J.2-USAID_Liberia_RISE_PEA-ESMMF_FINAL_(1).pdf

i

This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Eurasia

Environmental Associates, LLC and The Cadmus Group, Inc. under USAID’s Global Environmental Management Support Project

(GEMS).

7 May 2013

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

OF RURAL FEEDER ROAD REHABILITATION UNDER

THE USAID/LIBERIA RISE PROJECT

ii

Cover photos:

Community road crew working together to fix a bridge outside of Senesu, Lofa County near the border with Guinea. Photo Credit: Gwendolyn Heaner, March 2013 iii

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

OF RURAL FEEDER ROAD REHABILITATION

UNDER THE

USAID/LIBERIA RISE PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

07 MAY 2013

SUBMITTED TO:

USAID/Liberia

P.O. Box 10-1445

1000 Monrovia 10

SUBMITTED BY:

EURASIA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, LLC (SUBCONTRACTOR)

630 GLEN AVENUE, WESTFIELD, NJ 07090-4325, USA

TEL: +1-908-654-4184; FAX: +1-908-654-4921

ATTN: TIMOTHY D. VAN EPP, MANAGING DIRECTOR

TimVanEpp@Eurasia-Environment.Biz

GREEN CONSULTANCY, INC (SUBCONTRACTOR)

GURLEY & BROAD STREET

INTERCEPTION MIG HOUSE, APARTMENT 3

MONROVIA, LIBERIA

TEL: +231-06-530-870

INFO@GREENCONSLIBERIA.COM

THE CADMUS GROUP, INC. (PRIME CONTRACTOR)

100 5

TH

AVENUE, SUITE 100, WALTHAM, MA 10451, USA

ATTN: MICHAEL MINKOFF

TEL: +1.617.673.7162 FAX: +1.617.673.7362

Michael.minkoff@cadmusgroup.com

See Appendix A for list of PEA team members

Prepared under:

mailto:TimVanEpp@Eurasia-Environment.Biz mailto:Michael.minkoff@cadmusgroup.com iv

The Global Environmental Management Support Project (GEMS), Award Number

AID-OAA-M-11-00021. The Cadmus Group, Inc., prime contractor (www.cadmusgroup.com). Sun

Mountain International, principal partner (www.smtn.org). GEMS Activity AF26.

DISCLAIMER

Until and unless this document is approved by USAID as a 22 CFR 216 scoping statement, the author’s views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the

United States Government.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Eurasia Environmental Associates, LLC and The Cadmus Group, Inc. under USAID’s Global

Environmental Management Support Project (GEMS)

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................................... IV

TABLE OF TABLES AND FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................................................ VI

ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... IX

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 SCOPING PROCESS AND CONTENT

1.2 PEA PROCESS AND CONTENT

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.2 PART 1 – THE PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

2.3 PART 2 – RISE PPROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

(ESMMF)

PART I: PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITIES

1.2 GEOGRAPHIC AREAS AND TIMEFRAMES INFLUENCED BY PROJECT

2.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

3.0 POLICY, LEGAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 LIBERIA NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, LEGAL, AND INSTITUTATIONAL FRAMEWORK

3.2 USAID ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, LEGAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

3.3 INTERNATIONAL POLICY, LEGAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC BASELINE DATA

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE DATA

4.2 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BASELINE DATA

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

5.1 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FTM ROAD REHABILITATION IN AFRICA

5.2 POTENTIAL SOCIAL IMPACTS OF RURAL FEEDER ROAD REHABILITATION IN AFRICA

6.0 STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

6.1 SCOPING STUDY PUBLIC CONSULTATION

6.2 PEA PUBLIC CONSULTATION

6.3 GRIEVANCE MECHANISM

PART II: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND TOOLBOX http://www.cadmusgroup.com/ http://www.smtn.org/ v

1.0 DEFINITION AND PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING

FRAMEWORK (ESMMF)

1.1 DEFINITION AND PURPOSE OF ESMMF AND ITS ROLE IN THE PEA

1.2 ESMMF PROCESS OF RAPID ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL FTM ROADS

1.3 MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES: OVERALL ESMMF VS. INDIVIDUAL FTM ROAD ESMMPs

2.0 OVERALL RISE PROGRAM ESMMF STRUCTURE AND CONTENT

2.1 ESMMF INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

2.2 ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

2.3 TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR RISE CONTRACTOR

2.4 COMMUNICATION AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING

2.5 ESMMF IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN

2.6 ESMMF EVALUATION

3.0 PILOT TEST OF INDIVIDUAL FTM ROAD ASSESSMENT PROCESS

3.1 RAPID ASSESSMENT PILOT TEST DESIGN

3.2 DESCRIPTIONS OF PILOT FTM ROADS

3.3 PILOT TEST OF RAPID TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

3.4 PILOT TEST OF RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

3.5 PILOT TEST OF RAPID SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

4.0 RAPID ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND TOOLBOX TO BE APPLIED TO INDIVIDUAL FTM ROADS

4.1 OVERVIEW OF ESMMF METHODOLOGY

4.2 RAPID TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

4.3 RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

4.4 RAPID SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

4.5 OTHER TOOLS IN THE ESMMF TOOL BOX

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: TERMS OF REFERENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF PEA TEAM

A1 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR PEA TEAM MEMBERS

A2 QUALIFICATIONS OF PEA STAFF

APPENDIX B: LIST OF REFERENCES USED

B1. REFERENCES USED IN SCOPING STUDY

B2. REFERENCES USED IN PREPARING PEA

APPENDIX C: PILOT ROAD PROJECT BRIEFS

C.1 USAID/MPW LIBERIA – GRAND BASSA COUNTY

C.2 USAID/MPW LIBERIA – BONG COUNTY

C.3 USAID/MPW LIBERIA – LOFA COUNTY

C.4 USAID/MPW LIBERIA – NIMBA COUNTY

APPENDIX D: PILOT ROAD COMPLETED CHECKLISTS AND ESMMPS

D.1.1 GRAND BASSA COUNTY CHECKLISTS

D.2.1 BONG COUNTY CHECKLISTS

D.3.1 LOFA COUNTY CHECKLISTS

D.4.1 NIMBA COUNTY CHECKLISTS

D.5.0 PILOT ROAD-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS

APPENDIX E: ESMMF TOOLKIT

E.1.0 PROJECT BRIEF AND NOTICE OF INTENT TEMPLATES

E.2.0 CHECKLISTS – TECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL/SOCIAL

E.3.0 ESMMP TEMPLATES

E.4.0 ESMMP FOR RISE TYPICAL IMPACTS

E.5.0 MONITORING PLAN TEMPLATES

E.6.0 GRIEVANCE MECHANISM FORM

E.7.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN TOCs

E.8.0 SOCIAL ASSESSMENT FORMS – A (A1, A2, A3, A4) & B

APPENDIX F: MAPS OF CANDIDATE FTM ROADS

vi

APPENDIX G: MAMMALS AND TREES OF LIBERIA

APPENDIX H: PHOTO ALBUM

TABLE OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1 Disciplines and Qualifications Needed

Table 2 Proposed Rural Feeder Road Segments; Key Features

Table 3 Spatial and Temporal Influence of RISE Project by Key Categories of Impact

Table 4 Macro-level Alternatives

Table 5 Sub-level Alternatives

Table 6 International Policy Commitments

Table 7 Percent Representation of Population by Gender

Table 8 Age Breakdown by County

Table 9 Changes in Population Density by County

Table 10 Distribution of Household Type by Head of Household

Table 11 Primary Occupation - Head of Household

Table 12 Secondary Occupation – Head of Household

Table 13 Rural Livelihoods

Table 14 Agricultural Activities of households heads by product

Table 15 Source of Household Income

Table 16 Incidence of Households Growing Field Crops

Table 17 Incidence of Households Growing Selected Cash Crops and Rubber Farms by County

Table 18 Incidence of Households Growing Orchard Crops by County

Table 19 Income Generation by Category by County

Table 20 Average Income – Dry Season

Table 21 Average Income – Rainy Season

Table 22 Participation in Farming groups

Table 23 Access to Markets by County

Table 24 Number of Plots of Land per Households That Use Land

Table 25 Total Land Holding per Household

Table 26 Summary of Land Tenure of all Plots

Table 27 Land Disputes

Table 28 Distribution of Households by Time to Nearest Health Facility (rural)

Table 29 Distribution of Households By Time to Nearest Primary School (rural)

Table 30 Primary Means of Transport used to Get Plots

Table 31 Summary of Time to Travel to Agricultural Plots

Table 32 Crime by County

Table 33 Typical Environmental Impacts of Rural Feeder Roads in LIBERIA

Table 34 ANticipated Typical Social Impacts

Table 35 Proposed Mitigation Measures for Typical Impacts

Table 36 FED Logframe Objectives and Results

Table 37 Federal-Level Stakeholder Consultations During Scoping

Table 38 County-Level Stakeholder Consultations During Scoping vii

Table 39 Consultations Held With Villagers Along Proposed FTM Rehabilitation Sites During

Scoping

Table 40 Participants / Stakeholders in Planning, Decision-Making and Implementing PEA and RISE

Project

Table 41 RISE ESMMF Training Program

Table 42 ESMMF Implementation Action Plan

Table 43 Potential Comparative Iimpacts to Habitats and Mammalian Wildlife of Four Selected Road

Segments

Table 44 Mammals of Liberia

Table 45 Important Trees of Liberia (30spp of mature forest trees highlighted)

Figure 1 Liberian Population by Age and gender

Figure 2 Access to Land and Land Ownership in Liberia

Figure 3 Grievance Mechanism Flowchart

Figure 4 Correlation Between Distance from Main Road and Potential Negative Impacts

Figure 5 Field Sheet for Transect Site Characterizations

Figure 6 Map of Candidate RF Roads in Bong County

Figure 7 Map of Candidate RF Roads in Grand Bassa County

Figure 8 Map of Candidate RF Roads in Lofa County

Figure 9 Map of Candidate RF Roads in Nimba County file://zeus/emerging/CIAM/USAID%20GEMS/workplanning/AFR/Liberia%20roads%20PEA/PEA%20Final%20Report/USAID_Liberia_RISE_PEA-ESMMF_FINAL_wComments.docx%23_Toc355699017 viii ix

ABBREVIATIONS

CEA Cumulative Effects Assessment

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CFSNS Comprehensive Food Security and Nutrition Survey

EA Environmental Assessment

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EHS Environmental, Health and Safety

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

EMMP Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan

EMMP-ARF Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – Annual Review Form

ESMMP

ESMMF

FDA

Environmental and Social Mitigation and Monitoring Plan

Environmental and Social Mitigation and Monitoring Framework

Forestry Development Authority

FED Food Enterprise in Development

FtF

FTM

Feed the Future

Farm to Market

HSEMP

KM

LEPA

LISGIS

LNP

MOA

MoGD

MoHSW

MOIA

MOL

MOPW

Health, Safety, and Environment Management Plan

Kilometer(s)

Liberia Environmental Protection Agency

Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services

Liberia National Police

Ministry of Agriculture

Ministry of Gender and Development

Ministry of Health and Social Welfare

Ministry of Internal Affairs

Ministry of Labor

Ministry of Public Works

NGO Nongovernmental organization

OPRC Output and Performance-Based Road Contract

PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment

RF Rural Feeder

RISE Road Infrastructure Supporting Enterprise

RRAPSS USAID Rural Road Activities Project in Southern Sudan

RRFRIP USAID Rwanda Rural Feeder Road Improvement Project

SS Scoping Statement

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

TORs Terms of Reference

UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme

USG United States Government

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

WB World Bank

WFP World Food Programme

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0.1 USAID LIBERIA FOOD AND ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

(FED)

Among the recipient countries for the U.S. Government’s Feed the Future (FtF) global hunger and food security initiative, Liberia faces stark challenges to maximize both the quality and quantity of agricultural yields, and in turn bring these agricultural yields to market to optimize their economic value. FtF is designed to address the root causes of global hunger by sustainably increasing agricultural productivity. The objectives are to meet the demand for food, support and facilitate access to strong markets, increase incomes for the poor so they can meet their food and other needs, and reduce under-nutrition. With this renewed emphasis on agriculture as the driver of food security and economic growth, emphasis is placed on developing effective and sustainable interventions and accurately accounting for results and development impacts.

USAID Liberia supports the FtF initiative through the Food and Enterprise Development (FED) program, beginning in October 2011. FED aims to accelerate agricultural production for rural Liberian farmers, thereby raising incomes and improving food security as part of Liberia’s post-war recovery efforts. FED activities focus on improving value chains in four key agricultural commodities: rice, cassava, vegetable horticulture, and goats.

1.0.2 USAID ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORTING ENTERPRISE (RISE)

Liberia’s infrastructure was severely weakened both during and after the 14 year civil war (1989-2003), through decades of mismanagement and neglect. At present, Liberia’s road network comprises 10,600 km, of which only 657 km are paved. Both the lack of paved roads and abundance of unmaintained roads serve as significant barriers to market access for agricultural goods and resources, the delivery of social services, and rural economic development generally.

The severely weakened transportation infrastructure throughout Liberia also limits the ability of FED to facilitate efforts to achieve the full economic benefits of improved agricultural value chains. With this in mind, USAID Liberia designed, in coordination with Liberia’s Ministry of Public Works, the Road Infrastructure Supporting Enterprise (RISE) project, which specifically addresses Liberia’s need for improved infrastructure in a manner that best supports USAID Liberia’s efforts to boost agricultural production through FED. The three primary objectives of RISE illustrate these joint objectives and are as follows:

Objective 1. Physically rehabilitate farm-to-market (FTM) roads throughout Liberia, and particularly in FED’s primary counties of operation: Bong, Nimba, Grand Bassa, and Lofa.

Objective 2. Develop local technical and managerial capacity to perform and maintain rural feeder road rehabilitation and construction efforts in the future.

Objective 3. Promote and stimulate private sector infrastructure growth and investment, particularly in rural road construction and rehabilitation and associated businesses.

Selecting RISE FTM road rehabilitation sites such that they align with FED areas of impact, the efficacy of RISE and FED programming will both be improved as FED’s focus on improved value chains across key commodities can be more readily realized.

Building from Objective 1 above, RISE will address a component of Liberia’s road infrastructure needs through the rehabilitation of approximately 500KM of FTM roads, with at least 400KM to be rehabilitated using gravel and at least 105 KM to be rehabilitated using low volume sealed road surfaces. Specifically, RISE will seek to improve county-level road maintenance services; ensure that road improvement works are environmentally sustainable; improve access to markets for remote, underserved communities beyond their immediate localities; and involve affected communities in the planning and maintenance activities of priority FTM roads. RISE will also engage the Liberian private sector in road inventory and condition assessments, detailed designs, and construction and maintenance activities crucial to improving cost effectiveness and cost reliability associated with increasing accessibility through improved feeder roads.

1.0.3 THE NEED FOR A PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Development efforts funded by USAID, such as the FED and RISE programs, must comply with USAID Environmental Procedures pursuant to Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 216 (22CFR216).

Within 22CFR216 (Reg. 216), clause 22 CFR § 216.3(a)(1), calls for the preparation of an Initial

Environmental Examination (IEE). The IEE serves as a preliminary review of proposed development activities which assesses the level of additional environmental review and environmental mitigation and monitoring which may be needed to ensure that the activity design and subsequent implementation are environmentally sound and in a manner compliant with Reg. 216.

The RISE IEE recommended a Positive Determination pursuant to 22 CFR 216.2(d)(viii), which classifies

“penetration road building or road improvement projects” as activities that normally have a significant impact on the environment. As described in the IEE:

“All construction activities in Task Areas 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 have the possibility of resulting in significant adverse environmental impacts and are recommended for Positive Determination, which will require development of a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) as well as a Deferral for all construction activities under Objective 1 until the completion of the PEA.

And

“Small trial contract rural feeder construction activities undertaken in Task 2.31 have the potential to produce significant adverse environmental impacts on the environment and are recommended for Positive Determination with Deferral as specifically as defined above for that category under Objective 1 of this

IEE.”

As a result of the Positive Determination, the RISE IEE goes on to recommend the completion of a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA):

As per 22 CFR §216.6(d), a PEA will be completed in order to assess the environmental effects of a number of individual actions (specifically related to rural feeder road rehabilitation) and their cumulative environmental impact in the 6 selected counties of Liberia given the road rehabilitation activities of RISE are common to a class of agency actions. This IEE for the Road Infrastructure Supporting Enterprise (RISE)

1 Task 2.3 falls under Objective 2 of the proposed USAID/Liberia RISE activity and calls for the use of trial contracts for training local

Liberian firms in sound FTM road rehabilitation and drainage system construction.

Project is in fulfillment of ADS 201.3.11 Pre-Obligation Requirements, FAA Section 611(b). The PEA will enable the completion of a Deferral in the IEE, but not supersede the inclusion of this IEE as a valid pre-obligation requirement for purposes of the procurement of the RISE Program.”

The purpose of the PEA is to assess the potential environmental impacts of a set of similar activities to be undertaken under RISE. This broader PEA approach differs in an important way from an Environmental Assessment (EA), which calls for a detailed examination of a specific activity (i.e. the construction of a large dam or a large-scale irrigation project). The RISE project will involve the rehabilitation of many similar FTM roads across many districts with similar impacts and environmental mitigation and monitoring conditions that can be addressed under a PEA and meet Reg 216 requirements. Doing so should reduce repetition of compliance language in subsequent individual IEEs, including assessment of similar potential impacts and required environmental mitigation and monitoring measures.

1.1 SCOPING PROCESS AND CONTENT

1.1.1 COORDINATION OF USAID AND LIBERIA EPA SCOPING

REQUIREMENTS

USAID activities must satisfy the EIA requirements of partner/host countries, as well as those of USAID.

Where USAID is funding a host country government directly, USAID may adopt an EIA based upon host-country requirements as a Regulation 216 EA document. However, USAID still has compliance responsibility, which is negotiated as part of any contract or agreement with the host country. Thus USAID must retain oversight of the partner government’s EA process.

The Programmatic Environmental Assessment approach requested by USAID has been tailored to ensure it will simultaneously and effectively satisfy both the USAID compliance responsibilities and Liberia’s ESIA procedural requirements as explained in Liberia EPA’s EIA Procedural Guidelines. The Environmental and Social Mitigation and Monitoring Framework (ESMMF), as discussed in greater detail in Section 1.2 below, RISE’s implementers to address the programmatic nature of the proposed FTM road rehabilitation set to take place under RISE. It also provides the flexibility to tailor mitigation and monitoring measures to site specific conditions at any given road segment.

Appendix C of the Scoping Statement provides a detailed side by side mapping of USAID and Liberia EPA scoping requirements and where the requirements for both processes are addressed within this scoping report. The scoping field work was conducted and the scoping report was developed based upon the guidance provided in that table.

1.1.2 SCOPING STUDY METHODOLOGY

An essential component of the scoping exercise was public consultation and engagement with host country stakeholders. The scoping team prioritized engaging with as many key stakeholders as possible during the scoping phase. This included meeting with selected Federal, County and District level representatives of the Government of Liberia, EPA and FDA. It also included informal focus group discussions with village members and community leaders along prospective sites for FTM road rehabilitation.

In addition, the scoping team prioritized visits to the proposed sites themselves. The purpose was to assess representative conditions of existing FTM roads, the surrounding environment and areas most likely to be affected, as well as to consult with villages in a position to be directly and indirectly affected by FTM road rehabilitation at those sites.

Scoping included four days in the field, involving consultations with seven communities across seven different proposed roads and in each of four primary counties. Many of the candidate FTM roads were in such poor condition that they were found to be impassable or cut off which reduced the scoping team’s ability to see full segments. Relatively good road conditions allowed a complete site visit of the Jorquelleh/Kpaai road in Bong County. Exploration of other road segments generally ranged from 1-10 km and included a visit with one community along the road.

1.2 PEA PROCESS AND CONTENT

1.2.1 PEA TASK DESCRIPTIONS

TASK 1: REVIEW PREVIOUS RURAL ROAD PEAS AND ESIAS CARRIED OUT IN LIBERIA

AND AFRICA

Following scoping, a series of ESIAs prepared for similar rural roads projects carried out by the GoL, World Bank, USAID and others in Liberia and elsewhere in Africa were reviewed. The objective of this review was to identify those data gaps and lessons learned that would provide valuable insights for developing and implementing the RISE PEA.

TASK 2: DEVELOP CRITERIA AND A PROCESS FOR SELECTING FTM ROADS FOR PEA

PILOT STUDIES

The following criteria were proposed for selecting RISE FTM roads to pilot test the RISE ESMMF during the PEA:

CRITERIA FOR PILOT SELECTION:

1. Is the proposed pilot representative of the FTM roads in the county? Is it representative of at least one major category of conditions in the four counties collectively? Does it provide as many conditions as practicable/feasible given available data and timeline?

Social/economic considerations: population density, proximity to cities, impact on marginalized populations, proximity to main roads, relative poverty, etc.

Environmental/physical considerations: existing road in relatively poor condition (e.g., heavily eroded, poorly drained, or otherwise poorly designed or managed to mitigate impacts from heavy rains or flooding) providing a contrast with good condition (e.g., road surfaces in good condition, but with one or more bridges out); examples of road(s) providing access (direct or indirect) to protected national forest or endangering critical habitat.

2. Will the pilot maximizes social benefits (may be a function of the road's length, the number of villages/villagers reached, the number of connecting roads and markets accessed, and adverse social impacts minimized)?

3. Will environmental benefits be maximized and adverse environmental impacts minimized?

4. Is proposed pilot enthusiastically embraced by, or at least agreeable to, all stakeholders?

5. Will village communities along the road have the motivation and capacity to play a significant role in carrying out all phases of road rehabilitation, including design, construction, operation and especially road maintenance?

6. Is the data (including baseline) available to accurately assess the benefits and risks of the pilot activity of high quality, or at least adequate?

Based on the above criteria, and observations made during the scoping road tours, the following four roads were originally selected for the pilot studies; maps can be found in Appendix F of the document:

Bong County: Gbarnga – Palala City Road – 30 km (#6 on map)

Grand Bassa County: Baygar – Primary Road - 20 km (#2 on map)

Lofa County: Senesu – Ndoleloh Road – 15 km (#7 on map)

Nimba County: Gbarpa//Zolowee – Zorgowee Road- 30 km (#1 on map)

During fieldwork, these pre-identified roads in Bong, Grand Bassa, and Lofa counties matched up with the criteria utilized for the pilot studies. However, in Nimba County, the selected road had already been at least partially rehabilitated by Sida through the Liberian Swedish Feeder Road Project (LSFRP). As a result, the field team, in coordination with local government officials (MPW county engineer, district chief), the Project Team Leader, and USAID personnel, determined the following road segment an appropriate alternative:

Nimba County: Zorogowe – Baoplay Road – 11 km (not numbered on map)

TASK 3: DEVELOP ESMMF TOOLS TO USE IN CONDUCTING ENVIRONMENTAL AND

SOCIAL ASSESSMENTS, AND IN IMPLEMENTING MITIGATION AND MONITORING

MEASURES AT THE RISE SUB-PROJECT LEVEL

The ESMMF tools listed below were tested in the pilot studies outlined in Tasks 4 and 5 below and, based on that testing, refined as per Task 6 below for use in implementing the RISE program at the individual RISE FTM road sub-project level:

Project environmental and social screening, approval and review flowchart

Project reporting and information flow diagrams

Environmental and social impact identification and assessment checklist and guidance

ESMMP template for subproject level

Annual ESMMF review report form and guidance

Generic terms of references for contractor obligations (ESMMF relevant)

Generic ToRs for subproject ESIAs, if applicable according to the Liberian environmental regulations

Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe Use Action Plan (PERSUAP) format and guidance, if pesticides are expected to be used

Resettlement action plan format and guidance, if applicable

Grievance mechanism forms and guidance for stakeholder consultations

Other forms, templates and guidance, as identified in the PEA-ESMMF preparation process

TASK 4: CONDUCT COMBINED PILOT SOCIAL/COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND

PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROGRAM FOR ONE SELECTED FTM ROAD IN EACH COUNTY

The social science specialists of the two ESMMF field teams conducted the following social/community needs assessment and public consultations in each of two counties using the ESMMF tools developed under Task 3 above:

A formal consultation event (one day) in each county capital (Voinjama, Sanniquellie, Gbarnga, Buchanan) with invitees from all stakeholder districts; involve county-level government [paramount, clan and town chiefs; Land Commissioner; Mayors, Liberia National Polica, Regional Ministry heads

(MoLME, MoPW, MoPEA, MoL, MoA), civil society, religious groups, INGOs.

An all feeder-road consultation representing every village that would be affected by the road repair;

leaders were invited along with representative citizens (farmers, fishermen, young people). At least one such consultation was piloted in each county.

Site-specific consultations were held in the selected road segments involving key informant interviews (village leaders), focus group research that differentiated key demographics

(females/males; young/old), and case studies involving agricultural/local economies.

TASK 5: CONDUCT PILOT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR ONE SELECTED FTM

ROAD IN EACH COUNTY

Concurrent with Task 3 above, the environmental specialists of the two ESMMF field teams each conducted rapid environmental assessments on one FTM road in each of two counties using the ESMMF tools developed under Task 3 above.

TASK 6: REFINE ESMMF TOOLKIT

After pilot testing them under Tasks 4 and 5 above, the ESMMF tools were refined and improved to maximize their cost-effectiveness in conducting environmental and social assessments and implementing mitigation and monitoring measures at the individual RISE FTM road sub-project level.

TASK 7: DEVELOP CRITERIA AND A PROCESS FOR SELECTING FTM ROADS FOR

REHABILITATION

Establish a process and criteria for setting priorities to guide the allocation of resources and phasing/scheduling of RISE FTM road rehabilitation. The following criteria, tentatively established at the Scoping Statement stage, were reviewed and revised based on the experience of the PEA pilot tests conducted under Tasks 4 and 5 above:

CRITERIA FOR FTM ROAD REHABILITATION:

Has robust internal capacity such that with rehabilitation, social and economic benefits will be achieved, at minimum, via increased connection between villages along the FTM road;

Maximizes social benefits, which could be a function of the road's length as an indicator of the number of villages / villagers, number of connecting roads and markets accessed

Provides the best opportunities to involve and build the capacity of affected villagers in road design, construction, operation and maintenance, from the standpoint of existing capacity, willingness, etc.

Maximizes the likelihood that the intended benefits reach the intended beneficiaries and that the intended benefits are sustainable, i.e. that the political will, human organization and financial resources will provide for adequate, long-term operation and maintenance of the rehabilitated road

Minimizes the risk that the intended benefits reach unintended beneficiaries or that the intended benefits are not sustainable, e.g. that the investment in road rehabilitation ends up mainly benefiting large-scale, outside commercial interests, such as logging or tree crops, who may use the road intensively while not adequately maintaining it or sharing in the maintenance costs, and who cannot be controlled, which may lead to significant adverse environmental and social impacts which the donor may be blamed for

Is enthusiastically embraced by, or at least agreeable to, all stakeholders

Minimizes negative social impacts

Minimizes negative environmental impacts and maximizes environmental benefits.

The overall Project team attempted to quantify and weight the above criteria to create a system, similar to and based upon the Envision Infrastructure Rating System developed by the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI). This system rates the sustainability of existing or proposed horizontal (corridor-type) infrastructure projects. The Project team also attempted to incorporate UNEP’s Environmental Vulnerability Mapping System into the ESMMF toolkit and the results of its application into the above selection criteria and sustainability rating system.

TASK 8: HOLD STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION MEETINGS, COLLECT ADDITIONAL DATA

AND PREPARE PEA

Concurrent with Tasks 1-7 above, the Monrovia PEA team conducted national-level stakeholder meetings, collected additional data and began assembling the PEA portion of the PEA-ESMMF report.

TASK 9: PREPARE PEA-ESMMF REPORT

This report marks completion of Task 9; the report was based on Sections 1 and 2 of the Scoping Statement and Task 8 above (which focuses more on the PEA portion) and on Tasks 1-7 above (which focus more on the ESMMF portion). The PEA Content section below explains the rationale for applying a combined PEA- ESMMF type of EA document to assess the proposed RISE Project. It also describes the tentative PEA- ESMMF content developed to comply with both USAID and LEPA EA guidance.

TASK 10: EARLY STEPS IN IMPLEMENTING THE RISE PROJECT

It is proposed that the PEA-ESMMF Team also be involved in providing orientation, training and/or oversight, as needed, relative to carrying out the early steps in the RISE ESMMF process, especially in the use of the sustainability rating system to prioritize and schedule FTM road subprojects and in using the ESMMF procedures and tools.

1.2.2 INFORMATION SOURCES AND GAPS

As with any program of multiple, not yet well-defined sub-projects, there will be information gaps relating to the proposed project. However, this PEA-ESMMF approach is designed to overcome those gaps with a two-phase process: The first phase establishes the structure and process at the overall RISE program level for environmental and social assessment, mitigation and monitoring of sub-projects; the second phase involve the implementation of that structure and process at the individual FTM road sub-project level. In this way, data gaps existing at the overall program phase can be rectified through more in-depth data collection and analysis, including field observations and stakeholder consultation, at the individual FTM road and village levels during the phase of sub-project design and implementation.

1.2.3 CONSTRAINTS ON METHODOLOGY

The PEA-ESMMF approach may be relatively new to both USAID and LEPA, particularly with regard to the:

Application of a sustainability rating system to be used in prioritizing and phasing FTM road rehabilitation

Rigor to be applied to social and community issues in the public and stakeholder consultation process

Rigor and effort involved in developing and implementing the ESMMF process, as opposed to a conventional EMMP (USAID) or ESMP (LEPA), as the means of carrying out more in-depth environmental and social assessment and mitigation and monitoring measures at the sub-project level.

Through the pilot studies conducted during PEA fieldwork, the PEA field team was able to refine the methodology, including field checklists and questionnaires, to ensure that the proposed PEA-ESMMF approach is designed so that it will be effective in assessing, mitigating and monitoring environmental and social impacts, both at the level of individual FTM road sub-projects and collectively at the level of the overall RISE program. This pilot testing step was described in Tasks 4 and 5 above.

1.2.4 DISCIPLINES AND QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED

Two teams conducted pilot studies of the selected FTM roads in two counties each as a means to test the application of the ESMMF described above. Each team consisted of an environmental specialist, a social specialist, and a roads engineer. A third team in Monrovia was tasked with data collection and stakeholder consultations there. Additional staff based at the home offices were utilized to provide specialized backup and to review and comment on the draft report per their respective specialties. The staff was drawn from the US-based GEMS Team (The Cadmus Group Inc. and Eurasia Environmental Associates LLC) and Liberia-based Green Consultancy Inc., as well as USAID staff based in Washington DC and Monrovia, as follows in Table 28 below.

TABLE 1 DISCIPLINES AND QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED

SPECIALTIES

FIELD TEAM I (LOFA

& BONG)

FIELD TEAM 2 (GD.

BASSA & NIMBA)

MONROVIA TEAM US REVIEW TEAM

Ecology, Environ

Policy, Planning &

Engineering

Godwin Senegah, GreenCons

Steve Berwick, PhD, Eurasia

Tim Van Epp, AICP, Eurasia

Wes Fisher, PhD, Cadmus

Social Science, Ethnography, Resettlement

Gwen Heaner, PhD, Cadmus

Steffen Fischer, PhD Student

Conducting

Research in Liberia

N/A Stan Peabody, PhD, Eurasia

Road Engineering

David Wounuah, USAID – Monrovia

David Wounuah

USAID – Monrovia

N/A Art Hirsch, Eurasia

Economics and

Environmental

Compliance

N/A N/A Michael Minkoff, Cadmus

N/A

1.2.5 PEA CONTENT

The RISE project is actually a program of multiple FTM road sub-projects that will be similar in scope and have easily mitigated impacts, but which have not yet been fully defined, prioritized, or scheduled. Based on the nature of the proposed activities and the level of activity detail currently available, a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) has been identified as the most appropriate type of EA for meeting USAID and LEPA ESIA requirements and providing a process that assures the environmental soundness of project-funded construction activities.

This PEA primarily followed the content and format that USAID typically applies to PEAs, though one significant variation deserves noting. As outlined above, this PEA proposes that recommended best practices for mitigation and monitoring be implemented through an Environmental and Social Mitigation and Monitoring Framework (ESMMF). This approach is commonly used by the World Bank and other multilateral development banks to provide a set of best practices and procedures for environmental and social management. An ESMMF can be applied to the individual FTM road sub-projects that will eliminate, or reduce to acceptable levels, any adverse environmental and social impacts resulting from RISE-funded activities2.

The ESMMF establishes the necessary environmental and social safeguard framework, taking into account the institutional arrangements and capacity currently available to manage (that is to identify, properly assess, mitigate, and monitor) any potential environmental and social impacts that could be generated by the project at both program and project levels. It therefore establishes a unified process for addressing all environmental and social issues on sub-projects from preparation, through review and approval, to their practical implementation. This tool helps the Project Team effectively manage potential environmental and social issues through a guide consisting of a set of methodologies, procedures, and tools that facilitate adequate management of environmental and social impacts related to the works financed under the project and whose specific location is unknown or may change during project implementation.

The main objectives of an ESMMF are to:

delineate the boundaries of the project and the limitations of the environmental and social impact assessment process so that project resources are directed to key aspects based on a balanced prioritization establish procedures and methodologies for screening all proposed subprojects for their potential environmental and social impacts, covering planning, review, approval, and implementation stages of the project identify an indicative list of measures for managing, mitigating, and monitoring environmental and social impact during project implementation specify appropriate roles and responsibilities associated with the further implementation of the

ESMMF at the project level outline the training, capacity building and technical assistance needs for the responsible parties to ensure a successful implementation of the ESMMF outline the key budgetary considerations for implementation of the requirements set out in the

ESMMF

provide practical information resources for implementing the ESMMF

Therefore, this PEA consists of two major parts, the main PEA text in Part I and the ESMMF in Part 2. The main PEA text will include the following sections aimed at generally characterizing the overall RISE program, and doing so in a way that complies with both USAID and LEPA content requirements for EAs, as follows:

Executive summary, including findings, conclusions and recommendations

RISE Project overview/description, limitations and boundaries

Analysis of alternatives to the proposed RISE Project in general

Policy, legal and institutional framework

Environmental, social and economic baseline information for targeted 4-county region

Indicative lists of typical environmental, social and economic impacts and corresponding mitigation measures (including Best Available Technology) and monitoring measures

2 Called an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) by the World Bank, it is used by financing institutions or donor organizations financing multiple projects whose detailed engineering design, precise location and overall environmental and social issues are not fully known at the stage of project appraisal.

Description of RISE Project ESMMF, including structure, process, capacity building, reporting and implementation action plan

Stakeholder and public consultation and disclosure arrangements for overall RISE Project

Annexes, including lists of PEA preparers and references, photos and maps, and technical information

The ESMMF portion of the PEA will be a separable volume that, along with the appendices, provides relevant checklists, templates, guidelines, and flowcharts to facilitate implementation of environmental assessment, mitigation and monitoring at the level of the sub-projects, as follows:

Project brief template

Notice of intent template

Technical, Environmental, and Social impact identification and assessment checklists

ESMMP template for subproject level

ESMMP for typical impacts

Monitoring Plan templates

Resettlement action plan format and guidance, if applicable

Pest management plan format and guidance, if relevant

Resettlement action plan format and guidance, if applicable

Borrow Pit/Quarry management plan guidance, if applicable

Soil Erosion management plan guidance, if applicable

Social Assessment forms

Annual ESMMF review report form and guidance

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Concisely discuss significant findings, conclusions and recommendations.

2.1 INTRODUCTION

USAID Liberia supports the U.S. Government’s Feed the Future (FtF) global hunger and food security initiative through the Food and Enterprise Development (FED) program, which began in October 2011.

FED aims to accelerate agricultural production for rural Liberian farmers, thereby raising incomes and improving food security as part of Liberia’s post-war recovery efforts. FED activities focus on improving value chains in four key agricultural commodities: rice, cassava, vegetable horticulture, and goats.

As Liberia’s infrastructure was severely weakened both during and after the 14 year civil war (1989-2003), through decades of mismanagement and neglect, its current road network comprises 10,600 km, of which only 657 km are paved. Both the lack of paved roads and abundance of unmaintained roads serve as significant barriers to market access for agricultural goods and resources, the delivery of social services, and rural economic development generally.

The severely weakened transportation infrastructure throughout Liberia in turn limits the ability of FED to facilitate efforts to achieve the full economic benefits of improved agricultural value chains. With this in mind, USAID Liberia designed, in coordination with Liberia’s Ministry of Public Works, the Road Infrastructure Supporting Enterprise (RISE) project, which specifically addresses Liberia’s need for improved infrastructure in a manner that best supports USAID Liberia’s efforts to boost agricultural production through FED. The three primary objectives of RISE illustrate these joint objectives and are as follows:

Objective 1. Physically rehabilitate farm-to-market (FTM) roads throughout Liberia, and particularly in FED’s primary counties of operation: Bong, Nimba, Grand Bassa, and Lofa.

Objective 2. Develop local technical and managerial capacity to perform and maintain rural feeder road rehabilitation and construction efforts in the future.

Objective 3. Promote and stimulate private sector infrastructure growth and investment, particularly in rural road construction and rehabilitation and associated businesses.

Building from Objective 1 above, RISE will address a component of Liberia’s road infrastructure needs through the rehabilitation of approximately 500KM of FTM roads, with at least 400KM to be rehabilitated using gravel and at least 105 KM to be rehabilitated using low volume sealed road surfaces. Specifically, RISE will seek to improve county-level road maintenance services; ensure that road improvement works are environmentally sustainable; improve access to markets for remote, underserved communities beyond their immediate localities; and involve affected communities in the planning and maintenance activities of priority FTM roads. RISE will also engage the Liberian private sector in road inventory and condition assessments, detailed designs, and construction and maintenance activities crucial to improving cost effectiveness and cost reliability associated with increasing accessibility through improved feeder roads.

As a USAID activity, RISE must satisfy the EIA requirements of Liberia, as the partner/host country, as well as those of USAID. Regulation 216 allows for the adoption of an EIA based upon host country standards in cases where USAID is funding a host country government directly. However, USAID still has compliance responsibility, which is negotiated as part of any contract or agreement with the host country. Thus USAID must retain oversight of the partner government’s EA process.

Based on the nature of the proposed activities and the level of activity detail currently available, a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) has been identified as the most appropriate type of EA for meeting USAID and LEPA ESIA requirements and providing a process that assures the environmental soundness of project-funded construction activities.

The PEA approach requested by USAID has been tailored to ensure it will simultaneously and effectively satisfy both the USAID compliance responsibilities and Liberia’s ESIA procedural requirements as explained in Liberia EPA’s EIA Procedural Guidelines. The Environmental and Social Mitigation and Monitoring Framework (ESMMF), as discussed in greater detail in Part 1, Section 1.2 and as developed in Part 2, provides a toolkit and methodology for RISE’s implementers to address the programmatic nature of the proposed FTM road rehabilitation set to take place under RISE. It also provides the flexibility to tailor mitigation and monitoring measures to site specific conditions at any given road segment.

2.2 PART I – THE PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT REPORT

Part 1 of this document contains the Programmatic Environmental Assessment Report. Specifically, the PEA Report includes the following subsections: Project Description, Analysis of Alternatives, Policy, Legal, and Institutional Environment; Environmental, Social, and Economic Baselines; Environmental, Social, and Economic Impcats; and Stakeholder and Public Consultations

2.2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 1 in Part 1, Section 1 details the initial set of candidate road segments, listing major features of each, from which the pilot sites were selected. These features include the populations of each district and the percent representation of that district for the county as a representation of the relative number of people potentially impacted by FTM road improvement.

PEA fieldwork revealed at least some overlap between the initial set of candidate road segments and roads already rehabilitated (or currently undergoing rehabilitation) through the LSFRP; as such identification of final project locations will require correspondence with Sida’s Project Implementation Unit based at MPW.

GEOGRAPHIC AREAS AND TIMEFRAMES INFLUENCED BY PROJECT

The project’s spatial influence will be quite extensive when considering the number and lengths of proposed FTM roads traversing large portions of four of the most populous counties in the country and the extent of the influence of several specific environmental and social impacts. Similarly, the temporal extent of the project’s impacts will be significant given that rehabilitation of the FTM roads will keep them in their current locations for generations to come thus retaining the positive and negative impacts of operation and maintenance. Table 3 in Part 1, Section 1.2 summarizes in a generic way the RISE Project’s overall spatial and temporal influence as functions of key categories of impacts. Sections 5.1 and 5.2 provide detailed breakdowns of the typical/expected environmental and social impacts, as determined through the PEA fieldwork. Site-specific assessments of individual FTM roads will need to be conducted at the design stage during RISE implementation for each FTM road to determine the impacts specific to that road.

2.2.2 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

In this PEA, Part 1, Section 2 provides the analysis of alternatives. This section introduces project alternatives as identified during PEA fieldwork, and offer recommendations based upon findings from both the scooping and PEA phases. The analysis builds off of the discussion of alternatives initiated during the scoping activity, in which alternative approaches to the RISE project were identified at two levels: 1) the macro-level approach suggested by RISE as a means to achieve FTM road rehabilitation, capacity building, and private sector growth, and 2) the individual FTM at the RISE sub-program level.

The macro-level determinations are detailed in Table 4 (Part 1, Section 2) and discussed briefly below. Table 5 (Part 1, Section 2) provides a discussion of alternatives more relevant at the FTM road segment specific level.

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

If no action is taken, it will result in a failure to address any of RISE’s main objectives, specifically to improve market access for Liberian farmers/rural community members, build local capacity in engineering and construction of rural roads, or stimulate private sector growth in construction and related industries.

The most effective means to meet these project objectives will, ultimately, be through an extensive road rehabilitation program undertaken in a manner consistent with that outlined under RISE and addressed in further detail throughout the PEA (Part 1) and ESMMF (Part 2).

INCREASED PRIMARY AND/OR SECONDARY ROAD DEVELOPMENT

The selection of appropriate secondary roads for rehabilitation could have potentially significant impacts on the ability of certain rural communities to gain greater access to markets. Additionally, rehabilitation of secondary roads can still provide the same opportunities for capacity building and private sector growth envisioned for the RISE program. In considering this alternative, existing markets along primary/secondary roads should be assessed to determine whether improved roads would in fact lead to more economic opportunities.

RISE implementation should include rehabilitation of secondary roads that will facilitate access to markets for rural communities.