INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE"

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: April 12, Basic Project Data INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Report No.: AC2412 Country: Uruguay Project ID: P Additional Project ID (if any): Project Name: Montevideo Landfill Gas Recovery Project Task Team Leader: Horacio Terraza Estimated Appraisal Date: 04/12/2006 Estimated Board Date: Managing Unit: LCSES Lending Instrument: Sector: Solid Waste Theme: Climate Change, Pollution Management and Environmental Health IBRD Amount (US$m.): IDA Amount (US$m.): GEF Amount (US$m.): Spanish Carbon Fund Amount (US$m.): 7.0 Other financing amounts by source: Environmental Category: B Is this a transferred project Yes [ ] No [x] Simplified Processing Simple [x] Repeater [ ] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) Yes [ ] No [x] 2. Project Objectives: The objective of the Montevideo Landfill Gas Recovery Project is twofold: at global level to help mitigate climate change through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the Montevideo Landfill and at local level to improve public health through the installation of an LFG flaring system at the landfill. The flaring system will improve air quality through the reduction of hazardous trace gases contained in LFG and reduce the risk of uncontrolled fires and explosion at the landfill. Indirect development objectives include raising awareness of climate change and demonstrating the feasibility of better solid waste final disposal practices aligned with Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and carbon finance possibilities in the Southern Cone. 3. Project Description: Montevideo Landfill Gas Recovery Project consists of the design, implementation and monitoring of a gas extraction, treatment and flaring facility in Montevideo s landfill. Such facility will allow capture and destruction of methane generated in the landfill. Under agreements negotiated at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), more specifically under the Kyoto Protocol, abatement of greenhouse gas emissions in developing 1

2 countries can generate certified emission reductions (CER) that can be sold in the international market. Emission reductions generated by Montevideo s project will be independently certified, with 1.0 million of such CERs to be sold to the Spanish Carbon Fund (SCF). 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis: The project will be located in the Municipality of Montevideo. Its focus is the existing controlled landfill in Montevideo, which is limited to the west by camino Felipe Cardoso, to the north by camino Cepéda and to the east and south by a perimetral path of 2000 meters. Total surface area is around 120 hectares, located inside Centro Comunal N o 9. The area is not completely urbanized, but borders a suburban zone. Natural soils are mainly clay with good impermeability. The project initially will explore LFG generated in cell 6/7. This cell covers nearly 29 hectares and has been in operation since 1990 in distinct phases. From 1990 to 1994, only cell 6 was operating; from 1994 to 1998, only cell 7 was filled; and from 1998 to 2005, both cells were filled simultaneously, creating the single cell 6/7. Cell 6/7 is being closed because it has already reached capacity. In 2002 filling started in cell 8, which is separated from cell 6/7 by a public road. Waste disposal is expected to continue in cell 8 until Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists on the Team: Horacio Terraza: task-team leader, senior environmental specialist. 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Forests (OP/BP 4.36) Pest Management (OP 4.09) Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues 1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: There are no major adverse impacts arising from the project. Minor impacts will be mitigated according to the EIA, which has been prepared and revised by the task team. The EIA has been 2

3 publicly available since February 1, 2006, through Montevideo s official website: 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: None detected. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts: None. 4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard policy issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described: An EIA was carried out for the project. The impacts identified, as well as the corresponding mitigation measures, are shown in the following table. Impact Description Proposed Mitigation Measure Responsible for Mitigation Implementation Noise Slightly negative, mostly during construction; during operation also, but to a lesser extent. Enforce adequate Individual Protection Equipment by operators and limit the exposure to noise according ISO operation and maintenance. Odor Slightly negative, mostly during wells drilling (early stages of the project). Schedule tasks in a way that wells surroundings are immediately sealed after drilling. Enforce adequate individual protection equipment use by operators. construction. Particulate matter Slightly negative, both in construction and maintenance. Installation and adequate control of filter equipment during operation. Water spraying over nonasphalted roads as to avoid dust. design and construction. 3

4 Gases Very positive. During wells drilling, slightly negative (gases may escape). Schedule drilling operations adequately and seal wells surroundings immediately after drilling. construction. Water No negative impacts in underground water; positive impacts in surface water. Adequately dispose extracted leachate. design and operation and maintenance. Fauna and flora No impacts on fauna or flora. Soil No major impacts. Minimal impacts due to the installation of the plant. Visual Probably the major negative impact of the project. Installation of forest screen will mitigate this impact. Montevideo municipality. Hygiene and safety at work Strong positive impacts, due to better air quality and less risk of explosions. Employment Positive impacts during construction and operation; negative impacts during closure. Awareness raising Positive impacts, contributing to awareness raising regarding better solid waste management and global climate change. In order to complete the existing EIA and to better understand the current environmental conditions and environmental compliance of the controlled landfill and its implications, the task 4

5 team hired an environmental audit to check (i) closure plan; (ii) landfill compliance with environmental and/or sanitary permits; (iii) existence of mitigation measures at landfill design stage; (iii) sitting according to existing land-use plans; (iv) monitoring plan in place. The main findings were: There is a closure plan for the site; The site complies with three out of five regulations that apply; There are mitigation measures proposed for the impacts caused by the waste disposal activities. Nevertheless, their implementation is not systematic; The site complies with the land-use plan of Montevideo. The Municipality of Montevideo will take advantage of the implementation of the project and the revenues from the emission reductions commercialization to improve the site conditions and enforce the systematic execution of the mitigation measures. The task team is providing technical assistance to make sure the outcome is in line with Bank s policies. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people: The municipality of Montevideo organized a stakeholder consultation meeting for this project on October 5, The session was open to the general public, and around 75 people attended the meeting. Some of the organizations and institutions that were represented at the meeting are: municipality of Canelones; national environmental body Dirección Nacional de Medio Ambiente; national energy body Dirección Nacional de Energía; Ministry of Cattle, Agriculture and Fishery; Spanish International Organization for Cooperation; Fichtner; LKsur; AIDIS; Consorcio Ambiental del Plata; CEUTA; Aborgama, CAVO; Unión Ibirapita; C.S.I.; Organización San Vicente; GEA Consultores Ambientales; CEMPRE; Unión Clasificadora de Residuos Urbanos; among others. During the event, a presentation about the core idea of the project took place, and some preliminary results from the project s EIA were also presented. At the end of the session, the participants were invited to make questions and comments. Questions were mainly related to the possible impacts of the project s construction, without other major issues being raised. Basic questions about CDM projects were also posed. Complementing the above mentioned procedure, the EIA has been published by the Municipality of Montevideo on as previously mentioned. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Date of receipt by the Bank November 21, 2005 Date of "in-country" disclosure February 1,

6 Date of submission to InfoShop February 8, 2006 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework: Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Pest Management Process: Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Safety of Dams: Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop * If the project triggers the Pest Management, Cultural Property and/or the Safety of Dams policies, the respective issues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of the Environmental Assessment/Audit/or EMP. If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why: C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (to be filled in when the ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting) OP/BP/GP Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? OP/BP Natural Habitats Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats? If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of other (non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank? OP Pest Management Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues? Yes [ x ] No [ ] [ ] Yes. Yes. Yes [ ] No [ ] [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] [ x ] 6

7 Is a separate PMP required? Yes [ ] No [ ] [ x ] If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by the regional safeguards team? Are PMP requirements included in project design? If yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? OPN Cultural Property Does the EA include adequate measures related to Yes [ ] No [ ] [ x ] cultural property? Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on cultural property? OP/BP Indigenous Peoples Has a separate indigenous people development plan been Yes [ ] No [ ] [ x ] prepared in consultation with the Indigenous People? If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review the plan? If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been reviewed and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit? OP/BP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan, abbreviated plan, or process Yes [ ] No [ ] [ x ] framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and approve the plan / policy framework / policy process? OP/BP 4.36 Forests Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional Yes [ ] No [ ] [ x ] issues and constraints been carried out? Does the project design include satisfactory measures to overcome these constraints? Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, does it include provisions for certification system? OP/BP Safety of Dams Have dam safety plans been prepared? Yes [ ] No [ ] [ x ] Have the TORs as well as composition for the independent Panel of Experts (POE) been reviewed and approved by the Bank? Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) been prepared and arrangements been made for public awareness and training? OP Projects on International Waterways Have the other riparians been notified of the project? Yes [ ] No [ ] [ x ] If the project falls under one of the exceptions to the notification requirement, has this been cleared with the Legal Department, and the memo to the RVP prepared and sent? What are the reasons for the exception? Please explain: 7

8 8

9 9