified (Refer to Table 3 above). Analysing the significance ratings before and after mitigation the following became apparent: Construction Phase · There are more negative than positive impacts during construction (three positive and fourteen negative) · That adequate mitigation measures during construction are expected to reduce the significance of negative impacts to acceptable levels, while positive impacts will on average be enhanced to maximise benefits to surrounding communities; and · The construction impacts of Alternative 2 are marginally more beneficial than Alternative 3 which is marginally better than Alternative 1. Operational Phase · There are more positive than negative impacts of the development in its operational phase (ten positive, seven negative) · That adequate mitigation measures are expected to reduce the significance of negative impacts to acceptable levels, while positive impacts will on average be significantly enhanced to maximise benefits to surrounding communities; and · The operational impacts of Alternative 2 are marginally more beneficial than Alternative 3 which is marginally better than Alternative 1 The environmentally least impact option based on the findings of this ESIA is therefore Alternative 2 i.e. Vertical wall and promenade. 1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS The specific mitigation measures provided in Section 12.1 as well as the specifications in the ESMP respond to the issues raised in direct relation to the proposed project. They focus on reducing impacts, enhancing benefits and avoiding unnecessary damage to the natural, cultural and socio-economic environment. It is strongly recommended that these measures are included in the requirements for authorisation, implemented and monitored. There were however some additional aspects which were raised during the ESIA which are suggestions for further consideration by the STCDA and the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar to enhance conditions in the project vicinity or avoid unintentional damage. These are listed below: Refuse · Allegedly, surrounding communities occasionally discard of their household refuse by throwing it into the ocean in the study area. This is mostly done when the municipality does not collect the refuse from the households. In addition to this the beach is currently being cleaned once a week by a local individual for a nominal fee collected by the boat operators and fishermen from businesses and individuals surrounding the project area. Regular refuse collection and clear responsibility for clearing litter from the beach will provide for a healthier and more attractive area. Uncollected refuse outside Mercury's Restaurant Additional Community benefits · The boat operators and fishermen indicated that other than the direct mitigation measures related to the project there were additional benefits which could be provided which include: o By being supplied with equipment, both for fishing and tourist excursions, including a first aid kit; o By having a place or contraption to which they can tie their boats; o By having a public toilet erected somewhere in the site-specific study area; o By having an environmental awareness program where both parents and children are taught about environmental issues, including the detrimental effect dumping refuse in the ocean has. Banyan Tree Square · It was noted that the Banyan Tree is hardly ever trimmed and it is believed by locals that this results in a particularly large number of mosquitoes. Appropriate management of the Banyan Tree should be undertaken. · Some consideration should be given to the improvement of the traffic circulation arrangements in Banyan Tree Square, perhaps in the form of a traffic circle, so as to facilitate vehicle turning there. · It was observed during the study for the seawall upgrade, that there is a significant impact on local traffic in the area as a result of Port activities. These activities spill over into the Banyan Tree Square and thus into the seafront area. As noted previously, the seafront was observed as parking lot for waiting truck on one occasion, an undesirable situation for a heritage and tourist site. It is strongly recommended that traffic operations at the Port and between the Port and into Banyan Tree Square be studied with a view to creating a more sustainable environment. Banyan Tree Square (left) and port entrance after arrival of a ferry (right) Enhancement of Heritage elements · Detailed design guidelines for buildings along Mizingani Road should be prepared in order to manage the retention of the architectural character of the Road · Measures to interpret and link spaces from the sea edge to within Stone Town should be considered. 1.7 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The conclusions drawn from the assessment and the summary tables providing the assessed significance rating clearly show that whichever alternative is selected, the impacts can be mitigated and that the social benefits significantly outweigh the potential disadvantages. It was further concluded that the provision of a promenade provides more opportunities for benefit than the alternative which simply replaces the existing seawall. The ecological impacts were found to be very similar for the various promenade options and are deemed to be of low overall significance. The social benefits rely on the design optimizing the pedestrian safety and ensuring continued and enhanced accessibility to the beach. Long term benefits to the existing users and the surrounding community are further strengthen if design and operation do not curtail user's current activities and access to the area, but rather aim to enhance the quality of the open space as has been proposed. The preferred alternative is Alternative 2 which provides for a vertical seawall with a promenade as it meets legal, policy, environmental, planning and conservation objectives assuming that the mitigation measures and recommendations provided are appropriately implemented and monitored. With reference to the information available at this stage of the project planning cycle (i.e. pre detailed design), the confidence in the environmental assessment undertaken is regarded as acceptable for decision-making, specifically in terms of the environmental impacts and risks. However, it is acknowledged that the proposed development details will evolve during the detailed design and construction phases. However, these are unlikely to change the overall environmental acceptability of the proposed project. Any significant deviation from what was assessed in this EIR should be subject to further assessment and may require an amendment to the Environmental Authorisation, after due process has been met. The preferred alternative is Alternative 2 which provides for a vertical seawall with a promenade as it meets legal, policy, environmental, planning and conservation objectives assuming that the mitigation measures and recommendations provided are appropriately implemented and monitored. In terms of the variations presented for the stairs and the width of the walkway on the building side of the road it is accepted that a wider pavement against the buildings will benefit the conservation of the building facades. It is further understood that narrowing the road will serve to as a passive mechanism to reduce vehicles speeds. Assuming that non-motorised vehicles would be able to access the promenade the limited road space does not necessarily jeopardize the safety of these users. Furthermore, the increased width of the building-side sidewalk can only benefit the adjacent facades. As such Design Alternative 3 which is the proponent's preferred option is deemed to be environmentally acceptable. With respect to the Mercury stairs variations the most important element is ease of access in perpetuity and the addition of the boat ramp which is common to all three variations. As such any of the three stair alternatives is deemed to be acceptable, including the preferred alternative 3, and could be selected based on planning and aesthetic principles. It is therefore our opinion, as the independent Environmental Assessment Practitioners, that the proposed upgrade and rehabilitation of the Mizingani Seafront should be duly authorized. .