SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES

PROJECT

Environmental and Social Management Framework

[ESMF]

REPUBLIC OF GHANA

Ministry of Local Government & Rural

Development

DRAFT

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

March 10 2014

GSOP Revised ESMF

i March 2014

List of Acronyms

AC Area Council

ACAP Area Council Action Plan

AER Annual Environmental Report

CAP Community Action Plan

CBRDP Community-Based Rural Development Project

CSM Cerebro-Spinal Meningitis

CWSA Community Water and Sanitation Agency

DA District Assembly

DE District Engineer

DFR Department of Feeder Roads

DSW Department of Social Welfare

EA Environmental Assessment

EHS Environment Health and Safety

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EO Environmental Officer

EP Environmental Permit

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESM Environmental and Social Management

ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework

GIDA Ghana Irrigation Development Authority

GoG Government of Ghana

GPRS I Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy

GPRS II Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy

HIV/ AIDS Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus / Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ILO International Labor Organization

LEAP Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty

LI Legislative Instrument

LIPWs Labor Intensive Public Works

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MDAs Ministries, Departments and Agencies

MESW Ministry of Employment and Social Welfare

MiDA Millennium Development Authority

MLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development

MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture

MoFEP Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning

MTDP Medium-Term Development Plan

MTEF Medium-Term Expenditure Framework

NADMO National Disaster Management Organization

NDPC National Development Planning Commission

NEAP National Environmental Action Plan

NMMB National Museums and Monuments Board

NPSC National Project Steering Committee

NSP National Service Personnel

NYEP National Youth Employment Program

OP Operational Policy

OSH Occupational Safety and Health

PEA Preliminary Environmental Assessment

RCC Regional Coordinating Council

GSOP Revised ESMF

ii March 2014

RCO Regional Coordination Office

RICU Rural Infrastructure Coordinating Unit

RPCU Regional Planning Coordinating Unit

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SMTDP Sectoral Medium-Term Development Plan

TOR Terms of Reference

GSOP Revised ESMF

iii March 2014

Executive Summary

Introduction

This updated Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) has been prepared for the proposed

Additional Financing (AF) of US$50 million for the Ghana Social Opportunities Project (GSOP), a social

protection program by the Government of Ghana. This updated ESMF will be used principally by the

participating District Assemblies and other collaborators in ensuring that environmental and social safeguards

have been adequately addressed in the sub-projects to be implemented under the GSOP Additional Financing. The

parent project was an opportunity for rural employment creation and income generation in the slack agricultural

period in 49 districts in the country.

The original components of the project included rationalization of a national social protection policy, labor

intensive public works (LIPWs), support to the LEAP program, capacity building and project management and

coordination. The sub-projects under the LIPWs are rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads and small

earth dams and dugouts, tree planting on degraded communal lands, and social infrastructure sub-projects such as

rehabilitation of schools and clinics. The sub-projects are selected from the Medium Term Development Plans

(MTDPs) of the District Assemblies (DAS) for implementation using labor-based methods over a period of five

years. The cost of the original project was $88.6 million. The main source of employment was through the Labor

intensive public works (LIPWs). The key activities under the LIPWs were rehabilitation and maintenance of

feeder roads and small earth dams and dugouts, tree planting on degraded communal lands, and social

infrastructure sub-projects such as rehabilitation of schools and clinics. These sub-projects were selected from the

Medium-Term Development Plans (MTDPs) of the District Assemblies (DAs).

In line with the current global practices, the proposed additional loan would help finance the costs

associated with strengthening social protection systems and safety nets implementation capacity in

Ghana. Specifically, the AF will support: (a) formulation of social protection policy; (b) scaling up of

the Labor Intensive Public Works (LIPW) and the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP)

programs; (c) designing and rolling out the Ghana National Household Registry (GNHR) for Social

Protection programs and strengthening social protection implementation procedures; and (d) capacity

building to support the implementation of LIPW and LEAP in existing and new districts [see OP13.20].

This updated ESMF will be used to mainstream environment and social safeguards into the design and planning

of the SOP as well as its sub-projects. The choice of ESMF (instead of EIA) was made for the original project

because of the following reasons:

Wide geographical spread – 29 in the three northern regions and 20 districts across the remaining 7

regions of the country;

Implementation duration – spread over five years;

Scope of involvement – several institutions at the national, regional and local levels;

Sub-project design and numbers – the design of the sub-projects, types and numbers involved, the specific

beneficiary districts and communities were not well known at that stage; and

Sub-project impacts – the level of sub-project specific impacts were not yet determined at that stage.

GSOP Revised ESMF

iv March 2014

Furthermore, the MLGRD considers it useful to have a framework of principles and procedures that will govern

the mitigation of adverse environmental and social (E&S) impacts induced by the SOP and its sub-projects. The

ESMF provides:

Overview of potential E&S risks and safeguards to the SOP and sub-projects;

Sub-project specific E&S screening/initial assessment framework (in Appendix 2);

Relevant clauses to guide implementation of environmental safeguards (Appendix 3); and

Institutional arrangements and mechanisms for effective E&S safeguard compliance and enforcement.

With the use of the ESMF, national and local E&S requirements of the LI 1652 for any affected entity will be

met. This will also be consistent with the OP4.01 and other applicable safeguards provisions of the World Bank.

The ESMF may also serve as a guide in the implementation of other DMTDPs projects.

GSOP Revised ESMF

v March 2014

General Policy, Legal and Administrative Frameworks

The following national and World Bank environmental policies and procedures among others were used as

reference in the updated ESMF preparation:

Ghana’s Environmental Policy;

The Environmental Protection Agency Act of 1994 (Act 490);

The Environmental Assessment Regulations (LI 1652), and EIA procedures; and

The World Bank’s safeguard policies which include guidance on EA requirements - Environmental

Assessment (OP4.01), and also the Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12), etc.

The original disclosed ESMF (May 13, 2010)

Description of Baseline Conditions

The three northern regions of Ghana occupy a total land area of 97,700 km2 (41% of the land area of Ghana), but

comprise only 17.4% of the national population. There are slightly lower numbers of females than males in

contrast with the national picture. Agriculture is the main economic activity employing about 80% of the

economically active population. Infrastructure for dry season agriculture is highly inadequate, hence a large

number of people are without employment during the dry season, resulting in pronounced rural–urban migration

of the youth. The area is noted to have the highest incidence of extreme poverty, twice that of the national average

(i.e., 63% against 29%). The various districts are connected to the regional capitals by mainly feeder roads, which

have either gravel or earth surfaces and become almost impassable in the rainy season.

The area experiences a single rainy season (May to October) and a long dry season (November to March/April).

Average annual rainfall varies between 750mm and 1100mm. The vegetation is grassland, interspersed with

guinea savannah woodland.

The area falls within the sub-basins of the Red, Black and White Volta. Other rivers and seasonal tributaries form

a network with some important valleys such as the Fumbisi, Nasia, Tamne, Katanga Valleys. Groundwater use is

common as an estimated 5,000 boreholes have been drilled since 1970. The topography is generally flat and low-

lying with a few scattered hilly areas. Flooding is almost a yearly occurrence caused by the overflowing of the

Volta and its tributaries.

Potential Environmental and Social Impacts and Mitigations

Environmental and social impacts were considered on both the SOP-level and the sub-project level. The SOP-

level beneficial impacts include: mass employment and socio-economic benefits to poor communities, protection

of infrastructure developed through community involvement and low migrant-worker influx.

The impacts considered likely to affect the sustainability of the project adversely include potential failure of small

earth dams, low E&S safeguards compliance within new beneficiary DAs and accelerated silting of small earth

dams and dugouts. The main potential adverse social impacts include weakening of the spirit of community

volunteerism, exploitation by contractors, shortage of labor and challenges to managing large workforce at a site.

Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the level impacts have been provided in the ESMF for the above impacts.

Potential adverse impacts and corresponding mitigations and other E&S safeguards have been provided for the

sub-projects. Additional mitigation principles have been elaborated (given that the specific sub-project impacts

GSOP Revised ESMF

vi March 2014

cannot be precisely determined at this stage). These include principles for good employment practices, cultural

resource preservation, HIV/AIDS prevention, particulate emission abatement, waste management, landscape

improvement, and water resource and habitat protection.

ESMF Implementation and Management

The ESMF has established the link between environmental and social management (ESM) during implementation

with the sub-project assessment phase. The ESM commitment originates from the requirement in the Section 5 of

the Initial Assessment/EA Screening Form (Appendix 2). The ESM phase comprises monitoring, management (of

E&S impacts and mitigations), and reporting during sub-project implementation activities such as rehabilitation,

maintenance, decommissioning of sites, etc.

The ESMF also defines institutional roles and arrangements. The Clauses in Appendix 3 and the mitigation

measures have been set out to guide the DAs (particularly the District Engineers, DPCs and other officers of the

DAs), the Area Councils, and other institutions such as DFR, GIDA, etc. to supervise implementation and also for

M&E.

GSOP Revised ESMF

vii March 2014

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... III

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 10

1.1BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10

1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE UPDATED ESMF ....................................................................................................... 10

1.3 METHODOLOGY FOR THE ORIGINAL ESMF PREPARATION ............................................................................................................... 11

2.0 GENERAL POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK .................................................................................. 13

2.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................................................ 13

2.1.1 Ghana’s Environmental Policy ......................................................................................................................................... 13

2.1.2 The Environmental Protection Agency Act ...................................................................................................................... 13

2.1.3 EA Regulations and Procedures ....................................................................................................................................... 13

2.1.4 EA (Amendment) Regulations, 2002 ............................................................................................................................... 14

2.2 NATIONAL LABOR, SAFETY AND HEALTH REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................ 14

2.2.1 Factories, Offices and Shops Act ...................................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.2 Occupational Safety and Health Policy of Ghana (Draft) ................................................................................................ 14

2.2.3 National Workplace HIV/AIDS Policy ............................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.4 Labor Act ......................................................................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.5 Youth Employment Implementation Guidelines .............................................................................................................. 14

2.3 THE POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY OF GHANA ........................................................................................................................... 15

2.3.1 GPRS I and II ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15

2.4 THE WORLD BANK REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 15

2.4.1 The Bank’s Safeguard Policies.......................................................................................................................................... 15

2.4.2 Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01) .............................................................................................................................. 15

2.4.3 Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) .......................................................................................................................... 16

2.4.4 Safety of Small earth Dams (OP/BP 4.37) ....................................................................................................................... 16

2.4.8 International Waters (OP7.50) ........................................................................................................................................ 16

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE GHANA SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES PROJECT................................................................................ 18

3.1 PROJECT COMPONENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

4.0DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 24

4.1 CLIMATE AND VEGETATION ........................................................................................................................................ 24

4.2 WATER RESOURCES, TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE ........................................................................................................ 24

4.3 POPULATION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................. 25

4.4 FEEDER ROAD NETWORK........................................................................................................................................... 25

4.5 CULTURE AND RELIGON ............................................................................................................................................ 26

4.6 DISASTER RISK EXPOSURE .......................................................................................................................................... 27

5.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS .......................................................... 28

5.1 SCREENING OF THE GSOP AND SUB-PROJECTS .............................................................................................................. 28

5.2 POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE GSOP ............................................................................................................................ 28

5.2.1 Economic Benefits to Poor Communities ......................................................................................................................... 28

5.2.2 Mass Employment ........................................................................................................................................................... 28

5.2.3 Community Protection for Facilities ................................................................................................................................. 29

GSOP Revised ESMF

viii March 2014

5.2.4 Low Migrant-Worker Influx ............................................................................................................................................. 29

5.2.5 Enhanced Institutional Capacity to Support Decentralization ......................................................................................... 29

5.2.6 E&S Safeguards Applied to MTDP Projects ...................................................................................................................... 29

5.3 POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS .................................................................................................................................... 29

5.3.1 Potential Failure of Small earth Dams ............................................................................................................................. 30

Mitigation of Small Darth Dam Failure .................................................................................................................................... 30

5.3.2 Low E&S Safeguards Compliance and Involvement ......................................................................................................... 30

Mitigation – High E&S Safeguards Awareness for Community Involvement ........................................................................... 31

5.3.3 Accelerated Silting of Small earth Dams and Dugouts .................................................................................................... 31

Mitigation of Siltation of Small earth Dam and Dugouts ......................................................................................................... 31

5.3.4 Upsetting the Spirit of Community Volunteerism ............................................................................................................ 31

Mitigation – Retaining the Communal Spirit of Volunteerism ................................................................................................. 32

5.3.5 Inadequate Contractors with Labor-based Experience .................................................................................................... 32

Mitigation – Building a Pool of Local Contractors .................................................................................................................... 32

5.3.6 Potential Delays in Contract Completion Schedule ......................................................................................................... 32

Mitigation – Formation of Work Teams ................................................................................................................................... 32

5.3.7 Exploitation by Contractors ............................................................................................................................................. 32

Mitigation – Avoidance of Worker Exploitation ....................................................................................................................... 33

5.3.8 Non-availability of Labor at Certain Times ...................................................................................................................... 33

Mitigation – Sourcing for Labor Elsewhere .............................................................................................................................. 33

5.3.9 Concentration of Large Workforce at a Site .................................................................................................................... 33

Mitigation – Building of Capacity of Contractors ..................................................................................................................... 33

6.0 E&S IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS OF SUB-PROJECTS .......................................................................................... 34

6.1 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS AT SUB-PROJECT LEVEL ....................................................................................................... 34

6.2 OTHER MITIGATION AND SAFEGUARD PRINCIPLES OF SUB-PROJECTS ................................................................................. 36

6.2.1 Principles for Good Employment Practices ...................................................................................................................... 37

6.2.2 Particulate Emission Abatement Principles ..................................................................................................................... 37

6.2.3 Cultural Resources Preservation Principles ...................................................................................................................... 37

6.2.4 Waste Generation and Management Principles .............................................................................................................. 37

6.2.5 Work Place HIV/AIDS Prevention Principles ..................................................................................................................... 38

6.2.6 Landscape Improvement Principles ................................................................................................................................. 38

6.2.7 Water Resource Protection Principles .............................................................................................................................. 38

6.2.8 Habitat Protection Principles ........................................................................................................................................... 39

7.0 ESMF IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................... 40

7.1 IMPLEMENTING THE ESMF ........................................................................................................................................ 40

7.2 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 40

THE MLGRD, THE DECENTRALIZED AGENCIES AND PARTICULARLY THE DAS AND ACS ARE THE MAIN IMPLEMENTERS OF THE PROJECT. THE OTHER

INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES WHOSE FUNCTIONS RELATE TO THE PROJECT IN TERMS OF PROJECT DESIGN, TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND PROJECT E&S

APPROVALS INCLUDE THE SAFEGUARDS SPECIALIST, EPA, DFR AND GIDA. .............................................................................................. 40

7.2.1 Project Oversight ............................................................................................................................................................. 41

7.2.2 Project Implementation and Management ..................................................................................................................... 41

7.3 CAPACITY BUILDING ................................................................................................................................................................. 42

7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MONITORING AND REPORTING .......................................................................................... 43

GSOP Revised ESMF

ix March 2014

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45

ANNEX 1: PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS AND DISCLOSURE FOR ORIGINAL ESMF PREPARATION ............................................ 46

1.1 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 47

1.2 ESMF DISCLOSURE .................................................................................................................................................. 47

ANNEX 2: CONSULTATIONS PHOTO GALLERY ............................................................................................................................... 65

ANNEX 3: DAM FAILURE CHECKLIST ....................................................................................................................... 66

ANNEX 4: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ADDENDUM........................... 70

ANNEX 5: ADDENDUM TO ESMF.............................................................................................................................. 76

ANNEX 6: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS FOR UPDATING OF ESMF/ RPF DOCUMENTS ............................................... 87

List of Tables

Table 4.1: Length and State of Feeder Roads by Districts in the North………………………………...…….……….12

Table 6.1: General Impacts and Mitigations Associated with Sub-Projects………………………………..........…20-21

Table 7.1: Proposed Budget for the ESMF Implementation…………………………………………….………..........28

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1Background

The Government of Ghana (GoG) is implementing a social protection program called the Ghana Social

Opportunities Project (GSOP). This is targeted at the chronically poor in 49 districts in the country, with

more than half (29 districts) located in the Northern Savannah Zone (the Upper West, Upper East, and

Northern Regions), where poverty rates average 58%.

The main components of the original projects are: (i) rationalization of a national social protection policy;

(ii) labor intensive public works; (iii) support to the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP)

program; (iv) capacity building; and (v) project management and coordination. GSOP was implemented

during the slack agricultural period to provide employment for people who have the ability to work but

face high levels of seasonal unemployment.

The main source of employment was through the Labor intensive public works (LIPWs). The key

activities under the LIPWs were rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads and small earth dams and

dugouts, tree planting on degraded communal lands, and social infrastructure sub-projects such as

rehabilitation of schools and clinics. These sub-projects were selected from the Medium-Term

Development Plans (MTDPs) of the District Assemblies (DAs).

The original project had the following development objectives:

To improve targeting in social protection spending

Increase access to conditional cash transfers nationwide

Increase access to employment and cash-earning opportunities for the rural poor during

the agricultural off-season and

Improve economic and social infrastructure in target districts.

1.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Updated ESMF

This updated Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) has been prepared for the

proposed Additional Financing (AF) of US$50 million for the Ghana Social Opportunities Project

(GSOP). In line with the current global practices, the proposed additional loan would help finance the

costs associated with strengthening social protection systems and safety nets implementation capacity in

Ghana. Specifically, the AF will support: (a) formulation of social protection policy; (b) scaling up of the

Labor Intensive Public Works (LIPW) and the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP)

programs; (c) designing and rolling out the Ghana National Household Registry (GNHR) for Social

Protection programs and strengthening social protection implementation procedures; and (d) capacity

building to support the implementation of LIPW and LEAP in existing and new districts [see OP13.20].

The EA Regulations of Ghana provide the general framework and procedures for EA and environmental

management (EM) of development actions. Most Development Partners (DPs) and funding institutions,

including the World Bank also have EA requirements. As part of funding arrangements for the SOP

therefore, the Bank’s E&S safeguards policies (OP/BP 4.01, EA and OP/BP 4.12, Involuntary

Resettlement) and national requirements must apply. Under AF, project has the following attributes (:

GSOP Updated ESMF

11

Revision of the PDO, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), project components, and the

Results Framework;

Under the original project, the geographical spread of LIPW was 49 districts in all 10 regions of

the country, with more than half (29 districts) located in the Northern Savannah Zone (the Upper

West, Upper East, and Northern Regions); this will be scaled up with the addition of 6 new

districts to 55 districts under additional financing;

Implementation duration extended by one year to close on June 30th

2017. ;

Strengthened collaboration between all agencies involved in project implementation at the

national, regional, district and local levels;

Introduction of social accountability and grievance redress mechanisms for LIPW

Comprehensive development communication

Increased use of electronic systems and e-payments

The attributes above indicate GSOP as a program-type of ‘undertaking’ for which the appropriate level of

EA is the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) under the Ghana EA Procedures. Under the World

Bank, however, the ESMF is used in the case of operations with multiple sub-projects, various phases and

spread over a long period - similar in concept to SEA.

Due to their small- to medium-scale nature, the sub-projects under GSOP are classified as Schedule 1

undertakings (i.e., projects which require registration and permit) for the Ghana system; these are

screened as Category B under the World Bank EA Procedures.

The ESMF spells out the E&S safeguards, institutional arrangements and capacity required to use the

framework. This ensures that sub-projects meet the national and local E&S requirements and are

consistent with OP 4.01, OP 4.12, etc. of the Bank. Other objectives of the ESMF include:

Assessment of potential adverse E&S impacts commonly associated with the listed sub-projects

and the way to avoid, minimize or mitigate these impacts;

Establishment of clear procedures and methodologies for the E&S planning, review, approval and

implementation of sub-projects;

Development of an EA screening/initial assessment system to be used for sub-projects; and

Specification of roles and responsibilities and the necessary reporting procedures for managing

and monitoring sub-project E&S concerns.

The updated ESMF will be principally used by DAs and other collaborators to ensure that adequate

mitigation measures and other environmental and social safeguards have been incorporated into the sub-

projects to be implemented under the SOP.

1.3 Methodology for the Original ESMF Preparation

The ESMF preparation involved document review and consultation with key representative stakeholders

at the national, regional, district and local levels. The main national and the World Bank reference

documents reviewed included:

GSOP Updated ESMF

12

Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1994 (Act 490);

Environmental Assessment Regulations, 1999 (LI 1652);

National Environmental Action Plan;

Ghana EIA Procedures; and

World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguards Policies (OP/BP 4.01 and OP/BP 4.12)

(OP/BP 4.37) (OP/BP 7.50).

The national level institutions consulted included the EPA, CBRDP and the DFR. The regional level

organizations (in Northern and Upper East Regions) involved in the ESMF process were the RPCU, EPA,

DFR, GIDA, NADMO, DSW, CWSA, WRC, Contractors and the RICU/CBRDP.

The DAs consulted were the Savelugu-Nanton and West Mamprusi (Northern Region), and Builsa and

Bongo (Upper East Region). The following Area Councils and communities also participated in the

process Nyogulo and Tinguri communities and the Moglaa Area Council (Northern Region), and Siniensi,

Doninga, Bachonsi and Beo communities and also Beo Area Council (Upper East Region).

Two sets of stakeholder participatory questionnaires were prepared for the ESMF process – general and

institution-specific questionnaire. The general questionnaire covered the following:

Project stakeholder role identification matrix;

Environmental and social concerns likely to be associated with the SOP and sub-projects;

Sub-project ranking for LIPWs;

Labor-based implementation of sub-projects – potential negative impacts;

Labor-based implementation of sub-projects – potential benefits;

Stakeholder responsibility for various stages (life cycle) of sub-projects (institutional

arrangement); and

Institutional capacity, coordination and management roles.

The questionnaires were sent in advance to enable stakeholder preparation for effective participatory

activities. The summarized consultation results are presented in Appendices 4, 6 and 7 of the original

ESMF. Following the consultation processes, two regional disclosure sessions were held in Tamale and

Bolgatanga to help build consensus on the various issues discussed. The disclosure outcomes and

participant lists are presented in Appendix 5 of the original ESMF.

In updating the original ESMF, representative District Assemblies and communities from the 49 DAs

were selected for joint consultations on issues relating to the ESMF and RPF implementation. The

consultations took the form of community fora, focus group meetings at both community and roundtable

meetings with staff of District and regional public and Non-Governmental Organisations. Key issues

discussed included level of awareness of GSOP safeguards and subproject selection, workforce selection

processes and grievance redress procedures, and compensation issues. These joint consultations on the

ESMF and RPF were held among key stakeholders and documents were publicly disclosed between 10th –

12th

of February 2014. For the summary of issues discussed and pictures of consultations, refer to annexes

5 and 6.

GSOP Updated ESMF

13

2.0 GENERAL POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

The environmental policy and EA legislation and procedures of Ghana and those of the World Bank,

which are relevant to the project, are outlined. In principle the two sets of policies and procedures on

environmental and social assessment are similar in many respects.

2.1 National Environmental Requirements

2.1.1 Ghana’s Environmental Policy

The environmental policy of Ghana formulated in the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) of

1993 hinges strongly on ‘prevention’ as the most effective tool for environmental protection. The policy

aims at a sound management of resources and environment, and the reconciliation between economic

planning and environmental resources utilization for sustainable national development. It also seeks

among others, to institute an environmental quality control and sustainable development programs by

requiring prior EA of all developments, and to take appropriate measures to protect critical eco-systems,

including the flora and fauna they contain against harmful effects, nuisance or destructive practices. The

adoption of the NEAP led to the enactment of the EPA Act 1994 (Act 490); and subsequently the passing

of the Ghana EIA Procedures into the EA Regulations, 1999 (LI 1652).

2.1.2 The Environmental Protection Agency Act

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Act, 1994 (Act 490) grants the Agency enforcement and

standards-setting powers, and the power to ensure compliance with the Ghana EA

requirements/procedures. Additionally, the Agency is required to create environmental awareness and

build environmental capacity as relates all sectors, among others. The Agency (including its Regional and

District Offices) is also vested with the power to determine what constitutes an ‘adverse effect on the

environment’ or an activity posing ‘a serious threat to the environment or public health’, to require EAs,

EMPs, AERs, etc. of an ‘undertaking’, to regulate and serve an enforcement notice for any offending or

non-complying undertaking.

The Agency is required to conduct monitoring to verify compliance with given approval/permit

conditions, required environmental standard and mitigation commitments. Furthermore, a requirement by

EPA for an EA precludes any authorising MDA from licensing, permitting, approving or consenting such

undertaking, unless notified otherwise.

2.1.3 EA Regulations and Procedures

The EA Regulations combine both assessment and environmental management systems. The regulations

prohibit commencing an undertaking/activity without prior registration and environmental permit (EP).

Undertakings are grouped into schedules for ease of screening and registration and for EP. The schedules

include undertakings requiring registration and EP (Schedule 1), EIA mandatory undertakings (Schedule

2), as well as Schedule 5-relevant undertakings (located in Environmentally Sensitive Areas).

GSOP Updated ESMF

14

The Regulations also define the relevant stages and actions, including: registration, screening, preliminary

environmental assessment (PEA), scoping and terms of reference (ToR), environmental impact

assessment (EIA), review of EA reports, public notices and hearings, environmental permitting and

certification, fees payment, EMP, AER, suspension/revocation of permit, complaints/appeals, etc.

2.1.4 EA (Amendment) Regulations, 2002

The EA (Amendment) Regulations were made to amend sections of the EA fees regime of LI 1652 (the

‘principal enactment’) on fee payment for EP and certificate issued by the Agency.

2.2 National Labor, Safety and Health Requirements

2.2.1 Factories, Offices and Shops Act

The Factories, Offices and Shops Act of 1970 (Act 328) mandates the Factories Inspectorate Department

to register factories and ensure that internationally accepted standards of providing safety, health and

welfare of persons are adhered to. It defines a factory to include any premises (whether in or not in a

building) in which one or more persons are employed in manual labor, among others.

2.2.2 Occupational Safety and Health Policy of Ghana (Draft)

The policy statement of the OSH Policy (draft 2004) is: ‘to prevent accidents and injuries arising out of or

linked with or occurring in the course of work, by minimizing, as far as reasonably practicable, the cause

of the hazards in the working environment and, therefore, the risk to which employees and the public may

be exposed’. The policy is derived from provisions of the International Labor Organization (ILO)

Conventions 155 and 161. The policy document has specific sections on objectives, scope, strategies,

activities and promotion and awareness creation.

2.2.3 National Workplace HIV/AIDS Policy

The broad objectives of the policy, among others, are to provide protection from discrimination in the

workplace to people living with HIV and AIDS; prevent HIV and AIDS spread amongst workers; and

provide care, support and counselling for those infected and affected.

2.2.4 Labor Act

The purpose of the Labor Act, 2003 (Act 651) is to amend and consolidate existing laws relating to labor,

employers, trade unions and industrial relations. The Act provides for the rights and duties of employers

and workers; legal or illegal strike; guarantees trade unions and freedom of associations, and establishes

the Labor Commission to mediate and act in respect of all labor issues. Under Part XV (Occupational

Health, Safety and Environment), the Act explicitly indicates that it is the duty of an employer to ensure

that every worker works under satisfactory, safe and healthy conditions.

2.2.5 Youth Employment Implementation Guidelines

The authority for decision-making on the implementation of the National Youth Employment Program

(NYEP) resides in the Ministry of Employment and Social Welfare, through a National Employment Task

Force (NETF) set up to implement the program. District Employment Task Forces set up are made

accountable to the NETF in all their undertakings throughout the implementation of the program.

GSOP Updated ESMF

15

The overall objective of the program is to empower the youth to be able to contribute more productively

towards the socio-economic and sustainable development of the nation. The specific objectives of the

Program include checking the drift of the youth from the rural to urban communities in search of jobs by

creating those opportunities in the rural areas, etc.

2.3 The Poverty Reduction Strategy of Ghana

2.3.1 GPRS I and II

The GPRS I was a comprehensive framework of policies and development strategies, programs and

projects to facilitate macro-economic stability, sustainable growth and poverty reduction (2003-2005).

The central goal of GPRS II (2006-2009), which built on GPRS I was to accelerate the growth of the

economy to attain a middle-income status. The GPRS II emphasizes the implementation of growth-

inducing policies and programs with the potential to support wealth creation and sustainable poverty

reduction. The document refers to the need to apply environmental impact assessment and environmental

audit to ensure that the growth arising from the GPRS is environmentally sustainable.

2.4 The World Bank Requirements

2.4.1 The Bank’s Safeguard Policies

The Bank’s ten safeguard policies are designed to help ensure that programs proposed for financing are

environmentally and socially sustainable, and thus improve decision-making. The Bank’s Operational

Policies (OP) are meant to ensure that operations of the Bank do not lead to adverse impacts or cause any

harm. They include guidance on EA requirements. The following four are relevant for considerations

under the project. These are:

Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01);

Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12);

Safety of small earth Dams (OP/BP 4.37);

International Waters (OP7.50);

2.4.2 Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01)

The OP 4.01 requires among others that screening for potential impacts is carried out early, in order to

determine the level of EA to assess and mitigate potential adverse impacts. The Bank’s project screening

criteria group projects into three categories:

Category A – Detailed Environmental Assessment;

Category B - Initial Environmental Examination; and

Category C – Environmentally Friendly

The EA ensures that appropriate levels of environmental and social assessment are carried out as part of

project design, including public consultation process, especially for Category A and B projects. The OP

4.01 is applicable to all components of the Bank’s financed projects, even for co-financed components.

This project is a Category B project because the potential impacts are localised and can easily be

mitigated.

GSOP Updated ESMF

16

2.4.3 Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)

The Policy on Involuntary Resettlement is intended to assist displaced people arising from development

projects, in order not to impoverish any affected people within the area of influence of projects. An action

plan that at least restores the standard of living must be instituted, in cases where resettlement is

inevitable or loss of assets and impacts on livelihood occurs.

2.4.4 Safety of Small Earth Dams (OP/BP 4.37)

OP 4.37 is triggered for this project. This project will rehabilitate existing small earth dams. The Policy

seeks to ensure that appropriate measures are taken and sufficient resources provided for the safety of

small earth dams the Bank finances. The Bank distinguishes between small and large dams, and the policy

is triggered for large dams. Small earth dams are normally less than 15m in height; this category includes

farm ponds, local silt retention dams, and low embankment tanks. For small earth dams, generic dam

safety measures designed and supervised by experienced and competent professionals will be

carefully implemented. Both the design and supervision of works would take into account the relevant

dam safety issues. The dam safety plan(s) will ensure the following elements are taken into account: the

types of dams to be rehabilitated and their size and storage capacity. The plan should ensure that the

rehabilitated small earth dams may exceed 500m in length because of the flat topography of the north, but

the project will pre-select small earth dams where the storage capacity does not exceed 250,000m3 for a 5m

dam. The dam safety plan will ensure that capacity does not exceed 500,000m3 for a 6-10m high dam; and

that selected small earth dams are generally not located near settlement areas.

The dam safety plans and EIA of sub-projects (i.e. Small earth dams and feeder roads) will be carried out

by separate independent consultant firms contracted by the project. Under the parent project, the small

earth dams/dugout have been designed and constructed under the supervision of experienced GIDA

engineers. Capacity within existing beneficiary DAs on small earth dam/dugouts and feeder road

construction has improved under the parent project through training and workshops to local designers,

contractor’s supervisors and other associated workers. This implementing arrangement will be sustained

within the upscaling regions under the additional financing. The project will use external expertise to

address low technical capacity on small dam construction where necessary. . Water/Dam users

associations will be used to perform regular small earth dam maintenance and consistent monitoring

throughout the project period.

2.4.8 International Waters (OP7.50)

OP 7.50 is triggered for this project. However, exceptions to Notification Requirement, No. 7 was

granted on the following basis:

Normally, if a project falls under the scope of this OP, the borrower (beneficiary state) is required to

inform all riparian states. But the OP provides exceptions to the need for notification under para. 7(a).

The exception states that “for any ongoing schemes, projects involving additions or alterations that

require rehabilitation, construction, or other changes that in the judgment of the Bank (i) will not

adversely change the quality or quantity of water flows to the other riparians; and (ii) will not be

GSOP Updated ESMF

17

adversely affected by the other riparian’s possible water use. This exception applies only to minor

additions or alterations to the ongoing scheme; it does not cover works and activities that would exceed

the original scheme, change its nature.” The proposed project is designed to create employment while

rehabilitating existing schemes and will not support any major activities that would change the nature of

the original scheme to the extent that it would make it appear to be a new scheme. Based on this, the

project qualified for a waiver that has been granted by the Regional Vice President of the Africa

Region on April 5, 2010, this waiver was cleared by the legal units (LEGEN and LEGAF) of the

World Bank.

GSOP Updated ESMF

18

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE GHANA SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES PROJECT

The objectives of the parent project were “to improve targeting in social protection spending,

increase access to conditional cash transfers nationwide, increase access to employment and

cash-earning opportunities for the rural poor during the agricultural off-season, and improve

economic and social infrastructure in target districts”. The US$88.6 million IDA funded project

was approved by the board on May 20, 2010, and became effective on October 19th

2010.

The key performance indicators related to the PDO were: (i) share social protection spending allocated to

programs targeted to the poor (percent); (ii) LEAP and Ghana Health Insurance indigent exemption

expenditures in the government’s overall package of pro-poor expenditures as defined by MoFEP

(percent); (iii) person days of unskilled workers disaggregated by district; (iv) average earnings per

unskilled workers in LIPWs; (v) beneficiaries subject to school enrolment condition that comply with it

(percent); and (vi) direct project beneficiaries (number), of which female (percent).

3.1 PROJECT COMPONENTS

The five main components of the original project are described below.

Component One: Rationalize National Social Protection Policy - US$2.5 million

Component one provides support to the government to help redirect its social protection expenditures to

the most effective areas and reduce those in less effective activities. This would allow greater coverage of

the poor despite current fiscal constraints in the wake of current and future economic crises. To facilitate

the process, the component finances technical assistance, studies, training, and secretariat services.

Component Two: Labor Intensive Public Works (LIPW) - US$56 million

The objective of this component is to provide targeted rural poor households with access to employment

and income-earning opportunities. This pertains particularly to seasonal labor demand shortfalls during

the agricultural off-season from November to March/April, and in response to external shocks, through

rehabilitation and maintenance of public or community infrastructure. The aim is to maximize local

employment while rehabilitating productive infrastructure assets, which have potential to: (i) generate

local secondary employment effects and (ii) protect households and communities against external shocks.

The scope of works eligible for LIPWs is defined based on labor content and scope to generate significant

local employment.

Component Three: Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty Program (LEAP) - US$20 million

The objective of this component is to support the full rollout of the pilot phase of the LEAP program by

strengthening its management and administration, providing technical assistance to improve targeting,

providing cash transfers to beneficiaries under LEAP, and providing incentives to ensure that GoG’s

annual budget allocations are sufficient. The component finances incentive payments to the unified

treasury account to assure that GoG each year allocates sufficient budget for LEAP to meet its target

number of households, and thereby contributes to improve human capital outcomes for these households.

Disbursement Linked Indicators are used to reimburse disbursements made by GoG towards LEAP grants

each year.

Component Four: Capacity Building - US$4.1 million

The objective of this component is to create capacity at the national and local levels to implement social

protection programs in selected project districts, with the view of enabling a gradual scaling-up and

GSOP Updated ESMF

19

targeting at the national level. Several distinct sets of capacity building activities are supported,

specifically; (i) establishing a LIPW-supportive policy and institutional framework, (ii) capacity building

to support LIPW implementation (including rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads, small earth

dams and dugouts, construction of schools and clinics, and tree planting on communal lands), (iii)

capacity building to support implementation of LEAP with the objective of strengthening and improving

the targeting and monitoring of the government’s social protection instruments and programs, (iv) district

and regional capacity building, and (v) other activities and pilot programs that could become necessary

during implementation to support the overall objective of strengthening safety nets and providing safety

ladders.

Component Five: Project Management and Coordination.(US$6.5 million)

With the aim of bolstering GoG operations, the Project funds costs associated with: project management

and coordination; relevant technical assistance; project monitoring and evaluation; consultancy services;

communication and training; equipment and vehicles; and incremental operating costs. In addition, the

component includes the cost of annual impact evaluation surveys, including a baseline study and an end-

of-the-project comprehensive impact evaluation study.

3.2 BACKGROUND

Overall, project implementation is satisfactory and the project is likely to meet the PDO. Several outcome

indicators for LIPW and LEAP have met their project targets. Under LIPW, 3.2 million person days

employment have been created against the target of 5.65 million1 (56%); direct project beneficiaries were

80,678 against the target of 13,000; 60.4% of LIPW beneficiaries are females against the target of 25%.

The overall cumulative labor content is 48% against a target of 45%, with climate change public works

projects containing the highest labor content, followed by small earth dams and dugouts, and roads and

social infrastructure. Under LEAP, 70% of beneficiaries are females against the target of 15%; and there

are 74,347 direct project beneficiaries against the target of 80,000.

Project disbursements satisfactorily stand at SDR 41,019021 (70.24%) against the total credit of SDR

58,400,000.00 as of December 2013.

In a letter to the World Bank dated February 13th 2014, the Government of Ghana requested additional

financing of US$50 million for Ghana Social Opportunities Project (GSOP) to; (i) scale up existing

interventions under LIPW and LEAP, and (ii) modify project activities by strengthening social protection

systems and implementation capacity. These changes are expected to enhance the development impact of

the project. The additional financing will lead to an extension of the closing date by one year to June 30th

2017. In addition, the restructuring would include a revision of the PDO, related indicators, the results

framework and the design of the components.

Activities to be funded under this AF are estimated at US$50 million equivalent. The proposed AF would

increase the Bank’s financial contribution from the existing $88.6m to $138.6 million (IDA credit). In

view of the additional credit, the development objective, design, implementation and fiduciary

arrangements will be adjusted to reflect new project realities and scope. This AF is justified as per the

requirements of paragraphs 2 and 26 of OP 10.00 regarding consistency with original project objectives

and appraisal.

1 Rationalized target from the previous 1,500,000 in the Project Appraisal document.

GSOP Updated ESMF

20

Specifically, this additional financing has the following additions and changes:

Revision of the PDO, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and the Results Framework.

Inclusion of 6 new districts for the LIPW projects (increasing from 49 to 55).

Scaling up of LEAP.

Inclusion of a new implementing agency: the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social protection

(MoGCSP).

Improved targeting approaches through the establishment of the Ghana National Household

Registry.

Introduction of social accountability and grievance redress mechanisms for LIPW and LEAP.

Comprehensive development communication for LIPW and LEAP.

Increased use of electronic systems and e-payments for LIPW and LEAP.

The usage of Disbursement Linked Indicators under LEAP will be dropped.

Strengthened collaboration between all agencies involved in project implementation

GSOP AF contributes to the objectives of the Ghana Country Partnership Strategy Program (CPS FY13-

16), which is based on three pillars: (1) improving economic institutions; (2) improving competitiveness

and job creation; and (3) protecting the poor and vulnerable. The project supports: (1) Pillar one:

Improving Economic Institutions, through Component 1: Social Protection Policy and Systems

Strengthening which is designed to increase the efficiency in the use of resources designed for social

protection, given that pro-poor programs in Ghana are fragmented and poorly targeted; (2) Pillar three:

Protection of the Poor and Vulnerable through Component 2: Labor Intensive Public Works (LIPW)

Implementation and Capacity Building, by expanding social protection support through labor intensive

public works programs; and Component 3 Livelihood for Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP)

Implementation and Capacity Building, by providing cash transfers to extremely poor households with

the goal of alleviating short-term poverty and encouraging long-term human capital development.

Revised PDO and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

The revised objective is to: improve targeting of social protection programs and provide income support

to poor households through LEAP grants and LIPW infrastructure in targeted districts. The revision is

meant to make the PDO clearer and more outcome-focused. The indicators (KPIs) have also been revised

to reflect the project’s adjusted focus on strengthening systems and scaling up of LEAP and LIPW.

3.3 REVISED PROJECT COMPONENTS

The project revised components are as below:

1. Component One. Social Protection Policy and Systems Strengthening

This component builds on the findings of the rationalization study that was funded under component 1 of

the original project. This component will have two sub-components: sub-component 1A: Social

Protection Policy formulation and sub-component 1B: Social Protection Systems Strengthening.

2. Sub-component 1A: Social Protection Policy Formulation The objective of this sub-component is to strengthen coordination, financing and implementation of social

protection programs through the preparation of a national social protection policy, strategy and an

implementation action plan. This sub-component will finance technical assistance, consultations,

GSOP Updated ESMF

21

workshops, and policy dissemination. Policy formulation will be done in consultation with other

government agencies involved in Social Protection and donor partners. Additionally, this sub-component

will provide technical assistance to the Ministry of Finance to develop mechanisms within the current

budget framework to allocate and monitor social protection spending more efficiently. Analytical work to

support social protection budget allocation efficiency will also be supported. The component will further

support capacity building for staff of the Ministry of Finance and the National Development Planning

Commission to improve understanding and appreciation of social protection issues through trainings,

study tours and in country field visits.

3. Sub-component 1B: Social Protection Systems Strengthening The objective of this sub-component is to support strengthening of social protection systems through the

establishment of the Ghana National Household Registry (GNHR). The registry is meant as a tool to

improve efficiency, effectiveness, and expand the coverage and scope of social protection interventions in

Ghana. This sub-component will finance electronic data collection and processing on households using a

Proxy Means Test (PMT) that will be reviewed and updated using the 2013 Ghana Living Standards

Survey data (GLSS 6) data. This process - the National Targeting System (NTS) - would be used to build

the GNHR on poor households eligible for selection by social protection programs. The GNHR would be

a database of households, their members, basic living conditions and PMT scores. The GNHR will be

used across social protection programs (including LEAP, LIPW, and NHIS) for targeting beneficiaries,

thus removing redundancy across programs in the targeting processes. Implementation will be sequenced,

starting with the Upper West region in 2014, Upper East Region in 2015 and Northern Region in 2016.

Geographical maps will be prepared for the rest of the country. It is expected that the roll out will follow

these maps.

Component Two. Labor Intensive Public Works Implementation and Capacity Building The objective of this component remains unchanged. The AF will support the scale up of LIPW to reach

more beneficiary households. Innovations, particularly to manage oversubscription, improve targeting,

and enhance delivery and monitoring of payments will be introduced. The implementation capacity of the

local assemblies will continue to be strengthened through trainings. This component will be reorganized

under AF with two sub-components: sub-component 2A: Labor Intensive Public Works and sub-

component 2B: Capacity Building.

Sub-component 2A: Labor Intensive Public works (LIPW) The AF will deepen LIPW activities in the existing 49 districts. The basic design of the LIPW component

and menu of sub-projects would be maintained. Six new districts will be added. Selection of districts will

be based on poverty. Labor content of the original project was approximately 50%. The other 50% of the

component funds went to contractors and materials. To maximize labor content under AF, the breakdown

of sub-projects would be 20% for feeder roads, 30% for climate change activities and 50% for small earth

dams and dugouts. To manage oversubscription, the AF activities would support: (i) improved planning

to enable site managers to take into account a realistic number of work days and tools that are available

per cycle; and (ii) in addition to self-targeting, use community-based targeting (CBT) to further narrow

down the eligible beneficiary pool; (iii) the computerization of time sheets to enable faster processing of

payroll information as well as introduction of an electronic payment mechanism to improve efficiency.

For sustainability, community saving activities financed under a US$ 3million Japanese Social

Development Grant will complement LIPW activities. The project will continue to use qualified

contractors to ensure that small earth dams and dugouts are prepared in strict conformity with standard

designs and specifications. Details on quality improvements for sub-projects will be detailed in the

revised Operational Manual.

GSOP Updated ESMF

22

Sub-component 2B: Capacity Building for LIPW.

The original capacity building component was entirely implemented by the MLGRD. Under AF, this

component has been restructured to support both the MLGRD and MoGCSP. Therefore, this sub-

component will finance capacity building activities for implementation of LIPW in selected project

districts. Several distinct sets of capacity building activities under the original project will continue to be

supported under AF, specifically: (i) establishing a LIPW supportive policy and institutional framework;

(ii) capacity building to support LIPW implementation aimed at decision-makers, DA technical staff,

relevant line agencies, and contractors; and (iii) ongoing capacity building for DAs in the technical and

management capacities of LIPW target districts.

In addition, this sub-component will support the implementation of social accountability and grievance

redress mechanisms, development communication activities, capacity building for the introduction of

ICT-based operational enhancements (such as electronic registration and electronic timesheets linked to e-

payments), impact evaluation, and other activities to support the overall objective of strengthening LIPW.

Component Three. Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) Implementation and

Capacity Building The objective of this component is to support the scale up of the LEAP grants to benefit more households,

improve the implementation of soft conditions, and strengthen LEAP’s management and administration

systems. This component will be restructured under AF to have two sub-components: sub-component 2A:

LEAP Grants and sub-component 2B: Capacity Building for LEAP

Sub-component 3A: LEAP Grants

The objective of this sub-component is to support the scale up of the LEAP grants to benefit more

households. In the original project, the LEAP grants were meant to be conditional, the PAD was not clear

whether these were hard or soft conditions. In practice, soft conditions have been implemented.

Beneficiaries are sensitized about sending children ages 5-15 to school, and ensuring regular clinical

visits and full immunizations for all children in beneficiary households. The implementation of these

conditions needs to be better structured under additional financing. The AF will continue to finance cash

grants to additional beneficiary households. Broadly, the government has increased its allocation to LEAP

from GHc 7.5 million in 2010 to GHc 38 million in 2014. Going forward, the financing of this component

will be restructured to utilize regular project investment financing modalities, with periodic payments

made directly to the MoGCSP for the LEAP cash grants.

Sub-component 3b: Capacity Building for LEAP.

In order to enhance LEAP’s implementation, this sub-component of the AF would provide financing to

strengthen the program’s operations at the national, regional and district levels. With AF, this project will

finance the development of a Management Information System for the program (to be coordinated with

the GHR) that will support data entry and analysis at the national and decentralized levels, delivery

charges associated with the new electronic payments mechanism, and training and capacity building of

staff to implement LEAP more effectively. This sub-component will also provide funding for

development communication activities, as well as monitoring and evaluation (i.e. regular spot checks of

operation activities and impact evaluation studies), and social accountability and grievance redress

systems for the program. In addition, the project will also ensure and support the improved

implementation of soft conditions through regular and documented dissemination fora for LEAP

beneficiaries.

Component Four. Project Management and Coordination.

GSOP Updated ESMF

23

The objective of this component remains unchanged. Overall project implementation will be undertaken

by the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (Components 2 and 4A) and the Ministry

of Gender Children and Social Protection (Components 1, 3 and 4B). Under the AF, this component will

be restructured into two sub-components to reflect the addition of the MoGCSP as an independent

implementing agency: sub-component 4A: Project management and coordination by the Ministry of Local

Government and Rural Development, and sub-component 4B: Project management and coordination by

the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection.

Sub-component 4A: Project management and coordination by the Ministry of Local Government

and Rural Development.

The objective of this sub-component is to support activities related to project management and

coordination, equipment and vehicles, and incremental operating costs under the GSOP National

Coordination Office and Regional Coordination Officers for LIPW sub-projects.

Sub-component 4B: Project management and coordination by the Ministry of Gender, Children

and Social Protection.

The objective of this sub-component is to support activities related to project management and

coordination, equipment and vehicles, and incremental operating costs under the MoGCSP.

GSOP Updated ESMF

24

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE CONDITIONS

The parent projected predominantly targeted the chronically poor within 29 districts in the Northern

Savannah regions and 20 Districts in the 7 other regions of Ghana. The three northern regions occupy a

total land area of 97,700 km2 (41% of the land area of Ghana) and are similar in characteristics with

respect to climate and vegetation. The regions also share common socio-economic traits as they are

regarded as the most impoverished in the country. They are however different in their demographic

trends, characterized by various ethnic groups. The three regions comprise a total of thirty eight (38)

districts; twenty (20) in the Northern Region and nine (9) districts each in the Upper East and Upper West

Regions.

4.1 Climate and Vegetation

The climate of Ghana is tropical, but temperatures vary with season and elevation With exception

of the Northern region, two rainy seasons occur, from April to July and from September to

November .The main climatic pattern in the northern regions is the single rainy season from May and

June ending in October, and the dry season from November to March/April. Average annual rainfall

varies between 750mm and 1100mm. The dry season is accentuated by the Harmattan Winds between

December and mid-February, during which period day time temperature can soar to 45°C, reducing to as

low as 14°C in the night. Humidity is typically low.

The high temperature conditions have been associated with seasonal bouts of such diseases as cerebro-

spinal meningitis (CSM). These regions fall within the meningitis belt of Africa.

The vegetation type of the Northern region comprises of vast areas of grassland, interspersed with guinea

savannah woodland. This makes the area susceptible to widespread annual bushfires aided by the almost

semi-arid conditions and long dry spell. Trees of economic importance to the people include Magnifera

indica (mango), Adansonia digitata (baobab), Butyrospermum parkii (sheanut), Acacia mangium (acacia),

Parkia biglobosa and Azadirachta indica (neem). The vegetation type of the other regions comprises of

Moist Semi Deciduous and Rain Forest mangrove and coastal shrubs.

4.2 Water Resources, Topography and Drainage

The three regions fall within the sub-basins of the Red, Black and White Volta. Apart from the rivers

Sissili, Nasia and Daka, there are seasonal tributaries that dwindle off in the dry season and revive with

the onset of the rains. These rivers form a network with some important valleys such as the Fumbisi,

Nasia, Tamne, Katanga, Nabogu and Soo Valleys. These areas are under consideration to be developed

because of their high potential for agriculture. The rivers link up with the Volta. Groundwater use is

common in all three regions as an estimated 5,000 boreholes have been drilled since 1970. With a

groundwater accessibility and use rate of about 58%, groundwater forms a significant source of daily

water use. The other regions of Ghana fall under the Tano, Ankobra, Pra and Densu water basins with

comparatively better water supply from these basins than the North.

GSOP Updated ESMF

25

The topography of the northern region is generally low-lying and flat with a few scattered hilly areas,

such as the Gambaga Escarpment in the north-eastern corner and also along the western corridor

(Northern and Upper West Regions), and east and south-east (Upper East Region). Flooding is a yearly

occurrence caused by the overflowing of the Volta and subsequently its tributaries.

The coastline consists mostly of a low sandy shore behind which stretches the coastal plain, except in the

west, where the forest comes down to the sea. The forest belt, which extends northward from the western

coast about 320 km and eastward for a maximum of about 270 km, is broken up into heavily wooded

hills and steep ridges.

4.3 Population and Socio-Economic Characteristics

The three northern regions take up 97,700 km2, which is 41% of the total land area, but comprise only

17.4% of the national population. The Northern Region (70,383km2), even though a large land area, is

sparsely populated (density of 26 persons per km2), less than that of the Upper East (8,842 km

2) the

smallest of the three regions, but with 104 persons per km2. The population density of the Upper West is

31 persons per km2 with a land area of 18,478 km

2.

In terms of age structure, the regions exhibit slightly lower numbers of females than males in contrast

with the national picture, which puts the female population at 50.1%.

Agriculture, hunting and forestry are the main economic activities in the region. About 80% of the

economically active population are into agriculture; engaged in the production of millet, guinea-corn,

maize, groundnut, beans, sorghum and dry season tomatoes and onions. Infrastructure for dry season

agriculture is inadequate and as such a large number of people are left with no source of income during

the dry season. Migration becomes pronounced with a large number of the youth moving to the urban

centers in search of employment.

Poverty has been declining steadily in Ghana, as reflected in the number of people classified as poor,

which dropped from about 8.0 million (i.e. slightly over 50% of the population) in 1992 to 6.3 million in

2006 (less than 30% of the population). However, inequalities remain widespread, and are reflected in

significant disparities in access to economic, social and political opportunities. In particular, the three

northern regions (with 25% of the country’s population) recorded an average poverty rate of 58%,

compared to 19% in the rest of the country.

4.4 Feeder Road Network

The various districts are connected to their regional capitals mainly by feeder roads. Almost all feeder

roads in the North have either gravel or earth surfaces. These become almost impassable during rainy

seasons. Table 4.1 gives the length and state of feeder roads.

GSOP Updated ESMF

26

Table 4.1: Length and State of Feeder Roads by Districts in the North

Districts Total

Length

(Kilometres)

Condition Mix of Roads Surface Type of Road

Good

(km)

Fair

(km)

Poor

(km)

Bitumen

(km)

Gravel

(km)

Earth

(km)

Bawku East

Bawku West

Bole

Bolgatanga

Bongo

Bulsa

East Gonja

East Mamprusi

Gushiegu Karaga

Jirapa Lambussie

Kassena Nankana

Lawra

Nadowli

Saboba Chereponi

Savelugu Nanton

Sissala

Tamale

Tolon Kumbungu

Wa

West Gonja

West Mamprusi

Yendi

Zabzugu Tatele

606.56

279.42

591.57

431.80

155.28

360.20

833.09

293.49

434.89

558.90

322.73

238.30

549.68

393.62

375.05

703.10

225.43

383.89

1,104.84

789.59

369.21

727.74

481.15

258.20

187.83

165.22

284.50

122.48

239.09

427.40

71.39

202.08

434.00

193.58

148.50

205.58

144.09

36.28

147.52

98.87

1.06

445.33

334.52

129.13

172.24

198.60

216.93

68.44

260.94

90.02

30.93

78.41

348.31

184.61

127.72

79.80

91.37

78.60

129.25

195.47

152.72

204.80

93.06

147.81

361.28

403.96

172.25

424.08

220.37

131.43

23.15

165.41

57.28

1.87

42.70

57.39

37.48

105.09

45.10

37.78

11.20

214.85

54.06

186.05

350.78

28.50

235.02

297.84

51.12

67.83

131.41

62.18

4.40

10.0

-

2.28

-

-

-

5.25

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.07

-

-

-

-

352.63

220.44

347.03

296.43

97.68

232.96

509.42

160.59

379.74

491.30

201.61

210.00

477.48

199.89

268.22

527.45

162.14

209.12

710.34

340.37

201.51

234.70

199.15

249.53

48.98

244.54

133.09

57.60

127.24

291.67

132.90

21.34

67.60

115.87

28.30

72.20

193.72

106.83

175.65

63.30

174.77

402.40

449.22

167.70

493.04

282.00

Source: Department of Feeder Roads and Highways, Accra.

4.5 Culture and Religon

The major ethnic groups are each represented by a paramount chief. They include the Gonja, Dagomba,

Mamprusi, Nanumba and the Kokomba groups in the Northern region; Gruni, Kassena, and Kusasi

groups in the Upper East region; and Sisala, Dagarti, and Warla groups in the Upper West region.

Islam is the dominant religion in the Northern Region, whereas Traditional and Christian religions are

prominent in the Upper East and Upper West Regions respectively. Aside agriculture, the people engage

in the manufacture and sale of traditional artifacts and musical instruments. Blacksmithing and pottery are

also common.

GSOP Updated ESMF

27

4.6 Disaster Risk Exposure

Risk sources range from erratic climatic conditions, limited opportunities for off-farm economic

activities, poor planning and implementation of development policies to frequent incidence of bushfires,

floods and droughts, which are the bane of the area’s underdevelopment. Additionally, persistent inter-

and intra-ethnic conflicts result in heavy loss of lives and property, with resources redeployed into

conflict resolution.

GSOP Updated ESMF

28

5.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS AND

MITIGATIONS

5.1 Screening of the GSOP and Sub-Projects

The Ghana Social Opportunities Project is being implemented over a five-year period in 49 districts in

Ghana. The scope of involvement includes various institutions at the national, regional to local levels with

various responsibilities and coordination arrangements. The original GSOP has five components, with the

LIPWs sub-projects falling under rural road and water sectors. However, the sub-project designs, types

and numbers involved and the specific beneficiary districts are all not determined at this stage.

The above attributes indicate the GSOP as a program for which the appropriate level of EA is the

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), and ESMF under the Ghana and the World Bank EA

Procedures respectively. Due to the small- to medium-scale nature of the sub-projects, they are classified

as Schedule 1 undertakings (i.e., projects which require registration and permit) under the Ghana country

system. Under the World Bank EA Procedures, however, the components and sub-projects are classified

as Category B.

The potential impacts of the GSOP are presented below. The beneficial impacts come first, followed by

the adverse impacts and the corresponding mitigation measures.

5.2 Potential Benefits of the GSOP

The potential benefits of the project include:

Socio-economic benefits to poor communities;

Mass employment (even of the skilled);

Creating of community productive assets;

Low migrant-worker influx;

Enhanced capacity to support decentralization; and

Extension of E&S safeguards to cover other district projects

5.2.1 Economic Benefits to Poor Communities

The Project’s 49 districts are classified as the poorest in Ghana. Improved feeder road infrastructure

through rehabilitation and maintenance provides such socio-economic benefits as improved accessibility,

which will significantly enhance economic prospect and integration. Dugouts and small earth dams will

enhance access and availability to water for both humans and livestock. Additionally, it will provide

support for all season farming respectively. This potentially will result in adequate water availability,

regular employment, increase food production and income, etc.

5.2.2 Mass Employment

Large numbers of people and households will be gainfully employed during the slack agricultural period.

This will significantly contribute towards efforts at reducing the rural-urban drift which is very

pronounced during these periods. Part of the income received could be invested in farm expansion during

the farming season, among others.

GSOP Updated ESMF

29

5.2.3 Community Protection for Facilities

Consultations with local communities revealed that community infrastructure constructed through labor-

intensive methods tend to enjoy community interest, protection and attachment. The sub-projects are

therefore expected to engender a feeling of ownership and invariably a responsibility towards protection

of such facilities in the interest of their sustainability.

5.2.4 Low Migrant-Worker Influx

The mass employment openings targeted at the community members presupposes that there will be very

low migrant-worker influx into these rural communities. The attendant social and health risks of, for

instance, HIV/AIDS spread, cultural insensitivity and conflicts, social inequalities, increased incidence of

teenage pregnancy and dropout rates, etc. otherwise associated with influx of migrants will be managed

through well targeted sensitization programs.

5.2.5 Enhanced Institutional Capacity to Support Decentralization

The project will offer an important contribution and legacy to the decentralization program by providing

capacity-building opportunities to several institutions at the regional, district and local levels. The support

to Area Councils will particularly enhance community involvement in decision processes affecting their

interests, gender issues and other environmental and social related activities in their immediate

neighbourhoods.

5.2.6 E&S Safeguards Applied to MTDP Projects

The skills and the culture developed by the DAs in applying E&S safeguards in the implementation of the

SOP sub-projects, are most likely to be extended to other projects from the MTDPs. This will not only

help the DAs meet the requirements of the LI 1652, but also adequately address E&S safeguards for

sustainable district developments and investments.

5.3 Potential Adverse Impacts

The potential adverse impacts likely to affect sustainable implementation and expected outputs include:

Potential failure of small earth dams

Low E&S safeguards capacity at district and community levels

Silting of small earth dams and dugouts from deposition of eroded material from embankments

and dam catchment areas.

The potential adverse social impacts are:

Weakening the spirit of community volunteerism;

Inadequate contractors with labour-intensive technology;

Potential delays in contract completion schedule;

Exploitation by contractors;

Non-availability of labor at certain times; and

Challenges to managing large workforce at a site.

GSOP Updated ESMF

30

5.3.1 Potential Failure of Dams

Some small earth dams and dugouts are known to have been affected by storm and floodwaters in the

rainy seasons, based on consultation with some stakeholders. Others put the blame on the integrity of the

structures. The effects include breaching, seepage and piping problems. The inability of the small earth

dams and dugouts constructed previously to withstand the elements and to function optimally and

sustainably is a loss to such communities whose livelihoods are tied to such facilities. The investment in

small earth dam and dugout rehabilitation and maintenance under the SOP must therefore not go the same

way.

Mitigation of Small Earth Dam Failure

The measures required to address the risk of small earth dam failure include training of local

consultants,contractors, district assmebly engineers in modern design techniniques and small earth dam

construction technologies. The training includes site selection, material testing for suitability and

ascertaining compaction in order to assure the integrity of small earth dams. These measures are contained

in the dam safety plan Plan in the Project Implementation Manual (PIM) Volume 4 (Safeguards Manual)

and elaborated in annex 3. They include placement of sandbags, establishment of vetiver grass buffers,

and rip raps along the dam crest and embankments respectively to increase freeboard and force more

water through the spillway and outlet and prevent further embankment erosion, stabilizing the

downstream slope by weighing the toe area with additional soil, rock or gravel, and frequently monitoring

the small earth dams for signs of slides, cracking, or concentrated seepage. Notification procedures in

response to an emergency situation are also elaborated in the PIM.

All the small earth dams and dugouts that have been constructed so far under the implementation phase of

the parent project have been designed and supervised by experienced regional Ghana Irrigation

Development Authority (GIDA) engineers. Capacity within existing beneficiary DAs on small earth dam

and dugouts construction has enhanced under the parent project through training and workshops to local

designers, contractor’s, supervisors and other associated workers, with technical support from the

International Labor Organization (ILO). This mitigation arrangement will be sustained for all future small

dam and dugout construction works. Additionally, the project will use external expertise to address any

low technical capacity on small earth dam construction where necessary.

5.3.2 Low local E&S Safeguards Capacity and Involvement

Relevant safeguard training sessions will be provided to key staff of the project implementing units at the

local level to improve awareness and capacity of E&S safeguard issues. Routine refresher training

sessions will also be orgainised by the regional Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide

updates on safeguard matters to both existing and new staff at the district assembly.

Various Safeguard trainings sessions have been provided since inception of parent project to key staff (i.e

District Engineers, District coordinating officers, District Planners etc) at the beneficiary DAs by the

regional EPA. The training sessions provided needed education on registration/screening of subprojects to

assess their environmental and social impacts and subsequent permiting with the EPA where required. All

466 subprojects under GSOP have been registered, screened and cleared for implementation by the

regional Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offices.

Additional safeguard support is provided by a GSOP Safeguard and Climate Change specialist at the

GSOP national office level.

GSOP Updated ESMF

31

.

Mitigation – High E&S Safeguards Awareness for Community Involvement

There is the need for increased E&S safeguards awareness within the project communities, Area Councils

and DAs. This should be complemented with social accountability processes to strengthen communities’

capability to participate effectively in maintenance of sub-projects. Once communities become conscious

of the right to participate in decision processes affecting them, they will begin to demand that such rights

are respected. The Area Council and the DAs will also be conscious of the need, benefits and also the

risks to project sustainability in ignoring E&S safeguards. The training must cover how to build the cost

of E&S safeguards requirements into the overall project cost:

At planning/design stages and related assessment requirements,

Environmental permit acquisition,

Implementation of safeguards (at initial design and construction stages), and

Monitoring and enforcement requirements.

The E&S safeguards training must include contractors on their obligations to fulfil permit conditions on

safeguards, relevant E&S safeguards management planning, compliance and reporting.

5.3.3 Accelerated Silting of Small earth Dams and Dugouts

Small earth dams and dugouts may experience accelerated rate of siltation from either silt-laden run off or

eroded embankment, especially during the rainy seasons. This has the tendency to reduce the reservoir

capacity, adversely affect the quality of water and also the lifespan of reservoirs.

Mitigation of Siltation of Small earth Dam and Dugouts

The immediate catchment area and embankment of small earth dams and dugouts must be reforested. The

banks of small earth dams must be grassed progressively with the rehabilitation or maintenance works. It

is important that bare areas on the embankment do not occur. The embankments must be engineered with

the appropriate slope specifications and protected with stone ripraps and complemented with grassing. In

the catchment areas, the project would ensure planting of high water resistant trees and grass to reduce

siltation to mitigate any higher than expected throwback.

5.3.4 Upsetting the Spirit of Community Volunteerism

Many community projects are undertaken through communal (self-help) labor. Such regular free labor is

regarded as community contribution towards improving livelihood through construction and maintenance

of essential community infrastructure and facilities. The LIPWs approach is likely to diminish the

communal spirit and the self-help practice commonly exhibited by the people.

It is however, noted that the type of sub-projects – feeder roads and small earth dams involved in the SOP

are not the usual type of candidate projects for self-help labor. The ‘money-for-community work’ may

therefore not significantly affect the willingness to contribute free labor in future for community services.

GSOP Updated ESMF

32

Mitigation – Retaining the Communal Spirit of Volunteerism

Effective sensitization of communities must precede implementation of all sub-projects to ensure

understanding of the SOP. Sensitisation should cover areas such as: participant selection, the contract

terms (between contractors and DAs); obligations of the contractor; obligations of the workers and

beneficiary communities, purpose of the project; source of funding; mechanisms for addressing

grievances; wages, as well as on the need to maintain the spirit of volunteerism.

5.3.5 Inadequate Contractors with Labor-Intensive Experience

The stakeholder consultations revealed that only a few contractors have experience in LIPWs especially

within new beneficiary DAs. In all the districts visited, none has a single contractor with the capacity. The

very few trained contractors (found at the regional capitals) were asking for re-training. This will be a

limiting factor to the rapid commencement of the project implementation. Without the requisite LIPWs

skills for contractors and capacity for managing the rather large numbers of workers, the project

implementation may suffer set-backs. The project will implement extensive training with external

technical support to address this issue. Experienced GIDA staff shall serve as coaches for oversight and

technical backstopping.

Mitigation – Building a Pool of Local Contractors

There is the need to identify contractors in the districts (where possible) to train on labor-intensive works.

This will ensure that the greatest proportion of the project money is retained in the area.

5.3.6 Potential Delays in Contract Completion Schedule

In situations where work drags on for months, fatigue may set in, especially in cases where workers are

subjected to long hours of work. Diminishing returns could reduce output and delay contracts beyond

stipulated completion schedule, possibly extending to the farming season.

Mitigation – Formation of Work Teams

In order to sustain output and increase the total number of people that benefit from employment,

contractors must form work teams who may work for instance, every other fortnight. This can provide the

workers enough time to regain energy in the hot and dry Harmattan Season (i.e., slack agricultural

period). Task rates are established so that average worker can implement these activities in 6 hour work

days, leaving enough time for rest and recovery. In addition, if tasks are completed quicker, workers are

allowed to rest.

5.3.7 Exploitation by Contractors

Consultation with one AC and community members revealed that the labor-based works is not new. They

hinted of the potential to exploit workers by long working hours (7am to 5pm), with incommensurate

wages. Contractors may also default in payment of wages, especially for work done in the final stages of

the contract and disappear. Mistrust between community members and contractors may undermine the

project implementation.

GSOP Updated ESMF

33

Mitigation – Avoidance of Worker Exploitation

Contracts to be signed between DAs and contractors must specify maximum work-hours (not to exceed

eight (8) hours for manual workers as indicated in the Labor Act). For instance, work hours of 7am to

4pm daily with 1.5 hours of short breaks would guarantee 7.5 hours of productive work. This would be

complemented by social accountability fora and sensitization on the existing grievance redress

mechanisms.

5.3.8 Non-availability of Labor at Certain Times

Some community members may withdraw and resort to other activities, if they perceive such alternatives

as more financially rewarding or less stressful than the project. Thus, the community could abandon a

sub-project midstream disrupting the planned implementation schedule.

Mitigation – Sourcing for Labor Elsewhere

The implementation of the project must be preceded by an awareness program of the ACs and

communities involved for a good appreciation and for them to be able to identify with the objectives of

project. In the event, however, that a community’s grievances cannot be resolved by the AC and the DA,

leading to abandonment of the project, labor may be imported from other nearby communities by the

contractor.

5.3.9 Concentration of Large Workforce at a Site

Managing large numbers of people (as required in LIPWs) at a site will be a major challenge for

contractors. Some of the sources of concern may include quarrels, fighting, lateness, laziness and cheating

affecting output. Others include waste generation and disposal (e.g., food leftovers, plastic waste and

human waste (excreta)).

Mitigation – Building of Capacity of Contractors

The training for contractors must include management of large number of people (labor force) who will

then be able to train their foremen to professionally handle the situations that will arise. Some of the

specific areas may include worker behaviour, sanitation, worker psychology, etc.

GSOP Updated ESMF

34

6.0 E&S IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS OF SUB-PROJECTS

6.1 Impacts and Mitigations at Sub-Project Level

This section provides the general impacts and mitigations at the sub-project level. The sub-project level

refers to the specific rehabilitation/maintenance works of feeder road or small earth dam or dugout to be

implemented in future, as distinct from the SOP-level, which covers the bulk of the five components.

The general impacts and mitigations associated with the feeder roads, small earth dams and dugout sub-

projects are presented in table 6.1. These are provided to guide in the rapid screening/initial assessment of

sub-project impacts for approval purposes by the EPA.

Table 6.1 General Impacts and Mitigations Associated with Sub-Projects

Sub-Projects Potential

Impacts Sources Safeguards/Mitigations

Rural

Road

Infrastructure

Dust/ emissions

Removal of top soil /

clearing and site

preparation

Dumping of spoil

materials

Compaction with

machinery

Burrow pits and gravel

winning

Operating quarries

Haulage of materials

Water dousing to minimize dust

Cover all heaped sand and flyable construction

materials

Tarpaulin covering of haulage truck (for dust

control)

Minimize area of ground clearance

Haulage speed limit in sensitive areas (40km/hr)

Regular Servicing of equipment/machinery

Work-site dust management (nose mask)

Noise and

vibration

Compaction with

machinery

Burrow pits and gravel

winning

Operating quarries

Haulage of materials

Use of implements

Noise-sensitive areas (include schools,

hospitals/clinics, communities, wildlife sanctuary,

reserves, etc)

Maintain equipment noise level (less than

75dBs)

Hours of operation (between 8.30 and 5.00pm)

Haulage speed limit in sensitive areas (40km/hr)

Work-site noise management (less than 65dBs,

ear plugs)

Pits/trenches near

road

Landscape disturbance

Gravel removal

Trenching

Restore topsoil and re-vegetate landscape after

construction

Cover all pits and trenches

Reclaim borrow pits

Construction

waste generation

and disposal

Over extended site

preparation and

unnecessary waste

generation

Poor handling of cleared

vegetation and top soil

Minimizing the area of ground clearance

Waste minimization measures

Work-site waste management (Plastics, scraps,

waste wood, etc.)

Provision of waste bins for use by workers

Disposal of waste at approved locations

GSOP Updated ESMF

35

Inappropriate disposal of

spoil and other

construction wastes

Public

safety/health

Accidents

Exposure to atmospheric

emissions from

construction equipment

Exposure to excessive

and continuous noise and

vibration from

construction activities

Lack of warning sign and

safeguards

Excessive manual work

Regular servicing of construction equipment

Use of equipment with low operating noise

levels (less than 65dBs)

Provision and use of appropriate PPEs

Restricting construction works to day time hours

Intensive public awareness campaigns

Open ditches and other hazard areas to be

marked with visible tapes

Workers

safety/health

accidents

Exposure to atmospheric

emissions from

construction equipment

Exposure to excessive

and continuous noise and

vibration from

construction activities

Lack of warning sign and

safeguards

Excessive manual work

Health and safety risks

due to improper working

gear and lack of

monitoring

Regular servicing of construction equipment

Use of equipment with low operating noise

levels (less than 65dBs)

Provision and use of appropriate PPEs

Restricting construction works to day time hours

Intensive public awareness campaigns

Open ditches and other hazard areas to be

marked with visible tapes

Provision of safety wears like boots and helmets,

maintenance and upkeep of health safety log

book and monitoring officer

Water

contamination

and flooding

Construction-related

activities – land clearing,

gravel removal, drain

construction, etc.

Inappropriate disposal of

waste

Blocking of drains and

drainage/stream diversion

Water crossings to be minimized, and buffer

zones of undisturbed vegetation left between

construction sites and watercourses.

Redesign of road/construction to accommodate

flood prevention methods.

Disposal of waste materials at designated site

Provision of planned diversion routes

Flood control management

Rural Water

Infrastructure

(Dams and

Dugouts)

Siltation and

modification of

flow of water

courses

Site preparation and

clearing

Excavation,

transportation of raw

materials

Small earth dam

excavation

Run-off from exposed

surfaces

Stream diversion works

Dumping of spoilt

materials

Avoiding alignments which are susceptible to

erosion, such as those crossing steep slopes

Sourcing raw materials away from water sources

Minimize area of ground clearance

Waste materials to be dumped at EPA and DAs

approved dump sites

Water quality

degradation Exposed soil surfaces

Sediment laden run-offs

Minimize area of ground clearance

Introduce speed reduction measures e.g. grasses,

GSOP Updated ESMF

36

(surface and

groundwater)

Public

Safety/Accidents

Concentrating flows at

certain points and, in

some cases, increasing

the speed of flow

resulting in flooding, soil

erosion, channel

modification, and

siltation of streams.

riprap, and other devices in water channels and

stream diversions, etc.

Provide settling basins to remove silt and debris

from run-off before discharge to streams, etc

Construction of runoff channels, contouring or

other means of erosion control

Use clean fill materials for small earth dams and

around watercourses such as quarry fine sand;

Avoidance of increasing speed of water courses

Provide adequate spillways in small earth dam

constructions and other embankments;

Provide reservations/buffer zones of undisturbed

vegetation between construction sites and water

bodies. (Minimum of 60m on both sides of

Volta Rivers and 30m for other water bodies)

Re-vegetate the dam banks to ensure small earth

dam stability and safety

Annual community maintenance of small earth

dams with strong oversight by qualified

engineers

Compliance with the dam safety plan in the

PIM

Ground water

table

modifications

Stream drainage

excavation &

embankments (restricting

flow)

Sedimentation, changes

in biological activity in

streams and on their

banks

Uncontrolled

construction activities,

Chemicals (agro-

chemicals spillage.

Introduce speed reduction measures e.g. grasses,

riprap, and other devices in water channels, etc.

Provide settling basins to remove silt and debris

from road runoff before discharge

Construct run-off channels, contouring or other

means of erosion control

Pave sections of roads prone to erosion and

sedimentation particularly near water crossings.

Compensate with provision of bore holes and

wells for communities adversely affected

Adopt enhancements measures in design such as

water retention structures in dry areas, and

raising inlets to drainage culverts in high water

table areas, retarding basins in areas prone to

flooding to reduce runoff peaks, spillways.

6.2 Other Mitigation and Safeguard Principles of Sub-Projects

The following are other sub-project level mitigation and safeguards principles that will be observed

(further expanded in Appendix 3):

Principles for good employment practices;

Particulate emission abatement principles;

Cultural resources preservation principles;

Waste generation and management principles;

GSOP Updated ESMF

37

HIV/AIDS prevention principles;

Landscape improvement principles;

Water resource protection principles; and

Habitat protection principles.

6.2.1 Principles for Good Employment Practices

To ensure recruitment terms are streamlined for the protection of the rights of community members the

following principles will be observed:

Sensitization of the people prior to commencement of sub-projects on their roles, contract

specifications, mechanisms for addressing grievances, etc;

Specification of work-hours e.g. 8.30am-5pm (for men) and 8.30am-4pm (for women);

Formation of work teams and use shift systems (to address fatigue and maximize benefits);

Payment of wages to be supervised by the DAs and also verified in E&M;

Training of contractors (at the district levels) in labor-based methods.

6.2.2 Particulate Emission Abatement Principles

Implementation of sub-projects will factor the following principles in controlling air pollution (on feeder

road works, small earth dams and dugout development, etc):

Enclosing all construction sites and activities, especially close to communities in order to limit

exposure to dust generation;

Ensuring effective use of water (dousing) to control or minimize dust emission;

Mounting speed control signals and ramps;

Contract specifications to include dust control measures;

Covering of sand heaps (or hauling trucks carrying sand) to avoid dust emission; and

Planting tall, leafy and dense species between feeder roads and settlements to filter pollutants.

6.2.3 Cultural Resources Preservation Principles

Feeder roads and other sub-projects will avoid areas that cut through known cultural sites;

Cultural resources uncovered during works will be handed over to the National Museums and

Monuments Board (NMMB) for preservation and/or preservation of the site;

Salvage excavation and relocation of artefacts or ruins from a cultural site;

Collaboration between the DAs and the NMMB in determining and avoiding damage to cultural

sites and resources; and

Marking and fencing important cultural sites during works period.

6.2.4 Waste Generation and Management Principles

Waste management mitigation principles will include:

Disposal of construction and related waste materials at designated/approved dump site;

Adoption of waste minimization measures;

Incorporation of waste management plan in contract specifications;

GSOP Updated ESMF

38

DAs to enforce appropriate sanitation and related bye laws; and

Worker awareness program to observe proper waste management measures.

6.2.5 Work Place HIV/AIDS Prevention Principles

Highlights of the principles to be followed by contractors are set out below, based on ILO guidelines and

those of the Ghana AIDS Commission:

HIV/AIDS prevention clauses will be incorporated into works contracts;

Ethical principles in handling persons with medical conditions will apply;

Relations with infected/potential workers will be governed by the basic human rights as enshrined

in the Constitution of Ghana;

Refusal of employment or dismissals will not be based on HIV status;

HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment guidelines for community/workplace will be prepared;

Due care and confidentiality will be exercised in handling information on HIV status of workers;

Prevention programs on HIV by contractors will include education and information provision,

peer counselling, condom use promotion and distribution, and facilitation of voluntary

counselling and testing

6.2.6 Landscape Improvement Principles

A number of management principles to protect the soil and landscape will include:

Minimizing the area of ground clearance along the construction corridor;

Avoiding sensitive alignments, including steep slopes;

Prompt reclamation of degraded lands (e.g. burrow pits).

Progressive replanting of disturbed areas during construction;

Specifying as contractors’ obligation - erosion control, spillage prevention and effective re-

vegetation;

Erection of intercepting ditches at the tops and bottoms of slopes, with gutters and spillways used

to control the flow of water down a slope; and

Emergency response procedures for spillages.

6.2.7 Water Resource Protection Principles

Mitigation principles to prevent, minimize and manage impacts on water resources will include:

Avoiding alignments which are susceptible to erosion (as much as possible);

Minimizing the number of water crossings through alternative route surveys;

Using clean fill materials around watercourses such as quarried rock containing no fine soil;

Providing settling basins to remove silt, pollutants, and debris from road and other construction

run-off before discharge to adjoining streams or rivers;

Constructing run-off channels, contouring or other means of erosion control;

Paving sections of feeder roads susceptible to erosion and sedimentation; and

Compensating by providing alternative source of water such as bore holes for communities

adversely affected.

GSOP Updated ESMF

39

6.2.8 Habitat Protection Principles

Mitigation principles to address habitat destruction and disruption will include:

Avoiding environmentally sensitive areas to prevent severe impacts on flora and fauna;

Replanting in road rights-of-way and adjacent areas to accelerate re-vegetation and succession;

Re-engineering road cross-section designs by using narrower widths, lower vertical alignments,

smaller cuts and fills, flatter side slopes, and less clearing of existing vegetation;

Providing “aquatic crossings” with culverts designed with the needs of migratory aquatic species

in mind;

Installing roadside reflectors to scare animals away from the roadway when vehicles approach at

night.

GSOP Updated ESMF

40

7.0 ESMF IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT

The successful implementation of the ESMF depends on the commitment of the beneficiary DAs and

ACs, the contractors, consultants and the safeguards specialist, as well as capacity within the institutions

and the institutional arrangement to effectively use the framework. This section presents the institutional

arrangement, capacity building, E&S monitoring plan and budget provision necessary for the ESMF

implementation.

7.1 Implementing the ESMF

The DAs will be responsible for E&S assessment and for securing the required permits for the sub-

projects under the LIPWs, with the help of consultants. The District Engineer (DE Works Department)

will take custody of this ESMF and will play a lead role under the guidance of a consultant in conducting

the initial sub-project E&S assessment (using the customized form in Appendix 2). The DE will liaise

with the EPA for submission of the completed assessment forms, for inspection and other processes

leading to granting of the permit for sub-projects.

The project environmental and social management (ESM) is linked to the project implementation

activities. The ESM commitment originates from the requirement in Section 5 of the Initial

Assessment/EA Screening Form (Appendix 2). The ESM phase comprises monitoring, management (of

E&S impacts and mitigations) and reporting during implementation activities such as rehabilitation,

maintenance, decommissioning of sites, etc. The ESM process will verify:

Effectiveness of mitigation measures being implemented;

Compliance with mitigation and other environmental and social requirements;

Unanticipated or residual impacts that have arisen requiring remedial action;

How far contractors are meeting or adhering to required environmental and social principles,

standards and commitments; and

Extent to which project monitoring and reporting requirements are met.

The E&S Clauses (Appendix 3) combined with Table 6.1 will guide the DE, Works Department, the E&S

Consultants and other officers of the DAs, DFR, GIDA, etc. to supervise implementation and M&E.

7.2 Institutional Arrangements

The MLGRD, the decentralized agencies and particularly the DAs and ACs are the main implementers of

the project. The other institutions and agencies whose functions relate to the project in terms of project

design, technical support and project E&S approvals include the Safeguards Specialist, EPA, DFR and

GIDA.

GSOP Updated ESMF

41

7.2.1 Project Oversight

A decentralized oversight committee and secretariat of MLGRD will be established to coordinate and

oversee implementation. The committee will be known as National Project Steering Committee (NPSC)

and the secretariat will be National Coordinating Office (NCO).

The National Project Steering Committee (NPSC) will:

Provide guidance on strategic, policy and implementation issues;

Coordinate activities of the ministries, agencies and other stakeholders involved in the project

implementation;

Review and approve annual work plans, budget and annual reports;

Review and discuss quarterly and annual project progress reports and make necessary

recommendations; and

Assess the progress towards achieving the project’s objectives and take corrective action if

necessary.

The NPSC will be chaired by the minister of MLGRD or his/her designee. The NPSC will include

representatives at the chief director level for the ministries and at the director levels for the agencies of

relevant ministries and institutions and civil society organizations, including: (i) Ministries of Finance and

Economic Planning; Employment and Social Welfare; Food and Agriculture; Works and Housing;

Environment, Science and Technology; Roads and Highways; and Interior; (ii) Department of Feeder

Roads (DFR); Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA); Labor Department; and (iii) Ghana

Association of Private Volunteer Organization in Development (GAPVOP) and Civil Works Contractors

Associations. The NPSC will meet quarterly in rotation in project regional capitals to allow members to

assess the project implementation progress on the ground.

7.2.2 Project Implementation and Management

National Level

A National Coordinating Office (NCO) assists NPSC to oversee and coordinate project implementation.

The NCO will be a lean structure with the main functions of project coordination, financial management,

procurement review and monitoring and reporting. It will function as the secretariat for the NPSC. The

NCO will be headed by a national coordinator supported by chief financial controller who will be located

in Accra. The following are the main functions of NCO: (i) coordinating, consolidating and reviewing the

project’s annual work programs, budgets and procurement plans; (ii) preparing quarterly project progress

reports; (iii) disbursing project funds to DAs/other implementing agencies and ensuring the replenishment

of project accounts; and (iv) undertaking the necessary reporting, audit and M&E activities. The

following NCO national staff will be decentralized to Tamale to provide closer support to frontline

activities: a chief infrastructure engineer; a chief institution and capacity specialist; a safeguard specialist

and a monitoring and evaluation specialist.

GSOP Updated ESMF

42

Regional Level

At the regional levels, the Regional Coordination Councils (RCC) will coordinate all regional

development programs, give technical support to the DAs, conduct monitoring of the sub-projects and

report to the NPSC. The three (3) RCC under the leadership of the regional minister will coordinate the

implementation arrangement in the beneficiary districts and ensure that the E&S safeguards are adhered

to. The regional chief planning officer will act as technical secretariat for the project and will coordinate

program planning and execution.

Since the RCCs are however weak and poorly resourced, they will be supported by project Regional

Coordinating Units (RCUs). The RCUs will assist the RCCs to plan, coordinate and monitor project

activities at the regional level. The RCUs will assist other relevant line ministries and agencies in

providing timely and efficient backstopping to DAs and also support DAs to implement agreed annual

work programs. RCUs will also ensure prudent management of project funds by DAs. Each RCU will be

headed by a regional coordinator and staffed by a rural engineer, an institution/capacity-building

specialist and an accountant.

District Level

At the district levels, the DAs will have full responsibility for the project implementing in collaboration

with the beneficiary communities. The District Planning Committee (DPC), which includes the heads of

the technical departments and the representatives of the Area Councils, will be responsible for the

planning of activities that are selected from their development plans in close consultation with the target

communities. The DPC will be responsible for the timely preparation and submission of annual work

programs and budget, detailed design of LIPWs, procurement, supervision and payment of contractors.

The Community Development and Cooperative Department will spearhead the mobilization of

communities and groups. The DPC will undertake regular field supervision to monitor implementation

progress and produce a quarterly report for submission to the RCCs and NCO, with copies to be sent to

the respective departmental heads.

7.3 Capacity Building

Capacity building in E&S assessment and management will be essential for the ESMF implementation.

The institutions need to understand the purpose of the ESMF, their expected roles and the extent to which

the ESMF will facilitate the respective statutory functions. This will engender the required collaboration

for the ESMF implementation.

The objectives of the capacity building efforts will include to:

Support the NPSC and NCO to mainstream E&S issues in the sub-projects; and

Strengthen the RCUs and other stakeholders (DFR, GIDA, etc.) to support DAs and ACs in E&S

and other aspects of the implementation of sub-projects.

The target groups for training include:

GSOP Updated ESMF

43

Project coordinators;

Project teams;

Consultants;

Contractors;

District Coordinating Office staff (including the Planning officers);

Decentralized Departments of the DAs;

EPA staff in the three Regional Offices;

Regional Coordinating Office staff

The broad areas for capacity building include the following:

Project screening/initial assessment techniques, screening tools, legislation and procedures;

General project planning and management inter-faced with E&S assessment and management;

E&S Assessment (in PEA, EIA, SEA/ESMF);

Review techniques;

Environmental (and social) management (including monitoring, environmental audit, etc.);

Environmental report preparation and other reporting requirements;

Public participation techniques and procedures;

Public awareness creation/educational techniques (on environmental, social and health issues);

and

Climate change (vulnerability assessment and adaptations in MTDPs).

7.4 Environmental and Social Monitoring and Reporting

Monitoring is a key component of the ESMF during project implementation. It is essential that the basis

for the choices and decisions made in the sub-project design and other E&S safeguard measures

implemented are verified. Monitoring will verify the effectiveness of impact management, including the

extent to which mitigation measures are successfully implemented.

Monitoring of the general project and the specific sub-project activities will help to:

Improve environmental and social management practices;

Check the effectiveness of the DAs’ E&S oversight responsibility; and

Provide the opportunity to report the results on safeguards, impacts and mitigation measures

implementation.

The district engineer (DE) support by the consultants will be responsible for E&S oversight and

monitoring. The DE will ensure that contractors adhere to the E&S safeguards (Appendix 3).

For the Contractor to successfully carry out his obligations on E&S safeguards, a designated

supervisor/foreman will be employed to monitor and report progress on E&S compliance to the DA

through the DE on monthly basis. The DA on its part will submit bi-monthly E&S monitoring reports to

the EPA and copy RCU. The E&S monitoring reports of all participating districts will be collated by the

RCU and submitted to the NPSC. The NPSC will then collate the regional E&S management reports for

GSOP Updated ESMF

44

submission to MLGRD. NPSC and RCC will conduct evaluation of project implementation in the three

regions.

GSOP Updated ESMF

45

Table 7.1 Proposed Budget for the ESMF Implementation

No. Institution Capacity Gaps

Identified Capacity Building

Measures Rate

Estimated

Cost ($)

1. Environment

al Protection

Agency

(EPA)

Inadequate number of staff at

the regional

offices

Inadequate know-

how in SEA and

project cycle

review

Inadequate number

of vehicles at the

regional offices

Processing charges and

Permit fees for 3 small

‘impact scale’

construction-related

proposals for each of 38

districts

Training in SEA and

Project cycle review (5

days for 5 persons per

regional office for 3

regions

$ 413 per

proposal

$ 40/p/d (/p/d: per

person per

day)

47,082

3,000

Sub-Total 50,082

2. Department

of Feeder

Roads (DFR)

Inadequate

knowledge of staff

in environmental

safeguard

principles for

LIPWs

Training course in

environmental

management, labor

standards, contract

management etc. (5 days for 5 persons

per regional office)

$ 40/p/d

3,000

Sub-Total 3,000

3. Area Council Lack of

awareness among

community

members on the

workability of

LIPWs

Sensitization of AC

members on LIPWs

(380 ACs, 10 members

each for 1 day)

$ 5/p/d

19,000

Sub-Total 19,000

4. District

Assembly

(DA)

Inadequate

technical

environmental

screening,

appraisal and

safeguards

capacity of the

DAs

3-day training

workshop for 5 key

members in each of the

38 DAs

$ 40/p 22,800

Sub-Total 22,800

5. Contractors Inadequate capacity

in LIPWs

management and

coordination

Technical training in the

use of LIPWs for feeder

roads and small earth dam

construction for 20

$ 40/p/d

2,400

GSOP Updated ESMF

46

contractors for 3 days

Sub-Total 2,400

TOTAL 97,282

REFERENCES

Rajvanshi, Asha et al. (2001), Roads, Sensitive, Habitats and Wildlife: Environmental

Guideline for India and South Asia, Wildlife Institute of India, India

Dickson, K.B and Benneh G (1988) A New Geography of Ghana, Revised Edition,

Longmans

Environmental Protection Agency (2005): Ghana State of the Environment Report 2004,

EPA, Accra Ghana.

Environmental Protection Agency (1991): Ghana Environmental Action Plan Vol I

Environmental Protection Agency (1994): Ghana Environmental Action Plan Vol II

Environmental Protection Agency (1995): Ghana Environmental Impact Assessment

Procedures (1995)

Ghana: Productive Safety Nets Project, Rural Infrastructure Paper (Identification Stage) –

September 2009.

Ghana: Rural Safety Net Project (RSNP), Preparation Mission, Aide Memoire (August 17 –

28, 2009)

Government of Ghana, National Development Planning Commission (2003): Ghana Poverty

Reduction Strategy - 2003-2005.

Government of Ghana, National Development Planning Commission (2005): Growth and

Poverty Reduction Strategy - 2006-2009.

Government of Ghana, Sustainable Development Initiative for Northern Ghana (NDI),

Stategy and Work plan (2009 – 2025) – August 25, 2008

GSS (2005): Population Data Analysis Report. Vol.1: Socio-Economic and Demographic

Trends, GSS, Accra Ghana.

GSS (2005): Population Data Analysis Report. Vol.2: Policy Implications of Population

Trends, GSS, Accra Ghana.

Participatory Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment (PPVA): Understanding the regional

dynamics of poverty with particular focus on Northern Ghana (August, 2009)

Republic of Ghana (1999): Environmental Assessment Regulations, 1999 (LI 1652)

Republic of Ghana (1994): Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1994 (Act 490),

Republic of Ghana: Rural Safety Net Project, Field Mission Report; Community-Based

Targeting and Household Selection Process (September, 2009).

Republic of Ghana: Community-Based Rural Development Project (CBRDP) FAO/CP

Support Mission, Aide-Memoire, April 2007.

GSOP Updated ESMF

47

ANNEX 1: PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS AND DISCLOSURE FOR ORIGINAL ESMF

PREPARATION

1.1 Stakeholder consultations

The Updated ESMF preparation included stakeholder consultations. Key project stakeholders were

identified for consultations and these included Government Ministries, State Agencies/ Organisations /

and Departments, Project offices, Non-governmental organization and local communities.

Meetings have been held with key officials and opinion leaders to examine level of awareness and

involvement with the project, concerns of project implementation, and to obtain relevant documents or

baseline information of project area and the environmental and social setting of Ghana. The consultations

also served to gather information on the mandates and permitting requirements to inform the development

of the Project.

1.2 ESMF Disclosure

The World Bank policies require that environmental reports for projects are made available to project

affected groups, local NGOs, and the public at large. Public disclosure of EIA documents or

environmental reports is also a requirement of the Ghana EIA procedures. However, there is no limitation

as to the extent and scope of disclosure. GSOP in collaboration with EPA will make available copies of

the ESMF in selected public places as required by law for information and comments. Public notice in

the media should serve this purpose. The notification should be done through a newspaper or radio

announcement or both. The notification should provide:

a brief description of the Project;

a list of venues where the ESMF report is on display and available for viewing;

duration of the display period; and

contact information for comments.

The consultations and discussions of the draft ESMF impacted the final document as some stakeholders

raised issues with dust, land, destruction of farms among others which have been taken care of in the

mitigation plan. The meeting also emphasized the need for ownership and commitment by government

should go beyond the consultations so as to ensure that where required, GoG will give the needed support

to implementing agencies especially contractors.

The ESMF for GSOP was disclosed in country and at the World Bank’s infoshop in May 2009. The

Updated ESMF will be disclosed in country after the required clearances from the World Bank through

the media and Public Notices at the District Assembly at the World Bank’s infoshop after the in-country

disclosure.

2.0 Outcome Of Individuals/Organizations Contacted

Table 1: Outcome of Public Consultations Held

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

1 1/12/09 Irrigation

Development

Vitus

Ayigayure,

-Awareness of SOP Cooperatives and

communities should

GSOP Updated ESMF

48

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

Authority of

the Ministry

of Food and

Agriculture

Regional

Manager,

Northern

Region

The irrigation Development

Authority is aware of the SOP

-Community involvement and

Compensation issues relating

to old irrigation schemes

There wasn’t sufficient

involvement of communities,

no compensation payment was

made for land but economic

trees were compensated for.

Due to the low community

involvement their participation

and ownership of the project

was low. The Tono irrigation

scheme was cited as an

example.

Arrangements for new and

ongoing irrigation schemes

-Efforts to minimize land

acquisition impacts

Communities identified land

owners/Tindaanans and

indentures were prepared

-Parcels of Land from various

owners were demarcated,

pooled together and developed

with canals, trenches and then

apportioned to various

registered farmers.

-Affected residential lands

were compensated for and

efforts made to minimize

resettlement impacts.

-Various management

be involved and

made to understand

proposed schemes

development

Lands Commission

should assist with

land acquisition and

documentation

processes

Schemes

development that

require less

technology and

equipment should be

used in future

irrigation

development

schemes;

Provision of training

to local artisans

Funding availability

and payments

should be made on

time

GSOP Updated ESMF

49

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

committees are in place which

included major maintenance

and marketing teams

Challenges that confronted

previous irrigation

infrastructure development

-Construction completion

delays of about 5-6years

thereby depriving land owners

of access to their land

-Unavailability of funding on

time

-Local contractors engaged

lacked the needed capacity

Contract termination processes

was cumbersome

2 1/12/01

3

EPA-Northern

Region

Abu

Mohamend

024363590

2,0203247

375

abu555200

1@yahoo.c

o.uk

Significance of SOP

The SOP is very well needed

in the rural communities to

help bridge the poverty gap

Resettlement Issues

Cultural sensitivities attached

to sacred areas such as grave

yards, protected forest areas at

the local level are vital

considerations in the Northern

Region.

Engagement and

Sensitization of Communities

Cultural sensitivities should

be properly considered under

involuntary resettlement and

communal livelihood

schemes.

Communities should be fully

consulted and engaged in

development programs

An advocacy team should be

constituted to help in

community sensitisation so

as to mitigate migration of

people and ensure

sustainability of poverty

GSOP Updated ESMF

50

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

Previous projects that did not

engage communities were not

successful.

Migration of people in the

communities within the region

is highly prevalent. This is

partly attributable to the lack

of advocacy teams to sensitize

communities on poverty

reduction intervention

programs that will help

ameliorate migration of people

and sustainability of poverty

related interventions.

Need for a communication

strategy

Similar earlier projects did not

have a communication strategy

as a component of the project

implementation to ensure an

effective appreciation,

participation, ownership and

success of the project.

Institutional Issues

The DAs, DPCUs, ACs, and

Unit Committees have been

very helpful and collaborative

with the EPA in the

implementation of resettlement

plans

Livelihood restoration

interventions

A communication strategy is

necessary for the effective

implementation of the

project. Management plans

should be people centered.

Alternative land provision

and assistance for

resettlement is key for an

effective livelihood

restoration program under

the resettlement framework.

Providers of land should be

given appropriate

recognition and benefits.

Women and the vulnerable

should be involved in the

consultation and decision

making processes

GSOP Updated ESMF

51

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

measures

In certain circumstances of

involuntary resettlement only

land owners and chiefs were

consulted neglecting the

community people and

affected individuals without

any form of assistance, which

led to serious confrontations

between the people and the

project implementers.

Women and Children

It has been observed that less

attention and focus is given to

women and children who

engage in farming activities on

community periphery non-

fertile lands.

Challenges

Indiscriminate grazing

activities of Normads pose

major social problems to

resettlement activities in the

northern regions.

How resettlement framework

will be made holistic and

acceptable at the community

level

Involvement of the vulnerable,

who are the very weak and

main land owners and family

Resettlement packages

should be targeted at

nomads. There is the need

for training on how to get

alternative pasture, vertinary

assistance, and community-

based pasture sites to help

minimize indiscriminate

pasturing. Quarantine should

be encouraged.

GSOP Updated ESMF

52

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

heads in land acquisition

processes.

3 1/12/09 Labor

Department of

the Ministry

of

Employment

and Social

Welfare

Mr Abdulai

Moro,

Regional

Officer,

Northern

Region

(071-

22535)

Awareness of SOP

Not much awareness of SOP.

The only awareness was

through TV

Activities of the Labor

Department

The Labor Department do not

really have a program in place

for capacity building and

training.

The labor department do not

have statistics on employment

situation in the region

Labor issues and Job

Creation

-Majority (85%) of people in

the area are involved in

subsistence farming.

-Migration is a major issue in

the area due to short period of

subsistence farming

-The SOP would help job

creation and provide

opportunities for the unskilled

persons in the Northern

Region

-The job creation opportunities

and involvement of the chiefs

will help minimize the conflict

situations in the area

Skilled training is necessary

to support the project

Several people will put their

hopes on the project for job

opportunities so there is the

need for such expectations to

be properly managed in

order that the project is not

overwhelmed.

GSOP Updated ESMF

53

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

Consultations

-The Chiefs and the District

Assemblies can help greatly in

facilitating the community

acceptance of the project

The Labor Department

views of Resettlement

Impacts

-The department thinks the

SOP would not have

significant resettlement

impacts

4 1/12/09 ISODEC Philip

Nsiah

Appiagyei,

Policy

Assistant/S

ystem

Administra

tor for

ISODEC

NR/UE/U

W/BA

020850511

Awareness of SOP

ISODEC is aware of the

proposed SOP but not the

details about the project

Some views of ISODEC on

the SOP :

ISODEC noted that non-

coordination of development

projects has been a major,

which the SOP could face.

There is a problem of

sustainability of projects,

particularly with human

resources. There is a lack of

continuity of several projects

that were run by political

perceived staffs.

ISODEC has developed a

strategy called Tracking

Education Needs Inclusively

(TENI) to address education

needs in the three northern

regions. The TENI strategy

can be applied to the SOP

5 1/12/09 Social Welfare Juliana

Ngmenyaa

024496809

Socio-economic structure

-Majority of the people in the

Northern region depend on

GSOP Updated ESMF

54

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

0 farming and sheabutter

harvesting.

-Farmers do not have easy

access to markets thus making

it very difficult for them to sell

their produce.

-Migration of the youth down

south in search of jobs is a

common phenomenon.

Views on similar poverty

related programs

Assessment of the LEAP from

beneficiaries revealed that it

has improved their standard of

living. It however needs to be

broadened.

Consultation, Involvement of

DAs and conflict management

-The people need to be

involved and made to

understand the project. An

effective engagement of the

community can help

minimize conflicts and

community participation.

-An intensive education

drive must be pursued.

6 1/12/0 Labor

intensive

Contractors

1).Amadu

Mahama,

Kokodi

Ent,

024482347

4

2).I. K.

Kasim,

Kasim &

Sons Ltd,

023321911

8,

3)

Sulemana

Mohamend

-Type of construction activity

that the labor-intensive

contractors were previously

engaged in was road

construction. Contractors were

never engaged in small earth

Dam infrastructure provision.

-Procedures the contractors

adopted for commencement of

execution of such projects

involves a consultation with

the Engineers of the

Department of Feeder Roads

and Chiefs. Permission is

Labor Based Contractors

need capacity building and

training.

Comprehensive resettlement

action plans with budgetary

provisions for compensation

payment and livelihood

restoration should be

prepared and integrated into

contract awards and

implementation

GSOP Updated ESMF

55

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

, Kokodi

Ent,

024482347

4

4) A. A.

Bawa

Company

Ltd,

024495356

6

5) Bawa

Jalid

6)Adam

Baba

sought from the chiefs and

affected persons for access to

construction materials mainly

gravels. Levels of

compensation paid were

determined by the chiefs and

affected persons. Resettlement

impacts:

Loss of farmlands

Gravel pits

Loss of economic

trees

Loss of buildings

-Contractors alleged that

previous compensation

payments were made by them

to the affected persons.

Compensations ranging from

GHC50-GHC200 were paid

economic trees.

-Contractors alleged they were

not able to claim

compensations paid since

contracts awarded to them

were at prices previous

determined by their client.

Others also disclosed that

inventory of affected

economic trees and related

costs are included in contract

award price.

-Delayed compensation

payments affects contract

completion schedule

GSOP Updated ESMF

56

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

7 1/12/09 DPCUs of

West and East

Mamprusi

DAs in

Walewale

1). Ahasan

Ziblim,

West

Mamprusi

DA,

024626850

2

2).Abudul

Karimu,

West

Mamprusi

DA,

024226893

7

3). Andrew

Alegewe,

Cooperativ

es,

020891484

8

4).

Emmanuel

A. Amaah,

DWD,

WMDA,

020829375

1

5). Salifu

Yidana,

DWD-

DWSTL,

020830098

8

SOP Concept

Projects such as the SOP are

supposed to be community-

based but this does not happen

due to community’s perception

that the project belongs to the

contractor. The pros and cons

of the Broad Grant and Area

Council Led approaches under

the CBRDP were discussed.

The success stories of the three

area councils in East

Mamprusi were cited.

-The perception that

community-based projects

belong to the contractor

must be corrected through

intensive community

engagement and awareness

creation.

-Team work spirit needs to

be encouraged among the

ACs.

Level of Supervision by

DPCUs

Supervision and Monitoring

provided by DPCU Engineers

in previous community

oriented projects was

inadequate.

-DPCU Engineers and other

relevant staff need to

intensify their supervision

and monitoring roles for

community led development

projects. Workshops need to

be organized to strengthen

working relationships and

understanding of procedures

among DPCUs and

Community

Officials/representatives.

GSOP Updated ESMF

57

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

6). Amidu

Sulemana,

020880953

7). C

Abonkrah

DPO/EMD

A,

024393453

9

8). Okala A

small earth

dams

Head

DWD,

EMDA,

024293160

2

9). Abdulai

Aliwu,

Asst Coord

D/EMDA,

024488704

2

10). Grace

Ayamga,

EM,

Gender

Desk

Office,

020301450

0

11). Hellen

Ayaro,

WM,

Gender

Desk

Office

Compensation and Loss of

Assets

DPCU Engineers were of the

view that issues of

compensation and loss of

assets during feeder roads

construction is not a major

issue since efforts are made to

minimize resettlement impacts

during the creation of ROWs

and where there affected assets

provision are made into

contract budgeting. However,

it was noted that contractors

are not adequately alerted on

such issues.

Release of Project Funds

DPCUs expressed serious

concerns about the timely

release for funds for approved

projects execution and the

associated difficulties.

It is necessary that

contractors as well affected

communities and persons are

sufficiently made aware on

provisions for compensation

payments for lost assets and

livelihood restoration at the

contract award stage.

DPCUs would prefer a

onetime disbursement of

approved project funds into

DAs accounts to facilitate

procurement procedures,

timely payment of

contractors and early

completion of approved

community projects.

GSOP Updated ESMF

58

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

020646854

1

12). Imoro

Andani,

DBO/WM

DA,

020853197

3

13).

Edward

Osei, Inst

Dev,

CBRDP,

NR,

020812464

9

8 1/12/09 Tinguri Area

Council, West

Mamprusi

Mahamadu

Yamusah,

Assembly

Man,

020899027

4, Iddi

Abukari,

Unit

Committee

Member,

Chiefs and

Communit

y Members

numbering

over 50

including

women

The Chiefs and the Assembly

Man considers the proposed

SOP a very useful project that

will benefit the Community a

great deal. They expressed

their dissatisfaction about a

previous road project clearing

which was done without their

involvement. If the SOP would

engage the community as they

are being made to understand,

they will be very happy.

The community proposed

that they will recommend a

small earth dam project in

their community which has

been abandoned to be

completed under the SOP.

Training of Community

members to support

Contractors

The community would want

their members to be trained

to be engaged as contractors

to undertake projects their

GSOP Updated ESMF

59

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

Trust and Transparency

Community members

expressed their concerns about

previous projects, which were

proposed to involve the

community members in

project implementation but

this did not happen.

Involuntary Resettlement

Community has assured that

they have sufficient land

available that could be

released without posing

significant problems. The

release of land for the Gbana

small earth dam was cited as an

example, which has benefited

the entire community.

Migration of the Youth

The women expressed their

happiness about the project

concept. They think if the

project is successfully

implemented it will help

eliminate the migration of the

youth to Kumasi and Accra

Concern of the Community

Chief

The Chief welcomed the SOP

community

The Chief recommended that

the rehabilitation and

expansion of the school

should be one of the key

priorities of the SOP in his

community.

GSOP Updated ESMF

60

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

but expressed his worries

about the status and the

enrolment capacity of the only

school in the community,

which serves five other

communities. The people

estimated the population of

their community to be about

10,000.

9 2/12/09 Department of

Feeder Roads,

UER

Mr

Lanquaye

Wellington

, Regional

Engineer,

DFR,

020818361

2

The Regional Director is

aware of the SOP. He was

however unwilling to grant the

consultation as a result of a

directive issued by the DFR

Head Office requiring that all

consultations should be

directed to the Accra.

The National Project

Coordinator of CBRDP/SOP

needs to consult with all

Heads of relevant SOP

stakeholder institutions at

the National Level.

10 2/12/09 EPA, UER 1). Zenabu

Wasai-

King,

Director,

UER,

024457790

9

2).

Omanhene,

Senior PO,

024422294

1

Involvement of EPA

The EPA is involved at the

inception of projects similar to

the SOP but the EPA is

neglected in course of the

implementation. The CBRDP

was cited as an example. The

EPA was actively involved in

the sensitization of the

CBRDP but thereafter there

has been no involvement. EPA

Permits for some CBRDP

projects are still pending.

Project Location Problems

and Poor Landscaping

The non involvement of EPA

has resulted in poor citing of

some CBRDP project and lack

of landscaping, particularly in

The EPA needs to be

involved right from the

inception of the SOP

through the implementation

and monitoring phases.

Project registration

processes with the EPA must

be complied with by the

SOP

The SOP must ensure that an

GSOP Updated ESMF

61

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

schools built under the project.

Institutional Coordination

Institutional coordination for

such projects covering

institutions such as Lands

Commission, Town Planning,

Department of Feeder Roads

hasn’t been the best. This has

led to destruction of economic

trees, which are the main

source of livelihood to the

communities, destruction of

water bodies that serve as

drinking water sources etc.

Autonomy of EPA Regional

Offices

Breakdown in follow-up of

EIA permitting processes

occurs when such issues are

referred to the EPA Head

office.

Monitoring

Regional EPA Offices have

limited monitoring capacity

and resources

effective institutional

coordination is put in place

for effective collaboration

among relevant stakeholders

Regional EPA Offices needs

to be granted full autonomy

in EIA Administration and

permitting so as to address

the issue of breakdown in

EIA Permitting processes.

SOP could make provision

to resource EPA Offices to

assist in project monitoring.

11 2/12/09 Ministry of

Food and

Agriculture

(MFA0

Mr. A. R.

Z. Salifu,

Regional

Director of

GSOP Updated ESMF

62

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

Agric,

024438121

5,0722346

5,lacproj@

africaonlin

e.com.gh

12 2/12/09 Regional

Lands

Commission

Joseph

Abandoh-

Sam,

Acting

Regional

Lands

Officer,

Bolgatanga

,

020817308

9,

07222448

13 2/12/09 Labor Office Mr. Fuseini

Alhasan,

Acting

Regional

Labour

Officer,

024653977

2

14 2/12/09 TRAX

Program

Support-NGO

Mr Vincent

Subbey,

Director,

020824070

3,0245982

702,

vincentsub

bey@hotm

ail.com

15 2/12/09 Social Welfare 1). Mr

Christopher

GSOP Updated ESMF

63

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

Babooroh,

Regional

Director,

024438074

8

2). Mercy

Pwavra,

Municipal

Director,

020543389

1

16 2/12/09 DPCUs of

Kassena

Nankani East

and West DAs

1). Mr

Edward

Abazing

DCD K.N

ED/A,

024402597

3

2). Ali

Nantomah,

DFO, K.N

ED/A,

020848840

8

3).Abdul

Basit

Zubem

DFO, KN

WD/A,

024443394

4

4).Emmanu

el Liedib,

KN ED/A,

024470874

6

5)Henry

GSOP Updated ESMF

64

No. Date Stakeholders Persons

met

Issues discussed/Problems

raised

Recommendations

Abindana

ADE,

KNED/A,

024271855

4

6). Agana

Tito,

RPCU, -

244-26769

GSOP Updated ESMF

65

Consultations Photo Gallery

Labor-based Contractors, NR – 1/12/09 DFR, Mr. Wellington Language – 2/12/09

EPA UER – 2/12/09 MFA UER – 2/12/09

GSOP Updated ESMF

66

Lands Commission, UER – 2/12/09 Labor Office, UER – 2/12/09

Trax, UER – 2/12/09 Social Welfare, UER – 2/12/09

Tinguri Area Council, West Mamprusi – 2/12/09 Tinguri Area Council, West Mamprusi – 2/12/09

GSOP Updated ESMF

67

Annex 2: GSOP Additional Financing In House Subproject Screening Checklist

(To be Completed by Safeguards Unit /Environmental and Social Officer of GSOP)

Serial No…………………….

Sub-Project Name: _____________________________________________________________

District Assembly:___________________

Address for correspondence _____________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Contact Person ___________________________________ Position _____________________

Phone No._________________________________ Fax No. ____________________________

E-mail Contact________________________________________________________________

1.0 Description of Proposed Sub-Project

1.1 Nature of Sub-Project and Estimated Duration

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………....

1.2 Scope of Sub-Project [Size of labour force, area covered or length & width of road, type of raw

materials (quantities and sources), types of equipment, implements, machinery, etc.]

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

1.3 Waste Generation

i. Types: Solid □ Liquid □ Gaseous □ Other ………………………………

ii. Quantity: …………………………………………………………………………………..

iii. Means/Place of Disposal:

……………………………………………………………………………………………………...

2.0 Proposed Site for Sub-Project

2.1 Location [attach a site plan or a map (if available)]

i. Location or Area (and nearest Town(s)):

…..……………………….………………………………………………………………………….

GSOP Updated ESMF

68

ii. Land take (total area for sub-project and related activities):

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2.2 Land Use of the Area for the proposed Sub-Project:

Agriculture □ Residential □ Existing Dugout □

Existing Road □ Reservation □ Park/Recreation □

Industrial □ Other (specify) □

2.3 Site Description [Attach photographs and sketches showing distances]

i. Distance from nearest water body or drainage channel (minimum distance measured from the

edge of proposed site to the bank of the water body or drain).

More than 100 meters □ 100 meters □ Less than 100 meters □

ii. Number of water bodies and/or drainage channels/depressions crossed by the route/road corridor:

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

iii. Distance to nearest community (house) and/or other existing structures from the proposed site:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

iv. Number of communities (structures) along the entire stretch of the Sub-project road:

…………………………………………………………………….………………………………...

v. Will project increase pressure on land resources

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

vi. Will project result in involuntary landtake

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

vi. Will people assets or livelihoods be affected

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

viii. Will people loose access to natural resoources

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2.4 Land Cover and Topography

i. Land cover of the site consists (completely or partly or noticeably) of:

Vegetation □ Sparse Vegetation □ Physical Structure(s) □

Flood Plane □ Agriculture (Animals) □ Cultural Resource □

Water □ Agriculture (Crops) □ Other specify………

ii. Elevation and topography of the area for the Sub-Project:

Flat □ Valley □ Slope □ Undulating □

Hill □ Mountain □ Depression □

iii. Elevation and topography of the adjoining areas (within 500 meters radius of the site):

Flat □ Valley □ Slope □ Undulating □

Hill □ Mountain □ Depression □

3.0 Infrastructure

i. The Sub-project would be developed in/on:

Undeveloped site □ Partly developed site □ Existing route □ Other (specify)

GSOP Updated ESMF

69

………………………

ii. The Sub-project would involve excavation Yes □ No □

iii. Estimated number and depth of the excavations, etc):

………………………………………………

vi. Are any of the following located on-site or within 50 metres from the edge of the proposed site?

Water supply source Yes □ No □

Power supply source (electric pylon) Yes □ No □

Drainage Yes □ No □

Other(s) specify:

…………………………………………….

4.0 Environmental and Social Impacts

4.1 Air Quality - Would the proposed Sub-project:

i. Emit during construction

Dust □ Smoke □ VOCs □

ii Expose workers or the public to substantial emissions? Yes □ No □

iii. Result in cumulatively increased emissions in the area? Yes □ No □

vi. Create objectionable odour affecting people? Yes □ No □

4.2 Biological Resources - Would the proposed Sub-project:

i. Have adverse effect on any reserved area? Yes □ No □

ii. Have adverse effect on wetland areas through removal, filling, hydrological

interruption or other means?

Yes □ No □

iii. Interfere substantially with the movement of any wildlife species or

organisms?

Yes □ No □

vi. Be located within 100m from an Environmentally Sensitive Area? Yes □ No □

4.3 Existing Population:

i. Will people living in or near the project area be adversely affected

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

4.4 Cultural Resources - Would the proposed Sub-project:

i. Disturb any burial grounds, mosques or cemeteries? Yes □ No □

ii. Cause substantial adverse effect on any archeological or historic site? Yes □ No □

iii. Alter the existing visual character of the area and surroundings, including trees and

rock outcrops?

Yes □ No □

4.5 Water Quality and Hydrology - Would the proposed Sub-project:

i. Generate and discharge during construction:

Liquid waste □ Liquid with oily substance □

Liquid with human or animal

waste

□ Liquid with chemical

substance

□

Liquid with pH outside 6-9

range

□ Liquid with odour/smell □

ii. Lead to changes in the drainage pattern of the area, resulting in erosion Yes □ No □

GSOP Updated ESMF

70

or siltation?

iii. Lead to increase in surface run-off, which could result in flooding on or off-site? Yes □ No □

iv. Increase runoff, which could exceed the capacity of existing storm water drainage? Yes □ No □

4.6 Noise Nuisance - Would the proposed Undertaking:

i. Generate noise in excess of established permissible noise level? Yes □ No □

ii. Expose persons to excessive vibration and noise? Yes □ No □

4.7 Other Environmental and Social Impacts

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………

……………………………………………………………………….………………….……………

5.0 Management of (Environmental and Social) Impacts

5.1 Air Quality

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………

……………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

5.2 Biological Resources

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………

…………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

5.3 Cultural Resources

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………

……………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

5.4 Water Quality and Hydrology

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..………

………………………………………………………………………………………..……..………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

5.5 Noise

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…

………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………

……………………………………………………………………..………………..….……………………

……………………………………………………………………………...………………………………

………………………………………………………………………

5.6 Any Other

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..………

……………………………………………………………………………………..………...………………

……………………………………………………………………………………...………………………

……………………………………………………………………………....………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………

Name of Representative of Name of Representative of

Implementing District Assembly Unit Committee

………………………………………. ………………………………………..

Signature/Date Signature/Date

GSOP Updated ESMF

71

Annex 3: Dam Failure Emergency Checklist

Environmental/Social issues

1. Seepage

Problem Possible causes and potential harm Action required

Seepage water

exiting from a point

on the embankment

Causes:

1. Water has created an open pathway,

channel, (or “pipe”) through the small earth

dam. The water is eroding and carrying

away embankment material.

2. Large amounts of water have

accumulated in the downstream slope.

Water and embankment materials are

exiting at one point.

3. Crocodile activity, rotting tree roots or

poor construction have allowed water to

create an open pathway or pipe through

the embankment.

Harm:

1. Continued flows can saturate portions

of the embankment and lead to slides in

the area.

2. Continued flows can further erode

embankment materials.

This can lead to failure of the small earth

dam.

Action:

1. Begin measuring outflow

quantity and establishing whether

water is getting muddier, staying the

same, or clearing up, and whether

the rate of flow is increasing or

otherwise.

2. Check whether surface agitation

may be causing the muddy water.

3. If quantity of flow is increasing,

the water level in the dam should be

lowered until the flow stabilizes or

stops.

4. Search for an opening on

upstream side and plug it if possible

with clay, but do not get into the

water to do so!

5. Prevent rabbit activity.

6. A qualified engineer should

immediately inspect the condition

and recommend further action to be

taken.

Large Seepage area

producing flow

Cause:

1. A seepage path has developed directly

through the embankment or via the

abutment.

Harm:

1. Increased flows could lead to erosion

of embankment material and failure of the

small earth dam.

2. Saturation of the embankment can lead

to local slides, which could cause failure

of the dam.

Action:

1. Stake out the saturated area and

monitor wet area for growth or

shrinking.

2. Measure any outflows as

accurately as possible.

3. Small Earth Dam water level may

need to be lowered if saturated areas

increase in size at a fixed storage

level or if flow increases.

4. A qualified engineer should

inspect the condition and

recommend further actions to be

taken.

GSOP Updated ESMF

72

Seepage exiting at

abutment contact

Cause:

1. Water flowing through pathways in the

abutment.

2. Water flowing through the

embankment and out via the abutment

3. Water flowing along the contact

surface between the embankment and its

abutment.

Harm:

1. Can lead to erosion of embankment

materials and failure of the small earth

dam.

Action:

1. Investigate leakage area to

determine quantity of flow and

extent of saturation.

2. Inspect daily for developing

slides.

3. Water level in reservoir may

need to be lowered to assure the

safety of the embankment.

4. A qualified engineer should

inspect the conditions and

recommend further actions to be

taken.

Wet area in a

horizontal band in the

embankment

Cause:

1. Layer of sandy material in original

construction.

Harm:

1. Wetting of areas below the area of

excessive seepage can lead to localised

instability of the embankment (slides).

2. Excessive flows can lead to accelerated

erosion of embankment materials and

failure of the small earth dam.

Action:

1. Determine as closely as possible

the amount of flow being produced.

2. If flow increases, dam water

level should be reduced until flow

stabilises or stops.

3. Stake out the exact area

involved.

4. Using hand tools, try to identify

the material allowing the flow.

5. A qualified engineer should

inspect the condition and

recommend further actions to be

taken.

Bulge in large wet

Area

Cause:

1. Downstream embankment materials

have begun to move.

Harm:

1. Failure of the embankment due to

massive sliding can follow these initial

movements.

Action:

1. Compare the observed

embankment cross-section with the

end of construction condition to see

if observed condition may reflect

end of construction, or if it

represents a subsequent movement.

2. Stake out affected area and

accurately measure outflow.

3. A qualified engineer should

inspect the condition and

recommend further actions to be

taken.

Marked change in appearance Cause: Action:

GSOP Updated ESMF

73

of vegetation

Some examples of change:

• More areas of vegetation

appear to have grown

• A given area appears

darker, lighter, larger or

wetter

• A given area appears to

have died

1. Embankment materials are providing

flow paths.

2. Natural seeding by wind.

3. Change in seed type during initial post-

construction seeding.

4. Neglect of small earth dam and lack of

proper maintenance procedures.

Harm:

1. Can indicate a saturated area.

2. Obscures large portions of the small

earth dam, preventing adequate, accurate

visual inspection of all portions of the

dam.

Problems, which threaten the integrity of

the small earth dam, can develop and

remain undetected until they progress to a

point that threatens the small earth dam's

safety.

3. Associated root systems develop and

penetrate into the small earth dam's cross-

section. When the vegetation dies, the

decaying root systems can provide paths

for seepage. This reduces the length of

the effective seepage path through the

embankment and could lead to possible

‘piping’ situations (see Glossary of

Terms).

4. Prevents easy access to all portions of

the small earth dam for operation,

maintenance and inspection.

5. Provides habitat for rodents

1. Use probe and shovel to establish

if the materials in this area are

wetter than in surrounding areas.

2. Remove all detrimental growth

from the small earth dam, including

removal of trees, bushes, and

growth other than grass. Grass

should be encouraged on all ports of

the small earth dam to prevent

erosion by surface run-off. Root

systems should also be removed to

the maximum practical extent. The

resulting voids should be backfilled

with competent, well-compacted

material.

3. Cutting or spraying, as part of an

annual maintenance program should

be done to remove further

undesirable growth.

4. All cuttings or debris resulting

from the vegetation removal should

be taken from the small earth dam

and properly disposed of outside the

reservoir basin.

5. If area shows wetness when

surrounding areas do not, a qualified

engineer should inspect the

condition and recommend further

actions to be taken.

Water exiting through

transverse cracks on

the crest

Cause:

1. Severe drying has caused shrinkage of

embankment material.

2. Settlement in the embankment or

foundation is causing the transverse

cracks.

Harm:

1. Flow through the crack can

Action:

1. Plug the upstream side of the

crack with clay to stop the flow.

2. The water level in the small earth

dam should be lowered until it is

below the level of the cracks.

3. A qualified engineer should

inspect the condition and

recommend further actions to be

GSOP Updated ESMF

74

cause failure of the small earth dam taken.

Seepage water exiting from

the foundation (sometimes

called a ‘boil’)

Cause:

1. Some portion of the foundation

material is providing a flow path. A sand

or gravel layer in the foundation could

cause this.

Harm:

1. Increased flows can lead to

erosion of the foundation and

failure of the small earth dam

Action:

1. Examine the boil for

transportation of foundation

materials.

2. If soil particles are moving

downstream, sandbags or earth

should be used to create a dyke

around the boil. The pressure

created by the water level within the

dyke may control flow velocities

and temporarily prevent further

erosion.

3. If erosion is becoming greater,

the small earth dam level should be

lowered.

4. A qualified engineer should

inspect the condition and

recommend further actions to be

taken.

Note: The pattern of cracks (e.g., where they are located, how close together they are, whether transverse alone or

in conjunction with other cracks etc) requires engineering experience to interpret it. The real cause of cracks may

not be apparent to an unqualified observer.

Trampoline effect in

large soggy area (i.e.,

area springy or

spongy)

Cause:

1. Water moving freely through the

embankment or foundation is being

controlled or contained by a well-

established turf root system.

Harm:

1. Condition indicates excessive seepage

in the area. If the upper layer of soil in the

area is eroded or removed, rapid erosion

of foundation materials could result in

failure of the small earth dam.

Action:

1. Carefully inspect the area for

outflow quantity and any

transported materials.

2. A qualified engineer

should inspect the

condition and recommend

further actions to be

taken

GSOP Updated ESMF

75

Leakage from

abutment beyond the

small earth dam

Cause:

1. Water moving through cracks and

fissures in the abutment materials.

Harm:

1. Can lead to rapid erosion of abutment

and emptying of the small earth dam.

2. Can lead to massive slides near or

downstream of the small earth dam.

3. Failure of abutment and loss of control

of the dam (in effect a dam failure).

Action:

1. Carefully inspect the area to

determine quantity of flow and

amount of transported material.

2. A qualified engineer or geologist

should inspect the condition and

recommend further actions to be

taken.

3. May need to block entry on

upstream side.

Seepage water

exiting from a point

adjacent to the outlet

Cause:

1. A break in the outlet pipe.

2. A path for flow has developed along

the outside of the outlet pipe.

Harm:

1. Continued flows can lead to rapid

erosion of embankment materials and

failure of the small earth dam.

Action:

1. Thoroughly investigate the

area by probing to see if the

Cause can be determined.

2. Determine if leakage water is

carrying soil particles.

3. Determine quantity of flow.

4. If flow increases or is carrying

embankment materials, dam water

level should be lowered until

leakage stops.

5. A qualified engineer should

inspect the condition and

recommend further actions to be

taken.

Leakage in or around

Spillway

Cause:

1. Cracks and joints in geologic formation

at spillway are permitting seepage.

2. Gravel or sand layers at spillway are

permitting seepage.

Harm:

1. Could lead to excessive loss of stored

water.

2. Could lead to progressive failure if

velocities are high enough to cause

erosion of natural materials.

Action:

1. Examine exit area to see if type

of material can explain leakage.

2. Measure flow quantity and check

for erosion of natural materials.

3. If flow rate or amount of

eroded materials increases

rapidly, dam water level

should be lowered until flow

stabilises or stops.

GSOP Updated ESMF

76

4. A qualified engineer should

inspect the condition and

recommend further actions to be

taken.

5. Consider installing upstream

valve on outlet pipe.

Seepage from crack in

concrete or structure

construction joint

Cause:

1. Water is collecting behind structure

because of insufficient drainage or

clogged weep holes.

Harm:

1. Can cause walls to tip in and fall over.

Flows through concrete can lead to rapid

deterioration from weathering.

2. If the spillway is located within the

embankment, rapid erosion can lead to

failure of the small earth dam

3. Excessive flows under the spillway

could lead to erosion of foundation

material and collapse of portions of the

spillway

4. Uncontrolled flows could lead to loss

of stored water.

Action:

1. Check area behind wall for

ponding of surface water.

2. Immediately measure flow

quantity and check flows for

transported drain material.

3. If flows are accelerating at a

fixed storage level, the reservoir

level should be lowered until the

flow stabilises or stops.

4. A qualified engineer should

inspect the condition and

recommend further actions to be

taken.

GSOP Updated ESMF

77

Annex 4: ESMF Addendum

MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL

DEVELOPMENT

GHANA SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES PROJECT

(Environmental and Social Management Framework - Progress

Report)

Addendum to ESMF

Document Control

Author GSOP/NCO

Date February, 2014

Version/ref GSOP/001

Checked by Felix Oku,

Authorised by Robert

GSOP Updated ESMF

78

GSOP ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK (ESMF)

IMPLEMENTATION

Status Report: ADDENDUM

Introduction/Background:

The GSOP Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) was prepared by the Government

of Ghana and approved by the Ghana Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Bank in

May 2010. The ESMF was disclosed in country on 16 February, 2010 and in the World Bank infoshop on

13 April 2010.

The ESMF for the initial GSOP funding meets the environmental and socials impact assessment policy

requirements for both the Ghana Government and the World Bank.

The objective of this addendum (to the existing ESMF) is to demonstrate its adequacy and robustness in

mitigating all the potential impacts from the scaling up of activities under the Additional Financing of the

GSOP. It is worth mentioning that there are no anticipated changes in the menu of subprojects and works

under the original/parent project and as such no new environmental and social impacts which have not

already been assessed under the existing ESMF are expected. This Addendum will also seize the

opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of the implementation of the existing ESMF and RPF since

project commencement to date by highlighting successes and challenges encountered during its

implementation. The geographical upscaling which occurred after the approval of the existing ESMF

increased the number of District Assemblies (DAs) from 40 to 49. The increase arose from the creation of

nine new DAs out of some of the original beneficiary DAs by Government in 2012. Consequently,

changes arising from physical and ecological features will be minimal. Table 1 shows the initial forty

DAs and Table 2 shows the parent 9 DAs and the 9 New DAs created out of them in 2012.

Table 1 ORIGINAL GSOP BENEFICIARY DISTRICT ASSEMBLIES (DAs)

Item District Region

1 Nadowli Upper West

2 Sissala West Upper West

3 Wa East Upper West

4 Wa West Upper West

5 Sissala East Upper West

6 Lambussie Upper West

7 Talensi Nabdam Upper East

8 Saboba Northern

9 Garu-Tempani Upper East

10 Builsa Upper East

11 Bongo Upper East

12 Nanumba South Northern

GSOP Updated ESMF

79

13 Chereponi Northern

14 Nanumba North Northern

15 Sawla-Tuna-Kalba Northern

16 Bawku West Upper east

17 Bunkpurugu Yuyoo Northern

18 Lawra Upper West

19 Jirapa Upper west

20 Karaga Northern

21 Kassena- Nankani West Upper East

22 Gushiegu Northern

23 Bole Northern

24 Kpandai Northern

25 East Gonja Northern

26 Atebubu Brong Ahafo

27 Nkwanta North Volta

28 Nkwanta South Volta

29 Pru Brong Ahafo

30 Sene Brong Ahafo

31 Krachi East Volta

32 Krachi West Volta

33 Nkoranza North Brong Ahafo

34 Assin South Central

35 Twifo-Hemang Lower Denkyira Central

36 Sekyere Afram Plains Ashanti

37 Upper Denkyira West Central

38 Ellembelle Western

39 Dangme East Greater Accra

40 Atiwa Eastern

Table 2: OLD AND NEW OPERATING DISTRICTS CREATED IN 2012

Item Old Districts New Districts Region

1 Nadowli Nadowli-Kaleo, Upper West

GSOP Updated ESMF

80

Daffiama-Bussie-Issa

2 Lawra Lawra,

Nandom

Upper West

3 Talensi-Nabdam Talensi,

Nabdam

Upper East

4 Builsa Builsa North,

Builsa South

Upper East

5 Sene Sene East,

Sene West

Brong Ahafo

6 Sekyere Affram Plains Sekyere Affram Plains,

Sekyere Kumawu

Ashanti

7 Twifo Hemeng-Lower Denkyira Twifo Hemang,

Twifo-Atti-Morkwa

Central

8 Krachi West Krach West, Krachi

Nchumuru

Volta

9 Dangbe East Ada East,

Ada West

Greater Accra

Subproject Environmental and Social Safeguards Screening and Clearance Procedures

The safeguards implementation process starts with the identification of subprojects through the

beneficiary DA’s Medium Term Development Plans (MTDPs). These MTDPs are, by the Directives of

National Development Planning Commission Guidelines, subjected to Strategic Environmental Impact

Assessment (SEA) before finalisation and approval by the Commission.

The entry point for GSOP subproject selection starts with identification of potential Labour Intensive

small earth dams and dugouts, feeder roads, and tree planting on degraded communal land subprojects

from the approved MTDPs.

This is followed by internal screening using the template in GSOP Safeguard Manual (Refer attachment 1

for sample filled copy). Thereafter validation field visits are undertaken by officers from GSOP RCOs to

potential communities to confirm on the ground the environmental and social suitability of the subproject.

The Safeguards Specialist often provides technical backup to these exercises.

The next step in the process is external screening, clearance and permitting by Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) of Ghana. This is done by packaging the potential subproject and registering by filling

EPA FormEA1. EPA Regional Offices screen the subprojects with the assistance of the Regional Inter-

sectorial Technical Committee and provide their recommendations for permitting. The recommendations

from screening exercise are twofold. One for those declared non-permits and the other for those requiring

permits. Those which require permits are forwarded to EPA head-office in Accra for further examination

GSOP Updated ESMF

81

and issue of permits (Refer attachments 2, 3, and 4 for sample copies of EPA filled form, EPA screening

report and permit).

There has been a significant time lag between the time after screening when subprojects are cleared for

permits and the actual time of receipt of permit. To mitigate this, the EPA is taking steps to decentralize

its operations and this is expected to address the above mentioned concerns. The other action is to

encourage regional GSOP officers to actively facilitate the issuance of permits after screening approvals

have been given.

Status of Safeguards Compliance Implementation Activities as at 31st January 2014

Table 3 shows the status of subprojects as at 31st January 2014. This shows that the total number of on-

going and completed projects is 466. This is 33 more than the number planned for 2013, which was 433.

Table 3: SUB-PROJECT STATUS

Subproject Type Planned 2011-

2013

No. implemented

2011-2013

Roll over from

2013 to 2014

Remarks

Social

Infrastructure

40 40 1

Small earth dams

& Dugouts

82 125 20 Features:

3-5m

height

Capacity:

200,000-

300,000m3

Feeder roads 139 128 11

Tree planting

activities

172 173 1

Total 433 466 33

All 466 subprojects have been registered, screened and cleared for implementation by the regional EPA

offices. This comprises 128 feeder roads, 125 small earth dams and dugouts, 40 social infrastructure and

173 tree planting activities (as shown in table 3 above). Permits for 51 subprojects have been issued by

the EPA Head Office in Accra. 173 subprojects are tree planting activities that do not require permits

according to the sector requirements of Ghana, while 242 subprojects will receive permits by April 30th

2014.

Other details on status of safeguards compliance are in Table 4.

SOP Final ESMF

1

Table 4: STATUS OF SAFEGUARDS COMPLIANCE

No. Compliance Stage ARCO BRCO KRCO TRCO WRCO Total

1 No. of subprojects planned for

implementation (2011-2013 ) 79 127 65 130 94 433

2 No. of subprojects registered

with EPA 70 96 60 153 87 466

3 No. of subprojects Screened

and Cleared by EPA 70 96 60 153 87 466

4 No of subprojects for which

permits have been issued by

EPA

0 24

0

14

13 51

5 No. of subprojects requiring

MOUs for land & benefit

sharing

42

38

52

56

41 229

6 Status of MOUs for land &

benefit sharing (Land

documentations)

20

signed

22 in

progress

33

signed,

5 in

progress

23

signed,

29 in

progress

45

signed,

11 in

progress

41

signed

162

signe

d

67 in

progr

ess

7 No of subprojects requiring

compensation payments for

land (if any)

0 0 0

0

0 0

8 No of subprojects for which

compensation need to be paid

for Crop / lost of income (if

any)

0

0

0

0

0 0

9 No. of construction complaints,

grievances & safety related

issues lodged since project

inception

4

1

10

7

1

23

10 No of construction complaints,

grievances & safety related

issues settled (if any)

4 1 10 5 1 21

NB: ARCO means GSOP Accra Regional Coordinating Office

BRCO means GSOP Bolgatanga Regional Coordinating Office

KRCO means GSOP Kumasi Regional Coordinating Office

TRCO means GSOP Tamale Regional Coordinating Office

WRCO means GSOP Wa Regional Coordinating Office

POST SAFEGUARDS SCREENING AND CLEARANCE PROCESSES

ESMF AND COMPLIANCE INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

As part of the inception activities of GSOP, key stakeholders including District Chief Executives, District

Coordination Directors, District Planning Officers and representatives of collaborating Agencies were

given orientation on safeguards issues as part of the general awareness creation programme of the project.

This is to enable these actors to appreciate conditions which trigger environmental and/or social action and

the role expected of them in the implementation of the ESMF and RPF.

SOP Final ESMF

2

Post Screening and Permitting implementation activities.

These include:

1. A briefing session with the workforce, beneficiary communities, contractors and technical support

personnel of the District Assemblies on safeguards issues forms part of the pre-commencement

meetings required at all subproject sites.

2. Inclusion of safeguards issues in project site meetings.

3. Inclusion of safeguards issues in District Assemblies bi-annual Peer review/ evaluation workshops.

Capacity building For ESMF Implementation

Safeguards management issues have been mainstreamed into LIPW training modules and trainings for

small earth dams and dugouts, feeder roads and tree planting activities to augment the existing weak local

and regional levels capacities of District Assemblies and Regional offices of the Ghana EPA. For instance

it is obligatory for small earth dams and dugouts construction supervisors to participate actively in all

GSOP trainings before being assigned any role in subproject implementation. An example of such modules

for small earth dams and dugouts is attached. (Refer attachment 7).

Safeguards Compliance Monitoring and Reporting Activities

The institutional arrangements for monitoring the ESMF implementation processes and the mitigation

measures are:

1. The GSOP Safeguards Specialist and EPA Regional Officers have oversight responsibility in

enforcement monitoring of EPA recommendations for subprojects implementation.

2. The GSOP Regional Engineers and District Assembly Engineers supervise and monitor day to day

safeguards compliance issues in subproject implementation.

3. Grievances and complaints are handled at the District level by the District Assembly Grievance

Resolution Committee mechanisms and at the community level a five member committee with

representation drawn from the traditional authority, representative of the workforce, unit committee

representative, an opinion leader, women’s group leader.

So far 23 grievances/complaints have been handled at the community/subproject level. 21 have

been settled while two yet to be fully settled. The remaining two involves petition for adjustment of

current wage which can only be done through general policy review on wage level by National

Project Steering Committee and the Bank’s concurrence.

4. Field monitoring data entry are compiled by GSOP Regional Engineers using an integrated

template designed by the GSOP National Safeguards Officer and the M&E Officer. (Refer

attachment 8 for sample copy of integrated data entry template).

Stakeholder consultations for Updating of ESMF/ RPF Documents

In updating the existing ESMF, representative District Assemblies and communities from the present 49

DAs were selected for joint consultations on issues relating to the ESMF and RPF implementation. The

consultations took the form of community fora, focus group meetings at both community and roundtable

meetings with staff of District and regional public and Non-Governmental Organisations. Key issues

discussed included level of awareness of GSOP safeguards and subproject selection, workforce selection

processes and grievance redress procedures, and compensation issues. These joint consultations on the

ESMF and RPF were held among key stakeholders and documents were publicly disclosed between 10th –

12th February, 2014. For the summary of issues discussed and pictures of consultations, refer to annex 5

and 6.

CHALLENGES/LESSONS/MITIGATION MEASURES:

1. Low appreciation of the benefits of safeguards compliance among all levels of stakeholders

including District Engineers, Contractors and GSOP Technical staff. The mitigation measure

SOP Final ESMF

3

includes the GSOP National Coordinating Office intensifying sensitization on Safeguards and

issuing simplified messages.

2. Inadequate staff and resources at EPA Regional Offices to support activities of Regional

Environmental Inter-sectorial Committees impedes subproject processes. To mitigate this, District

Assemblies will be required at subproject identification to provide the needed logistical supports to

the Regional officer of the EPA to facilitate rapid registration and screening.

3. Data collection, documentation and compilation on safeguards issues have been challenging due to

the poor responses from the District Assembly. To address this, district staff have been trained, and

will continue to be trained under Additional Financing.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Completed In-house Screening Form

2. EPA form

3. EPA screening Reports

4. Sample EPA Permits

5. Guidelines for Community Sensitization – Extracts on Safeguards

6. Sample Signed MOU for land documentation & benefit sharing

7. Training Module for Safeguards Training for LIPW Practitioners

8. Sample integrated data entry template

SOP Final ESMF

4

ANNEX 5: JOINT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS REPORT ON UPDATED ESMF AND

RPF DOCUMENTS

Background/Introduction:

The GSOP Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and Resettlement Policy

Framework (RPF) was prepared by the Government of Ghana and approved by the Ghana Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Bank in May 2010. In updating the existing ESMF and RPF,

representative District Assemblies and communities from the project’s 49 District Assemblies were

selected for consultation on issues related to the updated safeguards documents for LIPW subprojects; these

comprise of feeder roads, small earth dams and dugouts, social infrastructure and tree planting activities.

These stakeholder consultations and public disclosure of the ESMF and RPF were carried out with project

beneficiaries and district assembly staff from the 10th - 14

th February 2014 in five GSOP operational

regions: namely, Wa, Bolgatanga, Tamale, Kumasi and Accra. The field consultations were carried out by

the GSOP Regional officers with support from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Officers

and the respective District Assembly Planning Officers. The consultations took the form of community

fora and focus group meetings at both district and community levels. The list of consulted Stakeholders

included the Traditional Authorities, Labour Intensive public works (LIPW) participants, women group

leaders, youth group, Assemblyman and collaborating Agencies at the District (i.e. District Planning Co-

ordinating Unit ) and Regional levels (Ministry of Food and Agriculture and Ghana Irrigation Development

Authority). Table 1 below illustrates the number of attendees at each consultation:

Table 1: Consultation on ESMF and RPF Attendance.

No DISTRICT COMMUNITY TOTAL MALE FEMALE

1 Assin South Aworoso 146 58 88

2 Assin South Abease 118 36 82

3 Sekyere Kumawu Mamprusi Junction 124 44 80

4 Sekyere Kumawu Bahankra 130 40 90

5 Nabdam Kugri 35 11 24

6 Nabdam Sakote 323 112 211

7 East Gonja Bamvim 95 47 48

8 East Gonja Kpanshiegu 110 35 75

9 Jirapa Ulgouza 98 18 80

10 Jirapa Gbetouri 115 35 80

Hard copies of the updated ESMF and RPF documents will be made available at EPA national and regional

offices, GSOP regional and districts offices once relevant approvals are received. Notices alerting the

public to the disclosure of the safeguards frameworks will be published in national press and also in local

languages. A sample of the field reports is attached below and Annex 6 shows pictures of consultations in

the project communities.

Summary of Challenges/Lessons/Mitigation Measures:

The key issues discussed included the level of awareness and compliance of GSOP safeguards processes

and procedures, subproject selection, workforce selection processes, and grievance redress procedures.

Challenges and mitigation measures provided included the following:

SOP Final ESMF

5

4. Low appreciation of the benefits of safeguards compliance among all levels of stakeholders

including District Engineers, Contractors and GSOP Technical staff. The mitigation measure

includes the GSOP National Coordinating Office intensifying sensitization on Safeguards and

issuing simplified messages.

5. Inadequate staff and resources at EPA Regional Offices to support activities of Regional

Environmental Inter-sectorial Committees impedes subproject processes. To mitigate this, District

Assemblies will be required at subproject identification to provide the needed logistical supports to

the Regional officer of the EPA to facilitate rapid registration and screening.

6. Data collection, documentation and compilation on safeguards issues have been challenging due to

the poor responses from the District Assembly. To address this, district staff have been trained, and

will continue to be trained under Additional Financing.

SAMPLE SUMMARY REPORT FROM GSOP REGIONAL OFFICE

REGION: WA REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING OFFICE (WRCO)

DISTRICT: JIRAPA

NAME OF SUB PROJECT: Woodlot (Climate Change site)

COMMUNITY: Gbetuori

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS AT CONSULTATION:

MALE – 18

FEMALE - 80

TOTALS - 98

DATE: 11th February 2014

TIME OF VISIT: 2:00pm - 4:30 pm

PURPOSE OF VISIT: Conduct environmental and social safeguard consultation.

KEY PERSONS MET (STAKEHOLDERS): Traditional Authorities, LIPW participants, women group

leaders, youth group, Assemblyman and collaborating Agencies at the District (District Planning Co-

ordinating Unit) and Regional level (Ministry of Food and Agriculture, MOFA).

ISSUES DISCUSSED/PROBLEMS RAISED:

- Awareness of GSOP processes and procedures

- Community involvement and consultations

- Sustainability mechanisms

OBSERVATIONS:

It was brought to the fore that the climate change intervention was prioritized by the beneficiary

community after it was identified, selected and validated at a community forum as a LIPW sub project. The

sub project was prioritized and incorporated in the Jirapa District Medium Term Plan (MTDP) and

submitted to the Wa Regional Co-ordinating Office for review and approval. Jirapa District, assisted by

staff from MOFA prepared a technical and social assessment of subproject, including costs and the

estimation of the number of persons and days required for the subproject implementation.

With regards to awareness of labour selection processes and procedures, community members indicated

that participants were resident in the target community and were willing to work and not forced to work.

They were also prepared to accept the project rate for labour which was Six Ghana cedis (GH 6.00) for a

SOP Final ESMF

6

maximum of 6 hours a day. Community members indicated that a register of eligible persons to work was

compiled and only persons aged eighteen and above were registered.

It came out during the meeting that, about 90% of the total workforce were women and have helped

reduced their level of vulnerabilities and increased their potential for social capital.

On the issue of complaints, grievance submission, investigation and settlement processes, community

members indicated that a Grievance Resolution Committee exists at the community level headed by the

Chief and assisted by the Assemblyman, Agriculture Extension Agent (AEA) for the area and two other

opinion leaders in the community. The mandate of the committee is to resolve complaints and conflicts

during the pre-planting, planting and post planting (maintenance) phase of sub project implementation.

-Community involvement and consultations

At the consultation meeting, community members emphasized their key involvement in site selection for

the climate change subproject and participated in implementation site meetings. It was brought to the fore

that at a community meeting on 31st May 2012, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was consented

by the actual land owners and signed between the Chief, landlord (Tindana) and the District Assembly for

the release of land for the sub project implementation. The MOU spelt out land ownership, benefit sharing

and tenure as well as consultation processes.

-Compensation issues (land, crops etc)

Initial assessment of the beneficiary community indicated that the land documentation process which had

been completed had positive impacts. No compensation was demanded from the land owners for the release

of land. The site earmarked for the sub project implementation does not deprive other people from their

livelihood.

-Sustainability mechanisms

At the community, a Community Environmental Management Committee has been formed to oversee fire

control (fire belt creation) and prevention, as well as disease and pest control.

Conclusions:

The consultation process strengthened community engagement on safeguards for the subproject. It was also

observed at the consultation meeting that more participants, especially women, expressed interest to be

registered to partake in the climate change activities. There is therefore the need to sustaining and scaling

up LIPW, especially climate change intervention.

SOP Final ESMF

7

ANNEX 6: PICTURES ON STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS ON UPDATED ESMF AND RPF

DOCUMENTS

1. GSOP ACCRA REGIONAL COORDINATION OFFICE AREA

Meeting with traditional ruler and elders at

Aworoso, Assin South district, Central region

Interview with a feeder road contractor’s supervisor

and a worker, Abease franmase road, Assin south

district, Central Region

2. GSOP TAMALE REGIONAL COORDINTING OFFICE AREA

The District PCU interacting with people in

Kpanshiegu community, East Gonja District,

Northern Region

Interview section with LIPW beneficiaries in Bamvim

Community, East Gonja District, Northern Region

3. GSOP BOLGATANGA REGIONAL COORDINATING OFFICE AREA

SOP Final ESMF

8

Forum with some LIPW workers of Kugri dam in

Kugri community, Site Nabdam District, Upper

East Region

Forum with some LIPW workers of Climate

Change Mitigation Activity, in Sakote Community,

Nabdam District, Upper East Region

4. GSOP WA REGIONAL COORDINATING OFFICE AREA

Forum with some LIPW workers of Ulgouza

community, Jirapa District, Upper West Region

Forum with some LIPW workers of Gbetouri

Community, Jirapa District, Upper West Region

SOP Final ESMF

9

5. GSOP KUMASI REGIONAL COORDINATING OFFICE AREA

Interviewing workers of LIPW Climate Change

Subproject, Bahankra Community, Sekyere

Kumawu District, Ashanti Region

Focus Group Meeting with LIPW workers on

Mamprusi Junction-Mamprusi, Feeder road, in

Sekyere Afram Plains District, Ashanti Region