Project ID: P Sector: Construction, Other Lending Instruments: NA Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency recovery)?

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (ISDS) Section I Basic Information Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 01/20/2006 (updated on 06/15/2006) A. Basic Project Data A.1. Project Statistics Country: India Project: FaL-G Brick/Block Project Project ID: P TTL: Kirtan Chandra Sahoo Total project cost (by component): US$ 3.24 Mil. (Investment in 108 FaL-G Plants) Appraisal Date: 05/12/2006 IBRD Amount ($m): Nil ERPA s Signature: 06/15/2006 IDA Amount ($m): Nil GEF Amount ($m): Nil CDCF Amount ($m): 3.9 (upon delivery of VERs) Miscellaneous Funds (specify.) ($m): Nil Managing Unit: SASES Sector: Construction, Other Lending Instruments: NA Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency recovery)? Environmental Category: B Safeguard Classification:S2 A.2. Project Objectives The global environment objective of this project is to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases by increasing the market penetration of a more climate-friendly brick manufacturing technology. The development objectives of the project include the creation of business opportunities for small enterprises using a more climate-friendly technology, including the possibility of more stable employment for seasonal brick workers, and improving the environmental sustainability of construction materials in the country. The use of the FaL-G technology for making fly ash bricks will significantly reduce the levels of local air pollution (including large amounts of dust and particulate matter) and greenhouse gases while also reducing the level of denudation of fertile topsoil which occurs during traditional clay brick production. The project will displace the demand for fossil energy (primarily coal) because the FaL-G process does not require sintering. The project will also reduce the environmental impacts associated with the disposal of potentially harmful by-products of power plant operation such as fly-ash by utilizing these waste products as a building material. The project also has positive employment aspects, as it will create business opportunities for small entrepreneurs who wish to open new FaL-G brick making units and will improve employment opportunities for brick workers who will now have more opportunity for year-round (as opposed to seasonal) work in peri-urban areas. The principal beneficiaries of the project include: o The local community in the 108 proposed plant sites, who will be exposed to reduced negative environmental impacts which could occur from the traditional clay brick manufacturing process, such as land degradation and local air pollution No

2 o o o The local community, including small enterprises, who will have increased business opportunities and the local workers, who will experience an improvement in employment type from seasonal work to year-round employment. The industrial and utility sectors, which will benefit from the reduced cost and environmental impacts of fly ash disposal due to increased off-take by the fly-ash brick manufacturers. The global community, which will benefit from the reduction in GHG emissions A.3. Project Description The CO 2 emission reductions generated from the deployment of FaL-G technology in 108 new brick plants to be set up in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh will be verified by independent auditors and purchased by the Community Development Carbon Fund (CDCF) managed by the World Bank. The FaL-G project aims to promote fly ash bricks as an alternative to burnt clay brick within the construction sector in India by facilitating establishment of about 108 FaL-G plants in various parts of the country. The project will promote only small-scale plants (production capacity ranging from 2 to 6 million bricks per year) with a view to create business opportunities for the small enterprises. This project will result in sale of 600,000 ERs to the Community Development Carbon Fund of the World Bank. The sponsors have agreed to further enhance the community benefits of the project by ensuring implementation of health insurance schemes for the workers, providing proper water and sanitation facilities to the workers and evolving a mechanism to discourage employment of child and bonded labor in FaL-G plants. Institutional Framework The project will be promoted jointly by the Institute for Solid Waste Research & Ecological Balance (INSWAREB) and Eco Carbon Private Limited (ECPL). INSWAREB is a non-profit and non-governmental organization (NGO) based at Visakhapatnam in the state of Andhra Pradesh in India and is engaged in research and development in the field of building materials. INSWAREB will provide technology know-how, O&M and logistical support to the micro enterprises under the project. Eco-Carbon private Limited (ECPL), a commercial entity based in Visakhapatnam, is the key agency which will implement the project. ECPL will also be responsible for the carbon transaction aspects of the project. ECPL will play the role of a bundling entity (on behalf of the individual entrepreneurs) and would be the key counterpart for the CDCF. ECPL will provide services, along with INSWAREB, to catalyze the adoption of new production plants, supervise their operations, coordinate and bundle monitoring and verification procedures with the accredited agency, and transfer the ERs to the World Bank or its nominees under a mutually acceptable mechanism. In order to act as a bundling agency and have rights to sell the emission reductions achieved by individual

3 entrepreneurs, ECPL will acquire the rights to these emission reductions by entering into legal agreement with individual entrepreneurs. The Community Development Carbon Fund (CDCF) of the World Bank will purchase the ERs generated from the bundled activity and will sign the Emission Reduction Purchase Agreement (ERPA) with ECPL in this regard. A.4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis: The project proposes to target the following Indian states: Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh. FaL-G plants are likely to be set up in the vicinity of thermal power plants in order to have an easy supply of fly ash. The location of individual FaL-G plants will be decided by the entrepreneurs in consultation with the project sponsors considering various market, regulatory, economic, social and environmental factors. FaL-G plants are required to obtain necessary approvals from the State authorities, including those relating to environment. This process would ensure that there would be an independent check on appropriateness of individual unit locations. The project neither involves any land acquisition under eminent domain, nor any involuntary resettlement. Land required for constructing a FaL-G plant is either owned by the entrepreneur or is purchased directly from the land owners at an agreed price. B. Check Environmental Category : B Comments: The project involves deployment of a cleaner technology for brick manufacturing. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. The adverse environmental and social impacts are far lower compared to the prevailing practices of brick production in India. The few residual impacts of the project (as discussed in the following sections) are addressable through adoption of appropriate mitigation and management measures. Therefore, the project has been classified as a Category-B project. C. Safeguard Policies Triggered No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) [X] [ ] Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [ ] [X] Pest Management (OP 4.09) [ ] [X] Cultural Property (draft OP OPN 11.03) [ ] [X] Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [ ] [X] Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10) [ ] [X] Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [ ] [X] Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [ ] [X] Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) * [ ] [X] * By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties claims on the disputed areas

4 Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) [ ] [X] Section II Key Safeguard Issues and Their Management D. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues. D.1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large-scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts. Environmental Assessment (OP4.01): While conventional brick manufacturing requires use of natural resources like soil and coal, which are non-renewable, the proposed project supports promotion of a technology, that would primarily use industrial wastes such as fly ash (from thermal power plants) and gypsum (from fertilizer industries) to produce alternative walling materials. By reusing the industrial wastes (fly ash from thermal power plants and gypsum from fertilizer plants), it would reduce the environmental impacts associated with disposal of these industrial wastes. Similarly, by promoting the production and use of FaL-G bricks and blocks, it would avoid the environmental impacts associated with clay brick production, as well as contribute to reduction of green house gas emissions. Other project impacts include occupational health and safety issues for the workers and those associated with the poor on-site living facilities provided to the workers. The occupational health and safety issues relate to exposure to high concentrations of particulates during handling of fly ash and other raw materials at the site. Air pollution due to particulates from removal, handling, transport and storage of large quantities of material like ash can also be significant where there are dwellings close to the site. D.2 Describe any potential indirect and/or long-term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area. The inflow of migrant laborers, which is common in the brick making sector, could lead to increased risks of HIV/AIDs. Measures would be taken to generate awareness about HIV/AIDS and support would be provided to control the incidence of this disease. D.3. Describe the treatment of alternatives (if relevant) Compared to the conventional clay brick technologies, FaL-G technology offers an environmentally superior performance on global as well as local scales. It completely avoids the use of thermal energy and hence consumption of coal, resulting in corresponding reduction of CO 2, the major GHG. It also reduces the environmental impacts associated with disposal of industrial wastes, particularly fly ash and gypsum. Unlike conventional brick kilns that run for about 150 days, FaL-G plants can run throughout the year resulting in more stable employment for workers. D.4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. Addressing Safeguards Issues: As part of the project preparation, ECPL has prepared an Environmental and Social Report that includes measures that will be taken up by the individual units to mitigate the residual environmental impacts that are envisaged. The environmental study carried out for the project has identified certain adverse impacts related to the occupational health and safety of the workers, and to a limited extent, on local pollution due to dust emissions and inadvertent discharge of (waste) materials into the environment. Concerns regarding exposure to radioactivity from fly ash were also

5 identified during the study. However, its levels have been documented to be well within the applicable norms. As the FaL-G activity falls in the small/micro sector, the entrepreneurs do not have established processes for managing the environmental aspects of their operation. However, ECPL has developed an environmental management plan that will be implemented at each FaL-G plant to address the environmental issues identified above. Obtaining relevant environmental clearances and commitment to implement certain minimum environmental and social measures are included as some of the upfront requirements for the entrepreneurs in order to participate in the project and benefit from the carbon credits generated. In addition to personal protection devices and improved plant level amenities like safe water supply and adequate sanitation that are mandatory, certain voluntary good practices have been included in the EMP. The implementation of this plan is a requirement for continued flow of carbon offset revenues. The social due diligence study carried out on sample FaL-G units indicate that the project would not involve any acquisition of land for undertaking project activities and, therefore, no involuntary resettlement is envisaged. Similarly, these units do not impact any adverse impacts on tribal communities. While about 20% of workforce (mostly technical and supervisory) is permanent, the rest of it is largely contractual and wages are paid on piece work basis and, therefore, there is no wage discrimination based on the gender of the worker. The use of child workers in the plants covered under the study was not reported. The entrepreneurs would ensure that no child labour is used in the working of the FaL-G plants. Workers in FaL-G units will have better living conditions. Some of the units provide permanent rooms for workers staying at site and have access to basic amenities. Further measures to enhance living and health condition are proposed (as part of Community Benefit Plan) under the project that include insurance scheme for workers (health and accident) and proper sanitation for workers. The sponsor will provide training / guidance to sensitize workers to increase awareness among the workers on HIV/AIDS, ensure periodical medical check ups and would network with local health workers and NGOs to check the occurrence of HIV/AIDS among FaL-G workers, and provide guidance where required. Overall, the safeguard risks of the Project are considered to be minimal. In order to further enhance the social benefits of the project, a Community Benefit Plan (CBP) is included in the project, which provides workers and their families with group insurance scheme (health and accident), and improved on-site sanitation. Part of the earnings realized from the sale of emission reduction generated by the units is earmarked for the implementation of the CBP and the EMP. Assessment of capacity to implement the EMP: As the FaL-G activity falls in the small/micro industrial sector, the entrepreneurs are not expected to have the required capacity to implement the EMP The project proponent will provide training on safety and environmental protection to the participating units every year. Although ECPL, the project sponsor is a new entity, its promoters have considerable experience in dealing with FaL-G entrepreneurs. ECPL will use carbon credits as the leveraging tool for

6 influencing better environment management at individual sites. ECPL will carry out periodic supervision of the implementation of the EMP, which will be supplemented by third party periodic audits.. D.5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Key stakeholders are the workers in FaL-G plants, entrepreneurs, local government officials from SPCB, District Administration, Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), commercial financing agencies, local health workers, NGOs, etc., and ECPL as project sponsor and key intermediary between all actors. Mechanisms for disclosure: Copies of the ESR will be accessible to the public in the FaL-G plants, offices of the respective District administrations, and the State Pollution Control Board. Copy of the ESR is also made available at the website of Institute for Solid Waste Research and Ecological Balance (INSWAREB). ECPL will also print posters for easier communication with local groups that are likely to be less literate. E. Safeguards Classification (select one) [ ] S 1. The project has significant, cumulative and/or irreversible impacts; where there are significant potential impacts related to several safeguard policies. [X] S 2. One or more safeguard policies are triggered, but effects are limited to their impact and are technically and institutionally manageable. [ ] S 3. No safeguard issues [ ] S F. Financial intermediary projects F. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Date of receipt by the Bank 01/29/2006 Date of in-country disclosure 02/10/2006 Date of submission to InfoShop 05/12/2006 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 Plan: Date of receipt by the Bank Date of in-country disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Dam Safety Management Plan: Date of receipt by the Bank Date of in-country disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why.

7 Section III Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level OP/BP 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? No 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? Is a separate PMP required? No If yes, are PMP requirements included in project design? Draft OP 4.11 (OPN 11.03) - Cultural Property: Does the EA include adequate measures? Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on physical cultural resources? OD Indigenous Peoples: Has a separate indigenous people development plan been prepared in consultation with the Indigenous People? If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and approve 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 Involuntary Resettlement: Has a resettlement action plan, policy framework or policy process been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and approve the plan / policy framework / policy process? OP/BP Forests: Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional issues and constraints been carried out?

8 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? 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? If the project falls under one of the exceptions to the notification requirement, then 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: Has the RVP approved such an exception? OP Projects in Disputed Areas: Has the memo conveying all pertinent information on the international aspects of the project, including the procedures to be followed, and the recommendations for dealing with the issue, been prepared, cleared with the Legal Department and sent to the RVP? Does the PAD/MOP include the standard disclaimer referred to in the OP? BP Public Disclosure: Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? All Safeguard Policies: Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of the safeguard measures? Have safeguard measures costs been included in project cost? Will the safeguard measures costs be funded as part of project implementation? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of

9 safeguard impacts and measures? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? Signed and submitted by: Task Team Leader: Kirtan Chandra Sahoo Date: 05/05/2006 Project Safeguards Specialist 1: Mohammad Hasan Date: 05/05/2006 Project Safeguards Specialist 2: Sanjay Srivastava Date: 05/05/2006 Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Fredrick Edmund Brusberg Date 05/27/2006 Comments Sector Manager: Jeffrey S. Racki Date 05/31/2006 Comments