world bank document€¦ · project implementation unit, kaduna state water board chief olusegun...

FINAL REPORT

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSEMENT

OF KADUNA METROPOLIS

WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK EXTENSION

Submitted to:

Submitted by:

EARTHf__ '~";;

Maximizing Resources and Sustaining Development

Project Implementation Unit, Kaduna State Water Board Chief Olusegun Obasanjo House Yakubu Gowan Road, Kaduna,

Nigeria Tel: +234 62247960. + 234 247959 Email: [email protected]

Earthguards Limited

Suite 45, (3m Floor). God's Own Plaza,

4 Takum Close, Area 11, Garki,

F.C.T. Abuja, Nigeria.

Email: earthguards@gmaiLcom Website: www.earthguards.net

JUNE, 2008

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

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

http:www.earthguards.netmailto:[email protected] TextE863v. 8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-----

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

BP DFRRI EA ECWA EIA EPAD ESA ESIA ESMF ESMP EMP FCT FEPA FGDs FGN FM FMEH I~MEB'&UD

FMEnv FtyfAWR FPIU GRl\. HSE IDA LGA KEPi\ KIFC KS\v'BL M&E NUWSRP Nu\VSRPl NWRI N\X%\1S NWRP N\VSSP OPIBP PAD PCU PECN PIU PMU PRA PPP PSP RBDA R&D ROW RPF

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Banks Policy Directorate for Foods, Road and Rural Infrastructure Environmental Assessment Evangelical Church of West Africa Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Protection and Assessment Department Environmental Sensitive Areal Environmental and Social Assessment Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Environmental and Social Management Framework Environmental and Social Management Plan Environmental Management Plan Federal Capital Territory Federal Environmental Protection Agency Focus Group Discussions Federal Government of Nigeria Frequency Modulation Federal Ministry of Environment and Housing Federal1v1inistry of Environment, Housing, and Urban Development Federal1v1inistry of Environment Federal Ministry of Agriculture and \Vater Resources Federal Project Implementation Unit Government Residential Area Health, Safety and Environment International Development Association Local Government Authority Kaduna Environmental Protection Agency Kaduna Industrial and Finance Company Kaduna State Water Board Limited Monitoring and Evaluation Officer National Urban Water Sector Reform Project First National Urban Water Sector Reform Project National Water Rehabilitation Project National Water Resources Management Strategy National Water Rehabilitation Project National Water Supply and Sanitation Policy Operation PolicyIBank Policy Project Appraisal Document Project Coordination Unit Power Holding Company of Nigeria Project Implementation Unit Project Management Unit Participatory Rural Appraisal Public-Private Partnership Private Sector Partner or Private Sector Participation River Basin Development i\uthority Research and Development Right of Way Resetdement Policy Framework

--

RWSS Rural Water Supply Strategy SEPAs State Environment Protection Agencies -SMWR State Ministry of Water Resoutces SPIU State Project Implementation Unit SRl'vfC Sector Reform :'vlanagement Committee -SSCE Senior Secondary Certificate Examination SSI Semi Structuted Interviewed SWAs State Water Agencies -Tcn Teacher Training College Two TDS Total Dissolved Solid TOR Terms of Reference UCC Utilities Charges Commission -WAEC West Africa Examination Council WHO World Health Organization WfP Willingness to Pay -

------------

11

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand Ca Calcium Cd Cadmium CO Carbon Monoxide COD Chemical Oxygen Demand Cr Chromium Cu Copper DO Dissolved Oxygen ESP Exchange Sodium Percentage Fe Iron HC Hydrocarbon Hg Mercury HB Heterotrophic Bacteria HF Heterotrophic HUB Hydrocarbon Utilising Bacteria K Potassium Mg Magnesium N Nitrogen Ni Nickel NOz Nitrogen Dioxide NO] Nitrate NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units P Phosphate Pb Lead pH Hydrogen ion concentration P04 Phosphate SOl Sulphur Dioxide SPM Suspended Particulate Matter TDS Total Dissolved Solids TOM Total Organic Matter TSS Total Suspended Solids V Vanadium Zn Zinc

111

UNIT OF MEASUREMENTS

0/0 Percentage uS/em MicroSiemens per centimetre atm Atmosphere cfu/ml Colony forming unit per millimetre em centimetre ft Feet g grammes gil Grammes per litre g/kg Grammes per kilogramme meq/l00g I'vfilliequivalent per 100 gramme 1n inches km Kilometre m Metre mls metre per second m2 metre square m3 metre cube mg/kg milligram per kilo gramme mg/! milligram per litre mV millivolt mg/m3 milligram per metre cubic ml millilitre mm millimetre mm/hr millimetre per hour mS/cm milliSiemens per centimetre NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units oC Celcius ppm parts per million ppt parts per thousand s second ton tonne

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

liST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................ I

GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...................................................................................................................................... 111

UNIT OF MEASUREMENTS ............................................................................................................................ IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................................V

TABLE OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ VII

liST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................................. VIII

LIST OF PLATES ...................................................................................................................................................X

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... XI

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 OBJECl1VES OF THE ESIA PROJECT ............................................................................................................. 3

1.3 SCOPE OF THE ESIA .................................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 STUDY ApPROACI I j\~D METHODOLOGy ..................................................................................................... 4

1.4.1 Data Collection Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 4

1.4.2 Desk Research ......................................................... .................................................................................... 4

1.4.3 Stakeholder Consultation .................................. ............................................................................................. 5

1.4.4 Field Visits ............................................................ ............................................................................... 5

CHAPTER TWO: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND WORKS............................................. 6

2.1 PROJECT RATIONALE ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 PROJEcr COMPONENTS ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF WORKS NECESSn'/d1NG TI IE ESIA .................................................................................. 7

CHAPTER THREE: STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................. 24

3.1 BI\SELINE 1)1\1'/\ AcQUISrno~ ................................................................................................................... 24

3.1.1 Uterature Survey..................................................................................... ............................................. 24

3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION I\ND LOCi\TIO~ ................................................................................................... 24

3.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONME::-;rr .......................................................................................................................... 25

3.3.1 Geology and Relief: ............................................................................................................................... 25

3.3.2 Soils:........ .......................................................................................................................................... 25

3.3..3 Suifm:e lFater and Ground Water: ........................ .................................................................................. 32

3..3.4 Climate and Air quali!J: ....................................................................................................................... 38

3.4 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT: .................................................................................................................... 38

3.4.1 Soils atld Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 38

3.5 SOCICH':CONOMIC AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT: .................................................................................. 39

3.5.1. Population Structure and Distribution: ..................................................................................................... 39

3.5.2 Sodal ltiff'astrncture .................................................... .......................................................................... 40

3.5.3 Existing S ocioet'onomiCt'ondition ~fthe Projed sites in Kaduna lvietropolis .. ..................................................... 41

3.5.4 Willingness to Pqy for Water (If7TP) .............................. ......................................................................... 51

3.5.5 EcO!!omit'S........................................................... ................................................................................ 52

3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN KADUNA ST1\TE ............................................................................................ 52

CHAPTER FOUR: POLICY, LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.............................................. 53

4.1 WORLD BANK SAH~C;Ui\RD POLICIES ...................................................................................................... 53

4.2 NIGERIA' Rl,GULATORY FRAMEWORK................................................................................................... 54

4.2.1 Administrative Stmdure for the Water Sedor ................................... ......................................................... 54

4.2.2 Administrative Structure for Environmental Management. ............. ............................................................. 55

4.2.3 Relevant Federal Policies ........................................................................... ............................................. 58

4.2.4 Land Use Act 1978............................................................................................................................. 59

4.2.5 Existing Legal Provisions for Water and Sanitation Supply ............................................................ .............. 60

CHAPTER FIVE: POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ...................................... 62 -5.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 62

5.2 ANTICIPATED POSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IN TIlE LOCATIONS .............................................. 62

5.2.1 Construction Phase ......................................................................................................................... ...... 62 _

5.2.2 Operation Phase......................................................................................................................... .......... 62

5.3 ANTICIPI\TED NEGATIVE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................ 63

5.3.1 Construction ........... ............................................................................................................................. 63

5.3.2 Operating and maintenance..................................................................................................................... 66

CHAPTER SIX: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN......................................... 70

6.1 DEFINITION AND I01TRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 70 -6.2 IMPI,EMI,NTX[JON ARR,\NGEMJ·:NT ........................................................................................................... 71

6.2.1. World Bank .................. ...................................................................................................................... 71

6.2.2. Kaduna Environmental Protection Agenry (KEPA) ................................ .................................................... 72

6.2.3. Kaduna State Water Board (KSWB) .................................................................................. ..................... 72 6.2.4. Monitoring and Evaluation Project Assistant Officer............... .................................................................... 72

6.2.5. COlltractor........................................................................................................................................... 72

6.3 CAPACny STIU,NGTIIENING FOR ESIA/EMP IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................. 72 -6.3.1. General Environmental Training: ............................................................................................................ 73

6.3.2. Training ofContractors Personnel.' ........................................................................................................... 76

6.4 EMP BUDGET ....................................................................................................................................... 76 -CHAPTER SEVEN: MITIGATION PLAN....................................................................................................... 90

7.1 MITIGKI'ION HIERARCIIY FOR PLANNED PRO]ECTACTIVITIES ............................................................. 90

CHAPTER EIGHT: MONITORING PLAN..................................................................................................... 94

8.1 i'vfONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................................................... 94

8.2 MONITORING PR()CEDUIU~: ....................................................................................................................... 94

CHAPTER NINE: CONSULTATION STRATEGIES .................................................................................... 95

9.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 95

APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARD POUCIES..............................................................................................................................•............................... 97

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF OFFICIALS MET ...................................................................................................... 99 -APPENDIX 3: HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS FACIUTIES QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ 100

APPENDIX 4: GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS FOR

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS.................................................................................................................... 107 -

---

VI

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of Kaduna Showing the Six Towns ..............................................................................2

Figure 2.2: Map Showing the Extension Area of Rigachukwu/Barakan Lahu, (Left Hand

Figure 2.5: Map Showing the Extension Area of Kinkinau Ungwan Ma'azu (Left Hand Side

Figure 3.2: Pie chart Showing the Major Sources ofWater for Households in the Project

Figure 3.3: Pie Chart Showing the Distribution of the Respondents Based on Amount they

Figure 2.1: Map Showing the Proposed Areas for Extension............................................................ 9

Side Zaria Road)....................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2.3: Map Showing The Extension Area ofUngwan Kaji .................................................... 11

Figure 2.4: Map Showing The Extension Area of Federal Housing, Goni Gora. ...................... 12

to Ahmadu Chanchangi Road) ..............................................................................................................13

Figure 2.6: Map Showing the Extension Area of Farin Gida Mando............................................14

Figure 2.7: Map Showing the Extension Area of Goni Gora........................................................... 15

Figure 2.8: Map Showing the Extension Area of Rigasa South East............................................ 16

Figure 2.9: Map Showing the Extension Area of Rigasa South West ........................................... 17

Figure 2.10: Map Showing the Extension Area of Rigasa............................................................... 18

Figure 2.11: Map Showing the Extension Area of Rigasa West/Tsamiya Tara.........................19

Figure 2.12: Map Showing the Extension Area of Mando Maka................................................... 20

Figure 2.13: Map Showing the Extension Area of Rigasa East ...................................................... 21

Figure 2.14: Map Showing the Extension Area ofNarayi.. .............................................................. 22

Figure 2.15: Map Showing the Extension ofTsaunin Kura............................................................23

Figure 3.1: Map of Nigeria showing the location of Kaduna State................................................24

Locations in Kaduna Metropolis ........................................................................................................... 50

are Willing to Pay......................................................................................................................................52

LIST OF TABLES -Table 2.1: Proposed Network Expansion in Kaduna Metropolis 8

Table 3.1 Physical Characteristic of Soil Samples 26 Table 3.2 Chemical Characteristics of Soil Samples 28

-Table 3.3 Heavy metals of Soil Samples 30

Table 3.4: Moisture and Heterotrophic Bacterial content of Soil Sample 31 -Table 3.5 Physical Characteristics of Water sample 32

Table 3.6: Physical Characteristics of Water sample 34 Table 3.8 Biological Characteristics of Water Samples 37 Table 3.7 Chemical Characteristics of Water Samples 35

Table 3.9: Population figures for LGAs in 2006 39 -Table 3.10: Household Characteristics of Respondents 41

Table 3.11: Age of Respondents 41 Table 3.12: Length of Time of Respondents Living in Community 42

Table 3.13: Religion of Respondents 42 -Table 3.14: Marital Status of Respondents 42

Table 3.15: Highest Educational Qualification of Respondents 43

Table 3.16: Household Size of Respondents 43 -Table 3.17: Age Categories of Household Members 44

Table 3.18: Income and Expenditure of Households in Project -Locations in Kaduna Metropolis 45

Table 3.19: Opinion of the Respondents as regards the Condition of

Amenities in the Project Locations 47 Table 3.20: Other amenities 48 -Table 3.21: Source of water for households in the project locations in

Kaduna Metropolis 49 -Table 3.22: Result showing time spent in water collection from nearest

source, amount spent and quantity of water consumed per

day by the respondents in the project locations 51 -

-viii

Table 5.1: Impacts during construction phase 63

Table 5.2: Impacts during operation and maintenance phase 66

Table 6.2: Training Time Table for KSWB and KEPA Staff 73

Table 6.3: Budget and Responsibilities 76

Table 6.4: EMP Table Portraying Impact, Mitigation

Measures, Implementation Schedule and Responsibilities

for Mitigation and Monitoring 77

Table 7.1: Mitigation Measures ofimpacts during Construction Phase 91

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 5.1: Area in Ungwan Romi where Erosion is a Possible Occurrence

Plate 5.2: Affected Flora in Barakallahu

Plate 5.3: Private Primary School at Angwan Mu' azo

Plate 5.4: Private Primary School at Barakan Lahu, Pipeline to be diverted to the Left Side

Plate 5.5: Affected Public Mosque on College Road behind Legislative Quarters

Plate 5.6: Affected kiosk on college road on the Entrance to Legislative Quarters

Plate 5.7: A Commercial Area in Mando Afaka

Plate 5.8: Culvert on Entrance to Kadara Road Sabon Tashia

Plate. 9.1: Stakeholders Consultation at Barakan Lahu

Plate 9.2: A stakeholder expressing his views at Barakan Lahu

Plate 9.3: Stakeholders Consultation at Sabon terms to stakeholders at Sabon Tasha

Plate 9.4: A Consultant explaining Issues at Sabon Tasha

Plate 9.5: Explanation of project to stakeholders at Sabon Tasha

Plate 9.6: Meeting with enumerators at Barakallahu

-69

69

69 -69

69 -69

69

69

95 95

95 95

96 96 -

-

--

-

-

x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following the successful implementation of the National Water Rehabilitation Project (N\VRP), the Federal Government of Nigeria requested and got support from the World Bank for the implementation of the First National Urban Water Sector Reform Project (NUWSRP1). This project is jointly sponsored by the International Development Association (IDA) Credit from the World Bank with counterpart funding from The Federal ~1inistry of Water Resources and the various State Governments in whose jurisdiction the project will take place. This project is to be implemented in the three states of Kaduna, Enugu and Ogun. The Project started in September 2004 and became effective on December 14,2004. It is scheduled for completion in September 2010.

Objectives.

The Nl.J\VSRP1's principal development outcomes are to:

• increase reliability and financial ,riability of selected urban water utilities;

• increase access to piped water networks in selected urban areas; and • improve financial viability of the urban water utilities in I

--

• Publi,' Health: There would be stagnant waters as a result of the civil works which would lead

to a breeding habitat for mosquitoes which cause malaria. -• Disturbanfe f!fAdivitiu: Several roadside residential and commercial structures will be affected

along the Right of Way (ROW) of the pipeline and this will lead to disturbances to their

social and business activities.

• Air Pollution: There will be some increase of dust particles in the atmosphere. This is because of the digging that will be associated v;.rith the construction and laying of the pipes.

Some other impacts such as noise levels and water pollution etc are of a lesser importance as most of -the civil works will require little machinery.

Mitigation Measures -• Soil erosion and COlttamination: Appropriate erosion protection measures should be taken

or/and an alternate drainage route should be provided. -• Publif Health: Proper maintenance site and removal of water from ditches especially after

rainfall or ground water infiltration. This should be done by the use of water pumps.

• Disturbance rif Adlvities: Establishment of traffic plans at locations of blockage; civil work activities should be reduced to areas of work site and impact on private property should be avoided as much as possible.

• Air Pollution: Sprinkling of water during dry periods to prevent dust and burning of waste

should be avoided and waste collected should be directed to a I

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Kaduna Metropolis

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In line with the National Water Resources Management Strategy (NWRMS) and following the successful implementation of the National Water Rehabilitation Project (NWRP), the Federal Government of Nigeria requested and got support from the World Bank for the implementation of the First National Urban Water Sector Reform Project (NUWSRP1), 'This project covers three States, namely, Kaduna, Enugu and Ogun. Based on the agreement, the project is jointly funded by IDA Credit from the World Bank and Counterpart Funds from the Federal Ministry of Water Resources and Governments of the three participating states of Kaduna, Ogun and Enugu. The objectives of the project are to increase access to piped water networks in selected urban areas; and improve reliability and fmancial viability of selected urban water utilities, in Kaduna, Ogun, and Enugu States. The Project started in September 2004 and became effective on December 14, 2004. It is scheduled for completion in September 2010. In Kaduna State, the project will be implemented in 6 towns as seen in Figure 1:

(i) Kaduna (ii) Zaria (iii) Kafanchan (iv) Kagoro (v) Zonkwa, and

(vi) Saminaka

The Project has four components, namely, rehabilitation and network expansion, PPP development,

capacity building and project management, and policy reform and institutional development. The

project's principal development outcomes are:

increased reliability and fmandal viability of selected urban water utilities;

increased access to piped water networks in selected urban areas; and

improve fmancial viability of the urban water utilities in the selected urban areas ofKaduna State.

Progress toward these principal development outcomes will be measured through: (i) the increase in water delivered through existing and extended networks; (ii) improvement in cost recovery, especially the degree to which operating costs are recovered from water sales revenues in Kaduna State; and (iii) increase in the number of households having access to the piped water network.

Therefore, as part of the rehabilitation and network expansion component of the project, there is a need to prepare an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESL-\) in order to identify potential environmental impacts of the extension project and recommend mitigation measures.

In Kaduna metropolis, the project will be implemented in Rigasa, Rigasa West, Mando Afaka, Rafm Guza, Goni Gora, Farin Gida Mando, Kinkinau Ungwan Ma'azu, Bua'ya Gono Gom, Ungwan Kaji, Barakan Lahu, Tsaunin Kura and Narayi.

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Kaduna Metropolis -

Legend

~ OZaiB ~ ~ ezatwa

esamna:a

-----

-

-

-

Figure 1: Map of Kaduna Showing the Six Towns -

This ESIA is in compliance with all Federal, State and local laws of Nigeria and World Bank Safeguard Policies.

With respect to this project, the following World Bank policies are triggered:

• Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01) -• Involuntary Resetdement (OP/BP 4.12) A complete description of the World Bank's Safeguard policies can be found on the World Bank's official web site "UV\v.\\'()rldb'Hlk.un~ which has been summarized in Appendix 1.

----

http:UV\v.\\'()rldb'Hlk.un

Environmental and Social Impact i\sscssment of Kaduna Metropolis

1.2 Objectives of the ESIA Project

The main objective of this project is to prepare an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for Network Extensions for the Kaduna Metropolitan Water Supply Scheme. The locations in Kaduna metropolis are Rigasa, Rigasa West, Mando Rafin Guza, Goni Gora, Farin Gida Mando, Kinkinau Cngwan Ma'azu, Bua'ya Gono Gora, Cngwan Kaj~ Barakan Lahu, Tsaunin Kura and Narayi.

The goal is to improve decision making and to ensure that sub-project acti,,1.ties (supply and of water supply pipes; construction of water kiosks; and supply and installation of house connection, including pipes, accessories, conventional and pre-payment water meters) being considered under the project are environmentally sound and sustainable.

The ESIA will take the form of an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) that identities, and specifies mitigation measures for potential adverse impacts that would not be adequately avoided, mitigated or compensated through implementation of the contract specifications mentioned above. Also identifies any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources which would be involved when the project is implemented.

More specifically, the objectives of the ESIA in arc to:

Assess the potential environmental and social impacts of the sub-projects (rehabilitation, extension, or new constructions), whether positive or negative and propose mitigation measures which will effectively address these impacts;

jj Inform the project team and the Kaduna State Government and by extension the Nigerian Goyernment of the potential impacts of different anticipated sub-projects and relevant mitigation measures and strategies;

111 Develop an environmental and social management process to ensure successful mitigation of all adverse impacts, a tangible monitoring plan and institutional arrangements to execute this plan; and to provide clear instructions to works supervisors and contractors with regard to any measures that need to be implemented in order to limit any potential negative impacts to acceptable levels

1V Identify potential environmental policies, legal and institutional framework pertaining to the project.

1.3 Scope of the ESIA

The scope of the study is summarized as follows:

• Review the legislative, institutional and policy frameworks for em1.ronmental and social assessment, management, and reporting application to the project;

• Execution of a field survey of the locations of the proposed works in order to identify any environmental issues that need specific attention, and to specify, as required, mitigation measures at specific locations to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts;

• Review of baseline environmental conditions in the project areas on the basis of literature review, stakeholder consultation and field visit;

Earthguards Limned 3

Environmental anu Social Impact Assessment of Kaduna Metropolis

• On the basis of project documentation and the sites field visit, review of the project components and assessment of their potential environmental and social impacts;

• Draw out cost effective recommendations which are both practical and time-bound to mitigate the adverse environment and social impacts that could arise during construction, operation and maintenance;

• Recommend what should be done for more detailed environmental and social analyses for special subcomponents, as necessary; -

• Identification of alternatives that were examined in the course of developing the proposed project and identification of other alternatives, which would achieve the same objectives;

• Preparation of an Environmental Management Plan providing general and specific direction on pre-construction, construction, and operation and maintenance measures and practices to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects that can be readily incorporated into: (a)construction specifications and drawings for inclusion in tender documents; and (b) operation and -maintenance manuals.

It is noted that close liaison 'W-1th the engineers undertaking the detailed design of the phase 1 civil works was 'required:

• to appreciate the nature of the works,

• to provide environmental guidance to that design work, and • to assist in structuring the E:YIP so that the appropriate elements of it can be readily

incorporated into construction tender documents.

A lists of officials met during the field work is seen in Appendix 2.

1.4 Study Approach and Methodology -The ESIA was prepared in accordance with:

• \Vorld Bank - Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01) and

• Nigerian Government - Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 1\ct No. 86 of 1992 The following approach and methodology was adopted: -1.4.1 Data Collection Procedure

The data collection procedure involved desk research, stakeholder consultation and field visits.

1.4.2 Desk Research

The desk research was based on review of available literature and other strategic planning documents at the national and state level. Literature reviewed includes, the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) of the Nl!\VSRP1, the ES1'vlF and RPr of the NUWSRP1, the general environmental management conditions' for construction contracts, engineering and technical designs, work requirements of the extension/densification of Kaduna water distribution system, baseline information relating to the physical, biological and socio-cultural environment of I(aduna State, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, numerous relevant Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, decrees, acts, and -guidelines, \Vorld Bank Safeguard Policies and other relevant documents.

-EarthguarJs LimlteJ4 -

1.~l1vironmental and Social Impact Assessment of Kaduna Metropolis

1.4.3 Stakeholder Consultation

Stakeholder Consultation was carried in all the locations where the project covered in Kaduna metropolis. Specifically, stakeholder consultation was carried out in, Barakallahu, and Saban Tasha. The stakeholder consultation was in the form of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and key infonnant interviews.

The stakeholders included community leaders, household heads and business owners in the community (or their representatives) especially those that their households and businesses are located on the road side where the pipe lines would be laid and heads of divisional Water Board offices or their representatives.

1.4.4 Field Visits

Field visits involved visits to all the roads and locations where the pipe line expansion would be carried out. All the households and business offices located on the side of the road that the pipes would be laid and that would be affected were visited. Photographs were taken to show obstructions that may affect the pipe line.

1.4.5.1 Collection ofData from Households and Business Offices

Tools of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PM) technique were used for data collection from the respondent households and business offices.

Specifically, Semi Structured Interview (SSI) questionnaire, a tool of PM was used in the data collection at this level. One SSI schedule was used in collecting data from the household heads and business operators or their representatives.

A sample of the SSI Questionnaire used for the field study is presented in Appendix 3.

5 Earthguards Limited

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Kaduna Metropolis -CHAPTER TWO: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND ....

WORKS

2.1 Project Rationale The Kaduna State Government considers the provision of potable water as a critical element in its policy for sustainable economic development and poverty reduction. The project's principal -development outcomes are:

(i) Increased reliability and financial viability of selected urban water utilities; (ii) Increased access to piped water networks in selected urban areas; and (iii) Improve financial viability of the urban water utilities in the selected urban areas of -

Kaduna State. Progress toward these principal development outcomes ",ill be measured through:

• The increase in water delivered through existing and extended networks; -• Improvements in cost recovery, especially the degree to which operating costs are

recovered from water sales revenues in I


2.2.2 Component 2- Pub/if-Private Partnmhip (PPP) Development

1bis component will support the state water authority in their efforts to lrutlate and/or further develop the contracting of private sector operators for aspects of the water supply systems.

2.2.3 Component 3- Service Sustainabili(y and Pro/eft Management:

This component will assist the state water authority (I


Table 2.1: Proposed Network Expansion in Kaduna Metropolis Location Number

Location Total Pipe length [m]

Pipe length Stage 1

[m]

1 Kaduna North Airport Zone

1.1 Located between Rigacikun and Ungwan Kaji I left hand side to :lam Road

9,810 9,508

1.2 UngwanKaji 4,092 4,092 i

Total lengths 13,600

2i Kaduna North High Level Zone i

2.1 Afaka I Mando 27,191 8,501 : Total lengths 8,501 J

3 Kaduna North Medium Level Zone J

3.1 Rafin Guza / left hand side to college road 10,423 5,443 I Total lengths 5,443

4 Kaduna West Zone

4.1 Rigasa District / Tsamiya Tam / Asikoiaye 67,933 11,381

T otaI lengths 11,381

5 Tudun Wada Zone

5.1

I

LTngwan Muazu / left hand side to j\hmadu Chanchangi Road

3,127 3,127 1

Total lengths 3,127 I

6 Kaduna South East Zone

6.1 UngwanRomi 47,813 14,201

6.2 Ungwan Bow / NNPC Staff Quarter.; 21,163 4,667

6.3 Namyi / left hand side to Nantyi High Cost 13,970 7.198

Total lengths 18,875

Service Connections

GRAND TOTAL EXTENSION FOR KADUNATOWN

57,803

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-Earthguards Limited 8 -


KADUNA STATE WATER BOARD NElWORlt

BARKA

e

LEGEl'>

-Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Kaduna Metropolis -

E o:J 0 L.l)


E C'I 0o -.:.i II (]) Q.a::

Figure 2.3: Map Showing The Extension Area ofUngwan Kaji


-

----

-----

Figure 2.4: Map Showing The Extension Area of Federal Housing, Goni Gora.

-

-

-

12


c, '" 'f.l '" ~

'",'"' ,I

>-/ I IIJJ . I~I I

:.:::> N « ~ :::l

::J « ~ ::.:: zs;::

"0 .c +OJ c:

......I

0 +0 l-

Figure 2.5: Map Showing the Extension Area of Kinkinau U ngwan Ma'azu (Left Hand Side to Ahmadu Chanchangi Road)

Eartheuards l,imited

-


-

'0 ..:: ...... 0> c (J) -l

-0...... 0 I-

--

-

-

"7CC

~~ --

-

Figure 2.6: Map Showing the Extension Area of Farin Gida Mando --

-

-


Figure 2.7: Map Showing the Extension Area of Goni Gora

--~ I

rl 7/

-

Environmental and Social Impact A,ses,ment of Kaduna :'\{ctropolis

-

--

-

R!GASA

1f ;l 'I~-- f -

-t -....

-KEY

?'~OFC5ED

Length of Pipe::: 1 ,200m _____ EXtST1NG

--

Figure 2.8: Map Showing the Extension Area of Rigasa South East. -

-

-

...

-Earthguards Limited 16


...BJ&ASA

KEY

- pnOPOSftJ

Total Length of Pipe= 1 ,350m

Figure 2.9: Map Showing the Extension Area of Rigasa South West

Eartbguards Limited 17


-

-

Z .4I!II1---4\--

MAI-n;'fA

__ ~ """,'v.... PROPOSE

E.xlSTiNG

Total Length of Pipe= 3,450m ROAn

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Figure 2.10: Map Showing the Extension Area of Rigasa. --

-

-

18 Earthguards I jmitcd

fllCrASI~-


RESEfiVD1H

I\J

-- - - - - - ;>f{OPOS-ED

EXISnNG

Figure 2.11: Map Showing the Extension Area of Rigasa West/Tsamiya Tara.

19 Earthguards 1,imited

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Kaduna Metropolis --

D C') -W VI Z

,~ c:) en

>< '"" '" ff ..., '" '"

-~il ~I

, ' --E

-

-

-

o o Z -


~ '" z 0- ,"

Environmental and Social Impact I\ssessment of Kaduna Metropolis -

-~..... Ic __ -"'I·~_

"'11 I"'. I ""ii I

i I

I !

Earthguards Limited

E CO r--.:II Q) Q.

i:5: "0

-

-

-

-

-

----

-

-

-

Figure 2.14: Map Showing the Extension Area of Narayi

22


----

~ co

(;::Jz ~ " n. ~ rr0

'" >

lInvironmental and Social Impact Assessment of Kaduna Metropolis --

CHAPTER THREE: STUDY AREA

-This chapter presents the current environmental and socio-econom1c conditions of the project sites and surrounding environment. -3.1 Baseline Data Acquisition -A systematic approach was adopted in establishing the baseline status of the project area. This strategic approach involved literature survey and field data gathering exercise. -3.1.1 Literature Survey

-The Literature survey identified gaps and features peculiar to the project environment that required detailed survey during the field data gathering exercise. This involved researcb of relevant data on climate, geology, population status etc. -3.2 General Description and Location -Kaduna State is located on the southern end of the high plains of Northern Nigeria lying between latitudes 9°03'N and 11°32'N and longitudes 6°05'E to 8°48'E. The State which was created in 1976 -from the old North Central State has a land area of 48,473.2 square kilometers and is currendy made up of 23 Local Government Areas (LGA). Figure 3.1 shows the map of Nigeria indicating the location of Kaduna State. -

----

Kaduna State

-Figure 3.1: Map of Nigeria showing the location of Kaduna State -

-

-

j (nvironmental and Social Impact Assessment of Kaduna Metropolis

3.3 Physical Environment

The physical environment is discussed under the geology, relief; and soils of I

J':nvironmcntal aml Social Impact Assessment of Kaduna Metropolis

Kaduna South East Zone comprising of Ungwan Romi, Kamaza and Barnawa had sand, silt and clay ranges of 52- 55%, 22- 28% and 20- 26% respectively while the averages were 53%, 24.3%, and 22.6% respectively.

Kaduna North Medium level zone comprising of Rafin Guza road, Dosa road and Dawaki road had sand, silt and clay ranges of 51- 62%, 14- 23% and 22- 26% respectively while the averages were 56.7%, 19.3% and 24% respectively.

For Kaduna North High level zone which comprises of Western Bye-pass, Gwamma road, Kurmin Mashi, Hayin Banki, Afaka, had ranges of 48- 65%, 12- 22% and 21- 345 respectively. The averages for sands, silts and clay were 56.8%, 16.8%, 26.4% respectively.

Lugard Hall Zone with Ungwan Munchi, Kabala Costain, Katsin road as proposed sites had sand, silts and clay ranges of 56- 61%, 19- 22% and 19- 24% respectively while the averages were 58%, 20.3% and 22.3%respectively.

Details of the physical property for the various sites can be found in Table 3.1

Table 3.1 Physical Characteristic of Soil Samples

PARAMETERS

LOCATION Sands

(%) Silts (%)

Clay ~o/~

Kaduna North Airport Zone

Rigachikum 61 22 17

Ungwan Kaji-jere 58 14 28

Ungwan Gwari 54 18 28

(Average) 57.7 18.0 24.3

Kaduna West Zone

Umaru Idris/ Garba Salisu road 61 24 26

Aliyu Umar/ Galadima road 58 18 26

Maitata/Mutari road 51 26 23

(Average) 56.7 22.7 25.0

Kaduna South Zone

Kudenda Industrial Layout 49 21 28

Kunairoad 58 19 23

GRA 52 26 22

(Average) I 53.0 22.0 24.3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26

Environmental and Social Impact l\sscssment of Kaduna Metropolis

...

P ARA:'IETERS Sands I Silts I Clay

LOCATION (%) i (%} I (%>2.

Kaduna South East Zone

UngwanRomi 52 28 20

Kamaza 52 22 26

Bamawa i 55 23 22

(Average) 53.0 i 24.3 22.6

Kaduna North Medium Level Zone

. Rafm Guza road 51 23 26

Dosa road 62 14 24

i Dawaki road ".,::JI 21 22 ! (Average) 56.7 19.3 24

Kaduna North High Level Zone

Western Bye-pass 55 22 23

Gwamna 65 14 21

Kurmin Mashi 60 18 22

~.. banki 56 12 32

Afaka 48 18 34

(Avela~e) 56.8 16.8 26.4

Lugard Hall Zone

Dng-wan Munchi 56 22 24

Kabala Costain -,..,::JI 19 24

Katsina road 61 20 19

(Avera2"e) 58 20.3 22.3 S(111m: Freid survey data, Deamher, 2007

3.3.3.2 Chemical Characteristics

pH

Kaduna North Airport Zone and Lugard Hall Zone had an average pH value of 7 while Kaduna \vest, Kaduna South, Kaduna South East, Kaduna North Medium Level, and Kaduna North High Level Zones all had the same average pH value of 6.9.

It is important to note that the pH value for all the zones ranged between 6.8 in Umaru Idris/ Garba Salisu road, Kumai road and Western Bye pass to 7.1 Ungwan Guari, Kamaza, Afaka and Kabala Costain. What this implies is that the soil supports and is suitable for forage crops and vegetable cultivation.

Details of the pH value for the various sites can be found in Table 3.2.

-

Environmental and Social Impact l\sscssmcnt of Kaduna Metropolis

with 477mg/1. Kaduna West, Kad1..U1a South, I

I ':nviromnental and Social Impact Assessment of Kaduna Metropolis

Table 3.4: Moisture and Heterotrophic Bacterial content of Soil Sample

PARAMETERS

LOCATION Moisture content (%) HB (cfu/!z)

Kaduna North Airport Zone Rigachikum 2 1.0 x102 ---Ungwan Kaji-jere 1.6 3.0xt03

lJ:Jngwan Gwari 2.4 3.4 xl02 : (j\""...,0'~) 2

Kaduna West Zone Umaru Idris/ Garba Salisu road 3 2.1 xl03

Aliyu Umar/ Galadima road 2 1.3 x102

Maitata/Mutari road 2.4 1.2 x103

(Average) 2.5

Kaduna South Zone

Kudenda Industrial Layout 2 1.3 x103

Kunai road 1.6 2.0 x103

GRA 2.4 3.0x102

! (Average) 2


UngwanRomi 0.5 1.2 x104

Kamaza 1 7.0 x104

Barnawa 2.4 6.2 xlOS

(Average) 2


Rafm Guza road 2.S 1.2 x104

Dosa road 1 7.0 x104 -

Dawaki road 2.1 6.2 x105

(Average) 1.9


\Vestern Bve-pass 2 1.2 xl04

Gwamna 1.6 7.0 x104

Kurmin Mashi 2.4 6.2 x105

Havin banki 3 8.6 x103

Afaka 2.5 7.3 x104

(Average) 2.3

Lugard Hall Zone

Ungwan Munchi 3 2.4 x102l

Kabala Costain 2 6.1 x102

Katsina road 3 1.2 x103

(Average) 2.7 SOllrce. FIeld surv~ data, December, 2007


-3.3.3 Surface Water and Ground Water:

Water sample were collected from the various proposed sites in K.aduna Metropolis. The Physical, Chemical Biological and Metallic element of the samples are thus presented in Tables 3.5, 3.6,3.7, and 3.8.

-3.3.3.1 Physical Characteristics

Temperature

K.aduna West, I


PARAMETERS

LOCATION Temperature


Western Bye-pass 25

Kurmin ~fashi 27

Hayin banki 27

Afaka 25

(Avera£e) 26

Lugard Hall Zone

Ungwan Munchi 26

Kabala Co stain 27

25 (Average)

Katsina road

26 Sourre: Fuld mrvry data, Deamber, 2007

Water

TDS (Total Dissolved Solids)

.The ranges for TDS I

-


The average turbidity for Kaduna North Airport, Kaduna \Vest, Kaduna South, Kaduna South East, -

Kaduna North l\{edium Level, Kaduna North High Level and Lugard Hall were 10, 8,4.3, 7.3,4.3,

21.5, and 6.7(NTU) respectively.

,[SS (Total SlIspended Solids) Suspended solids consists of an inorganic fraction (silts, days, calcium, potassium, bicarbonates, chlorides, etc), and organic fraction (bacteria and detritus) that are within the water column. -Dissolved Ox'ygen

The average dissolved oxygen for Kaduna North Airport, Kaduna \Vest, Kaduna South, I


PARAMETERS TDS Conductivity Turbidity(NT TSS DO

LOCATION (mg/I) (us/em) U) (mg/I) (m~jI)


Western Bye-pass 25 50 25 - 6.5

Kurmin Mashi 28 45 18 - 6.1

Hayin banki 25 49 24 - 6.8

Afaka 31 49 19 - 6.6

(Average) 27.3 48.3 21.5 6.5

Lugard Hall Zone

Ungwan Munchi 35 100 6 - 11

Kabala Costain 42 100 7 - 8

Katsina road 38 100 7 - 8

(Avera,

3.3.3.2 Chemical

pH

Kaduna West, Kaduna South East, Kaduna North Medium Level, and Lugard Hall aU had an average

pH value of 7.0, while Kaduna South Zone had an average of 6.9.

Kaduna North Airport and Kaduna North High Level Zones had 6.5.

Information on the pH of the various sites can be found in Table 3.5.

Salinity

Only in Kaduna North Airport, Kaduna North Medium Level and Kaduna North High Level could the salinity be detected. The values were 0.77, 0.77, and 1.1 (ppt) respectively.

NitrateJ and PhoJphate; Nitrates are products of oxidation of organic nitrogen by bacterial in the presence of sufficient

oxygen. Sourced of nitrate are domestic effluents, fertilizer use, decayed vegetable and animal matter,

leachates from refuse dumps etc. nitrate is toxic in drinking water when present in excessive

amounts, and in some cases cause methaemoblobinaemia in bottle fed infants.

Phosphates are released into natural water by weathering of rocks.

Table 3.7 Chemical Characteristics of Water Samples

PARAMETERS Salinity Nitrate Phosphate

LOCATION pH (ppt) (mg/I) (mg/I)

Kaduna North Airport Zone

Rigachikum 6.6 -1 1

Ungwan Kaji-jere 6.4 -0.5

Ungwan Gwari 6.6 -0.8 2 (Average) 6.5 0.77 1 Source: Fze/d survry data, December, 2007

35 Earthguards Limited

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ofKaduna Metropolis -PARAMETERS

Salinity LOCATION pH (ppt) Nitrate(mg/l) Phosphate(mgl!)

Kaduna West Zone U maru I dris / Garba Salisu I road 7 ~ - - I

Aliyu Umar/ Galadima road 7.1 ~ -

Maitata/Mutari road 6.8 1

(Average) 7 J

Kudenda Industrial Layout 7 - - - I

Kunairoad 7 ~ -

GRA 6.8 1

(Average) 6.9

Kadnna South East Zone

Ungwan Romi 7 ~ - ~

Kamaza 7 ~ -

Barnawa 7.1 - 1

(Average) 7


Rafin Guza road 7 1 ~ 1

Dosa road 7 0.5 -Dawakiroad 6.9 0.8 - 2

(Average) 7 Os.77

Kaduna Noeth High Level Zone

Western Bye~pass 6.6 1 ~ ~

Kurmin :Mashi 6.4 0.5 - ~

Hayin banki 6.2 1 ~ -

Afaka 6.6 0.8 ~ 1

(Average) 6.5 1.1

Lugard Hall Zone Ungwan Munchi 7 ~ ~ ~

Kabala Costain 7 - ~ ~

Katsina road 7 - 1

(Average) 7

-

-

-

Kaduna South Zone

----

-

--

-

-

5OHm: Field SH11Jry data, December, 2007 -

-

-

-

Earthguards Limited 36 -


3.3.3.3 Biological

There were no traces of ammonium found in the various samples. Other parameters found include

among others Calcium and Magnesium (these determines the hardness of the water), also Iron (Fe),

and Coliform were detected in some of the samples.

Details of the analysis are represented in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8 Biological Characteristics of Water Samples

PARAMETERS

Calcium Magnesium Total Total LOCATION Ammonium (mg:/l) (m~/l) Fe(m~/l) Coliform

Kaduna North Aioort

Rigachikum - 30 10 0.1 8

Ungwan Kaji-jere - 28 12 0.1 6

Ungwan Gwari 30 12 7

(Avera~e) 29.3 11.3 7

Kaduna West Zone Umaru Idris/ Garba Salisu road - 30 10 0.2 7

Aliyu Umar/ Galadima road 26 12 0.21 6

Maitata/Mutari road - 28 10 0.19 7

(Averag:e) 28 10.7 0.2 6.7

Kaduna South Zone

Kudenda Industrial Layout - 15 8 0.29

Kunairaad i 20 8 0.32 -

GRA. - 18 8 0.31 -

(Aver~e) 17.7 8 0.31


Ungwan Rami - 17 6 0.3 -

Kamaza 15 6 0.38

Barnawa - 16 8 0.3 2

(Avera~e) 16 6.7 0.33


Rafm Guza road - 25 10 0.3 5

Dasa road - 24 8 0.3 6

Dawakiroad 25 10 0.2 2

(Avera~e) 24.7 9.3 0.27 4.3

I


PARAMETERS

Calcium Magnesium Total Total LOCATION Ammonium (me-/l) (m!!'/l) Fe(me/l) Coliform

Kaduna North Hieh Level Zone

Western Bye-pass - 30 10 0.1 !

Kurmin Mashi 28 12 0.1

Havin banki - 32 13

Afaka - i 30 12 -

(Average) 30 11.75 0.07

Lue-ard Hall Zone

Ungwan Munchi 30 10 0.3

Kabala Co stain - 26 12 0.32

Katsma road - 28 10 0.3

(Averaee) 28 7.3 0.31

6

3

-

-

2.3

7

6

7

6.7

I I -

----

Sotlf'ce: Fuld mrvey data, December, 2007 -3.3.4 Climate and Air quality:

Kaduna State experiences a typical tropical continental climate with distinct seasonal regimes, oscillating between cool to hot dry and humid to wet. These two seasons reflect the influences of tropical continental and equatorial maritime air masses which sweep over the entire country. However, in Kaduna State, the seasonality is pronounced with the cool to hot dry season being longer, than the rainy season. Again, the spatial and temporal distribution of the rain varies, -decreasing from an average of about 1530mm in Kafanchan-Kagoro areas in the Southeast to about 1015mm in lkara Makarfi districts in the northeast. High storm intensities (ranging from 60mm hrl to 99mm hrl) plus the nature of surface run off build up the good network of medium sized river systems. High evaporation during the dry season, however, creates water shortage problems especially in Igabi, Giwa, Soba, Makarfi and Ikara LGAs.

3.4 Biological Environment: -Ine Biological environment will be discussed under soils and vegetation 3.4.1 Soils and Vegetation

Generally, the soils and vegetation are typical redbrown to redyellow tropical ferruginous soils and -savannah grassland with scattered trees and woody shrubs. The soils in the upland areas are rich in

red clay and sand but poor in organic matter.

However, soils within the "fadama" areas are richer in kaolinitic clay and organic matter, very heavy

and poorly drained, characteristics of vertisols. Fringe forests ("Kurmi" in Hausa) in some localities,

and especially in the southern LGAs of the state, are presently at the mercies of increasing demands for fuel wood in the fast growing towns and urban centres.

-

-

38


3.5 Socio-economic and Cultural Environment:

3.5.1. Population Structure and Distribution:

The 2006 census provisional result puts the population of Kaduna State at 6,066,562. The 2006 population figures for Local Government Areas in Kaduna are shown in Table 3.9. Although the majority of the people live and depend on the rural areas, about one third of the State's population are located in the two major urban centres which are Kaduna and Zaria.

However, except in the northwestern quadrant, the rural population concentration is moderate, reaching a high of over 500 persons per sq. km. in Kaduna/Zaria and the neighboring villages; 350 in ] aba, 19abi and Giwa and 200 in Ikara LGAs. There are movements of young able bodied male labourers in large numbers, from rural villages to towns during the dry season and back to rural agricultural fields during the wet season, suggesting a sizeable seasonal labour force migration in the state. Another major feature of the State's population structure is the near 1:1 male/female ratio, not just for the state as a whole, but even among all the LGAs.

Table 3.9: Population figures for LGAs in 2006

Kaduna State I LGAName Population

ttnlll war1'B' . G . 252363 Giwa 286427 Saban Gad 286871 Kudan 138992 Makarfi ! 146259 I lkara 193926 Kubau 282045 Saba 293270 Zaria 408198 19abi 430229 Kaduna North I 357694 I

• Kaduna South 402390 Chikun 368250 Kajura 110868 Kauru 170008 Lere 331161 Zangon-Kataf 316370 Kachia 244272 Kagarko 240943

, Taba 155377 Jema's 278735 Kaura 222579 Sanga 149333 Total 6066562

Sounl!: Federal Republic ofNzgma OffiCial Gazette on 2006 Poplllattoll Censlls

39

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment oEKaduna Metropolis -3.5.2 Social Infrastructure 3.5.2.1 Transport Network -Kaduna State is served with 2,820km stretch of trunk "A" Federal, well surfaced roads radiating from Kaduna City in five cardinal directions westwards to Tegina, northward to Kano, eastwards to Jos, south and south-eastwards to the Federal Capital Territory. -The State Government has also constructed good tarred surface roads comparable to the trunk "A" totalling 1,200km; and several other road development projects are still going on. Again, in order to open up the large rural areas, the former Federal Government Agency, Directorate For Foods, Road and Rural Infrastructure (DFRIU) , constructed feeder roads to specific project locations. For example, the road linking Rigachikun to Sabon Birnin and Gumel to Jere in Igabi and I


drainage basins (e.g. Galma, Tubo, Karami, Sarkin riy Pawa and Damari) favour extraction of groundwater from shallow aquifers and boreholes from deep ones.

Thus, although the climatic conditions north of latitude lOoN pose problems of water shortages and the river valleys appear to be dry, moist valley bottom lands have sustained certain traditional horticultural! agricultural activities and provided domestic water for people in many rural areas of the state. Currently, there are five completed large and medium dams and water intakes at Zaria on Galma and Kubanni rivers; at Kangimi on Karami river; at Bimin Gwart on Kusheriki river; at Kaduna on Kaduna river. Also, one or two boreholes in every LGA have been completed and are now in operation to complement water supply for rural domestic uses (provided by the Federal Government through the defunct Directorate of Foods, Roads and Rural Infrastructure, DFRRI).

3.5.3 Existing Socioeconomic Condition of the Project Sites in Kaduna Metropolis

Data was collected on the existing socioeconomic attributes of the respondents in the project locations in I 20 7.7 '0:0 I 5.3 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 1.8 Respondent 20-30 38.5 40.4 47.4 4Ci:9 50,0 0,0 40.0 27.3~ 375 37.8

31·40 15.4 13.5 21.1 22.7 25.0 16.7 0.0 13.6 37.5 17.1. 41-50 ¥sf 17.3 26.3 27.3 25.0 66.7 20.0 31.8 0.0 22.0 51-60 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 40.0 18.2 12.5 13.4 Above 60 13.5 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 12.5 7.9

" , .

1\1A- Makcra, BL- Barka Lahn, NAR- Narayt, RIC,- Rigachukum, SA1- Sabon I asha, fK-1 rikaruya, UD- Ungwall Dosa,

Overall : Mean 39.49 years

KA- Ungwan Kaji, UR-Ungwan Romi. Source: Field SUf7)ty data, December, 2007

Earrhguards I~imited41

Environmental amI Social Impact Assessment of Kaduna Metropolis

-

Length qfTime On length of time the respondent lived in the community, the majority (55.6%) have lived in their communities/locations for less than 10 years. On specific locations, besides Barakan Lahu where the highest proportion (42.0%) indicated that they have lived for between 10 and 20 years, the majority (62.5%,68.8%,63.2%,66.7%,66.7%, 100%, 56.0%, and 83.3%) for Mando, Narayi, Rigasa, Sabon Tasha, Tsaunin Kura, Ungwan Dosa, Ugwan I

Environmemal and Social Impact Assessment of Kaduna Metropolis

Edurational Charaderistk.f As regards educational qualification, the highest proportion (28.6%) of the respondents had WASC/SSCE certificate while the least (3.6%) had MSc/PhD degree. As regards specific locations, half (50.0%) of the respondents in Rigasa and Sabon Tasha respectively had no education while the other half in Sabon Tash and half of the respondents in Ungwan Romi had WAEC/SSCE certificate. The distribution of the respondents based primary, secondary and tertiary education attempted and completion rate is shown in Table 3.15.

Table 3.15: Highest Educational Qualification of Respondents

I Item Categories ii NAR RIG SAT TK un UKA UR Total I

(%)

I lighest None 21. 32,0 15.4 50,0 50.0 16.7 20.0 17.4 16.7 f ~ducati()nal liSLe 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.7 0.0 Qualification WASC/SSCE .0 53.8 12.5 50.0 0.0 40.0 13.0 50.0

TCII/ON~ 10.0 23.1 6.3 0.0 16.7 20.0 30.4 0,0 HNDjBSC 6.0 7.7 0,0 0.0 50.0 20.0 4.3 0,0 T'"lSCjPIID 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 16,7 OXl 4.3 16.7 Islamic Stu ' .1 10.0 0,0 12,5 0.0 0.0 0,0 8.7 16,7

, ., .. .

20.4 8,6

28,6 14,3 7.9 3.6

10,0

i

I MA- Makcra, BL- Barka Lahn, Ni\R- Narayl, RlCT- Rigachukum, SA I SabtID I asha, 1 K- frikamya, UD- Ungwan Dosa, UK/, U11i:,'Wan Kaji, UR-Ungwan Romi SQtI1'ce: Field SIfrv~y Data, Dece!Jlber, 2007

Hou.fehold Size The result as regards household size (Table 3.16) shows that the majority (57.8%) have between 5 and 10 persons in their households suggesting that the households in the locations are large, an indication of poor family planning. The 2006 population census had shown that Kaduna is the third most populated country in Nigeria, after Kano and Lagos States. Specifically, the majority of the respondents in all the locations indicated that their household sizes were between 5 and 10 people. The average household size was 8.55 persons.

Table 3.16: Household Size of Respondents Item Categories MA BL NAR I RIG SAT TK un UKA UR Total

(%) IIotlseho]d >5 26.3 23,8 10,0

1 21

,4 50,0 16,7 20.0 22.7 25,0 22,7

size 5-10 52.6 59.5 90.0 1.0 50.0 66.7 40.0 50.0 62,5 57.8 (persons) 11-20 10.5 11.9 0,0 0,0 16,7 20.0 22.7 12,5 14.8

> 20 10.5 4,8 0.0 I 0,0 0.0 0.0 20.0 4.5 0,0 4.7 ..

OveraU Mean 8.55 persons

MA Makcra, BL- Barka Lahn, NAR- NaraYI, RIG- Rigachukum, SA 1- Sabon Tasha, fK- Trikamya, UD- Ungwan Dosa, UKA- Unh'Wan Kaji, UR-Ungwan Romi

-Source: Field SIfrv~y Data, Deamber, 2007

Age Characie1istic.f q/Hou.fehold lvlember.f The age categories of household members are shown in Table 3.17. The result shows that there are more children, teenagers and young adults than elderly people in the locations. This suggests that there could be high incidence of diarrhea and other water related diseases with shortage of water. Generally, Barka Lahu, Mando, Narayi, Rigasa and Ungwan kaji has the highest population of the different categories of household members suggesting that the environmental, social and health effects of the project would be felt by more people in the areas.

Earthguards Limited43

• • •

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Kaduna Ml'lmnnli<

Table 3.17: Age Categories of Household Members MA BL NAR RIG SAT TK un ~KA- UR . Total

0-4 years j'vlale 6 11.1 18 33.3 3 5.6 9 16.1 2 (3.1) 1 1.9 12 (22.2) 3 5.6 54 1 Female 10 (16.4) 20 32.8 5 8.2 10 (16.4) 1 (1.6) t 1.6 11 (18.0) 3 4.9 61

5-9 years Male 9 17.6 17 33.3 7 13.7 7 (13.7 1 2.0 9 17.6 1 2.0 51 ..~ .. Female 9 20.9 12 27.9 4 9.3 4 (9.3) 2 4.7 9 (20.9 3 7.0 43-

10 14 years l\1:alc 6 13.3 11 24.4 7 15.6) 8(1~'-- 1 2.2 10 (22.2) 2 4.4 45 Female 6 12.5 16 33.3 6 12.5 7 14.6 3 6.3 4 8.3) 6 12.5) 48

15-19 years Male 7 14.9 17 36.2 3 6.4 6 12.8 1 (2.1) 3 (6.4 1 2.1 9 19.1 47 Female 4 9.3) 13 30.2 3 7.0 8 (18.6 1 (2.3) 2 (4.1 4 9.3 7 16.3 1 2.3

..43

2024 years Male '; 12.8) 14 35.9 4 10.3) 3 7.7) :3 7.7 4 10.3) 5 12.8 1 2.6 39 Female 4 10.3 . 12 30.8 5 12.8 4 10.3) 2 5.1 4 10.3) 6 15.4 2 5.1 39

25-29 years IvIalc 8 23.5 10 29.4 1 2.9 4 11.8 1 (2.9) j 8.8 2 5.9 4 11.8 1 2.9 .3~4--

Female 3 (7.1) 17 43.6 1 2.6 3 7.7) 1 (2.6) 2 5.1 3 7.7 7 17.9 2 5.1 39 -.".

30-34 years Male 4 18.2) 8 36.4 2 9.1 3 13.6 1 (4.5) 1 4.5 1 4.5 1 4.5) 1 4.5 22 Female 2 9.1) 6 27.3 2 9.1 2 9.1) 3 13.6 2 9.1 5 22·T 22

.35-39 years Male 4 18.2 7 31.8 5 22.7 2 9.1 1 4.5 1 4.5) 2 9.1) 22 Female 3 13.0 7 30.4 3 13J)L~.(13.0 1 4.3 i 4.3 5 21.7 23

·40-44 years ..

5 41.1 Male 3 25.0 1 8.3) 3(25.0 12 Female 5 45.5 1 9.1) 1 9.1 1 (9.iY f(9.1 3 27.3 11

45-49 years Male 1 5.3) 4 21.1) 5 26.3 4 21.1) 2 (10.5 3 15.8 19 Female 1 6.1) 5 33.3 3 20.0 1 (6.7) 2 (13.3 2 13.3 1 (6.7) 15

50-54 years Male 2 12.5 4(25.0 3 18.8 2(12.5 1 (6.3 3 18.8 1 6.3 16 Female 2 28.6 2 28.6 1 14.3 i 14.3 1 14.3 7

>.55-59 years Male 4 40.0 3 30.0 1 10.0 1 10.0) . 1 10.0 10 Female 1 50.0 1 50.0 2

60-64 years Male 3 (25.0 5 41.7 1 8.3 1 8.3) 2 16.1 12 Female 3 75.0 1 25.0 4

._.

65 and above Male 3 42.9 1 14.3 1 14.3) 2 (28.6) 7 Female 1 50.0 1 50.0 2

- _. - - . - ~ . ~ ~ • ..,.... h" , , .~ .~ ..,. ~ r'.'1 ~ ,...,.....,.-,.. ,,,', ~ ".-... ...... , T -.-..F, ... .. ..-". .. r ""'" ,. T .. Sourn; Field Stlf7Jey Data, December, 2007

Earthguards Limited 44

I I I I I I I I I I I

--- -- ------

Environmental and Sodal Impact As,cssmcnt of Kaduna lVlcm,pou>

Table 3.18: Income and Expenditure of Households in Project Locations in Kaduna Metropolis

! NAR ! RIG-------

IUDItem Categories AF BL SAT TK UKA ! lJR Total Overall Mean

- r--------- -----(%)

ExpendituIe on Less than 100 5.9 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 2.7 W861.1 Food Items

(~ 100-250 17.6 25.6 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 50.0 35.3 16.7 21.4

Above 250 76.5 74.4 100.0 63.6 100.0 100.0 50.0 58.8 83.3 75.9

Expenditure on Less than 100 20.0 5.7 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 6.9 WS46.67 Non-food 100-250 40.0 54.3 27.3 30.0 100.0 0.0 50.0 33.3 16.7 40.2 Items ~ Above 250 40.0 40.0 72.7 60.0 0.0 100.0 50.0 66.7 66.7 52.9 ExpendituIe Less than 100 28.6 50.0 11.1 37.5 0.0 0.0 50.0 40.0 0.0 33.0 W211.46 Per Capita 100-250 28.6 26.7 77.8 50.0 100.0 40.0 0.0 53.3 33.3 40.7

Above 250 42.9 23.3 11.1 12.5 0.0 60.0 50.0 6.7 66.7 26.4 , Annual Income Less than 10,000 18.8 7.7 14.3 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 12.5 W256,862.9

10,001-30,000 25.0 15.4 0.0 20.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 15.9 30,001-50,000 6.3 15.4 14.3 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4

50,001-100,000 12.5 11.5 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 l 50.0 21.1 25.0 13.6

Above 100,000 37.5 50.0 71.4 20.0 I 0.0 100.0 50.0 52.6 75.0 ! 46.6 ----- -----BL- Barka Lahn, NAR RIG- Rigachukum, SA1'- Sabon Tasha, TK- Trikaniya, UD- Dosa, UKl\.- Kaji, Romi Soum: Field Survey Data, December, 2007

45 Earthguards I jmited

MA-Makera,


3.5.3.2 Availability and Condition of Infrastructure/Amenities -The result as regards the condition of amenities in project locations is shown in Table 3.19. The result shows that the highest proportion (42.9%) of the respondents indicated that they have roads to their community although inadequate. The least (18.0%) said that the roads were adequate but unreliable. As regards specific locations, the majority (68.8%, 66.7%, 83.3%, and 62.5%) of the respondents in Narayi, Sabon Tasha, Tsaunin Kura and Ungwan Romi respectively were of the opinion that the roads exist in their localities but they are inadequate. It is only in Ungwan Kaji and Ungwan Dosa that the majority, 53.8% and 83.3% respectively, indicated that the roads to their locality are adequate and reliable.

On the condition of roads within their locality, the majority (60.0%) also indicated that roads existed in their locations although they are inadequate. The least (7.9%) said the roads within their locality are adequate and reliable. Specifically, the majority of the respondents in each of the locations indicated that the roads within their localities are existent but inadequate with the highest being Ungwan Romi where 87.5% of the respondents had the opinion. On schools in their locality, the highest proportion (45.0%) of all the respondents in various locations indicated that schools were existent but inadequate while the least (8.1%) said that they did -not have schools in their locality. Based on specific locations, all the respondents in Sabon Tasha and Ugwan Dosa and the majority (66.7%) in Tsaunin Kura were of the view that schools in their locality were adequate and reliable. On the other hand, the majority (63.5%) in Barakan Lahu and the highest proportions (48.0%, 40.0% and 52.0%) of the respondents in Mando, Rigasa, and Ungwan I

Environmental and Social ,\ssessmenr of Kaduna Metronolls

Table 3.19: Opinion of the Respondents as regards the Condition of Amenities in the Project Locations Source ofwater Categories MA BL NAR

--- ·RIG .. SAT TIt UD UKA UR Total

Roadti·toyotlfl()c.a~ Non·existcnt 11.5 22.0 2').0 30.0 (%)

0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 12.5 16.8 Existent but inadequate 38.5 480 68.8 35.0 66.7 83.3 16.7 15.4 62.5 42.9 Adequate but unreliable 23.1 12.0 6.3 35.0 33.3 16.7 0.0 23.1 12.5 18.0 Adequate and reliable 26.9 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.3 53.8 12.5 22.4

Roads within your Non-existent 11.5 15.4 41.2 23.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 12.5 15.2 locality Existent but inadequate 50.0 75.0 47.1 42.9 66.7 83.3 16.7 61.5 87.5 60.0

Adequate but unreliable 23.1 9.6 11.8 33.3 33.3 16.7 0.0 19.2 0.0 16.4 Adequate and reliable 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.3 15.4 0.0 7.9

Schools in the locality Non-existent 12.0 7.7 12.5 10.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 4.0 0.0 8.1 Existent but inadequate 48.0 63.5 25.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.0 25.0 45.0 Adequate but unreliable 12.0 13.5 25.0 35.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 16.0 62.5 19.4 Adequate and reliable 28.0 15.4 37.5 15.0 100.0 66.7 100.0 28.0 12.5 27.5

Public Health Non-existent 25.0 12.2 43.8 21.1 0.0 33.3 16.7 30.8 25.U 22.9 Institutions Existent but inadequate 25.0 61.2 37.5 52.6 33.3 16.7 16.7 42.3 25.0 43.3

Adequate but unreliable 25.0 6.1 18.8 21.1 33.3 33.3 ~(~7

19.2 12.5 15.9 Adequate and reliable 25.0 20.4 0.0 5.3 33.3 16.7 7.7 37.5 17.8

Portable water Non-existent 42.3 69.4 18.8 50.0 66.7 50.0 0.0 73.1 62.5 54.4 Existent but inadequate 26.9 24.5 31.3 45.0 33.3 0.0 33.3 11.5 25.0 25.6 Adequate but unreliable 23.1 6.1 50.0 5.0 0.0 50.0 16.7 7.7 0.0 15.U Adequate and reliable 7.7 U.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 7.7 12.5 5.0

I}ti!)!lc Non existent 20.0 10.9 11.8 22.2 100.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.2 Existent but inadequate 20.0 43.5 35.3 33.3 0.0 16.7 0.0 29.8 42.9 30.0 Adequate but unreliable 52.0 43.5 41.2 22.2 0.0 66.7 83.3 54.2 57.1 46.1 Adequate and reliable 8.0 2.2 11.8 22.2 0.0 0.0 16.7 25.0 0.0 10.5

Postal Service Non·existent 34.6 82.9 23.5 52.4 100.0 50.0 20.0 29.2 50.0 50.3 Existent but inadequate 19.2 12.2 41.2 23.8 0.0 16.7 20.0 12.5 0.0 17.9 Adequate but unreliable 11.5 0.0 11.8 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 25.0 7.3 Adequate and reliable 34.6 4.9 23.5 9.5 0.0 33.3 60.0 54.2 25.0 24.5

Telephone Non-existent 42.3 74.5 20.0 61.1 66.7 25.0 60.0 34.6 40.0 52.3 Existent but inadequate 11.5 11.8 40.0 11.1 0.0 25.0 20.0 11.5 0.0 14.4 Adequate but unreliable 11.5 0.0 13.3 167 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 20.0 6.5 Adequate and reliable 34.6 13.7 26.7 11.1 33.3 5U.0 20.0 50.0 40.0 26.8

Recreation facilities Non-existent 80.8 86.0 47.1 84.2 100.0 66.7 83.3 76.9 85.7 78.8 ·ExIstent but inadequate 15.4 14.0 35.3 10.5 0.0 33.3 16.7 15.4 14.3 16.9 Adequate but unreliable 3.8 0.0 17.6 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 Adequate and reliable 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 1.3

... r! ..... 1 ,,. n T , .... ">' ............. . - -' . , ..... '-r< ," ~ h~ • ~~ ~ ~~"' '. ..~ ~ ,- . .. • T~ r , .. ~ ~ ., ~ . .. ~ Source: FieldSuf'Vry Data, December, 2007

harthi~a,rds Linuted47


On sources of electricity and main cooking fuel used, the result in Table 6.6 shows that the majority (88.5% and 61.3%) of the respondents indicated that PHCN and fIre wood respectively served as the -primary source of electricity and main cooking fuel. Their opinion based on experience in specifIc locations showed that with the exception of Sabon Tasha where all the respondents indicated that they use hurricane lamp as primary source of electricity flight, the majority in the other locations said PHCN was their primary source of electricity. On main fuel used, the majority in all the locations, with the exception of those in Ungwan Romi Ungwan Dosa and Ungwan Kaji, indicated fIrewood. In these three locations, the majority, 50.0%, 42.9~'o and 625% respectively, said kerosene was the main fuel used.

Table 3.20: Other Amenities -

I

Item i Categories MA BL I NAR RIG I SAT TK UD UKA ' UR i i

i i

Primary I Hurricane lamp 7.1 1.9 0,0 18.2 100,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 22.2 Source of Private 10.7 3.8 5.6 0,0 0,0 33,3 0.0 0,0 0.0 Electricity generator

PHCN 82,1 94.3 94.4 81.8 0.0 66.7 i 100.0 100.0 77.8 Main Fuel Firewood 61.5 71.2 70.6 86.4 33.3 66,7 16.7 39.3 25.0 Used in Charcoal 0,0 1.9 0.0 0.0 33,3 0.0 0.0 3,6 0.0 Cooking Kerosene 30,8 26.9 29.4 9.1 33.3 33.3 50.0 42.9 62.5

Gas 7.7 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 33.3 10.7 12.5 Electricitv 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0

Total I (%) . 6.9 4.6

88.5 61.3 1.8 I

31.0 5.4 0.6

-

-

MA- Makcra, BL- Barka Lahn, NAR- Naray~ RIG- Rigachukum, SAT- Sabon Tasha, TK- Trikaniya, UD- Ungwan Do:;a, -UKA- Ungwan Kaji, UR-Ungwan Romi Source: Field Stlro~ Data, December, 2007

On source of water, the result is shown in Table 3.21 and Figure 3.2. The result in the Table and the -Figure showed that well water was the major source of water for the majority (54.7%) of the respondents while commercial water tanker (0.4%) was the least. Wben locations are considered specifIcally, the result shows that well water serve as the major source of water for the respondents besides those in Ungwan Kaji where the highest proportion (31.0%) said water vendor was their main source of water. This finding suggests that sources of portable water are non-existent in these locations this justifying the current water project intervention. -

-

--

Earthguards Limited 48 -

Environmental and Sodallmpact Assessment of Kaduna Metropolis

Table 3.21: Source of Water for Households in the Project Locations in Kaduna MetropoIis

ofwater AF BL NAR RIG SAT TK un UKA UR Use . (%

No of 28 60 19 22 4 6 6 29 9 Respondents River 0.0 3.3 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 Pond 0.0 0.0 10.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 Rain Water 3.6 15.0 5.3 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 11.1 8.6 Public Pipe 10.7 11.7 42.1 0.0 0.0 33.3 83.3 3.4 11.1 14.5

• Borne Water Pump 3.6 1.7 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 3.8

water 7.1 11.7 5.3 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 11.1 7.5 7.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 5.4

(Commercial) Borehole 3.6 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.1 11.9 7.0 (PEivatel Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 3.4 0.0 0.5 Tanker Water Vendor 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 I 31.0 0.0 5.9 WeU Water 71.4 83.3 68.4 95.5 75.0 83.3 16.7 27.6 77.8 68.8 ........-~--~----Total

>, ..

Total.. 1.7 1.3 6.8 11.5

3.0 6.0 4.3

5.6

0.4

4.7

.,\1;\- Makera, BL- Barb. Lahn, NAR- NaraYI, RIG-IZIgachukum, SA[- Sabon lasha, "lK-lrika01ya, UD- UngwanDosa, UKA- l:nbrwan Kaji, UR-Ungwan Romi Source: Field SlfflIry Data, December, 20f)7

Note: Multiple Responses were observed

Well Water, 54.70%


,River, 1.70%

Pond,1.30%

Rain Water, 6.80%

Public Pipe ! Borne Water,

11.50%

Mono Pump, 3.00%

Packaged water, 6.00%

Borehole (Commercial),

4.30%

" Borehole (Private), 5.60%

'L_ Commercial Tanker, 0.40%

i Water Vendor, 4.70%

Figure 3.2: Pie chart Showing the Major Sources of Water for Households in the Project Locations in Kaduna Metropolis

On the time spent in collecting water from the nearest source, amount spent and quantity consumed per day, the result of the response of households interviewed in presented in Table 3.22 The result shows that the highest proportion (47.1%) of the respondents indicated that it takes them less than five minutes to their nearest water source.

This is not surprising as the majority had indicated that well water was their major source of water and often wells are located with the dwelling places. The response as regards specific locations mdicates that all the respondent households in Sabon Tasha, half of the respondent households in Mando, Tsaunin Kura and the majority (76.0%, 60.0% and 71.4%) in Rigasa, Ungwan Dosa and Ungwan Romi respectively spend less than five minutes to get to their nearest water source. The majority of the respondents in these locations had indicated that well water was their major source of water.

As regards amount spent in a month to water from a major source, the highest proportion of the respondents, 30.1 % said that they spent less than W500, and greater than W2000 respectively. The average amount spent by the respondents in getting water from the major source per month was W2520.67.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-On specific locations, all the respondents in Sabon Tasha, as expected considering that they all use

well water, indicated that they spend less than W500 on water in a month. On the other hand, the majority (66.7%) of the respondents in Ungwan Kaii and the highest proportion (40.0%) in Rigasa ..

http:W2520.67http:Pond,1.30

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Kadulla Metropolis

indicated that they spent over W2000 a month in getting water from the major source. The finding as regards Ungwan .Kaji is expected as 31.1 % of the respondents in that location had indicated that they rely on water vendors to get water.

The overall result as regards the number of gallons of water used per day by households shows that the majority (60.5%) use between 1 and 20 gallons of water a day while only 9.2% use over 100 gallons of water a day. Water use by specific locations shows that the majority (71.1 %, 70.6%, 50.0%, 57.9%) of the households in Barkan Lahu, Nara)'i, Sabon Tasha, and Ungwan kaji, and the highest proportion (47.8%, 40.0% and 42.9%) of households in Mando, Ungwan Dosa and Ungwan Romi, use between 1 and 20 gallons of water daily.

The average quantity of water used per day by the households is 36.82 gallons. The quantity of water used per day is an indication of water demand in the localities and is a guide as regards the volume of water that should be made available to a location.

Table 3.22: Result showing time spent in water collection from nearest source, amount spent and quantity of water consumed per day by the respondents in the project locations

Source water Time nearest source ffilnutes)

of

to water

(in

Categories MA BL NAR RIG SAT TK un UKA UR Total (%)

Less than 5 50.0 31.4 47.1 • 76.9 100.0 50.0 60.0 31.3 71.4 47.1 5-10 25.0 34.3 41.2 7.7 0.0 er. r. 20.0 25.0 28.6 28.6

11-20 20.0 20.0 11.8 15.4 0.0 0.0 ! 0.0 31.3 0.0 16.8 I >20 5.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 20.0 12.5 0.0 7.6

Amount spent Less than 500 35.7 24.0 30.0 60.0 100.0 25.0 33.3 22.2 33.3 30.1 in a month to 500-1000 7.1 20.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 5.6 33.3 14.5 get water from 1001-2000 21.4 36.0 40.0 I 0.0 0.0 25.0 66.7 5.6 33.3 25.3 major source >2000 31.7 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 30.1 (in Naira = WI Gallons of: 1-20 47.8 71.1= 70.6 26.7 50.0 16.7 40.0 57.9 42.9 60.5 water used per 21-50 26.1 15.8 11.8 13.3 0.0 0.0 40.0 21.1 26.6 20.2 day 51-100 8.7 2.6 5.9 20.0 50.0 33.3 20.0 0.0 14.3

>100 17.4 10.5 11.8 40.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 21.1 14.3 1\1,,\- Makera, BL- Barka Lahn, N/\li- Narayi, RIG- RJgachukum, SAT- Sabon Tasha, TK- Trikani a, UD- Un y gw UKA- Ungwan Kaji, UR-Ungwan Romi Sourn: Field SUroIY Data, December, 2001

3.5.4 Willingness to Pay for Water (WTP)

10.1 9.2

Mean

9.0 minutes

W2520.6 7

36.82 gallons

an Dosa,

The willingness of the respondents to pay for water was also ascertained. This was to find out if the project is sustainable. If the people are not willing to pay for water, it then means that the funds committed into the project may not be recouped on the long run and it will be difficult for the KSWB to repay the loan facility from the World Bank.

The willingness to pay was elicited using a dichotomous choice method done in two steps. First, using a discrete choice question format often referred to as referendum Contingent Valuation Method (CV1v1) and then a follow-up open-ended question to reveal maximum willingness to pay (\VIP). The result revealed that the majority (94.3%) of the respondents were willing to pay for water as against 5.7% that were not willing to pay. The mean amount they were willing to pay was W748.15. The distribution of the respondents based on WfP is shown in Figure 3.3 below. The result shows that half of the respondents were willing to

51


pay between W400 and N1000 naira, 36.0% were willing to pay an amount less than W400 while only 14.0% were willing to pay an amount greater than N1000 naira. the findings suggests that the people are willing to pay for water and that the majority of the respondents are willing to pay an amount that is more that the current average user charge currently in I

Environmental and Social Impact Asscssment of Kaduoa Mctropolis

CHAPTER FOUR: POLICY, LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

4.1 World Bank Safeguard Policies The project has been categorized as B implying that the expected environmental impacts are largely site-specific, that few if any of the impacts are irreversible, and that mitigation measures can be designed relatively readily. The environmental assessment for a Category B project,

• examines the project's potential negative and positive environmental impacts, • recommends measures to prevent, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts,

and • recommends measures to improve environmental performance

The World Bank has 10 Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies to reduce or eliminate the

adverse effects of development projects, and improve decision making.

Details on the World Bank Safeguard policies are presented in Appendix 1

With respect to this project, the following Bank policies apply:

• Environmental Assessment (OP4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01) • Involuntary Resetdement (OP/BP 4.12)

The above-mentioned policies are reviewed below with regards to their applicability and implication.

Environmental Assessment OP4.01 is a process whose breath, depth, and type of analysis depend on the nature, scale and potential environmental impact of the proposed project. It evaluates a project's potential environmental risks and impacts in its area of influence; examines project alternatives; identifies ways of improving projects selection, siting, planning, design, and implementation by preventing, minimizing, mitigating, or compensating for adverse environmental impacts and enhancing positive impacts; and includes the process of mitigating and managing adverse environmental impacts throughout project implementation. The \Vorld Bank favours preventive measures over mitigatory or compensatory measures, whenever feasible.

Environmental Assessment takes into account the following:

• natural environment • human health and safety; • social aspects, and • transboundary and global environmental aspects

Involuntary Resetrlement OP4.12 is to be complied with where involuntary resetdement may take place as a result of the project. It is very likely that such will e the case, although to a restricted extent. The policy includes requirements that

(a) Involuntary resetdement should be avoided where feasible, or minimized, exploring all viable alternative project designs.

(b) Where it is not feasible to avoid resetdement, resetdement activities should be conceived and executed as sustainable development programs, providing sufficient investment resources to enable the persons affected by the project to share in the project benefits. Displaced/ Affected persons should be meaningfully consulted and should have opportunities to participate in planning and implementing resetdement programs.

(c) Displaced/Affected should be assisted in their efforts

world bank document€¦ · project implementation unit, kaduna state water board chief olusegun...

Documents