Management Framework [ESMF]€¦ · resource preservation, HIV/AIDS prevention, particulate...
Transcript of Management Framework [ESMF]€¦ · resource preservation, HIV/AIDS prevention, particulate...
SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES
PROJECT
Environmental and Social Management Framework
[ESMF]
REPUBLIC OF GHANA
Ministry of Local Government & Rural
Development
DRAFT
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
March 10 2014
GSOP Revised ESMF
i March 2014
List of Acronyms
AC Area Council
ACAP Area Council Action Plan
AER Annual Environmental Report
CAP Community Action Plan
CBRDP Community-Based Rural Development Project
CSM Cerebro-Spinal Meningitis
CWSA Community Water and Sanitation Agency
DA District Assembly
DE District Engineer
DFR Department of Feeder Roads
DSW Department of Social Welfare
EA Environmental Assessment
EHS Environment Health and Safety
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMP Environmental Management Plan
EO Environmental Officer
EP Environmental Permit
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESM Environmental and Social Management
ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework
GIDA Ghana Irrigation Development Authority
GoG Government of Ghana
GPRS I Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy
GPRS II Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy
HIV/ AIDS Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus / Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
ILO International Labor Organization
LEAP Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty
LI Legislative Instrument
LIPWs Labor Intensive Public Works
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MDAs Ministries, Departments and Agencies
MESW Ministry of Employment and Social Welfare
MiDA Millennium Development Authority
MLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development
MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture
MoFEP Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning
MTDP Medium-Term Development Plan
MTEF Medium-Term Expenditure Framework
NADMO National Disaster Management Organization
NDPC National Development Planning Commission
NEAP National Environmental Action Plan
NMMB National Museums and Monuments Board
NPSC National Project Steering Committee
NSP National Service Personnel
NYEP National Youth Employment Program
OP Operational Policy
OSH Occupational Safety and Health
PEA Preliminary Environmental Assessment
RCC Regional Coordinating Council
GSOP Revised ESMF
ii March 2014
RCO Regional Coordination Office
RICU Rural Infrastructure Coordinating Unit
RPCU Regional Planning Coordinating Unit
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SMTDP Sectoral Medium-Term Development Plan
TOR Terms of Reference
GSOP Revised ESMF
iii March 2014
Executive Summary
Introduction
This updated Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) has been prepared for the proposed
Additional Financing (AF) of US$50 million for the Ghana Social Opportunities Project (GSOP), a social
protection program by the Government of Ghana. This updated ESMF will be used principally by the
participating District Assemblies and other collaborators in ensuring that environmental and social safeguards
have been adequately addressed in the sub-projects to be implemented under the GSOP Additional Financing. The
parent project was an opportunity for rural employment creation and income generation in the slack agricultural
period in 49 districts in the country.
The original components of the project included rationalization of a national social protection policy, labor
intensive public works (LIPWs), support to the LEAP program, capacity building and project management and
coordination. The sub-projects under the LIPWs are rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads and small
earth dams and dugouts, tree planting on degraded communal lands, and social infrastructure sub-projects such as
rehabilitation of schools and clinics. The sub-projects are selected from the Medium Term Development Plans
(MTDPs) of the District Assemblies (DAS) for implementation using labor-based methods over a period of five
years. The cost of the original project was $88.6 million. The main source of employment was through the Labor
intensive public works (LIPWs). The key activities under the LIPWs were rehabilitation and maintenance of
feeder roads and small earth dams and dugouts, tree planting on degraded communal lands, and social
infrastructure sub-projects such as rehabilitation of schools and clinics. These sub-projects were selected from the
Medium-Term Development Plans (MTDPs) of the District Assemblies (DAs).
In line with the current global practices, the proposed additional loan would help finance the costs
associated with strengthening social protection systems and safety nets implementation capacity in
Ghana. Specifically, the AF will support: (a) formulation of social protection policy; (b) scaling up of
the Labor Intensive Public Works (LIPW) and the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP)
programs; (c) designing and rolling out the Ghana National Household Registry (GNHR) for Social
Protection programs and strengthening social protection implementation procedures; and (d) capacity
building to support the implementation of LIPW and LEAP in existing and new districts [see OP13.20].
This updated ESMF will be used to mainstream environment and social safeguards into the design and planning
of the SOP as well as its sub-projects. The choice of ESMF (instead of EIA) was made for the original project
because of the following reasons:
Wide geographical spread – 29 in the three northern regions and 20 districts across the remaining 7
regions of the country;
Implementation duration – spread over five years;
Scope of involvement – several institutions at the national, regional and local levels;
Sub-project design and numbers – the design of the sub-projects, types and numbers involved, the specific
beneficiary districts and communities were not well known at that stage; and
Sub-project impacts – the level of sub-project specific impacts were not yet determined at that stage.
GSOP Revised ESMF
iv March 2014
Furthermore, the MLGRD considers it useful to have a framework of principles and procedures that will govern
the mitigation of adverse environmental and social (E&S) impacts induced by the SOP and its sub-projects. The
ESMF provides:
Overview of potential E&S risks and safeguards to the SOP and sub-projects;
Sub-project specific E&S screening/initial assessment framework (in Appendix 2);
Relevant clauses to guide implementation of environmental safeguards (Appendix 3); and
Institutional arrangements and mechanisms for effective E&S safeguard compliance and enforcement.
With the use of the ESMF, national and local E&S requirements of the LI 1652 for any affected entity will be
met. This will also be consistent with the OP4.01 and other applicable safeguards provisions of the World Bank.
The ESMF may also serve as a guide in the implementation of other DMTDPs projects.
GSOP Revised ESMF
v March 2014
General Policy, Legal and Administrative Frameworks
The following national and World Bank environmental policies and procedures among others were used as
reference in the updated ESMF preparation:
Ghana’s Environmental Policy;
The Environmental Protection Agency Act of 1994 (Act 490);
The Environmental Assessment Regulations (LI 1652), and EIA procedures; and
The World Bank’s safeguard policies which include guidance on EA requirements - Environmental
Assessment (OP4.01), and also the Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12), etc.
The original disclosed ESMF (May 13, 2010)
Description of Baseline Conditions
The three northern regions of Ghana occupy a total land area of 97,700 km2 (41% of the land area of Ghana), but
comprise only 17.4% of the national population. There are slightly lower numbers of females than males in
contrast with the national picture. Agriculture is the main economic activity employing about 80% of the
economically active population. Infrastructure for dry season agriculture is highly inadequate, hence a large
number of people are without employment during the dry season, resulting in pronounced rural–urban migration
of the youth. The area is noted to have the highest incidence of extreme poverty, twice that of the national average
(i.e., 63% against 29%). The various districts are connected to the regional capitals by mainly feeder roads, which
have either gravel or earth surfaces and become almost impassable in the rainy season.
The area experiences a single rainy season (May to October) and a long dry season (November to March/April).
Average annual rainfall varies between 750mm and 1100mm. The vegetation is grassland, interspersed with
guinea savannah woodland.
The area falls within the sub-basins of the Red, Black and White Volta. Other rivers and seasonal tributaries form
a network with some important valleys such as the Fumbisi, Nasia, Tamne, Katanga Valleys. Groundwater use is
common as an estimated 5,000 boreholes have been drilled since 1970. The topography is generally flat and low-
lying with a few scattered hilly areas. Flooding is almost a yearly occurrence caused by the overflowing of the
Volta and its tributaries.
Potential Environmental and Social Impacts and Mitigations
Environmental and social impacts were considered on both the SOP-level and the sub-project level. The SOP-
level beneficial impacts include: mass employment and socio-economic benefits to poor communities, protection
of infrastructure developed through community involvement and low migrant-worker influx.
The impacts considered likely to affect the sustainability of the project adversely include potential failure of small
earth dams, low E&S safeguards compliance within new beneficiary DAs and accelerated silting of small earth
dams and dugouts. The main potential adverse social impacts include weakening of the spirit of community
volunteerism, exploitation by contractors, shortage of labor and challenges to managing large workforce at a site.
Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the level impacts have been provided in the ESMF for the above impacts.
Potential adverse impacts and corresponding mitigations and other E&S safeguards have been provided for the
sub-projects. Additional mitigation principles have been elaborated (given that the specific sub-project impacts
GSOP Revised ESMF
vi March 2014
cannot be precisely determined at this stage). These include principles for good employment practices, cultural
resource preservation, HIV/AIDS prevention, particulate emission abatement, waste management, landscape
improvement, and water resource and habitat protection.
ESMF Implementation and Management
The ESMF has established the link between environmental and social management (ESM) during implementation
with the sub-project assessment phase. The ESM commitment originates from the requirement in the Section 5 of
the Initial Assessment/EA Screening Form (Appendix 2). The ESM phase comprises monitoring, management (of
E&S impacts and mitigations), and reporting during sub-project implementation activities such as rehabilitation,
maintenance, decommissioning of sites, etc.
The ESMF also defines institutional roles and arrangements. The Clauses in Appendix 3 and the mitigation
measures have been set out to guide the DAs (particularly the District Engineers, DPCs and other officers of the
DAs), the Area Councils, and other institutions such as DFR, GIDA, etc. to supervise implementation and also for
M&E.
GSOP Revised ESMF
vii March 2014
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... III
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 10
1.1BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE UPDATED ESMF ....................................................................................................... 10
1.3 METHODOLOGY FOR THE ORIGINAL ESMF PREPARATION ............................................................................................................... 11
2.0 GENERAL POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK .................................................................................. 13
2.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................................................ 13
2.1.1 Ghana’s Environmental Policy ......................................................................................................................................... 13
2.1.2 The Environmental Protection Agency Act ...................................................................................................................... 13
2.1.3 EA Regulations and Procedures ....................................................................................................................................... 13
2.1.4 EA (Amendment) Regulations, 2002 ............................................................................................................................... 14
2.2 NATIONAL LABOR, SAFETY AND HEALTH REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................ 14
2.2.1 Factories, Offices and Shops Act ...................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.2 Occupational Safety and Health Policy of Ghana (Draft) ................................................................................................ 14
2.2.3 National Workplace HIV/AIDS Policy ............................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.4 Labor Act ......................................................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.5 Youth Employment Implementation Guidelines .............................................................................................................. 14
2.3 THE POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY OF GHANA ........................................................................................................................... 15
2.3.1 GPRS I and II ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.4 THE WORLD BANK REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 15
2.4.1 The Bank’s Safeguard Policies.......................................................................................................................................... 15
2.4.2 Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01) .............................................................................................................................. 15
2.4.3 Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) .......................................................................................................................... 16
2.4.4 Safety of Small earth Dams (OP/BP 4.37) ....................................................................................................................... 16
2.4.8 International Waters (OP7.50) ........................................................................................................................................ 16
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE GHANA SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES PROJECT................................................................................ 18
3.1 PROJECT COMPONENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 18
4.0DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 24
4.1 CLIMATE AND VEGETATION ........................................................................................................................................ 24
4.2 WATER RESOURCES, TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE ........................................................................................................ 24
4.3 POPULATION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................. 25
4.4 FEEDER ROAD NETWORK........................................................................................................................................... 25
4.5 CULTURE AND RELIGON ............................................................................................................................................ 26
4.6 DISASTER RISK EXPOSURE .......................................................................................................................................... 27
5.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS .......................................................... 28
5.1 SCREENING OF THE GSOP AND SUB-PROJECTS .............................................................................................................. 28
5.2 POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE GSOP ............................................................................................................................ 28
5.2.1 Economic Benefits to Poor Communities ......................................................................................................................... 28
5.2.2 Mass Employment ........................................................................................................................................................... 28
5.2.3 Community Protection for Facilities ................................................................................................................................. 29
GSOP Revised ESMF
viii March 2014
5.2.4 Low Migrant-Worker Influx ............................................................................................................................................. 29
5.2.5 Enhanced Institutional Capacity to Support Decentralization ......................................................................................... 29
5.2.6 E&S Safeguards Applied to MTDP Projects ...................................................................................................................... 29
5.3 POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS .................................................................................................................................... 29
5.3.1 Potential Failure of Small earth Dams ............................................................................................................................. 30
Mitigation of Small Darth Dam Failure .................................................................................................................................... 30
5.3.2 Low E&S Safeguards Compliance and Involvement ......................................................................................................... 30
Mitigation – High E&S Safeguards Awareness for Community Involvement ........................................................................... 31
5.3.3 Accelerated Silting of Small earth Dams and Dugouts .................................................................................................... 31
Mitigation of Siltation of Small earth Dam and Dugouts ......................................................................................................... 31
5.3.4 Upsetting the Spirit of Community Volunteerism ............................................................................................................ 31
Mitigation – Retaining the Communal Spirit of Volunteerism ................................................................................................. 32
5.3.5 Inadequate Contractors with Labor-based Experience .................................................................................................... 32
Mitigation – Building a Pool of Local Contractors .................................................................................................................... 32
5.3.6 Potential Delays in Contract Completion Schedule ......................................................................................................... 32
Mitigation – Formation of Work Teams ................................................................................................................................... 32
5.3.7 Exploitation by Contractors ............................................................................................................................................. 32
Mitigation – Avoidance of Worker Exploitation ....................................................................................................................... 33
5.3.8 Non-availability of Labor at Certain Times ...................................................................................................................... 33
Mitigation – Sourcing for Labor Elsewhere .............................................................................................................................. 33
5.3.9 Concentration of Large Workforce at a Site .................................................................................................................... 33
Mitigation – Building of Capacity of Contractors ..................................................................................................................... 33
6.0 E&S IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS OF SUB-PROJECTS .......................................................................................... 34
6.1 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS AT SUB-PROJECT LEVEL ....................................................................................................... 34
6.2 OTHER MITIGATION AND SAFEGUARD PRINCIPLES OF SUB-PROJECTS ................................................................................. 36
6.2.1 Principles for Good Employment Practices ...................................................................................................................... 37
6.2.2 Particulate Emission Abatement Principles ..................................................................................................................... 37
6.2.3 Cultural Resources Preservation Principles ...................................................................................................................... 37
6.2.4 Waste Generation and Management Principles .............................................................................................................. 37
6.2.5 Work Place HIV/AIDS Prevention Principles ..................................................................................................................... 38
6.2.6 Landscape Improvement Principles ................................................................................................................................. 38
6.2.7 Water Resource Protection Principles .............................................................................................................................. 38
6.2.8 Habitat Protection Principles ........................................................................................................................................... 39
7.0 ESMF IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................... 40
7.1 IMPLEMENTING THE ESMF ........................................................................................................................................ 40
7.2 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 40
THE MLGRD, THE DECENTRALIZED AGENCIES AND PARTICULARLY THE DAS AND ACS ARE THE MAIN IMPLEMENTERS OF THE PROJECT. THE OTHER
INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES WHOSE FUNCTIONS RELATE TO THE PROJECT IN TERMS OF PROJECT DESIGN, TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND PROJECT E&S
APPROVALS INCLUDE THE SAFEGUARDS SPECIALIST, EPA, DFR AND GIDA. .............................................................................................. 40
7.2.1 Project Oversight ............................................................................................................................................................. 41
7.2.2 Project Implementation and Management ..................................................................................................................... 41
7.3 CAPACITY BUILDING ................................................................................................................................................................. 42
7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MONITORING AND REPORTING .......................................................................................... 43
GSOP Revised ESMF
ix March 2014
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45
ANNEX 1: PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS AND DISCLOSURE FOR ORIGINAL ESMF PREPARATION ............................................ 46
1.1 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 47
1.2 ESMF DISCLOSURE .................................................................................................................................................. 47
ANNEX 2: CONSULTATIONS PHOTO GALLERY ............................................................................................................................... 65
ANNEX 3: DAM FAILURE CHECKLIST ....................................................................................................................... 66
ANNEX 4: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ADDENDUM........................... 70
ANNEX 5: ADDENDUM TO ESMF.............................................................................................................................. 76
ANNEX 6: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS FOR UPDATING OF ESMF/ RPF DOCUMENTS ............................................... 87
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Length and State of Feeder Roads by Districts in the North………………………………...…….……….12
Table 6.1: General Impacts and Mitigations Associated with Sub-Projects………………………………..........…20-21
Table 7.1: Proposed Budget for the ESMF Implementation…………………………………………….………..........28
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1Background
The Government of Ghana (GoG) is implementing a social protection program called the Ghana Social
Opportunities Project (GSOP). This is targeted at the chronically poor in 49 districts in the country, with
more than half (29 districts) located in the Northern Savannah Zone (the Upper West, Upper East, and
Northern Regions), where poverty rates average 58%.
The main components of the original projects are: (i) rationalization of a national social protection policy;
(ii) labor intensive public works; (iii) support to the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP)
program; (iv) capacity building; and (v) project management and coordination. GSOP was implemented
during the slack agricultural period to provide employment for people who have the ability to work but
face high levels of seasonal unemployment.
The main source of employment was through the Labor intensive public works (LIPWs). The key
activities under the LIPWs were rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads and small earth dams and
dugouts, tree planting on degraded communal lands, and social infrastructure sub-projects such as
rehabilitation of schools and clinics. These sub-projects were selected from the Medium-Term
Development Plans (MTDPs) of the District Assemblies (DAs).
The original project had the following development objectives:
To improve targeting in social protection spending
Increase access to conditional cash transfers nationwide
Increase access to employment and cash-earning opportunities for the rural poor during
the agricultural off-season and
Improve economic and social infrastructure in target districts.
1.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Updated ESMF
This updated Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) has been prepared for the
proposed Additional Financing (AF) of US$50 million for the Ghana Social Opportunities Project
(GSOP). In line with the current global practices, the proposed additional loan would help finance the
costs associated with strengthening social protection systems and safety nets implementation capacity in
Ghana. Specifically, the AF will support: (a) formulation of social protection policy; (b) scaling up of the
Labor Intensive Public Works (LIPW) and the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP)
programs; (c) designing and rolling out the Ghana National Household Registry (GNHR) for Social
Protection programs and strengthening social protection implementation procedures; and (d) capacity
building to support the implementation of LIPW and LEAP in existing and new districts [see OP13.20].
The EA Regulations of Ghana provide the general framework and procedures for EA and environmental
management (EM) of development actions. Most Development Partners (DPs) and funding institutions,
including the World Bank also have EA requirements. As part of funding arrangements for the SOP
therefore, the Bank’s E&S safeguards policies (OP/BP 4.01, EA and OP/BP 4.12, Involuntary
Resettlement) and national requirements must apply. Under AF, project has the following attributes (:
GSOP Updated ESMF
11
Revision of the PDO, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), project components, and the
Results Framework;
Under the original project, the geographical spread of LIPW was 49 districts in all 10 regions of
the country, with more than half (29 districts) located in the Northern Savannah Zone (the Upper
West, Upper East, and Northern Regions); this will be scaled up with the addition of 6 new
districts to 55 districts under additional financing;
Implementation duration extended by one year to close on June 30th
2017. ;
Strengthened collaboration between all agencies involved in project implementation at the
national, regional, district and local levels;
Introduction of social accountability and grievance redress mechanisms for LIPW
Comprehensive development communication
Increased use of electronic systems and e-payments
The attributes above indicate GSOP as a program-type of ‘undertaking’ for which the appropriate level of
EA is the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) under the Ghana EA Procedures. Under the World
Bank, however, the ESMF is used in the case of operations with multiple sub-projects, various phases and
spread over a long period - similar in concept to SEA.
Due to their small- to medium-scale nature, the sub-projects under GSOP are classified as Schedule 1
undertakings (i.e., projects which require registration and permit) for the Ghana system; these are
screened as Category B under the World Bank EA Procedures.
The ESMF spells out the E&S safeguards, institutional arrangements and capacity required to use the
framework. This ensures that sub-projects meet the national and local E&S requirements and are
consistent with OP 4.01, OP 4.12, etc. of the Bank. Other objectives of the ESMF include:
Assessment of potential adverse E&S impacts commonly associated with the listed sub-projects
and the way to avoid, minimize or mitigate these impacts;
Establishment of clear procedures and methodologies for the E&S planning, review, approval and
implementation of sub-projects;
Development of an EA screening/initial assessment system to be used for sub-projects; and
Specification of roles and responsibilities and the necessary reporting procedures for managing
and monitoring sub-project E&S concerns.
The updated ESMF will be principally used by DAs and other collaborators to ensure that adequate
mitigation measures and other environmental and social safeguards have been incorporated into the sub-
projects to be implemented under the SOP.
1.3 Methodology for the Original ESMF Preparation
The ESMF preparation involved document review and consultation with key representative stakeholders
at the national, regional, district and local levels. The main national and the World Bank reference
documents reviewed included:
GSOP Updated ESMF
12
Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1994 (Act 490);
Environmental Assessment Regulations, 1999 (LI 1652);
National Environmental Action Plan;
Ghana EIA Procedures; and
World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguards Policies (OP/BP 4.01 and OP/BP 4.12)
(OP/BP 4.37) (OP/BP 7.50).
The national level institutions consulted included the EPA, CBRDP and the DFR. The regional level
organizations (in Northern and Upper East Regions) involved in the ESMF process were the RPCU, EPA,
DFR, GIDA, NADMO, DSW, CWSA, WRC, Contractors and the RICU/CBRDP.
The DAs consulted were the Savelugu-Nanton and West Mamprusi (Northern Region), and Builsa and
Bongo (Upper East Region). The following Area Councils and communities also participated in the
process Nyogulo and Tinguri communities and the Moglaa Area Council (Northern Region), and Siniensi,
Doninga, Bachonsi and Beo communities and also Beo Area Council (Upper East Region).
Two sets of stakeholder participatory questionnaires were prepared for the ESMF process – general and
institution-specific questionnaire. The general questionnaire covered the following:
Project stakeholder role identification matrix;
Environmental and social concerns likely to be associated with the SOP and sub-projects;
Sub-project ranking for LIPWs;
Labor-based implementation of sub-projects – potential negative impacts;
Labor-based implementation of sub-projects – potential benefits;
Stakeholder responsibility for various stages (life cycle) of sub-projects (institutional
arrangement); and
Institutional capacity, coordination and management roles.
The questionnaires were sent in advance to enable stakeholder preparation for effective participatory
activities. The summarized consultation results are presented in Appendices 4, 6 and 7 of the original
ESMF. Following the consultation processes, two regional disclosure sessions were held in Tamale and
Bolgatanga to help build consensus on the various issues discussed. The disclosure outcomes and
participant lists are presented in Appendix 5 of the original ESMF.
In updating the original ESMF, representative District Assemblies and communities from the 49 DAs
were selected for joint consultations on issues relating to the ESMF and RPF implementation. The
consultations took the form of community fora, focus group meetings at both community and roundtable
meetings with staff of District and regional public and Non-Governmental Organisations. Key issues
discussed included level of awareness of GSOP safeguards and subproject selection, workforce selection
processes and grievance redress procedures, and compensation issues. These joint consultations on the
ESMF and RPF were held among key stakeholders and documents were publicly disclosed between 10th –
12th
of February 2014. For the summary of issues discussed and pictures of consultations, refer to annexes
5 and 6.
GSOP Updated ESMF
13
2.0 GENERAL POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK
The environmental policy and EA legislation and procedures of Ghana and those of the World Bank,
which are relevant to the project, are outlined. In principle the two sets of policies and procedures on
environmental and social assessment are similar in many respects.
2.1 National Environmental Requirements
2.1.1 Ghana’s Environmental Policy
The environmental policy of Ghana formulated in the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) of
1993 hinges strongly on ‘prevention’ as the most effective tool for environmental protection. The policy
aims at a sound management of resources and environment, and the reconciliation between economic
planning and environmental resources utilization for sustainable national development. It also seeks
among others, to institute an environmental quality control and sustainable development programs by
requiring prior EA of all developments, and to take appropriate measures to protect critical eco-systems,
including the flora and fauna they contain against harmful effects, nuisance or destructive practices. The
adoption of the NEAP led to the enactment of the EPA Act 1994 (Act 490); and subsequently the passing
of the Ghana EIA Procedures into the EA Regulations, 1999 (LI 1652).
2.1.2 The Environmental Protection Agency Act
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Act, 1994 (Act 490) grants the Agency enforcement and
standards-setting powers, and the power to ensure compliance with the Ghana EA
requirements/procedures. Additionally, the Agency is required to create environmental awareness and
build environmental capacity as relates all sectors, among others. The Agency (including its Regional and
District Offices) is also vested with the power to determine what constitutes an ‘adverse effect on the
environment’ or an activity posing ‘a serious threat to the environment or public health’, to require EAs,
EMPs, AERs, etc. of an ‘undertaking’, to regulate and serve an enforcement notice for any offending or
non-complying undertaking.
The Agency is required to conduct monitoring to verify compliance with given approval/permit
conditions, required environmental standard and mitigation commitments. Furthermore, a requirement by
EPA for an EA precludes any authorising MDA from licensing, permitting, approving or consenting such
undertaking, unless notified otherwise.
2.1.3 EA Regulations and Procedures
The EA Regulations combine both assessment and environmental management systems. The regulations
prohibit commencing an undertaking/activity without prior registration and environmental permit (EP).
Undertakings are grouped into schedules for ease of screening and registration and for EP. The schedules
include undertakings requiring registration and EP (Schedule 1), EIA mandatory undertakings (Schedule
2), as well as Schedule 5-relevant undertakings (located in Environmentally Sensitive Areas).
GSOP Updated ESMF
14
The Regulations also define the relevant stages and actions, including: registration, screening, preliminary
environmental assessment (PEA), scoping and terms of reference (ToR), environmental impact
assessment (EIA), review of EA reports, public notices and hearings, environmental permitting and
certification, fees payment, EMP, AER, suspension/revocation of permit, complaints/appeals, etc.
2.1.4 EA (Amendment) Regulations, 2002
The EA (Amendment) Regulations were made to amend sections of the EA fees regime of LI 1652 (the
‘principal enactment’) on fee payment for EP and certificate issued by the Agency.
2.2 National Labor, Safety and Health Requirements
2.2.1 Factories, Offices and Shops Act
The Factories, Offices and Shops Act of 1970 (Act 328) mandates the Factories Inspectorate Department
to register factories and ensure that internationally accepted standards of providing safety, health and
welfare of persons are adhered to. It defines a factory to include any premises (whether in or not in a
building) in which one or more persons are employed in manual labor, among others.
2.2.2 Occupational Safety and Health Policy of Ghana (Draft)
The policy statement of the OSH Policy (draft 2004) is: ‘to prevent accidents and injuries arising out of or
linked with or occurring in the course of work, by minimizing, as far as reasonably practicable, the cause
of the hazards in the working environment and, therefore, the risk to which employees and the public may
be exposed’. The policy is derived from provisions of the International Labor Organization (ILO)
Conventions 155 and 161. The policy document has specific sections on objectives, scope, strategies,
activities and promotion and awareness creation.
2.2.3 National Workplace HIV/AIDS Policy
The broad objectives of the policy, among others, are to provide protection from discrimination in the
workplace to people living with HIV and AIDS; prevent HIV and AIDS spread amongst workers; and
provide care, support and counselling for those infected and affected.
2.2.4 Labor Act
The purpose of the Labor Act, 2003 (Act 651) is to amend and consolidate existing laws relating to labor,
employers, trade unions and industrial relations. The Act provides for the rights and duties of employers
and workers; legal or illegal strike; guarantees trade unions and freedom of associations, and establishes
the Labor Commission to mediate and act in respect of all labor issues. Under Part XV (Occupational
Health, Safety and Environment), the Act explicitly indicates that it is the duty of an employer to ensure
that every worker works under satisfactory, safe and healthy conditions.
2.2.5 Youth Employment Implementation Guidelines
The authority for decision-making on the implementation of the National Youth Employment Program
(NYEP) resides in the Ministry of Employment and Social Welfare, through a National Employment Task
Force (NETF) set up to implement the program. District Employment Task Forces set up are made
accountable to the NETF in all their undertakings throughout the implementation of the program.
GSOP Updated ESMF
15
The overall objective of the program is to empower the youth to be able to contribute more productively
towards the socio-economic and sustainable development of the nation. The specific objectives of the
Program include checking the drift of the youth from the rural to urban communities in search of jobs by
creating those opportunities in the rural areas, etc.
2.3 The Poverty Reduction Strategy of Ghana
2.3.1 GPRS I and II
The GPRS I was a comprehensive framework of policies and development strategies, programs and
projects to facilitate macro-economic stability, sustainable growth and poverty reduction (2003-2005).
The central goal of GPRS II (2006-2009), which built on GPRS I was to accelerate the growth of the
economy to attain a middle-income status. The GPRS II emphasizes the implementation of growth-
inducing policies and programs with the potential to support wealth creation and sustainable poverty
reduction. The document refers to the need to apply environmental impact assessment and environmental
audit to ensure that the growth arising from the GPRS is environmentally sustainable.
2.4 The World Bank Requirements
2.4.1 The Bank’s Safeguard Policies
The Bank’s ten safeguard policies are designed to help ensure that programs proposed for financing are
environmentally and socially sustainable, and thus improve decision-making. The Bank’s Operational
Policies (OP) are meant to ensure that operations of the Bank do not lead to adverse impacts or cause any
harm. They include guidance on EA requirements. The following four are relevant for considerations
under the project. These are:
Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01);
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12);
Safety of small earth Dams (OP/BP 4.37);
International Waters (OP7.50);
2.4.2 Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01)
The OP 4.01 requires among others that screening for potential impacts is carried out early, in order to
determine the level of EA to assess and mitigate potential adverse impacts. The Bank’s project screening
criteria group projects into three categories:
Category A – Detailed Environmental Assessment;
Category B - Initial Environmental Examination; and
Category C – Environmentally Friendly
The EA ensures that appropriate levels of environmental and social assessment are carried out as part of
project design, including public consultation process, especially for Category A and B projects. The OP
4.01 is applicable to all components of the Bank’s financed projects, even for co-financed components.
This project is a Category B project because the potential impacts are localised and can easily be
mitigated.
GSOP Updated ESMF
16
2.4.3 Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
The Policy on Involuntary Resettlement is intended to assist displaced people arising from development
projects, in order not to impoverish any affected people within the area of influence of projects. An action
plan that at least restores the standard of living must be instituted, in cases where resettlement is
inevitable or loss of assets and impacts on livelihood occurs.
2.4.4 Safety of Small Earth Dams (OP/BP 4.37)
OP 4.37 is triggered for this project. This project will rehabilitate existing small earth dams. The Policy
seeks to ensure that appropriate measures are taken and sufficient resources provided for the safety of
small earth dams the Bank finances. The Bank distinguishes between small and large dams, and the policy
is triggered for large dams. Small earth dams are normally less than 15m in height; this category includes
farm ponds, local silt retention dams, and low embankment tanks. For small earth dams, generic dam
safety measures designed and supervised by experienced and competent professionals will be
carefully implemented. Both the design and supervision of works would take into account the relevant
dam safety issues. The dam safety plan(s) will ensure the following elements are taken into account: the
types of dams to be rehabilitated and their size and storage capacity. The plan should ensure that the
rehabilitated small earth dams may exceed 500m in length because of the flat topography of the north, but
the project will pre-select small earth dams where the storage capacity does not exceed 250,000m3 for a 5m
dam. The dam safety plan will ensure that capacity does not exceed 500,000m3 for a 6-10m high dam; and
that selected small earth dams are generally not located near settlement areas.
The dam safety plans and EIA of sub-projects (i.e. Small earth dams and feeder roads) will be carried out
by separate independent consultant firms contracted by the project. Under the parent project, the small
earth dams/dugout have been designed and constructed under the supervision of experienced GIDA
engineers. Capacity within existing beneficiary DAs on small earth dam/dugouts and feeder road
construction has improved under the parent project through training and workshops to local designers,
contractor’s supervisors and other associated workers. This implementing arrangement will be sustained
within the upscaling regions under the additional financing. The project will use external expertise to
address low technical capacity on small dam construction where necessary. . Water/Dam users
associations will be used to perform regular small earth dam maintenance and consistent monitoring
throughout the project period.
2.4.8 International Waters (OP7.50)
OP 7.50 is triggered for this project. However, exceptions to Notification Requirement, No. 7 was
granted on the following basis:
Normally, if a project falls under the scope of this OP, the borrower (beneficiary state) is required to
inform all riparian states. But the OP provides exceptions to the need for notification under para. 7(a).
The exception states that “for any ongoing schemes, projects involving additions or alterations that
require rehabilitation, construction, or other changes that in the judgment of the Bank (i) will not
adversely change the quality or quantity of water flows to the other riparians; and (ii) will not be
GSOP Updated ESMF
17
adversely affected by the other riparian’s possible water use. This exception applies only to minor
additions or alterations to the ongoing scheme; it does not cover works and activities that would exceed
the original scheme, change its nature.” The proposed project is designed to create employment while
rehabilitating existing schemes and will not support any major activities that would change the nature of
the original scheme to the extent that it would make it appear to be a new scheme. Based on this, the
project qualified for a waiver that has been granted by the Regional Vice President of the Africa
Region on April 5, 2010, this waiver was cleared by the legal units (LEGEN and LEGAF) of the
World Bank.
GSOP Updated ESMF
18
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE GHANA SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES PROJECT
The objectives of the parent project were “to improve targeting in social protection spending,
increase access to conditional cash transfers nationwide, increase access to employment and
cash-earning opportunities for the rural poor during the agricultural off-season, and improve
economic and social infrastructure in target districts”. The US$88.6 million IDA funded project
was approved by the board on May 20, 2010, and became effective on October 19th
2010.
The key performance indicators related to the PDO were: (i) share social protection spending allocated to
programs targeted to the poor (percent); (ii) LEAP and Ghana Health Insurance indigent exemption
expenditures in the government’s overall package of pro-poor expenditures as defined by MoFEP
(percent); (iii) person days of unskilled workers disaggregated by district; (iv) average earnings per
unskilled workers in LIPWs; (v) beneficiaries subject to school enrolment condition that comply with it
(percent); and (vi) direct project beneficiaries (number), of which female (percent).
3.1 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The five main components of the original project are described below.
Component One: Rationalize National Social Protection Policy - US$2.5 million
Component one provides support to the government to help redirect its social protection expenditures to
the most effective areas and reduce those in less effective activities. This would allow greater coverage of
the poor despite current fiscal constraints in the wake of current and future economic crises. To facilitate
the process, the component finances technical assistance, studies, training, and secretariat services.
Component Two: Labor Intensive Public Works (LIPW) - US$56 million
The objective of this component is to provide targeted rural poor households with access to employment
and income-earning opportunities. This pertains particularly to seasonal labor demand shortfalls during
the agricultural off-season from November to March/April, and in response to external shocks, through
rehabilitation and maintenance of public or community infrastructure. The aim is to maximize local
employment while rehabilitating productive infrastructure assets, which have potential to: (i) generate
local secondary employment effects and (ii) protect households and communities against external shocks.
The scope of works eligible for LIPWs is defined based on labor content and scope to generate significant
local employment.
Component Three: Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty Program (LEAP) - US$20 million
The objective of this component is to support the full rollout of the pilot phase of the LEAP program by
strengthening its management and administration, providing technical assistance to improve targeting,
providing cash transfers to beneficiaries under LEAP, and providing incentives to ensure that GoG’s
annual budget allocations are sufficient. The component finances incentive payments to the unified
treasury account to assure that GoG each year allocates sufficient budget for LEAP to meet its target
number of households, and thereby contributes to improve human capital outcomes for these households.
Disbursement Linked Indicators are used to reimburse disbursements made by GoG towards LEAP grants
each year.
Component Four: Capacity Building - US$4.1 million
The objective of this component is to create capacity at the national and local levels to implement social
protection programs in selected project districts, with the view of enabling a gradual scaling-up and
GSOP Updated ESMF
19
targeting at the national level. Several distinct sets of capacity building activities are supported,
specifically; (i) establishing a LIPW-supportive policy and institutional framework, (ii) capacity building
to support LIPW implementation (including rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads, small earth
dams and dugouts, construction of schools and clinics, and tree planting on communal lands), (iii)
capacity building to support implementation of LEAP with the objective of strengthening and improving
the targeting and monitoring of the government’s social protection instruments and programs, (iv) district
and regional capacity building, and (v) other activities and pilot programs that could become necessary
during implementation to support the overall objective of strengthening safety nets and providing safety
ladders.
Component Five: Project Management and Coordination.(US$6.5 million)
With the aim of bolstering GoG operations, the Project funds costs associated with: project management
and coordination; relevant technical assistance; project monitoring and evaluation; consultancy services;
communication and training; equipment and vehicles; and incremental operating costs. In addition, the
component includes the cost of annual impact evaluation surveys, including a baseline study and an end-
of-the-project comprehensive impact evaluation study.
3.2 BACKGROUND
Overall, project implementation is satisfactory and the project is likely to meet the PDO. Several outcome
indicators for LIPW and LEAP have met their project targets. Under LIPW, 3.2 million person days
employment have been created against the target of 5.65 million1 (56%); direct project beneficiaries were
80,678 against the target of 13,000; 60.4% of LIPW beneficiaries are females against the target of 25%.
The overall cumulative labor content is 48% against a target of 45%, with climate change public works
projects containing the highest labor content, followed by small earth dams and dugouts, and roads and
social infrastructure. Under LEAP, 70% of beneficiaries are females against the target of 15%; and there
are 74,347 direct project beneficiaries against the target of 80,000.
Project disbursements satisfactorily stand at SDR 41,019021 (70.24%) against the total credit of SDR
58,400,000.00 as of December 2013.
In a letter to the World Bank dated February 13th 2014, the Government of Ghana requested additional
financing of US$50 million for Ghana Social Opportunities Project (GSOP) to; (i) scale up existing
interventions under LIPW and LEAP, and (ii) modify project activities by strengthening social protection
systems and implementation capacity. These changes are expected to enhance the development impact of
the project. The additional financing will lead to an extension of the closing date by one year to June 30th
2017. In addition, the restructuring would include a revision of the PDO, related indicators, the results
framework and the design of the components.
Activities to be funded under this AF are estimated at US$50 million equivalent. The proposed AF would
increase the Bank’s financial contribution from the existing $88.6m to $138.6 million (IDA credit). In
view of the additional credit, the development objective, design, implementation and fiduciary
arrangements will be adjusted to reflect new project realities and scope. This AF is justified as per the
requirements of paragraphs 2 and 26 of OP 10.00 regarding consistency with original project objectives
and appraisal.
1 Rationalized target from the previous 1,500,000 in the Project Appraisal document.
GSOP Updated ESMF
20
Specifically, this additional financing has the following additions and changes:
Revision of the PDO, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and the Results Framework.
Inclusion of 6 new districts for the LIPW projects (increasing from 49 to 55).
Scaling up of LEAP.
Inclusion of a new implementing agency: the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social protection
(MoGCSP).
Improved targeting approaches through the establishment of the Ghana National Household
Registry.
Introduction of social accountability and grievance redress mechanisms for LIPW and LEAP.
Comprehensive development communication for LIPW and LEAP.
Increased use of electronic systems and e-payments for LIPW and LEAP.
The usage of Disbursement Linked Indicators under LEAP will be dropped.
Strengthened collaboration between all agencies involved in project implementation
GSOP AF contributes to the objectives of the Ghana Country Partnership Strategy Program (CPS FY13-
16), which is based on three pillars: (1) improving economic institutions; (2) improving competitiveness
and job creation; and (3) protecting the poor and vulnerable. The project supports: (1) Pillar one:
Improving Economic Institutions, through Component 1: Social Protection Policy and Systems
Strengthening which is designed to increase the efficiency in the use of resources designed for social
protection, given that pro-poor programs in Ghana are fragmented and poorly targeted; (2) Pillar three:
Protection of the Poor and Vulnerable through Component 2: Labor Intensive Public Works (LIPW)
Implementation and Capacity Building, by expanding social protection support through labor intensive
public works programs; and Component 3 Livelihood for Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP)
Implementation and Capacity Building, by providing cash transfers to extremely poor households with
the goal of alleviating short-term poverty and encouraging long-term human capital development.
Revised PDO and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
The revised objective is to: improve targeting of social protection programs and provide income support
to poor households through LEAP grants and LIPW infrastructure in targeted districts. The revision is
meant to make the PDO clearer and more outcome-focused. The indicators (KPIs) have also been revised
to reflect the project’s adjusted focus on strengthening systems and scaling up of LEAP and LIPW.
3.3 REVISED PROJECT COMPONENTS
The project revised components are as below:
1. Component One. Social Protection Policy and Systems Strengthening
This component builds on the findings of the rationalization study that was funded under component 1 of
the original project. This component will have two sub-components: sub-component 1A: Social
Protection Policy formulation and sub-component 1B: Social Protection Systems Strengthening.
2. Sub-component 1A: Social Protection Policy Formulation The objective of this sub-component is to strengthen coordination, financing and implementation of social
protection programs through the preparation of a national social protection policy, strategy and an
implementation action plan. This sub-component will finance technical assistance, consultations,
GSOP Updated ESMF
21
workshops, and policy dissemination. Policy formulation will be done in consultation with other
government agencies involved in Social Protection and donor partners. Additionally, this sub-component
will provide technical assistance to the Ministry of Finance to develop mechanisms within the current
budget framework to allocate and monitor social protection spending more efficiently. Analytical work to
support social protection budget allocation efficiency will also be supported. The component will further
support capacity building for staff of the Ministry of Finance and the National Development Planning
Commission to improve understanding and appreciation of social protection issues through trainings,
study tours and in country field visits.
3. Sub-component 1B: Social Protection Systems Strengthening The objective of this sub-component is to support strengthening of social protection systems through the
establishment of the Ghana National Household Registry (GNHR). The registry is meant as a tool to
improve efficiency, effectiveness, and expand the coverage and scope of social protection interventions in
Ghana. This sub-component will finance electronic data collection and processing on households using a
Proxy Means Test (PMT) that will be reviewed and updated using the 2013 Ghana Living Standards
Survey data (GLSS 6) data. This process - the National Targeting System (NTS) - would be used to build
the GNHR on poor households eligible for selection by social protection programs. The GNHR would be
a database of households, their members, basic living conditions and PMT scores. The GNHR will be
used across social protection programs (including LEAP, LIPW, and NHIS) for targeting beneficiaries,
thus removing redundancy across programs in the targeting processes. Implementation will be sequenced,
starting with the Upper West region in 2014, Upper East Region in 2015 and Northern Region in 2016.
Geographical maps will be prepared for the rest of the country. It is expected that the roll out will follow
these maps.
Component Two. Labor Intensive Public Works Implementation and Capacity Building The objective of this component remains unchanged. The AF will support the scale up of LIPW to reach
more beneficiary households. Innovations, particularly to manage oversubscription, improve targeting,
and enhance delivery and monitoring of payments will be introduced. The implementation capacity of the
local assemblies will continue to be strengthened through trainings. This component will be reorganized
under AF with two sub-components: sub-component 2A: Labor Intensive Public Works and sub-
component 2B: Capacity Building.
Sub-component 2A: Labor Intensive Public works (LIPW) The AF will deepen LIPW activities in the existing 49 districts. The basic design of the LIPW component
and menu of sub-projects would be maintained. Six new districts will be added. Selection of districts will
be based on poverty. Labor content of the original project was approximately 50%. The other 50% of the
component funds went to contractors and materials. To maximize labor content under AF, the breakdown
of sub-projects would be 20% for feeder roads, 30% for climate change activities and 50% for small earth
dams and dugouts. To manage oversubscription, the AF activities would support: (i) improved planning
to enable site managers to take into account a realistic number of work days and tools that are available
per cycle; and (ii) in addition to self-targeting, use community-based targeting (CBT) to further narrow
down the eligible beneficiary pool; (iii) the computerization of time sheets to enable faster processing of
payroll information as well as introduction of an electronic payment mechanism to improve efficiency.
For sustainability, community saving activities financed under a US$ 3million Japanese Social
Development Grant will complement LIPW activities. The project will continue to use qualified
contractors to ensure that small earth dams and dugouts are prepared in strict conformity with standard
designs and specifications. Details on quality improvements for sub-projects will be detailed in the
revised Operational Manual.
GSOP Updated ESMF
22
Sub-component 2B: Capacity Building for LIPW.
The original capacity building component was entirely implemented by the MLGRD. Under AF, this
component has been restructured to support both the MLGRD and MoGCSP. Therefore, this sub-
component will finance capacity building activities for implementation of LIPW in selected project
districts. Several distinct sets of capacity building activities under the original project will continue to be
supported under AF, specifically: (i) establishing a LIPW supportive policy and institutional framework;
(ii) capacity building to support LIPW implementation aimed at decision-makers, DA technical staff,
relevant line agencies, and contractors; and (iii) ongoing capacity building for DAs in the technical and
management capacities of LIPW target districts.
In addition, this sub-component will support the implementation of social accountability and grievance
redress mechanisms, development communication activities, capacity building for the introduction of
ICT-based operational enhancements (such as electronic registration and electronic timesheets linked to e-
payments), impact evaluation, and other activities to support the overall objective of strengthening LIPW.
Component Three. Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) Implementation and
Capacity Building The objective of this component is to support the scale up of the LEAP grants to benefit more households,
improve the implementation of soft conditions, and strengthen LEAP’s management and administration
systems. This component will be restructured under AF to have two sub-components: sub-component 2A:
LEAP Grants and sub-component 2B: Capacity Building for LEAP
Sub-component 3A: LEAP Grants
The objective of this sub-component is to support the scale up of the LEAP grants to benefit more
households. In the original project, the LEAP grants were meant to be conditional, the PAD was not clear
whether these were hard or soft conditions. In practice, soft conditions have been implemented.
Beneficiaries are sensitized about sending children ages 5-15 to school, and ensuring regular clinical
visits and full immunizations for all children in beneficiary households. The implementation of these
conditions needs to be better structured under additional financing. The AF will continue to finance cash
grants to additional beneficiary households. Broadly, the government has increased its allocation to LEAP
from GHc 7.5 million in 2010 to GHc 38 million in 2014. Going forward, the financing of this component
will be restructured to utilize regular project investment financing modalities, with periodic payments
made directly to the MoGCSP for the LEAP cash grants.
Sub-component 3b: Capacity Building for LEAP.
In order to enhance LEAP’s implementation, this sub-component of the AF would provide financing to
strengthen the program’s operations at the national, regional and district levels. With AF, this project will
finance the development of a Management Information System for the program (to be coordinated with
the GHR) that will support data entry and analysis at the national and decentralized levels, delivery
charges associated with the new electronic payments mechanism, and training and capacity building of
staff to implement LEAP more effectively. This sub-component will also provide funding for
development communication activities, as well as monitoring and evaluation (i.e. regular spot checks of
operation activities and impact evaluation studies), and social accountability and grievance redress
systems for the program. In addition, the project will also ensure and support the improved
implementation of soft conditions through regular and documented dissemination fora for LEAP
beneficiaries.
Component Four. Project Management and Coordination.
GSOP Updated ESMF
23
The objective of this component remains unchanged. Overall project implementation will be undertaken
by the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (Components 2 and 4A) and the Ministry
of Gender Children and Social Protection (Components 1, 3 and 4B). Under the AF, this component will
be restructured into two sub-components to reflect the addition of the MoGCSP as an independent
implementing agency: sub-component 4A: Project management and coordination by the Ministry of Local
Government and Rural Development, and sub-component 4B: Project management and coordination by
the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection.
Sub-component 4A: Project management and coordination by the Ministry of Local Government
and Rural Development.
The objective of this sub-component is to support activities related to project management and
coordination, equipment and vehicles, and incremental operating costs under the GSOP National
Coordination Office and Regional Coordination Officers for LIPW sub-projects.
Sub-component 4B: Project management and coordination by the Ministry of Gender, Children
and Social Protection.
The objective of this sub-component is to support activities related to project management and
coordination, equipment and vehicles, and incremental operating costs under the MoGCSP.
GSOP Updated ESMF
24
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE CONDITIONS
The parent projected predominantly targeted the chronically poor within 29 districts in the Northern
Savannah regions and 20 Districts in the 7 other regions of Ghana. The three northern regions occupy a
total land area of 97,700 km2 (41% of the land area of Ghana) and are similar in characteristics with
respect to climate and vegetation. The regions also share common socio-economic traits as they are
regarded as the most impoverished in the country. They are however different in their demographic
trends, characterized by various ethnic groups. The three regions comprise a total of thirty eight (38)
districts; twenty (20) in the Northern Region and nine (9) districts each in the Upper East and Upper West
Regions.
4.1 Climate and Vegetation
The climate of Ghana is tropical, but temperatures vary with season and elevation With exception
of the Northern region, two rainy seasons occur, from April to July and from September to
November .The main climatic pattern in the northern regions is the single rainy season from May and
June ending in October, and the dry season from November to March/April. Average annual rainfall
varies between 750mm and 1100mm. The dry season is accentuated by the Harmattan Winds between
December and mid-February, during which period day time temperature can soar to 45°C, reducing to as
low as 14°C in the night. Humidity is typically low.
The high temperature conditions have been associated with seasonal bouts of such diseases as cerebro-
spinal meningitis (CSM). These regions fall within the meningitis belt of Africa.
The vegetation type of the Northern region comprises of vast areas of grassland, interspersed with guinea
savannah woodland. This makes the area susceptible to widespread annual bushfires aided by the almost
semi-arid conditions and long dry spell. Trees of economic importance to the people include Magnifera
indica (mango), Adansonia digitata (baobab), Butyrospermum parkii (sheanut), Acacia mangium (acacia),
Parkia biglobosa and Azadirachta indica (neem). The vegetation type of the other regions comprises of
Moist Semi Deciduous and Rain Forest mangrove and coastal shrubs.
4.2 Water Resources, Topography and Drainage
The three regions fall within the sub-basins of the Red, Black and White Volta. Apart from the rivers
Sissili, Nasia and Daka, there are seasonal tributaries that dwindle off in the dry season and revive with
the onset of the rains. These rivers form a network with some important valleys such as the Fumbisi,
Nasia, Tamne, Katanga, Nabogu and Soo Valleys. These areas are under consideration to be developed
because of their high potential for agriculture. The rivers link up with the Volta. Groundwater use is
common in all three regions as an estimated 5,000 boreholes have been drilled since 1970. With a
groundwater accessibility and use rate of about 58%, groundwater forms a significant source of daily
water use. The other regions of Ghana fall under the Tano, Ankobra, Pra and Densu water basins with
comparatively better water supply from these basins than the North.
GSOP Updated ESMF
25
The topography of the northern region is generally low-lying and flat with a few scattered hilly areas,
such as the Gambaga Escarpment in the north-eastern corner and also along the western corridor
(Northern and Upper West Regions), and east and south-east (Upper East Region). Flooding is a yearly
occurrence caused by the overflowing of the Volta and subsequently its tributaries.
The coastline consists mostly of a low sandy shore behind which stretches the coastal plain, except in the
west, where the forest comes down to the sea. The forest belt, which extends northward from the western
coast about 320 km and eastward for a maximum of about 270 km, is broken up into heavily wooded
hills and steep ridges.
4.3 Population and Socio-Economic Characteristics
The three northern regions take up 97,700 km2, which is 41% of the total land area, but comprise only
17.4% of the national population. The Northern Region (70,383km2), even though a large land area, is
sparsely populated (density of 26 persons per km2), less than that of the Upper East (8,842 km
2) the
smallest of the three regions, but with 104 persons per km2. The population density of the Upper West is
31 persons per km2 with a land area of 18,478 km
2.
In terms of age structure, the regions exhibit slightly lower numbers of females than males in contrast
with the national picture, which puts the female population at 50.1%.
Agriculture, hunting and forestry are the main economic activities in the region. About 80% of the
economically active population are into agriculture; engaged in the production of millet, guinea-corn,
maize, groundnut, beans, sorghum and dry season tomatoes and onions. Infrastructure for dry season
agriculture is inadequate and as such a large number of people are left with no source of income during
the dry season. Migration becomes pronounced with a large number of the youth moving to the urban
centers in search of employment.
Poverty has been declining steadily in Ghana, as reflected in the number of people classified as poor,
which dropped from about 8.0 million (i.e. slightly over 50% of the population) in 1992 to 6.3 million in
2006 (less than 30% of the population). However, inequalities remain widespread, and are reflected in
significant disparities in access to economic, social and political opportunities. In particular, the three
northern regions (with 25% of the country’s population) recorded an average poverty rate of 58%,
compared to 19% in the rest of the country.
4.4 Feeder Road Network
The various districts are connected to their regional capitals mainly by feeder roads. Almost all feeder
roads in the North have either gravel or earth surfaces. These become almost impassable during rainy
seasons. Table 4.1 gives the length and state of feeder roads.
GSOP Updated ESMF
26
Table 4.1: Length and State of Feeder Roads by Districts in the North
Districts Total
Length
(Kilometres)
Condition Mix of Roads Surface Type of Road
Good
(km)
Fair
(km)
Poor
(km)
Bitumen
(km)
Gravel
(km)
Earth
(km)
Bawku East
Bawku West
Bole
Bolgatanga
Bongo
Bulsa
East Gonja
East Mamprusi
Gushiegu Karaga
Jirapa Lambussie
Kassena Nankana
Lawra
Nadowli
Saboba Chereponi
Savelugu Nanton
Sissala
Tamale
Tolon Kumbungu
Wa
West Gonja
West Mamprusi
Yendi
Zabzugu Tatele
606.56
279.42
591.57
431.80
155.28
360.20
833.09
293.49
434.89
558.90
322.73
238.30
549.68
393.62
375.05
703.10
225.43
383.89
1,104.84
789.59
369.21
727.74
481.15
258.20
187.83
165.22
284.50
122.48
239.09
427.40
71.39
202.08
434.00
193.58
148.50
205.58
144.09
36.28
147.52
98.87
1.06
445.33
334.52
129.13
172.24
198.60
216.93
68.44
260.94
90.02
30.93
78.41
348.31
184.61
127.72
79.80
91.37
78.60
129.25
195.47
152.72
204.80
93.06
147.81
361.28
403.96
172.25
424.08
220.37
131.43
23.15
165.41
57.28
1.87
42.70
57.39
37.48
105.09
45.10
37.78
11.20
214.85
54.06
186.05
350.78
28.50
235.02
297.84
51.12
67.83
131.41
62.18
4.40
10.0
-
2.28
-
-
-
5.25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.07
-
-
-
-
352.63
220.44
347.03
296.43
97.68
232.96
509.42
160.59
379.74
491.30
201.61
210.00
477.48
199.89
268.22
527.45
162.14
209.12
710.34
340.37
201.51
234.70
199.15
249.53
48.98
244.54
133.09
57.60
127.24
291.67
132.90
21.34
67.60
115.87
28.30
72.20
193.72
106.83
175.65
63.30
174.77
402.40
449.22
167.70
493.04
282.00
Source: Department of Feeder Roads and Highways, Accra.
4.5 Culture and Religon
The major ethnic groups are each represented by a paramount chief. They include the Gonja, Dagomba,
Mamprusi, Nanumba and the Kokomba groups in the Northern region; Gruni, Kassena, and Kusasi
groups in the Upper East region; and Sisala, Dagarti, and Warla groups in the Upper West region.
Islam is the dominant religion in the Northern Region, whereas Traditional and Christian religions are
prominent in the Upper East and Upper West Regions respectively. Aside agriculture, the people engage
in the manufacture and sale of traditional artifacts and musical instruments. Blacksmithing and pottery are
also common.
GSOP Updated ESMF
27
4.6 Disaster Risk Exposure
Risk sources range from erratic climatic conditions, limited opportunities for off-farm economic
activities, poor planning and implementation of development policies to frequent incidence of bushfires,
floods and droughts, which are the bane of the area’s underdevelopment. Additionally, persistent inter-
and intra-ethnic conflicts result in heavy loss of lives and property, with resources redeployed into
conflict resolution.
GSOP Updated ESMF
28
5.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS AND
MITIGATIONS
5.1 Screening of the GSOP and Sub-Projects
The Ghana Social Opportunities Project is being implemented over a five-year period in 49 districts in
Ghana. The scope of involvement includes various institutions at the national, regional to local levels with
various responsibilities and coordination arrangements. The original GSOP has five components, with the
LIPWs sub-projects falling under rural road and water sectors. However, the sub-project designs, types
and numbers involved and the specific beneficiary districts are all not determined at this stage.
The above attributes indicate the GSOP as a program for which the appropriate level of EA is the
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), and ESMF under the Ghana and the World Bank EA
Procedures respectively. Due to the small- to medium-scale nature of the sub-projects, they are classified
as Schedule 1 undertakings (i.e., projects which require registration and permit) under the Ghana country
system. Under the World Bank EA Procedures, however, the components and sub-projects are classified
as Category B.
The potential impacts of the GSOP are presented below. The beneficial impacts come first, followed by
the adverse impacts and the corresponding mitigation measures.
5.2 Potential Benefits of the GSOP
The potential benefits of the project include:
Socio-economic benefits to poor communities;
Mass employment (even of the skilled);
Creating of community productive assets;
Low migrant-worker influx;
Enhanced capacity to support decentralization; and
Extension of E&S safeguards to cover other district projects
5.2.1 Economic Benefits to Poor Communities
The Project’s 49 districts are classified as the poorest in Ghana. Improved feeder road infrastructure
through rehabilitation and maintenance provides such socio-economic benefits as improved accessibility,
which will significantly enhance economic prospect and integration. Dugouts and small earth dams will
enhance access and availability to water for both humans and livestock. Additionally, it will provide
support for all season farming respectively. This potentially will result in adequate water availability,
regular employment, increase food production and income, etc.
5.2.2 Mass Employment
Large numbers of people and households will be gainfully employed during the slack agricultural period.
This will significantly contribute towards efforts at reducing the rural-urban drift which is very
pronounced during these periods. Part of the income received could be invested in farm expansion during
the farming season, among others.
GSOP Updated ESMF
29
5.2.3 Community Protection for Facilities
Consultations with local communities revealed that community infrastructure constructed through labor-
intensive methods tend to enjoy community interest, protection and attachment. The sub-projects are
therefore expected to engender a feeling of ownership and invariably a responsibility towards protection
of such facilities in the interest of their sustainability.
5.2.4 Low Migrant-Worker Influx
The mass employment openings targeted at the community members presupposes that there will be very
low migrant-worker influx into these rural communities. The attendant social and health risks of, for
instance, HIV/AIDS spread, cultural insensitivity and conflicts, social inequalities, increased incidence of
teenage pregnancy and dropout rates, etc. otherwise associated with influx of migrants will be managed
through well targeted sensitization programs.
5.2.5 Enhanced Institutional Capacity to Support Decentralization
The project will offer an important contribution and legacy to the decentralization program by providing
capacity-building opportunities to several institutions at the regional, district and local levels. The support
to Area Councils will particularly enhance community involvement in decision processes affecting their
interests, gender issues and other environmental and social related activities in their immediate
neighbourhoods.
5.2.6 E&S Safeguards Applied to MTDP Projects
The skills and the culture developed by the DAs in applying E&S safeguards in the implementation of the
SOP sub-projects, are most likely to be extended to other projects from the MTDPs. This will not only
help the DAs meet the requirements of the LI 1652, but also adequately address E&S safeguards for
sustainable district developments and investments.
5.3 Potential Adverse Impacts
The potential adverse impacts likely to affect sustainable implementation and expected outputs include:
Potential failure of small earth dams
Low E&S safeguards capacity at district and community levels
Silting of small earth dams and dugouts from deposition of eroded material from embankments
and dam catchment areas.
The potential adverse social impacts are:
Weakening the spirit of community volunteerism;
Inadequate contractors with labour-intensive technology;
Potential delays in contract completion schedule;
Exploitation by contractors;
Non-availability of labor at certain times; and
Challenges to managing large workforce at a site.
GSOP Updated ESMF
30
5.3.1 Potential Failure of Dams
Some small earth dams and dugouts are known to have been affected by storm and floodwaters in the
rainy seasons, based on consultation with some stakeholders. Others put the blame on the integrity of the
structures. The effects include breaching, seepage and piping problems. The inability of the small earth
dams and dugouts constructed previously to withstand the elements and to function optimally and
sustainably is a loss to such communities whose livelihoods are tied to such facilities. The investment in
small earth dam and dugout rehabilitation and maintenance under the SOP must therefore not go the same
way.
Mitigation of Small Earth Dam Failure
The measures required to address the risk of small earth dam failure include training of local
consultants,contractors, district assmebly engineers in modern design techniniques and small earth dam
construction technologies. The training includes site selection, material testing for suitability and
ascertaining compaction in order to assure the integrity of small earth dams. These measures are contained
in the dam safety plan Plan in the Project Implementation Manual (PIM) Volume 4 (Safeguards Manual)
and elaborated in annex 3. They include placement of sandbags, establishment of vetiver grass buffers,
and rip raps along the dam crest and embankments respectively to increase freeboard and force more
water through the spillway and outlet and prevent further embankment erosion, stabilizing the
downstream slope by weighing the toe area with additional soil, rock or gravel, and frequently monitoring
the small earth dams for signs of slides, cracking, or concentrated seepage. Notification procedures in
response to an emergency situation are also elaborated in the PIM.
All the small earth dams and dugouts that have been constructed so far under the implementation phase of
the parent project have been designed and supervised by experienced regional Ghana Irrigation
Development Authority (GIDA) engineers. Capacity within existing beneficiary DAs on small earth dam
and dugouts construction has enhanced under the parent project through training and workshops to local
designers, contractor’s, supervisors and other associated workers, with technical support from the
International Labor Organization (ILO). This mitigation arrangement will be sustained for all future small
dam and dugout construction works. Additionally, the project will use external expertise to address any
low technical capacity on small earth dam construction where necessary.
5.3.2 Low local E&S Safeguards Capacity and Involvement
Relevant safeguard training sessions will be provided to key staff of the project implementing units at the
local level to improve awareness and capacity of E&S safeguard issues. Routine refresher training
sessions will also be orgainised by the regional Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide
updates on safeguard matters to both existing and new staff at the district assembly.
Various Safeguard trainings sessions have been provided since inception of parent project to key staff (i.e
District Engineers, District coordinating officers, District Planners etc) at the beneficiary DAs by the
regional EPA. The training sessions provided needed education on registration/screening of subprojects to
assess their environmental and social impacts and subsequent permiting with the EPA where required. All
466 subprojects under GSOP have been registered, screened and cleared for implementation by the
regional Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offices.
Additional safeguard support is provided by a GSOP Safeguard and Climate Change specialist at the
GSOP national office level.
GSOP Updated ESMF
31
.
Mitigation – High E&S Safeguards Awareness for Community Involvement
There is the need for increased E&S safeguards awareness within the project communities, Area Councils
and DAs. This should be complemented with social accountability processes to strengthen communities’
capability to participate effectively in maintenance of sub-projects. Once communities become conscious
of the right to participate in decision processes affecting them, they will begin to demand that such rights
are respected. The Area Council and the DAs will also be conscious of the need, benefits and also the
risks to project sustainability in ignoring E&S safeguards. The training must cover how to build the cost
of E&S safeguards requirements into the overall project cost:
At planning/design stages and related assessment requirements,
Environmental permit acquisition,
Implementation of safeguards (at initial design and construction stages), and
Monitoring and enforcement requirements.
The E&S safeguards training must include contractors on their obligations to fulfil permit conditions on
safeguards, relevant E&S safeguards management planning, compliance and reporting.
5.3.3 Accelerated Silting of Small earth Dams and Dugouts
Small earth dams and dugouts may experience accelerated rate of siltation from either silt-laden run off or
eroded embankment, especially during the rainy seasons. This has the tendency to reduce the reservoir
capacity, adversely affect the quality of water and also the lifespan of reservoirs.
Mitigation of Siltation of Small earth Dam and Dugouts
The immediate catchment area and embankment of small earth dams and dugouts must be reforested. The
banks of small earth dams must be grassed progressively with the rehabilitation or maintenance works. It
is important that bare areas on the embankment do not occur. The embankments must be engineered with
the appropriate slope specifications and protected with stone ripraps and complemented with grassing. In
the catchment areas, the project would ensure planting of high water resistant trees and grass to reduce
siltation to mitigate any higher than expected throwback.
5.3.4 Upsetting the Spirit of Community Volunteerism
Many community projects are undertaken through communal (self-help) labor. Such regular free labor is
regarded as community contribution towards improving livelihood through construction and maintenance
of essential community infrastructure and facilities. The LIPWs approach is likely to diminish the
communal spirit and the self-help practice commonly exhibited by the people.
It is however, noted that the type of sub-projects – feeder roads and small earth dams involved in the SOP
are not the usual type of candidate projects for self-help labor. The ‘money-for-community work’ may
therefore not significantly affect the willingness to contribute free labor in future for community services.
GSOP Updated ESMF
32
Mitigation – Retaining the Communal Spirit of Volunteerism
Effective sensitization of communities must precede implementation of all sub-projects to ensure
understanding of the SOP. Sensitisation should cover areas such as: participant selection, the contract
terms (between contractors and DAs); obligations of the contractor; obligations of the workers and
beneficiary communities, purpose of the project; source of funding; mechanisms for addressing
grievances; wages, as well as on the need to maintain the spirit of volunteerism.
5.3.5 Inadequate Contractors with Labor-Intensive Experience
The stakeholder consultations revealed that only a few contractors have experience in LIPWs especially
within new beneficiary DAs. In all the districts visited, none has a single contractor with the capacity. The
very few trained contractors (found at the regional capitals) were asking for re-training. This will be a
limiting factor to the rapid commencement of the project implementation. Without the requisite LIPWs
skills for contractors and capacity for managing the rather large numbers of workers, the project
implementation may suffer set-backs. The project will implement extensive training with external
technical support to address this issue. Experienced GIDA staff shall serve as coaches for oversight and
technical backstopping.
Mitigation – Building a Pool of Local Contractors
There is the need to identify contractors in the districts (where possible) to train on labor-intensive works.
This will ensure that the greatest proportion of the project money is retained in the area.
5.3.6 Potential Delays in Contract Completion Schedule
In situations where work drags on for months, fatigue may set in, especially in cases where workers are
subjected to long hours of work. Diminishing returns could reduce output and delay contracts beyond
stipulated completion schedule, possibly extending to the farming season.
Mitigation – Formation of Work Teams
In order to sustain output and increase the total number of people that benefit from employment,
contractors must form work teams who may work for instance, every other fortnight. This can provide the
workers enough time to regain energy in the hot and dry Harmattan Season (i.e., slack agricultural
period). Task rates are established so that average worker can implement these activities in 6 hour work
days, leaving enough time for rest and recovery. In addition, if tasks are completed quicker, workers are
allowed to rest.
5.3.7 Exploitation by Contractors
Consultation with one AC and community members revealed that the labor-based works is not new. They
hinted of the potential to exploit workers by long working hours (7am to 5pm), with incommensurate
wages. Contractors may also default in payment of wages, especially for work done in the final stages of
the contract and disappear. Mistrust between community members and contractors may undermine the
project implementation.
GSOP Updated ESMF
33
Mitigation – Avoidance of Worker Exploitation
Contracts to be signed between DAs and contractors must specify maximum work-hours (not to exceed
eight (8) hours for manual workers as indicated in the Labor Act). For instance, work hours of 7am to
4pm daily with 1.5 hours of short breaks would guarantee 7.5 hours of productive work. This would be
complemented by social accountability fora and sensitization on the existing grievance redress
mechanisms.
5.3.8 Non-availability of Labor at Certain Times
Some community members may withdraw and resort to other activities, if they perceive such alternatives
as more financially rewarding or less stressful than the project. Thus, the community could abandon a
sub-project midstream disrupting the planned implementation schedule.
Mitigation – Sourcing for Labor Elsewhere
The implementation of the project must be preceded by an awareness program of the ACs and
communities involved for a good appreciation and for them to be able to identify with the objectives of
project. In the event, however, that a community’s grievances cannot be resolved by the AC and the DA,
leading to abandonment of the project, labor may be imported from other nearby communities by the
contractor.
5.3.9 Concentration of Large Workforce at a Site
Managing large numbers of people (as required in LIPWs) at a site will be a major challenge for
contractors. Some of the sources of concern may include quarrels, fighting, lateness, laziness and cheating
affecting output. Others include waste generation and disposal (e.g., food leftovers, plastic waste and
human waste (excreta)).
Mitigation – Building of Capacity of Contractors
The training for contractors must include management of large number of people (labor force) who will
then be able to train their foremen to professionally handle the situations that will arise. Some of the
specific areas may include worker behaviour, sanitation, worker psychology, etc.
GSOP Updated ESMF
34
6.0 E&S IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS OF SUB-PROJECTS
6.1 Impacts and Mitigations at Sub-Project Level
This section provides the general impacts and mitigations at the sub-project level. The sub-project level
refers to the specific rehabilitation/maintenance works of feeder road or small earth dam or dugout to be
implemented in future, as distinct from the SOP-level, which covers the bulk of the five components.
The general impacts and mitigations associated with the feeder roads, small earth dams and dugout sub-
projects are presented in table 6.1. These are provided to guide in the rapid screening/initial assessment of
sub-project impacts for approval purposes by the EPA.
Table 6.1 General Impacts and Mitigations Associated with Sub-Projects
Sub-Projects Potential
Impacts Sources Safeguards/Mitigations
Rural
Road
Infrastructure
Dust/ emissions
Removal of top soil /
clearing and site
preparation
Dumping of spoil
materials
Compaction with
machinery
Burrow pits and gravel
winning
Operating quarries
Haulage of materials
Water dousing to minimize dust
Cover all heaped sand and flyable construction
materials
Tarpaulin covering of haulage truck (for dust
control)
Minimize area of ground clearance
Haulage speed limit in sensitive areas (40km/hr)
Regular Servicing of equipment/machinery
Work-site dust management (nose mask)
Noise and
vibration
Compaction with
machinery
Burrow pits and gravel
winning
Operating quarries
Haulage of materials
Use of implements
Noise-sensitive areas (include schools,
hospitals/clinics, communities, wildlife sanctuary,
reserves, etc)
Maintain equipment noise level (less than
75dBs)
Hours of operation (between 8.30 and 5.00pm)
Haulage speed limit in sensitive areas (40km/hr)
Work-site noise management (less than 65dBs,
ear plugs)
Pits/trenches near
road
Landscape disturbance
Gravel removal
Trenching
Restore topsoil and re-vegetate landscape after
construction
Cover all pits and trenches
Reclaim borrow pits
Construction
waste generation
and disposal
Over extended site
preparation and
unnecessary waste
generation
Poor handling of cleared
vegetation and top soil
Minimizing the area of ground clearance
Waste minimization measures
Work-site waste management (Plastics, scraps,
waste wood, etc.)
Provision of waste bins for use by workers
Disposal of waste at approved locations
GSOP Updated ESMF
35
Inappropriate disposal of
spoil and other
construction wastes
Public
safety/health
Accidents
Exposure to atmospheric
emissions from
construction equipment
Exposure to excessive
and continuous noise and
vibration from
construction activities
Lack of warning sign and
safeguards
Excessive manual work
Regular servicing of construction equipment
Use of equipment with low operating noise
levels (less than 65dBs)
Provision and use of appropriate PPEs
Restricting construction works to day time hours
Intensive public awareness campaigns
Open ditches and other hazard areas to be
marked with visible tapes
Workers
safety/health
accidents
Exposure to atmospheric
emissions from
construction equipment
Exposure to excessive
and continuous noise and
vibration from
construction activities
Lack of warning sign and
safeguards
Excessive manual work
Health and safety risks
due to improper working
gear and lack of
monitoring
Regular servicing of construction equipment
Use of equipment with low operating noise
levels (less than 65dBs)
Provision and use of appropriate PPEs
Restricting construction works to day time hours
Intensive public awareness campaigns
Open ditches and other hazard areas to be
marked with visible tapes
Provision of safety wears like boots and helmets,
maintenance and upkeep of health safety log
book and monitoring officer
Water
contamination
and flooding
Construction-related
activities – land clearing,
gravel removal, drain
construction, etc.
Inappropriate disposal of
waste
Blocking of drains and
drainage/stream diversion
Water crossings to be minimized, and buffer
zones of undisturbed vegetation left between
construction sites and watercourses.
Redesign of road/construction to accommodate
flood prevention methods.
Disposal of waste materials at designated site
Provision of planned diversion routes
Flood control management
Rural Water
Infrastructure
(Dams and
Dugouts)
Siltation and
modification of
flow of water
courses
Site preparation and
clearing
Excavation,
transportation of raw
materials
Small earth dam
excavation
Run-off from exposed
surfaces
Stream diversion works
Dumping of spoilt
materials
Avoiding alignments which are susceptible to
erosion, such as those crossing steep slopes
Sourcing raw materials away from water sources
Minimize area of ground clearance
Waste materials to be dumped at EPA and DAs
approved dump sites
Water quality
degradation Exposed soil surfaces
Sediment laden run-offs
Minimize area of ground clearance
Introduce speed reduction measures e.g. grasses,
GSOP Updated ESMF
36
(surface and
groundwater)
Public
Safety/Accidents
Concentrating flows at
certain points and, in
some cases, increasing
the speed of flow
resulting in flooding, soil
erosion, channel
modification, and
siltation of streams.
riprap, and other devices in water channels and
stream diversions, etc.
Provide settling basins to remove silt and debris
from run-off before discharge to streams, etc
Construction of runoff channels, contouring or
other means of erosion control
Use clean fill materials for small earth dams and
around watercourses such as quarry fine sand;
Avoidance of increasing speed of water courses
Provide adequate spillways in small earth dam
constructions and other embankments;
Provide reservations/buffer zones of undisturbed
vegetation between construction sites and water
bodies. (Minimum of 60m on both sides of
Volta Rivers and 30m for other water bodies)
Re-vegetate the dam banks to ensure small earth
dam stability and safety
Annual community maintenance of small earth
dams with strong oversight by qualified
engineers
Compliance with the dam safety plan in the
PIM
Ground water
table
modifications
Stream drainage
excavation &
embankments (restricting
flow)
Sedimentation, changes
in biological activity in
streams and on their
banks
Uncontrolled
construction activities,
Chemicals (agro-
chemicals spillage.
Introduce speed reduction measures e.g. grasses,
riprap, and other devices in water channels, etc.
Provide settling basins to remove silt and debris
from road runoff before discharge
Construct run-off channels, contouring or other
means of erosion control
Pave sections of roads prone to erosion and
sedimentation particularly near water crossings.
Compensate with provision of bore holes and
wells for communities adversely affected
Adopt enhancements measures in design such as
water retention structures in dry areas, and
raising inlets to drainage culverts in high water
table areas, retarding basins in areas prone to
flooding to reduce runoff peaks, spillways.
6.2 Other Mitigation and Safeguard Principles of Sub-Projects
The following are other sub-project level mitigation and safeguards principles that will be observed
(further expanded in Appendix 3):
Principles for good employment practices;
Particulate emission abatement principles;
Cultural resources preservation principles;
Waste generation and management principles;
GSOP Updated ESMF
37
HIV/AIDS prevention principles;
Landscape improvement principles;
Water resource protection principles; and
Habitat protection principles.
6.2.1 Principles for Good Employment Practices
To ensure recruitment terms are streamlined for the protection of the rights of community members the
following principles will be observed:
Sensitization of the people prior to commencement of sub-projects on their roles, contract
specifications, mechanisms for addressing grievances, etc;
Specification of work-hours e.g. 8.30am-5pm (for men) and 8.30am-4pm (for women);
Formation of work teams and use shift systems (to address fatigue and maximize benefits);
Payment of wages to be supervised by the DAs and also verified in E&M;
Training of contractors (at the district levels) in labor-based methods.
6.2.2 Particulate Emission Abatement Principles
Implementation of sub-projects will factor the following principles in controlling air pollution (on feeder
road works, small earth dams and dugout development, etc):
Enclosing all construction sites and activities, especially close to communities in order to limit
exposure to dust generation;
Ensuring effective use of water (dousing) to control or minimize dust emission;
Mounting speed control signals and ramps;
Contract specifications to include dust control measures;
Covering of sand heaps (or hauling trucks carrying sand) to avoid dust emission; and
Planting tall, leafy and dense species between feeder roads and settlements to filter pollutants.
6.2.3 Cultural Resources Preservation Principles
Feeder roads and other sub-projects will avoid areas that cut through known cultural sites;
Cultural resources uncovered during works will be handed over to the National Museums and
Monuments Board (NMMB) for preservation and/or preservation of the site;
Salvage excavation and relocation of artefacts or ruins from a cultural site;
Collaboration between the DAs and the NMMB in determining and avoiding damage to cultural
sites and resources; and
Marking and fencing important cultural sites during works period.
6.2.4 Waste Generation and Management Principles
Waste management mitigation principles will include:
Disposal of construction and related waste materials at designated/approved dump site;
Adoption of waste minimization measures;
Incorporation of waste management plan in contract specifications;
GSOP Updated ESMF
38
DAs to enforce appropriate sanitation and related bye laws; and
Worker awareness program to observe proper waste management measures.
6.2.5 Work Place HIV/AIDS Prevention Principles
Highlights of the principles to be followed by contractors are set out below, based on ILO guidelines and
those of the Ghana AIDS Commission:
HIV/AIDS prevention clauses will be incorporated into works contracts;
Ethical principles in handling persons with medical conditions will apply;
Relations with infected/potential workers will be governed by the basic human rights as enshrined
in the Constitution of Ghana;
Refusal of employment or dismissals will not be based on HIV status;
HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment guidelines for community/workplace will be prepared;
Due care and confidentiality will be exercised in handling information on HIV status of workers;
Prevention programs on HIV by contractors will include education and information provision,
peer counselling, condom use promotion and distribution, and facilitation of voluntary
counselling and testing
6.2.6 Landscape Improvement Principles
A number of management principles to protect the soil and landscape will include:
Minimizing the area of ground clearance along the construction corridor;
Avoiding sensitive alignments, including steep slopes;
Prompt reclamation of degraded lands (e.g. burrow pits).
Progressive replanting of disturbed areas during construction;
Specifying as contractors’ obligation - erosion control, spillage prevention and effective re-
vegetation;
Erection of intercepting ditches at the tops and bottoms of slopes, with gutters and spillways used
to control the flow of water down a slope; and
Emergency response procedures for spillages.
6.2.7 Water Resource Protection Principles
Mitigation principles to prevent, minimize and manage impacts on water resources will include:
Avoiding alignments which are susceptible to erosion (as much as possible);
Minimizing the number of water crossings through alternative route surveys;
Using clean fill materials around watercourses such as quarried rock containing no fine soil;
Providing settling basins to remove silt, pollutants, and debris from road and other construction
run-off before discharge to adjoining streams or rivers;
Constructing run-off channels, contouring or other means of erosion control;
Paving sections of feeder roads susceptible to erosion and sedimentation; and
Compensating by providing alternative source of water such as bore holes for communities
adversely affected.
GSOP Updated ESMF
39
6.2.8 Habitat Protection Principles
Mitigation principles to address habitat destruction and disruption will include:
Avoiding environmentally sensitive areas to prevent severe impacts on flora and fauna;
Replanting in road rights-of-way and adjacent areas to accelerate re-vegetation and succession;
Re-engineering road cross-section designs by using narrower widths, lower vertical alignments,
smaller cuts and fills, flatter side slopes, and less clearing of existing vegetation;
Providing “aquatic crossings” with culverts designed with the needs of migratory aquatic species
in mind;
Installing roadside reflectors to scare animals away from the roadway when vehicles approach at
night.
GSOP Updated ESMF
40
7.0 ESMF IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT
The successful implementation of the ESMF depends on the commitment of the beneficiary DAs and
ACs, the contractors, consultants and the safeguards specialist, as well as capacity within the institutions
and the institutional arrangement to effectively use the framework. This section presents the institutional
arrangement, capacity building, E&S monitoring plan and budget provision necessary for the ESMF
implementation.
7.1 Implementing the ESMF
The DAs will be responsible for E&S assessment and for securing the required permits for the sub-
projects under the LIPWs, with the help of consultants. The District Engineer (DE Works Department)
will take custody of this ESMF and will play a lead role under the guidance of a consultant in conducting
the initial sub-project E&S assessment (using the customized form in Appendix 2). The DE will liaise
with the EPA for submission of the completed assessment forms, for inspection and other processes
leading to granting of the permit for sub-projects.
The project environmental and social management (ESM) is linked to the project implementation
activities. The ESM commitment originates from the requirement in Section 5 of the Initial
Assessment/EA Screening Form (Appendix 2). The ESM phase comprises monitoring, management (of
E&S impacts and mitigations) and reporting during implementation activities such as rehabilitation,
maintenance, decommissioning of sites, etc. The ESM process will verify:
Effectiveness of mitigation measures being implemented;
Compliance with mitigation and other environmental and social requirements;
Unanticipated or residual impacts that have arisen requiring remedial action;
How far contractors are meeting or adhering to required environmental and social principles,
standards and commitments; and
Extent to which project monitoring and reporting requirements are met.
The E&S Clauses (Appendix 3) combined with Table 6.1 will guide the DE, Works Department, the E&S
Consultants and other officers of the DAs, DFR, GIDA, etc. to supervise implementation and M&E.
7.2 Institutional Arrangements
The MLGRD, the decentralized agencies and particularly the DAs and ACs are the main implementers of
the project. The other institutions and agencies whose functions relate to the project in terms of project
design, technical support and project E&S approvals include the Safeguards Specialist, EPA, DFR and
GIDA.
GSOP Updated ESMF
41
7.2.1 Project Oversight
A decentralized oversight committee and secretariat of MLGRD will be established to coordinate and
oversee implementation. The committee will be known as National Project Steering Committee (NPSC)
and the secretariat will be National Coordinating Office (NCO).
The National Project Steering Committee (NPSC) will:
Provide guidance on strategic, policy and implementation issues;
Coordinate activities of the ministries, agencies and other stakeholders involved in the project
implementation;
Review and approve annual work plans, budget and annual reports;
Review and discuss quarterly and annual project progress reports and make necessary
recommendations; and
Assess the progress towards achieving the project’s objectives and take corrective action if
necessary.
The NPSC will be chaired by the minister of MLGRD or his/her designee. The NPSC will include
representatives at the chief director level for the ministries and at the director levels for the agencies of
relevant ministries and institutions and civil society organizations, including: (i) Ministries of Finance and
Economic Planning; Employment and Social Welfare; Food and Agriculture; Works and Housing;
Environment, Science and Technology; Roads and Highways; and Interior; (ii) Department of Feeder
Roads (DFR); Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA); Labor Department; and (iii) Ghana
Association of Private Volunteer Organization in Development (GAPVOP) and Civil Works Contractors
Associations. The NPSC will meet quarterly in rotation in project regional capitals to allow members to
assess the project implementation progress on the ground.
7.2.2 Project Implementation and Management
National Level
A National Coordinating Office (NCO) assists NPSC to oversee and coordinate project implementation.
The NCO will be a lean structure with the main functions of project coordination, financial management,
procurement review and monitoring and reporting. It will function as the secretariat for the NPSC. The
NCO will be headed by a national coordinator supported by chief financial controller who will be located
in Accra. The following are the main functions of NCO: (i) coordinating, consolidating and reviewing the
project’s annual work programs, budgets and procurement plans; (ii) preparing quarterly project progress
reports; (iii) disbursing project funds to DAs/other implementing agencies and ensuring the replenishment
of project accounts; and (iv) undertaking the necessary reporting, audit and M&E activities. The
following NCO national staff will be decentralized to Tamale to provide closer support to frontline
activities: a chief infrastructure engineer; a chief institution and capacity specialist; a safeguard specialist
and a monitoring and evaluation specialist.
GSOP Updated ESMF
42
Regional Level
At the regional levels, the Regional Coordination Councils (RCC) will coordinate all regional
development programs, give technical support to the DAs, conduct monitoring of the sub-projects and
report to the NPSC. The three (3) RCC under the leadership of the regional minister will coordinate the
implementation arrangement in the beneficiary districts and ensure that the E&S safeguards are adhered
to. The regional chief planning officer will act as technical secretariat for the project and will coordinate
program planning and execution.
Since the RCCs are however weak and poorly resourced, they will be supported by project Regional
Coordinating Units (RCUs). The RCUs will assist the RCCs to plan, coordinate and monitor project
activities at the regional level. The RCUs will assist other relevant line ministries and agencies in
providing timely and efficient backstopping to DAs and also support DAs to implement agreed annual
work programs. RCUs will also ensure prudent management of project funds by DAs. Each RCU will be
headed by a regional coordinator and staffed by a rural engineer, an institution/capacity-building
specialist and an accountant.
District Level
At the district levels, the DAs will have full responsibility for the project implementing in collaboration
with the beneficiary communities. The District Planning Committee (DPC), which includes the heads of
the technical departments and the representatives of the Area Councils, will be responsible for the
planning of activities that are selected from their development plans in close consultation with the target
communities. The DPC will be responsible for the timely preparation and submission of annual work
programs and budget, detailed design of LIPWs, procurement, supervision and payment of contractors.
The Community Development and Cooperative Department will spearhead the mobilization of
communities and groups. The DPC will undertake regular field supervision to monitor implementation
progress and produce a quarterly report for submission to the RCCs and NCO, with copies to be sent to
the respective departmental heads.
7.3 Capacity Building
Capacity building in E&S assessment and management will be essential for the ESMF implementation.
The institutions need to understand the purpose of the ESMF, their expected roles and the extent to which
the ESMF will facilitate the respective statutory functions. This will engender the required collaboration
for the ESMF implementation.
The objectives of the capacity building efforts will include to:
Support the NPSC and NCO to mainstream E&S issues in the sub-projects; and
Strengthen the RCUs and other stakeholders (DFR, GIDA, etc.) to support DAs and ACs in E&S
and other aspects of the implementation of sub-projects.
The target groups for training include:
GSOP Updated ESMF
43
Project coordinators;
Project teams;
Consultants;
Contractors;
District Coordinating Office staff (including the Planning officers);
Decentralized Departments of the DAs;
EPA staff in the three Regional Offices;
Regional Coordinating Office staff
The broad areas for capacity building include the following:
Project screening/initial assessment techniques, screening tools, legislation and procedures;
General project planning and management inter-faced with E&S assessment and management;
E&S Assessment (in PEA, EIA, SEA/ESMF);
Review techniques;
Environmental (and social) management (including monitoring, environmental audit, etc.);
Environmental report preparation and other reporting requirements;
Public participation techniques and procedures;
Public awareness creation/educational techniques (on environmental, social and health issues);
and
Climate change (vulnerability assessment and adaptations in MTDPs).
7.4 Environmental and Social Monitoring and Reporting
Monitoring is a key component of the ESMF during project implementation. It is essential that the basis
for the choices and decisions made in the sub-project design and other E&S safeguard measures
implemented are verified. Monitoring will verify the effectiveness of impact management, including the
extent to which mitigation measures are successfully implemented.
Monitoring of the general project and the specific sub-project activities will help to:
Improve environmental and social management practices;
Check the effectiveness of the DAs’ E&S oversight responsibility; and
Provide the opportunity to report the results on safeguards, impacts and mitigation measures
implementation.
The district engineer (DE) support by the consultants will be responsible for E&S oversight and
monitoring. The DE will ensure that contractors adhere to the E&S safeguards (Appendix 3).
For the Contractor to successfully carry out his obligations on E&S safeguards, a designated
supervisor/foreman will be employed to monitor and report progress on E&S compliance to the DA
through the DE on monthly basis. The DA on its part will submit bi-monthly E&S monitoring reports to
the EPA and copy RCU. The E&S monitoring reports of all participating districts will be collated by the
RCU and submitted to the NPSC. The NPSC will then collate the regional E&S management reports for
GSOP Updated ESMF
44
submission to MLGRD. NPSC and RCC will conduct evaluation of project implementation in the three
regions.
GSOP Updated ESMF
45
Table 7.1 Proposed Budget for the ESMF Implementation
No. Institution Capacity Gaps
Identified Capacity Building
Measures Rate
Estimated
Cost ($)
1. Environment
al Protection
Agency
(EPA)
Inadequate number of staff at
the regional
offices
Inadequate know-
how in SEA and
project cycle
review
Inadequate number
of vehicles at the
regional offices
Processing charges and
Permit fees for 3 small
‘impact scale’
construction-related
proposals for each of 38
districts
Training in SEA and
Project cycle review (5
days for 5 persons per
regional office for 3
regions
$ 413 per
proposal
$ 40/p/d (/p/d: per
person per
day)
47,082
3,000
Sub-Total 50,082
2. Department
of Feeder
Roads (DFR)
Inadequate
knowledge of staff
in environmental
safeguard
principles for
LIPWs
Training course in
environmental
management, labor
standards, contract
management etc. (5 days for 5 persons
per regional office)
$ 40/p/d
3,000
Sub-Total 3,000
3. Area Council Lack of
awareness among
community
members on the
workability of
LIPWs
Sensitization of AC
members on LIPWs
(380 ACs, 10 members
each for 1 day)
$ 5/p/d
19,000
Sub-Total 19,000
4. District
Assembly
(DA)
Inadequate
technical
environmental
screening,
appraisal and
safeguards
capacity of the
DAs
3-day training
workshop for 5 key
members in each of the
38 DAs
$ 40/p 22,800
Sub-Total 22,800
5. Contractors Inadequate capacity
in LIPWs
management and
coordination
Technical training in the
use of LIPWs for feeder
roads and small earth dam
construction for 20
$ 40/p/d
2,400
GSOP Updated ESMF
46
contractors for 3 days
Sub-Total 2,400
TOTAL 97,282
REFERENCES
Rajvanshi, Asha et al. (2001), Roads, Sensitive, Habitats and Wildlife: Environmental
Guideline for India and South Asia, Wildlife Institute of India, India
Dickson, K.B and Benneh G (1988) A New Geography of Ghana, Revised Edition,
Longmans
Environmental Protection Agency (2005): Ghana State of the Environment Report 2004,
EPA, Accra Ghana.
Environmental Protection Agency (1991): Ghana Environmental Action Plan Vol I
Environmental Protection Agency (1994): Ghana Environmental Action Plan Vol II
Environmental Protection Agency (1995): Ghana Environmental Impact Assessment
Procedures (1995)
Ghana: Productive Safety Nets Project, Rural Infrastructure Paper (Identification Stage) –
September 2009.
Ghana: Rural Safety Net Project (RSNP), Preparation Mission, Aide Memoire (August 17 –
28, 2009)
Government of Ghana, National Development Planning Commission (2003): Ghana Poverty
Reduction Strategy - 2003-2005.
Government of Ghana, National Development Planning Commission (2005): Growth and
Poverty Reduction Strategy - 2006-2009.
Government of Ghana, Sustainable Development Initiative for Northern Ghana (NDI),
Stategy and Work plan (2009 – 2025) – August 25, 2008
GSS (2005): Population Data Analysis Report. Vol.1: Socio-Economic and Demographic
Trends, GSS, Accra Ghana.
GSS (2005): Population Data Analysis Report. Vol.2: Policy Implications of Population
Trends, GSS, Accra Ghana.
Participatory Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment (PPVA): Understanding the regional
dynamics of poverty with particular focus on Northern Ghana (August, 2009)
Republic of Ghana (1999): Environmental Assessment Regulations, 1999 (LI 1652)
Republic of Ghana (1994): Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1994 (Act 490),
Republic of Ghana: Rural Safety Net Project, Field Mission Report; Community-Based
Targeting and Household Selection Process (September, 2009).
Republic of Ghana: Community-Based Rural Development Project (CBRDP) FAO/CP
Support Mission, Aide-Memoire, April 2007.
GSOP Updated ESMF
47
ANNEX 1: PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS AND DISCLOSURE FOR ORIGINAL ESMF
PREPARATION
1.1 Stakeholder consultations
The Updated ESMF preparation included stakeholder consultations. Key project stakeholders were
identified for consultations and these included Government Ministries, State Agencies/ Organisations /
and Departments, Project offices, Non-governmental organization and local communities.
Meetings have been held with key officials and opinion leaders to examine level of awareness and
involvement with the project, concerns of project implementation, and to obtain relevant documents or
baseline information of project area and the environmental and social setting of Ghana. The consultations
also served to gather information on the mandates and permitting requirements to inform the development
of the Project.
1.2 ESMF Disclosure
The World Bank policies require that environmental reports for projects are made available to project
affected groups, local NGOs, and the public at large. Public disclosure of EIA documents or
environmental reports is also a requirement of the Ghana EIA procedures. However, there is no limitation
as to the extent and scope of disclosure. GSOP in collaboration with EPA will make available copies of
the ESMF in selected public places as required by law for information and comments. Public notice in
the media should serve this purpose. The notification should be done through a newspaper or radio
announcement or both. The notification should provide:
a brief description of the Project;
a list of venues where the ESMF report is on display and available for viewing;
duration of the display period; and
contact information for comments.
The consultations and discussions of the draft ESMF impacted the final document as some stakeholders
raised issues with dust, land, destruction of farms among others which have been taken care of in the
mitigation plan. The meeting also emphasized the need for ownership and commitment by government
should go beyond the consultations so as to ensure that where required, GoG will give the needed support
to implementing agencies especially contractors.
The ESMF for GSOP was disclosed in country and at the World Bank’s infoshop in May 2009. The
Updated ESMF will be disclosed in country after the required clearances from the World Bank through
the media and Public Notices at the District Assembly at the World Bank’s infoshop after the in-country
disclosure.
2.0 Outcome Of Individuals/Organizations Contacted
Table 1: Outcome of Public Consultations Held
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
1 1/12/09 Irrigation
Development
Vitus
Ayigayure,
-Awareness of SOP Cooperatives and
communities should
GSOP Updated ESMF
48
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
Authority of
the Ministry
of Food and
Agriculture
Regional
Manager,
Northern
Region
The irrigation Development
Authority is aware of the SOP
-Community involvement and
Compensation issues relating
to old irrigation schemes
There wasn’t sufficient
involvement of communities,
no compensation payment was
made for land but economic
trees were compensated for.
Due to the low community
involvement their participation
and ownership of the project
was low. The Tono irrigation
scheme was cited as an
example.
Arrangements for new and
ongoing irrigation schemes
-Efforts to minimize land
acquisition impacts
Communities identified land
owners/Tindaanans and
indentures were prepared
-Parcels of Land from various
owners were demarcated,
pooled together and developed
with canals, trenches and then
apportioned to various
registered farmers.
-Affected residential lands
were compensated for and
efforts made to minimize
resettlement impacts.
-Various management
be involved and
made to understand
proposed schemes
development
Lands Commission
should assist with
land acquisition and
documentation
processes
Schemes
development that
require less
technology and
equipment should be
used in future
irrigation
development
schemes;
Provision of training
to local artisans
Funding availability
and payments
should be made on
time
GSOP Updated ESMF
49
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
committees are in place which
included major maintenance
and marketing teams
Challenges that confronted
previous irrigation
infrastructure development
-Construction completion
delays of about 5-6years
thereby depriving land owners
of access to their land
-Unavailability of funding on
time
-Local contractors engaged
lacked the needed capacity
Contract termination processes
was cumbersome
2 1/12/01
3
EPA-Northern
Region
Abu
Mohamend
024363590
2,0203247
375
abu555200
o.uk
Significance of SOP
The SOP is very well needed
in the rural communities to
help bridge the poverty gap
Resettlement Issues
Cultural sensitivities attached
to sacred areas such as grave
yards, protected forest areas at
the local level are vital
considerations in the Northern
Region.
Engagement and
Sensitization of Communities
Cultural sensitivities should
be properly considered under
involuntary resettlement and
communal livelihood
schemes.
Communities should be fully
consulted and engaged in
development programs
An advocacy team should be
constituted to help in
community sensitisation so
as to mitigate migration of
people and ensure
sustainability of poverty
GSOP Updated ESMF
50
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
Previous projects that did not
engage communities were not
successful.
Migration of people in the
communities within the region
is highly prevalent. This is
partly attributable to the lack
of advocacy teams to sensitize
communities on poverty
reduction intervention
programs that will help
ameliorate migration of people
and sustainability of poverty
related interventions.
Need for a communication
strategy
Similar earlier projects did not
have a communication strategy
as a component of the project
implementation to ensure an
effective appreciation,
participation, ownership and
success of the project.
Institutional Issues
The DAs, DPCUs, ACs, and
Unit Committees have been
very helpful and collaborative
with the EPA in the
implementation of resettlement
plans
Livelihood restoration
interventions
A communication strategy is
necessary for the effective
implementation of the
project. Management plans
should be people centered.
Alternative land provision
and assistance for
resettlement is key for an
effective livelihood
restoration program under
the resettlement framework.
Providers of land should be
given appropriate
recognition and benefits.
Women and the vulnerable
should be involved in the
consultation and decision
making processes
GSOP Updated ESMF
51
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
measures
In certain circumstances of
involuntary resettlement only
land owners and chiefs were
consulted neglecting the
community people and
affected individuals without
any form of assistance, which
led to serious confrontations
between the people and the
project implementers.
Women and Children
It has been observed that less
attention and focus is given to
women and children who
engage in farming activities on
community periphery non-
fertile lands.
Challenges
Indiscriminate grazing
activities of Normads pose
major social problems to
resettlement activities in the
northern regions.
How resettlement framework
will be made holistic and
acceptable at the community
level
Involvement of the vulnerable,
who are the very weak and
main land owners and family
Resettlement packages
should be targeted at
nomads. There is the need
for training on how to get
alternative pasture, vertinary
assistance, and community-
based pasture sites to help
minimize indiscriminate
pasturing. Quarantine should
be encouraged.
GSOP Updated ESMF
52
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
heads in land acquisition
processes.
3 1/12/09 Labor
Department of
the Ministry
of
Employment
and Social
Welfare
Mr Abdulai
Moro,
Regional
Officer,
Northern
Region
(071-
22535)
Awareness of SOP
Not much awareness of SOP.
The only awareness was
through TV
Activities of the Labor
Department
The Labor Department do not
really have a program in place
for capacity building and
training.
The labor department do not
have statistics on employment
situation in the region
Labor issues and Job
Creation
-Majority (85%) of people in
the area are involved in
subsistence farming.
-Migration is a major issue in
the area due to short period of
subsistence farming
-The SOP would help job
creation and provide
opportunities for the unskilled
persons in the Northern
Region
-The job creation opportunities
and involvement of the chiefs
will help minimize the conflict
situations in the area
Skilled training is necessary
to support the project
Several people will put their
hopes on the project for job
opportunities so there is the
need for such expectations to
be properly managed in
order that the project is not
overwhelmed.
GSOP Updated ESMF
53
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
Consultations
-The Chiefs and the District
Assemblies can help greatly in
facilitating the community
acceptance of the project
The Labor Department
views of Resettlement
Impacts
-The department thinks the
SOP would not have
significant resettlement
impacts
4 1/12/09 ISODEC Philip
Nsiah
Appiagyei,
Policy
Assistant/S
ystem
Administra
tor for
ISODEC
NR/UE/U
W/BA
020850511
Awareness of SOP
ISODEC is aware of the
proposed SOP but not the
details about the project
Some views of ISODEC on
the SOP :
ISODEC noted that non-
coordination of development
projects has been a major,
which the SOP could face.
There is a problem of
sustainability of projects,
particularly with human
resources. There is a lack of
continuity of several projects
that were run by political
perceived staffs.
ISODEC has developed a
strategy called Tracking
Education Needs Inclusively
(TENI) to address education
needs in the three northern
regions. The TENI strategy
can be applied to the SOP
5 1/12/09 Social Welfare Juliana
Ngmenyaa
024496809
Socio-economic structure
-Majority of the people in the
Northern region depend on
GSOP Updated ESMF
54
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
0 farming and sheabutter
harvesting.
-Farmers do not have easy
access to markets thus making
it very difficult for them to sell
their produce.
-Migration of the youth down
south in search of jobs is a
common phenomenon.
Views on similar poverty
related programs
Assessment of the LEAP from
beneficiaries revealed that it
has improved their standard of
living. It however needs to be
broadened.
Consultation, Involvement of
DAs and conflict management
-The people need to be
involved and made to
understand the project. An
effective engagement of the
community can help
minimize conflicts and
community participation.
-An intensive education
drive must be pursued.
6 1/12/0 Labor
intensive
Contractors
1).Amadu
Mahama,
Kokodi
Ent,
024482347
4
2).I. K.
Kasim,
Kasim &
Sons Ltd,
023321911
8,
3)
Sulemana
Mohamend
-Type of construction activity
that the labor-intensive
contractors were previously
engaged in was road
construction. Contractors were
never engaged in small earth
Dam infrastructure provision.
-Procedures the contractors
adopted for commencement of
execution of such projects
involves a consultation with
the Engineers of the
Department of Feeder Roads
and Chiefs. Permission is
Labor Based Contractors
need capacity building and
training.
Comprehensive resettlement
action plans with budgetary
provisions for compensation
payment and livelihood
restoration should be
prepared and integrated into
contract awards and
implementation
GSOP Updated ESMF
55
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
, Kokodi
Ent,
024482347
4
4) A. A.
Bawa
Company
Ltd,
024495356
6
5) Bawa
Jalid
6)Adam
Baba
sought from the chiefs and
affected persons for access to
construction materials mainly
gravels. Levels of
compensation paid were
determined by the chiefs and
affected persons. Resettlement
impacts:
Loss of farmlands
Gravel pits
Loss of economic
trees
Loss of buildings
-Contractors alleged that
previous compensation
payments were made by them
to the affected persons.
Compensations ranging from
GHC50-GHC200 were paid
economic trees.
-Contractors alleged they were
not able to claim
compensations paid since
contracts awarded to them
were at prices previous
determined by their client.
Others also disclosed that
inventory of affected
economic trees and related
costs are included in contract
award price.
-Delayed compensation
payments affects contract
completion schedule
GSOP Updated ESMF
56
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
7 1/12/09 DPCUs of
West and East
Mamprusi
DAs in
Walewale
1). Ahasan
Ziblim,
West
Mamprusi
DA,
024626850
2
2).Abudul
Karimu,
West
Mamprusi
DA,
024226893
7
3). Andrew
Alegewe,
Cooperativ
es,
020891484
8
4).
Emmanuel
A. Amaah,
DWD,
WMDA,
020829375
1
5). Salifu
Yidana,
DWD-
DWSTL,
020830098
8
SOP Concept
Projects such as the SOP are
supposed to be community-
based but this does not happen
due to community’s perception
that the project belongs to the
contractor. The pros and cons
of the Broad Grant and Area
Council Led approaches under
the CBRDP were discussed.
The success stories of the three
area councils in East
Mamprusi were cited.
-The perception that
community-based projects
belong to the contractor
must be corrected through
intensive community
engagement and awareness
creation.
-Team work spirit needs to
be encouraged among the
ACs.
Level of Supervision by
DPCUs
Supervision and Monitoring
provided by DPCU Engineers
in previous community
oriented projects was
inadequate.
-DPCU Engineers and other
relevant staff need to
intensify their supervision
and monitoring roles for
community led development
projects. Workshops need to
be organized to strengthen
working relationships and
understanding of procedures
among DPCUs and
Community
Officials/representatives.
GSOP Updated ESMF
57
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
6). Amidu
Sulemana,
020880953
7). C
Abonkrah
DPO/EMD
A,
024393453
9
8). Okala A
small earth
dams
Head
DWD,
EMDA,
024293160
2
9). Abdulai
Aliwu,
Asst Coord
D/EMDA,
024488704
2
10). Grace
Ayamga,
EM,
Gender
Desk
Office,
020301450
0
11). Hellen
Ayaro,
WM,
Gender
Desk
Office
Compensation and Loss of
Assets
DPCU Engineers were of the
view that issues of
compensation and loss of
assets during feeder roads
construction is not a major
issue since efforts are made to
minimize resettlement impacts
during the creation of ROWs
and where there affected assets
provision are made into
contract budgeting. However,
it was noted that contractors
are not adequately alerted on
such issues.
Release of Project Funds
DPCUs expressed serious
concerns about the timely
release for funds for approved
projects execution and the
associated difficulties.
It is necessary that
contractors as well affected
communities and persons are
sufficiently made aware on
provisions for compensation
payments for lost assets and
livelihood restoration at the
contract award stage.
DPCUs would prefer a
onetime disbursement of
approved project funds into
DAs accounts to facilitate
procurement procedures,
timely payment of
contractors and early
completion of approved
community projects.
GSOP Updated ESMF
58
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
020646854
1
12). Imoro
Andani,
DBO/WM
DA,
020853197
3
13).
Edward
Osei, Inst
Dev,
CBRDP,
NR,
020812464
9
8 1/12/09 Tinguri Area
Council, West
Mamprusi
Mahamadu
Yamusah,
Assembly
Man,
020899027
4, Iddi
Abukari,
Unit
Committee
Member,
Chiefs and
Communit
y Members
numbering
over 50
including
women
The Chiefs and the Assembly
Man considers the proposed
SOP a very useful project that
will benefit the Community a
great deal. They expressed
their dissatisfaction about a
previous road project clearing
which was done without their
involvement. If the SOP would
engage the community as they
are being made to understand,
they will be very happy.
The community proposed
that they will recommend a
small earth dam project in
their community which has
been abandoned to be
completed under the SOP.
Training of Community
members to support
Contractors
The community would want
their members to be trained
to be engaged as contractors
to undertake projects their
GSOP Updated ESMF
59
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
Trust and Transparency
Community members
expressed their concerns about
previous projects, which were
proposed to involve the
community members in
project implementation but
this did not happen.
Involuntary Resettlement
Community has assured that
they have sufficient land
available that could be
released without posing
significant problems. The
release of land for the Gbana
small earth dam was cited as an
example, which has benefited
the entire community.
Migration of the Youth
The women expressed their
happiness about the project
concept. They think if the
project is successfully
implemented it will help
eliminate the migration of the
youth to Kumasi and Accra
Concern of the Community
Chief
The Chief welcomed the SOP
community
The Chief recommended that
the rehabilitation and
expansion of the school
should be one of the key
priorities of the SOP in his
community.
GSOP Updated ESMF
60
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
but expressed his worries
about the status and the
enrolment capacity of the only
school in the community,
which serves five other
communities. The people
estimated the population of
their community to be about
10,000.
9 2/12/09 Department of
Feeder Roads,
UER
Mr
Lanquaye
Wellington
, Regional
Engineer,
DFR,
020818361
2
The Regional Director is
aware of the SOP. He was
however unwilling to grant the
consultation as a result of a
directive issued by the DFR
Head Office requiring that all
consultations should be
directed to the Accra.
The National Project
Coordinator of CBRDP/SOP
needs to consult with all
Heads of relevant SOP
stakeholder institutions at
the National Level.
10 2/12/09 EPA, UER 1). Zenabu
Wasai-
King,
Director,
UER,
024457790
9
2).
Omanhene,
Senior PO,
024422294
1
Involvement of EPA
The EPA is involved at the
inception of projects similar to
the SOP but the EPA is
neglected in course of the
implementation. The CBRDP
was cited as an example. The
EPA was actively involved in
the sensitization of the
CBRDP but thereafter there
has been no involvement. EPA
Permits for some CBRDP
projects are still pending.
Project Location Problems
and Poor Landscaping
The non involvement of EPA
has resulted in poor citing of
some CBRDP project and lack
of landscaping, particularly in
The EPA needs to be
involved right from the
inception of the SOP
through the implementation
and monitoring phases.
Project registration
processes with the EPA must
be complied with by the
SOP
The SOP must ensure that an
GSOP Updated ESMF
61
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
schools built under the project.
Institutional Coordination
Institutional coordination for
such projects covering
institutions such as Lands
Commission, Town Planning,
Department of Feeder Roads
hasn’t been the best. This has
led to destruction of economic
trees, which are the main
source of livelihood to the
communities, destruction of
water bodies that serve as
drinking water sources etc.
Autonomy of EPA Regional
Offices
Breakdown in follow-up of
EIA permitting processes
occurs when such issues are
referred to the EPA Head
office.
Monitoring
Regional EPA Offices have
limited monitoring capacity
and resources
effective institutional
coordination is put in place
for effective collaboration
among relevant stakeholders
Regional EPA Offices needs
to be granted full autonomy
in EIA Administration and
permitting so as to address
the issue of breakdown in
EIA Permitting processes.
SOP could make provision
to resource EPA Offices to
assist in project monitoring.
11 2/12/09 Ministry of
Food and
Agriculture
(MFA0
Mr. A. R.
Z. Salifu,
Regional
Director of
GSOP Updated ESMF
62
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
Agric,
024438121
5,0722346
5,lacproj@
africaonlin
e.com.gh
12 2/12/09 Regional
Lands
Commission
Joseph
Abandoh-
Sam,
Acting
Regional
Lands
Officer,
Bolgatanga
,
020817308
9,
07222448
13 2/12/09 Labor Office Mr. Fuseini
Alhasan,
Acting
Regional
Labour
Officer,
024653977
2
14 2/12/09 TRAX
Program
Support-NGO
Mr Vincent
Subbey,
Director,
020824070
3,0245982
702,
vincentsub
bey@hotm
ail.com
15 2/12/09 Social Welfare 1). Mr
Christopher
GSOP Updated ESMF
63
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
Babooroh,
Regional
Director,
024438074
8
2). Mercy
Pwavra,
Municipal
Director,
020543389
1
16 2/12/09 DPCUs of
Kassena
Nankani East
and West DAs
1). Mr
Edward
Abazing
DCD K.N
ED/A,
024402597
3
2). Ali
Nantomah,
DFO, K.N
ED/A,
020848840
8
3).Abdul
Basit
Zubem
DFO, KN
WD/A,
024443394
4
4).Emmanu
el Liedib,
KN ED/A,
024470874
6
5)Henry
GSOP Updated ESMF
64
No. Date Stakeholders Persons
met
Issues discussed/Problems
raised
Recommendations
Abindana
ADE,
KNED/A,
024271855
4
6). Agana
Tito,
RPCU, -
244-26769
GSOP Updated ESMF
65
Consultations Photo Gallery
Labor-based Contractors, NR – 1/12/09 DFR, Mr. Wellington Language – 2/12/09
EPA UER – 2/12/09 MFA UER – 2/12/09
GSOP Updated ESMF
66
Lands Commission, UER – 2/12/09 Labor Office, UER – 2/12/09
Trax, UER – 2/12/09 Social Welfare, UER – 2/12/09
Tinguri Area Council, West Mamprusi – 2/12/09 Tinguri Area Council, West Mamprusi – 2/12/09
GSOP Updated ESMF
67
Annex 2: GSOP Additional Financing In House Subproject Screening Checklist
(To be Completed by Safeguards Unit /Environmental and Social Officer of GSOP)
Serial No…………………….
Sub-Project Name: _____________________________________________________________
District Assembly:___________________
Address for correspondence _____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Contact Person ___________________________________ Position _____________________
Phone No._________________________________ Fax No. ____________________________
E-mail Contact________________________________________________________________
1.0 Description of Proposed Sub-Project
1.1 Nature of Sub-Project and Estimated Duration
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………....
1.2 Scope of Sub-Project [Size of labour force, area covered or length & width of road, type of raw
materials (quantities and sources), types of equipment, implements, machinery, etc.]
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
1.3 Waste Generation
i. Types: Solid □ Liquid □ Gaseous □ Other ………………………………
ii. Quantity: …………………………………………………………………………………..
iii. Means/Place of Disposal:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………...
2.0 Proposed Site for Sub-Project
2.1 Location [attach a site plan or a map (if available)]
i. Location or Area (and nearest Town(s)):
…..……………………….………………………………………………………………………….
GSOP Updated ESMF
68
ii. Land take (total area for sub-project and related activities):
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2.2 Land Use of the Area for the proposed Sub-Project:
Agriculture □ Residential □ Existing Dugout □
Existing Road □ Reservation □ Park/Recreation □
Industrial □ Other (specify) □
2.3 Site Description [Attach photographs and sketches showing distances]
i. Distance from nearest water body or drainage channel (minimum distance measured from the
edge of proposed site to the bank of the water body or drain).
More than 100 meters □ 100 meters □ Less than 100 meters □
ii. Number of water bodies and/or drainage channels/depressions crossed by the route/road corridor:
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
iii. Distance to nearest community (house) and/or other existing structures from the proposed site:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
iv. Number of communities (structures) along the entire stretch of the Sub-project road:
…………………………………………………………………….………………………………...
v. Will project increase pressure on land resources
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
vi. Will project result in involuntary landtake
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
vi. Will people assets or livelihoods be affected
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
viii. Will people loose access to natural resoources
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2.4 Land Cover and Topography
i. Land cover of the site consists (completely or partly or noticeably) of:
Vegetation □ Sparse Vegetation □ Physical Structure(s) □
Flood Plane □ Agriculture (Animals) □ Cultural Resource □
Water □ Agriculture (Crops) □ Other specify………
ii. Elevation and topography of the area for the Sub-Project:
Flat □ Valley □ Slope □ Undulating □
Hill □ Mountain □ Depression □
iii. Elevation and topography of the adjoining areas (within 500 meters radius of the site):
Flat □ Valley □ Slope □ Undulating □
Hill □ Mountain □ Depression □
3.0 Infrastructure
i. The Sub-project would be developed in/on:
Undeveloped site □ Partly developed site □ Existing route □ Other (specify)
GSOP Updated ESMF
69
………………………
ii. The Sub-project would involve excavation Yes □ No □
iii. Estimated number and depth of the excavations, etc):
………………………………………………
vi. Are any of the following located on-site or within 50 metres from the edge of the proposed site?
Water supply source Yes □ No □
Power supply source (electric pylon) Yes □ No □
Drainage Yes □ No □
Other(s) specify:
…………………………………………….
4.0 Environmental and Social Impacts
4.1 Air Quality - Would the proposed Sub-project:
i. Emit during construction
Dust □ Smoke □ VOCs □
ii Expose workers or the public to substantial emissions? Yes □ No □
iii. Result in cumulatively increased emissions in the area? Yes □ No □
vi. Create objectionable odour affecting people? Yes □ No □
4.2 Biological Resources - Would the proposed Sub-project:
i. Have adverse effect on any reserved area? Yes □ No □
ii. Have adverse effect on wetland areas through removal, filling, hydrological
interruption or other means?
Yes □ No □
iii. Interfere substantially with the movement of any wildlife species or
organisms?
Yes □ No □
vi. Be located within 100m from an Environmentally Sensitive Area? Yes □ No □
4.3 Existing Population:
i. Will people living in or near the project area be adversely affected
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
4.4 Cultural Resources - Would the proposed Sub-project:
i. Disturb any burial grounds, mosques or cemeteries? Yes □ No □
ii. Cause substantial adverse effect on any archeological or historic site? Yes □ No □
iii. Alter the existing visual character of the area and surroundings, including trees and
rock outcrops?
Yes □ No □
4.5 Water Quality and Hydrology - Would the proposed Sub-project:
i. Generate and discharge during construction:
Liquid waste □ Liquid with oily substance □
Liquid with human or animal
waste
□ Liquid with chemical
substance
□
Liquid with pH outside 6-9
range
□ Liquid with odour/smell □
ii. Lead to changes in the drainage pattern of the area, resulting in erosion Yes □ No □
GSOP Updated ESMF
70
or siltation?
iii. Lead to increase in surface run-off, which could result in flooding on or off-site? Yes □ No □
iv. Increase runoff, which could exceed the capacity of existing storm water drainage? Yes □ No □
4.6 Noise Nuisance - Would the proposed Undertaking:
i. Generate noise in excess of established permissible noise level? Yes □ No □
ii. Expose persons to excessive vibration and noise? Yes □ No □
4.7 Other Environmental and Social Impacts
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………
……………………………………………………………………….………………….……………
5.0 Management of (Environmental and Social) Impacts
5.1 Air Quality
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………
……………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
5.2 Biological Resources
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………
…………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
5.3 Cultural Resources
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………
……………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
5.4 Water Quality and Hydrology
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..………
………………………………………………………………………………………..……..………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
5.5 Noise
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…
………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………
……………………………………………………………………..………………..….……………………
……………………………………………………………………………...………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
5.6 Any Other
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..………
……………………………………………………………………………………..………...………………
……………………………………………………………………………………...………………………
……………………………………………………………………………....………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………
Name of Representative of Name of Representative of
Implementing District Assembly Unit Committee
………………………………………. ………………………………………..
Signature/Date Signature/Date
GSOP Updated ESMF
71
Annex 3: Dam Failure Emergency Checklist
Environmental/Social issues
1. Seepage
Problem Possible causes and potential harm Action required
Seepage water
exiting from a point
on the embankment
Causes:
1. Water has created an open pathway,
channel, (or “pipe”) through the small earth
dam. The water is eroding and carrying
away embankment material.
2. Large amounts of water have
accumulated in the downstream slope.
Water and embankment materials are
exiting at one point.
3. Crocodile activity, rotting tree roots or
poor construction have allowed water to
create an open pathway or pipe through
the embankment.
Harm:
1. Continued flows can saturate portions
of the embankment and lead to slides in
the area.
2. Continued flows can further erode
embankment materials.
This can lead to failure of the small earth
dam.
Action:
1. Begin measuring outflow
quantity and establishing whether
water is getting muddier, staying the
same, or clearing up, and whether
the rate of flow is increasing or
otherwise.
2. Check whether surface agitation
may be causing the muddy water.
3. If quantity of flow is increasing,
the water level in the dam should be
lowered until the flow stabilizes or
stops.
4. Search for an opening on
upstream side and plug it if possible
with clay, but do not get into the
water to do so!
5. Prevent rabbit activity.
6. A qualified engineer should
immediately inspect the condition
and recommend further action to be
taken.
Large Seepage area
producing flow
Cause:
1. A seepage path has developed directly
through the embankment or via the
abutment.
Harm:
1. Increased flows could lead to erosion
of embankment material and failure of the
small earth dam.
2. Saturation of the embankment can lead
to local slides, which could cause failure
of the dam.
Action:
1. Stake out the saturated area and
monitor wet area for growth or
shrinking.
2. Measure any outflows as
accurately as possible.
3. Small Earth Dam water level may
need to be lowered if saturated areas
increase in size at a fixed storage
level or if flow increases.
4. A qualified engineer should
inspect the condition and
recommend further actions to be
taken.
GSOP Updated ESMF
72
Seepage exiting at
abutment contact
Cause:
1. Water flowing through pathways in the
abutment.
2. Water flowing through the
embankment and out via the abutment
3. Water flowing along the contact
surface between the embankment and its
abutment.
Harm:
1. Can lead to erosion of embankment
materials and failure of the small earth
dam.
Action:
1. Investigate leakage area to
determine quantity of flow and
extent of saturation.
2. Inspect daily for developing
slides.
3. Water level in reservoir may
need to be lowered to assure the
safety of the embankment.
4. A qualified engineer should
inspect the conditions and
recommend further actions to be
taken.
Wet area in a
horizontal band in the
embankment
Cause:
1. Layer of sandy material in original
construction.
Harm:
1. Wetting of areas below the area of
excessive seepage can lead to localised
instability of the embankment (slides).
2. Excessive flows can lead to accelerated
erosion of embankment materials and
failure of the small earth dam.
Action:
1. Determine as closely as possible
the amount of flow being produced.
2. If flow increases, dam water
level should be reduced until flow
stabilises or stops.
3. Stake out the exact area
involved.
4. Using hand tools, try to identify
the material allowing the flow.
5. A qualified engineer should
inspect the condition and
recommend further actions to be
taken.
Bulge in large wet
Area
Cause:
1. Downstream embankment materials
have begun to move.
Harm:
1. Failure of the embankment due to
massive sliding can follow these initial
movements.
Action:
1. Compare the observed
embankment cross-section with the
end of construction condition to see
if observed condition may reflect
end of construction, or if it
represents a subsequent movement.
2. Stake out affected area and
accurately measure outflow.
3. A qualified engineer should
inspect the condition and
recommend further actions to be
taken.
Marked change in appearance Cause: Action:
GSOP Updated ESMF
73
of vegetation
Some examples of change:
• More areas of vegetation
appear to have grown
• A given area appears
darker, lighter, larger or
wetter
• A given area appears to
have died
1. Embankment materials are providing
flow paths.
2. Natural seeding by wind.
3. Change in seed type during initial post-
construction seeding.
4. Neglect of small earth dam and lack of
proper maintenance procedures.
Harm:
1. Can indicate a saturated area.
2. Obscures large portions of the small
earth dam, preventing adequate, accurate
visual inspection of all portions of the
dam.
Problems, which threaten the integrity of
the small earth dam, can develop and
remain undetected until they progress to a
point that threatens the small earth dam's
safety.
3. Associated root systems develop and
penetrate into the small earth dam's cross-
section. When the vegetation dies, the
decaying root systems can provide paths
for seepage. This reduces the length of
the effective seepage path through the
embankment and could lead to possible
‘piping’ situations (see Glossary of
Terms).
4. Prevents easy access to all portions of
the small earth dam for operation,
maintenance and inspection.
5. Provides habitat for rodents
1. Use probe and shovel to establish
if the materials in this area are
wetter than in surrounding areas.
2. Remove all detrimental growth
from the small earth dam, including
removal of trees, bushes, and
growth other than grass. Grass
should be encouraged on all ports of
the small earth dam to prevent
erosion by surface run-off. Root
systems should also be removed to
the maximum practical extent. The
resulting voids should be backfilled
with competent, well-compacted
material.
3. Cutting or spraying, as part of an
annual maintenance program should
be done to remove further
undesirable growth.
4. All cuttings or debris resulting
from the vegetation removal should
be taken from the small earth dam
and properly disposed of outside the
reservoir basin.
5. If area shows wetness when
surrounding areas do not, a qualified
engineer should inspect the
condition and recommend further
actions to be taken.
Water exiting through
transverse cracks on
the crest
Cause:
1. Severe drying has caused shrinkage of
embankment material.
2. Settlement in the embankment or
foundation is causing the transverse
cracks.
Harm:
1. Flow through the crack can
Action:
1. Plug the upstream side of the
crack with clay to stop the flow.
2. The water level in the small earth
dam should be lowered until it is
below the level of the cracks.
3. A qualified engineer should
inspect the condition and
recommend further actions to be
GSOP Updated ESMF
74
cause failure of the small earth dam taken.
Seepage water exiting from
the foundation (sometimes
called a ‘boil’)
Cause:
1. Some portion of the foundation
material is providing a flow path. A sand
or gravel layer in the foundation could
cause this.
Harm:
1. Increased flows can lead to
erosion of the foundation and
failure of the small earth dam
Action:
1. Examine the boil for
transportation of foundation
materials.
2. If soil particles are moving
downstream, sandbags or earth
should be used to create a dyke
around the boil. The pressure
created by the water level within the
dyke may control flow velocities
and temporarily prevent further
erosion.
3. If erosion is becoming greater,
the small earth dam level should be
lowered.
4. A qualified engineer should
inspect the condition and
recommend further actions to be
taken.
Note: The pattern of cracks (e.g., where they are located, how close together they are, whether transverse alone or
in conjunction with other cracks etc) requires engineering experience to interpret it. The real cause of cracks may
not be apparent to an unqualified observer.
Trampoline effect in
large soggy area (i.e.,
area springy or
spongy)
Cause:
1. Water moving freely through the
embankment or foundation is being
controlled or contained by a well-
established turf root system.
Harm:
1. Condition indicates excessive seepage
in the area. If the upper layer of soil in the
area is eroded or removed, rapid erosion
of foundation materials could result in
failure of the small earth dam.
Action:
1. Carefully inspect the area for
outflow quantity and any
transported materials.
2. A qualified engineer
should inspect the
condition and recommend
further actions to be
taken
GSOP Updated ESMF
75
Leakage from
abutment beyond the
small earth dam
Cause:
1. Water moving through cracks and
fissures in the abutment materials.
Harm:
1. Can lead to rapid erosion of abutment
and emptying of the small earth dam.
2. Can lead to massive slides near or
downstream of the small earth dam.
3. Failure of abutment and loss of control
of the dam (in effect a dam failure).
Action:
1. Carefully inspect the area to
determine quantity of flow and
amount of transported material.
2. A qualified engineer or geologist
should inspect the condition and
recommend further actions to be
taken.
3. May need to block entry on
upstream side.
Seepage water
exiting from a point
adjacent to the outlet
Cause:
1. A break in the outlet pipe.
2. A path for flow has developed along
the outside of the outlet pipe.
Harm:
1. Continued flows can lead to rapid
erosion of embankment materials and
failure of the small earth dam.
Action:
1. Thoroughly investigate the
area by probing to see if the
Cause can be determined.
2. Determine if leakage water is
carrying soil particles.
3. Determine quantity of flow.
4. If flow increases or is carrying
embankment materials, dam water
level should be lowered until
leakage stops.
5. A qualified engineer should
inspect the condition and
recommend further actions to be
taken.
Leakage in or around
Spillway
Cause:
1. Cracks and joints in geologic formation
at spillway are permitting seepage.
2. Gravel or sand layers at spillway are
permitting seepage.
Harm:
1. Could lead to excessive loss of stored
water.
2. Could lead to progressive failure if
velocities are high enough to cause
erosion of natural materials.
Action:
1. Examine exit area to see if type
of material can explain leakage.
2. Measure flow quantity and check
for erosion of natural materials.
3. If flow rate or amount of
eroded materials increases
rapidly, dam water level
should be lowered until flow
stabilises or stops.
GSOP Updated ESMF
76
4. A qualified engineer should
inspect the condition and
recommend further actions to be
taken.
5. Consider installing upstream
valve on outlet pipe.
Seepage from crack in
concrete or structure
construction joint
Cause:
1. Water is collecting behind structure
because of insufficient drainage or
clogged weep holes.
Harm:
1. Can cause walls to tip in and fall over.
Flows through concrete can lead to rapid
deterioration from weathering.
2. If the spillway is located within the
embankment, rapid erosion can lead to
failure of the small earth dam
3. Excessive flows under the spillway
could lead to erosion of foundation
material and collapse of portions of the
spillway
4. Uncontrolled flows could lead to loss
of stored water.
Action:
1. Check area behind wall for
ponding of surface water.
2. Immediately measure flow
quantity and check flows for
transported drain material.
3. If flows are accelerating at a
fixed storage level, the reservoir
level should be lowered until the
flow stabilises or stops.
4. A qualified engineer should
inspect the condition and
recommend further actions to be
taken.
GSOP Updated ESMF
77
Annex 4: ESMF Addendum
MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
GHANA SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES PROJECT
(Environmental and Social Management Framework - Progress
Report)
Addendum to ESMF
Document Control
Author GSOP/NCO
Date February, 2014
Version/ref GSOP/001
Checked by Felix Oku,
Authorised by Robert
GSOP Updated ESMF
78
GSOP ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK (ESMF)
IMPLEMENTATION
Status Report: ADDENDUM
Introduction/Background:
The GSOP Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) was prepared by the Government
of Ghana and approved by the Ghana Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Bank in
May 2010. The ESMF was disclosed in country on 16 February, 2010 and in the World Bank infoshop on
13 April 2010.
The ESMF for the initial GSOP funding meets the environmental and socials impact assessment policy
requirements for both the Ghana Government and the World Bank.
The objective of this addendum (to the existing ESMF) is to demonstrate its adequacy and robustness in
mitigating all the potential impacts from the scaling up of activities under the Additional Financing of the
GSOP. It is worth mentioning that there are no anticipated changes in the menu of subprojects and works
under the original/parent project and as such no new environmental and social impacts which have not
already been assessed under the existing ESMF are expected. This Addendum will also seize the
opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of the implementation of the existing ESMF and RPF since
project commencement to date by highlighting successes and challenges encountered during its
implementation. The geographical upscaling which occurred after the approval of the existing ESMF
increased the number of District Assemblies (DAs) from 40 to 49. The increase arose from the creation of
nine new DAs out of some of the original beneficiary DAs by Government in 2012. Consequently,
changes arising from physical and ecological features will be minimal. Table 1 shows the initial forty
DAs and Table 2 shows the parent 9 DAs and the 9 New DAs created out of them in 2012.
Table 1 ORIGINAL GSOP BENEFICIARY DISTRICT ASSEMBLIES (DAs)
Item District Region
1 Nadowli Upper West
2 Sissala West Upper West
3 Wa East Upper West
4 Wa West Upper West
5 Sissala East Upper West
6 Lambussie Upper West
7 Talensi Nabdam Upper East
8 Saboba Northern
9 Garu-Tempani Upper East
10 Builsa Upper East
11 Bongo Upper East
12 Nanumba South Northern
GSOP Updated ESMF
79
13 Chereponi Northern
14 Nanumba North Northern
15 Sawla-Tuna-Kalba Northern
16 Bawku West Upper east
17 Bunkpurugu Yuyoo Northern
18 Lawra Upper West
19 Jirapa Upper west
20 Karaga Northern
21 Kassena- Nankani West Upper East
22 Gushiegu Northern
23 Bole Northern
24 Kpandai Northern
25 East Gonja Northern
26 Atebubu Brong Ahafo
27 Nkwanta North Volta
28 Nkwanta South Volta
29 Pru Brong Ahafo
30 Sene Brong Ahafo
31 Krachi East Volta
32 Krachi West Volta
33 Nkoranza North Brong Ahafo
34 Assin South Central
35 Twifo-Hemang Lower Denkyira Central
36 Sekyere Afram Plains Ashanti
37 Upper Denkyira West Central
38 Ellembelle Western
39 Dangme East Greater Accra
40 Atiwa Eastern
Table 2: OLD AND NEW OPERATING DISTRICTS CREATED IN 2012
Item Old Districts New Districts Region
1 Nadowli Nadowli-Kaleo, Upper West
GSOP Updated ESMF
80
Daffiama-Bussie-Issa
2 Lawra Lawra,
Nandom
Upper West
3 Talensi-Nabdam Talensi,
Nabdam
Upper East
4 Builsa Builsa North,
Builsa South
Upper East
5 Sene Sene East,
Sene West
Brong Ahafo
6 Sekyere Affram Plains Sekyere Affram Plains,
Sekyere Kumawu
Ashanti
7 Twifo Hemeng-Lower Denkyira Twifo Hemang,
Twifo-Atti-Morkwa
Central
8 Krachi West Krach West, Krachi
Nchumuru
Volta
9 Dangbe East Ada East,
Ada West
Greater Accra
Subproject Environmental and Social Safeguards Screening and Clearance Procedures
The safeguards implementation process starts with the identification of subprojects through the
beneficiary DA’s Medium Term Development Plans (MTDPs). These MTDPs are, by the Directives of
National Development Planning Commission Guidelines, subjected to Strategic Environmental Impact
Assessment (SEA) before finalisation and approval by the Commission.
The entry point for GSOP subproject selection starts with identification of potential Labour Intensive
small earth dams and dugouts, feeder roads, and tree planting on degraded communal land subprojects
from the approved MTDPs.
This is followed by internal screening using the template in GSOP Safeguard Manual (Refer attachment 1
for sample filled copy). Thereafter validation field visits are undertaken by officers from GSOP RCOs to
potential communities to confirm on the ground the environmental and social suitability of the subproject.
The Safeguards Specialist often provides technical backup to these exercises.
The next step in the process is external screening, clearance and permitting by Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) of Ghana. This is done by packaging the potential subproject and registering by filling
EPA FormEA1. EPA Regional Offices screen the subprojects with the assistance of the Regional Inter-
sectorial Technical Committee and provide their recommendations for permitting. The recommendations
from screening exercise are twofold. One for those declared non-permits and the other for those requiring
permits. Those which require permits are forwarded to EPA head-office in Accra for further examination
GSOP Updated ESMF
81
and issue of permits (Refer attachments 2, 3, and 4 for sample copies of EPA filled form, EPA screening
report and permit).
There has been a significant time lag between the time after screening when subprojects are cleared for
permits and the actual time of receipt of permit. To mitigate this, the EPA is taking steps to decentralize
its operations and this is expected to address the above mentioned concerns. The other action is to
encourage regional GSOP officers to actively facilitate the issuance of permits after screening approvals
have been given.
Status of Safeguards Compliance Implementation Activities as at 31st January 2014
Table 3 shows the status of subprojects as at 31st January 2014. This shows that the total number of on-
going and completed projects is 466. This is 33 more than the number planned for 2013, which was 433.
Table 3: SUB-PROJECT STATUS
Subproject Type Planned 2011-
2013
No. implemented
2011-2013
Roll over from
2013 to 2014
Remarks
Social
Infrastructure
40 40 1
Small earth dams
& Dugouts
82 125 20 Features:
3-5m
height
Capacity:
200,000-
300,000m3
Feeder roads 139 128 11
Tree planting
activities
172 173 1
Total 433 466 33
All 466 subprojects have been registered, screened and cleared for implementation by the regional EPA
offices. This comprises 128 feeder roads, 125 small earth dams and dugouts, 40 social infrastructure and
173 tree planting activities (as shown in table 3 above). Permits for 51 subprojects have been issued by
the EPA Head Office in Accra. 173 subprojects are tree planting activities that do not require permits
according to the sector requirements of Ghana, while 242 subprojects will receive permits by April 30th
2014.
Other details on status of safeguards compliance are in Table 4.
SOP Final ESMF
1
Table 4: STATUS OF SAFEGUARDS COMPLIANCE
No. Compliance Stage ARCO BRCO KRCO TRCO WRCO Total
1 No. of subprojects planned for
implementation (2011-2013 ) 79 127 65 130 94 433
2 No. of subprojects registered
with EPA 70 96 60 153 87 466
3 No. of subprojects Screened
and Cleared by EPA 70 96 60 153 87 466
4 No of subprojects for which
permits have been issued by
EPA
0 24
0
14
13 51
5 No. of subprojects requiring
MOUs for land & benefit
sharing
42
38
52
56
41 229
6 Status of MOUs for land &
benefit sharing (Land
documentations)
20
signed
22 in
progress
33
signed,
5 in
progress
23
signed,
29 in
progress
45
signed,
11 in
progress
41
signed
162
signe
d
67 in
progr
ess
7 No of subprojects requiring
compensation payments for
land (if any)
0 0 0
0
0 0
8 No of subprojects for which
compensation need to be paid
for Crop / lost of income (if
any)
0
0
0
0
0 0
9 No. of construction complaints,
grievances & safety related
issues lodged since project
inception
4
1
10
7
1
23
10 No of construction complaints,
grievances & safety related
issues settled (if any)
4 1 10 5 1 21
NB: ARCO means GSOP Accra Regional Coordinating Office
BRCO means GSOP Bolgatanga Regional Coordinating Office
KRCO means GSOP Kumasi Regional Coordinating Office
TRCO means GSOP Tamale Regional Coordinating Office
WRCO means GSOP Wa Regional Coordinating Office
POST SAFEGUARDS SCREENING AND CLEARANCE PROCESSES
ESMF AND COMPLIANCE INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
As part of the inception activities of GSOP, key stakeholders including District Chief Executives, District
Coordination Directors, District Planning Officers and representatives of collaborating Agencies were
given orientation on safeguards issues as part of the general awareness creation programme of the project.
This is to enable these actors to appreciate conditions which trigger environmental and/or social action and
the role expected of them in the implementation of the ESMF and RPF.
SOP Final ESMF
2
Post Screening and Permitting implementation activities.
These include:
1. A briefing session with the workforce, beneficiary communities, contractors and technical support
personnel of the District Assemblies on safeguards issues forms part of the pre-commencement
meetings required at all subproject sites.
2. Inclusion of safeguards issues in project site meetings.
3. Inclusion of safeguards issues in District Assemblies bi-annual Peer review/ evaluation workshops.
Capacity building For ESMF Implementation
Safeguards management issues have been mainstreamed into LIPW training modules and trainings for
small earth dams and dugouts, feeder roads and tree planting activities to augment the existing weak local
and regional levels capacities of District Assemblies and Regional offices of the Ghana EPA. For instance
it is obligatory for small earth dams and dugouts construction supervisors to participate actively in all
GSOP trainings before being assigned any role in subproject implementation. An example of such modules
for small earth dams and dugouts is attached. (Refer attachment 7).
Safeguards Compliance Monitoring and Reporting Activities
The institutional arrangements for monitoring the ESMF implementation processes and the mitigation
measures are:
1. The GSOP Safeguards Specialist and EPA Regional Officers have oversight responsibility in
enforcement monitoring of EPA recommendations for subprojects implementation.
2. The GSOP Regional Engineers and District Assembly Engineers supervise and monitor day to day
safeguards compliance issues in subproject implementation.
3. Grievances and complaints are handled at the District level by the District Assembly Grievance
Resolution Committee mechanisms and at the community level a five member committee with
representation drawn from the traditional authority, representative of the workforce, unit committee
representative, an opinion leader, women’s group leader.
So far 23 grievances/complaints have been handled at the community/subproject level. 21 have
been settled while two yet to be fully settled. The remaining two involves petition for adjustment of
current wage which can only be done through general policy review on wage level by National
Project Steering Committee and the Bank’s concurrence.
4. Field monitoring data entry are compiled by GSOP Regional Engineers using an integrated
template designed by the GSOP National Safeguards Officer and the M&E Officer. (Refer
attachment 8 for sample copy of integrated data entry template).
Stakeholder consultations for Updating of ESMF/ RPF Documents
In updating the existing ESMF, representative District Assemblies and communities from the present 49
DAs were selected for joint consultations on issues relating to the ESMF and RPF implementation. The
consultations took the form of community fora, focus group meetings at both community and roundtable
meetings with staff of District and regional public and Non-Governmental Organisations. Key issues
discussed included level of awareness of GSOP safeguards and subproject selection, workforce selection
processes and grievance redress procedures, and compensation issues. These joint consultations on the
ESMF and RPF were held among key stakeholders and documents were publicly disclosed between 10th –
12th February, 2014. For the summary of issues discussed and pictures of consultations, refer to annex 5
and 6.
CHALLENGES/LESSONS/MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. Low appreciation of the benefits of safeguards compliance among all levels of stakeholders
including District Engineers, Contractors and GSOP Technical staff. The mitigation measure
SOP Final ESMF
3
includes the GSOP National Coordinating Office intensifying sensitization on Safeguards and
issuing simplified messages.
2. Inadequate staff and resources at EPA Regional Offices to support activities of Regional
Environmental Inter-sectorial Committees impedes subproject processes. To mitigate this, District
Assemblies will be required at subproject identification to provide the needed logistical supports to
the Regional officer of the EPA to facilitate rapid registration and screening.
3. Data collection, documentation and compilation on safeguards issues have been challenging due to
the poor responses from the District Assembly. To address this, district staff have been trained, and
will continue to be trained under Additional Financing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Completed In-house Screening Form
2. EPA form
3. EPA screening Reports
4. Sample EPA Permits
5. Guidelines for Community Sensitization – Extracts on Safeguards
6. Sample Signed MOU for land documentation & benefit sharing
7. Training Module for Safeguards Training for LIPW Practitioners
8. Sample integrated data entry template
SOP Final ESMF
4
ANNEX 5: JOINT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS REPORT ON UPDATED ESMF AND
RPF DOCUMENTS
Background/Introduction:
The GSOP Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and Resettlement Policy
Framework (RPF) was prepared by the Government of Ghana and approved by the Ghana Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Bank in May 2010. In updating the existing ESMF and RPF,
representative District Assemblies and communities from the project’s 49 District Assemblies were
selected for consultation on issues related to the updated safeguards documents for LIPW subprojects; these
comprise of feeder roads, small earth dams and dugouts, social infrastructure and tree planting activities.
These stakeholder consultations and public disclosure of the ESMF and RPF were carried out with project
beneficiaries and district assembly staff from the 10th - 14
th February 2014 in five GSOP operational
regions: namely, Wa, Bolgatanga, Tamale, Kumasi and Accra. The field consultations were carried out by
the GSOP Regional officers with support from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Officers
and the respective District Assembly Planning Officers. The consultations took the form of community
fora and focus group meetings at both district and community levels. The list of consulted Stakeholders
included the Traditional Authorities, Labour Intensive public works (LIPW) participants, women group
leaders, youth group, Assemblyman and collaborating Agencies at the District (i.e. District Planning Co-
ordinating Unit ) and Regional levels (Ministry of Food and Agriculture and Ghana Irrigation Development
Authority). Table 1 below illustrates the number of attendees at each consultation:
Table 1: Consultation on ESMF and RPF Attendance.
No DISTRICT COMMUNITY TOTAL MALE FEMALE
1 Assin South Aworoso 146 58 88
2 Assin South Abease 118 36 82
3 Sekyere Kumawu Mamprusi Junction 124 44 80
4 Sekyere Kumawu Bahankra 130 40 90
5 Nabdam Kugri 35 11 24
6 Nabdam Sakote 323 112 211
7 East Gonja Bamvim 95 47 48
8 East Gonja Kpanshiegu 110 35 75
9 Jirapa Ulgouza 98 18 80
10 Jirapa Gbetouri 115 35 80
Hard copies of the updated ESMF and RPF documents will be made available at EPA national and regional
offices, GSOP regional and districts offices once relevant approvals are received. Notices alerting the
public to the disclosure of the safeguards frameworks will be published in national press and also in local
languages. A sample of the field reports is attached below and Annex 6 shows pictures of consultations in
the project communities.
Summary of Challenges/Lessons/Mitigation Measures:
The key issues discussed included the level of awareness and compliance of GSOP safeguards processes
and procedures, subproject selection, workforce selection processes, and grievance redress procedures.
Challenges and mitigation measures provided included the following:
SOP Final ESMF
5
4. Low appreciation of the benefits of safeguards compliance among all levels of stakeholders
including District Engineers, Contractors and GSOP Technical staff. The mitigation measure
includes the GSOP National Coordinating Office intensifying sensitization on Safeguards and
issuing simplified messages.
5. Inadequate staff and resources at EPA Regional Offices to support activities of Regional
Environmental Inter-sectorial Committees impedes subproject processes. To mitigate this, District
Assemblies will be required at subproject identification to provide the needed logistical supports to
the Regional officer of the EPA to facilitate rapid registration and screening.
6. Data collection, documentation and compilation on safeguards issues have been challenging due to
the poor responses from the District Assembly. To address this, district staff have been trained, and
will continue to be trained under Additional Financing.
SAMPLE SUMMARY REPORT FROM GSOP REGIONAL OFFICE
REGION: WA REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING OFFICE (WRCO)
DISTRICT: JIRAPA
NAME OF SUB PROJECT: Woodlot (Climate Change site)
COMMUNITY: Gbetuori
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS AT CONSULTATION:
MALE – 18
FEMALE - 80
TOTALS - 98
DATE: 11th February 2014
TIME OF VISIT: 2:00pm - 4:30 pm
PURPOSE OF VISIT: Conduct environmental and social safeguard consultation.
KEY PERSONS MET (STAKEHOLDERS): Traditional Authorities, LIPW participants, women group
leaders, youth group, Assemblyman and collaborating Agencies at the District (District Planning Co-
ordinating Unit) and Regional level (Ministry of Food and Agriculture, MOFA).
ISSUES DISCUSSED/PROBLEMS RAISED:
- Awareness of GSOP processes and procedures
- Community involvement and consultations
- Sustainability mechanisms
OBSERVATIONS:
It was brought to the fore that the climate change intervention was prioritized by the beneficiary
community after it was identified, selected and validated at a community forum as a LIPW sub project. The
sub project was prioritized and incorporated in the Jirapa District Medium Term Plan (MTDP) and
submitted to the Wa Regional Co-ordinating Office for review and approval. Jirapa District, assisted by
staff from MOFA prepared a technical and social assessment of subproject, including costs and the
estimation of the number of persons and days required for the subproject implementation.
With regards to awareness of labour selection processes and procedures, community members indicated
that participants were resident in the target community and were willing to work and not forced to work.
They were also prepared to accept the project rate for labour which was Six Ghana cedis (GH 6.00) for a
SOP Final ESMF
6
maximum of 6 hours a day. Community members indicated that a register of eligible persons to work was
compiled and only persons aged eighteen and above were registered.
It came out during the meeting that, about 90% of the total workforce were women and have helped
reduced their level of vulnerabilities and increased their potential for social capital.
On the issue of complaints, grievance submission, investigation and settlement processes, community
members indicated that a Grievance Resolution Committee exists at the community level headed by the
Chief and assisted by the Assemblyman, Agriculture Extension Agent (AEA) for the area and two other
opinion leaders in the community. The mandate of the committee is to resolve complaints and conflicts
during the pre-planting, planting and post planting (maintenance) phase of sub project implementation.
-Community involvement and consultations
At the consultation meeting, community members emphasized their key involvement in site selection for
the climate change subproject and participated in implementation site meetings. It was brought to the fore
that at a community meeting on 31st May 2012, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was consented
by the actual land owners and signed between the Chief, landlord (Tindana) and the District Assembly for
the release of land for the sub project implementation. The MOU spelt out land ownership, benefit sharing
and tenure as well as consultation processes.
-Compensation issues (land, crops etc)
Initial assessment of the beneficiary community indicated that the land documentation process which had
been completed had positive impacts. No compensation was demanded from the land owners for the release
of land. The site earmarked for the sub project implementation does not deprive other people from their
livelihood.
-Sustainability mechanisms
At the community, a Community Environmental Management Committee has been formed to oversee fire
control (fire belt creation) and prevention, as well as disease and pest control.
Conclusions:
The consultation process strengthened community engagement on safeguards for the subproject. It was also
observed at the consultation meeting that more participants, especially women, expressed interest to be
registered to partake in the climate change activities. There is therefore the need to sustaining and scaling
up LIPW, especially climate change intervention.
SOP Final ESMF
7
ANNEX 6: PICTURES ON STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS ON UPDATED ESMF AND RPF
DOCUMENTS
1. GSOP ACCRA REGIONAL COORDINATION OFFICE AREA
Meeting with traditional ruler and elders at
Aworoso, Assin South district, Central region
Interview with a feeder road contractor’s supervisor
and a worker, Abease franmase road, Assin south
district, Central Region
2. GSOP TAMALE REGIONAL COORDINTING OFFICE AREA
The District PCU interacting with people in
Kpanshiegu community, East Gonja District,
Northern Region
Interview section with LIPW beneficiaries in Bamvim
Community, East Gonja District, Northern Region
3. GSOP BOLGATANGA REGIONAL COORDINATING OFFICE AREA
SOP Final ESMF
8
Forum with some LIPW workers of Kugri dam in
Kugri community, Site Nabdam District, Upper
East Region
Forum with some LIPW workers of Climate
Change Mitigation Activity, in Sakote Community,
Nabdam District, Upper East Region
4. GSOP WA REGIONAL COORDINATING OFFICE AREA
Forum with some LIPW workers of Ulgouza
community, Jirapa District, Upper West Region
Forum with some LIPW workers of Gbetouri
Community, Jirapa District, Upper West Region
SOP Final ESMF
9
5. GSOP KUMASI REGIONAL COORDINATING OFFICE AREA
Interviewing workers of LIPW Climate Change
Subproject, Bahankra Community, Sekyere
Kumawu District, Ashanti Region
Focus Group Meeting with LIPW workers on
Mamprusi Junction-Mamprusi, Feeder road, in
Sekyere Afram Plains District, Ashanti Region