Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 05/29/2008 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Report No.44019 1. Basic Project Data Country: India Project ID: P100352 Project Name: Karnataka Municipal Water Energy Efficiency Project (KMWEEP) Task Team Leader: Da Zhu/Oscar E. Alvarado Estimated Appraisal Date: June, 2008 Estimated Board Date: Managing Unit: SASDU Lending Instrument: Carbon Offset Sector: Water Supply (50%); and Other Energy Efficiency (50%) Theme: Climate Change, Access to Urban Services and Housing Financing amounts by source: IDA/IBRD: GEF: CDCF Amount : US$ 1.4 million (final amount is to be confirmed after negotiation ) Other financing amounts by source: Environmental Category: B Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies) [ ] 2. Project Objectives The proposed development objectives of the Project are: No [] Contribute to green house gases (GHG) emission reduction and sustainable development by improving energy efficiency of water supply systems in participating municipalities of Karnataka Improve water supply service in participating municipalities by improving water pumping energy efficiency and reducing operation cost This project is consistent with the India Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) by ensuring environmental sustainability and reducing risks of climate change. Infrastructure investment in urban and WSS sectors is also identified in the CAS as a strategic priority. 3. Project Description Water supply operational cost in urban areas of Karnataka has increased rapidly due to population growth and low energy efficiency in the water system. Currently, the pumping systems are inefficiently designed, improperly sized, poorly maintained, operated at less than their optimal load, and many of the pumps are out of age and need to be replaced. Pumping schemes are poorly engineered with redundant pumps, pipes, valves and high friction losses. These inefficiencies increase the amount of energy needed to deliver 1
water to end users. Overall, this results in high energy cost in water supply system and poor water service for the urban population. At the same time, the energy inefficiency also results in unnecessary GHG emissions. To deal with the above issues, Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corporation (KUIDFC) proposed the Karnataka Municipal Water Energy Efficiency Project (KMWEEP) which aims to improve water supply services through better energy efficiency in the water pumping systems in 6 middle-size cities: Belgaum, Gulbarga, Hubli/Dharwad, Mangalore, Bellary, and Mysore. Altogether, these cities have a combined population of around 4.5 million. It is estimated that, after this project, energy savings in the 6 water pumping systems will be about 16 million kwh, which could reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emission by about 13,620 tons per year. With the World Bank s assistance, the GHG emission reduction can be sold through the World Bank-executed Carbon Fund. This, in turn, will bring an additional revenue stream to KUIDFC and the participating cities to implement this energy efficiency program. The Bank has had a long-term partnership with Karnataka government through its lending and TA programs. Particularly relevant for this project is the Karnataka Urban Water Sector Improvement Project (KUWASIP) where KUIDFC is also the implementing agency. The KUWASIP, effective in May 2005, aims to support the water sector reform and improve water service in 3 cities (Belgaum, Hubli/Darwhad and Gulbarga). The proposed KMWEEP is to focus on the energy efficiency aspect in water pumping systems of the 3 cities; and, in addition, it will support the energy efficiency program in the other three cities: Mangalore, Bellary, and Mysore. GHG emission reduction and carbon finance: The project consists of sale of emission reductions resulting from improvements of energy efficiency of water supply pumping systems in six municipalities in Karnataka through the World Bank-executed Community Development Carbon Fund (CDCF). Carbon revenues are crucial for the success of the project as the financial inflows from sale of carbon credits will provide much needed additional financial comfort to KUIDFC and participating municipalities. The revenues from carbon credits will ultimately be shared among the participating municipalities. Preliminary activities: The main energy efficiency activities are the following: optimization and sizing of the existing water pumping systems and equipment based on the actual network configuration, requirement and operations parameters; implementation of new efficient pumps and motors; optimization of pumping systems operation through an improved metering and monitoring systems; optimization of the electrical consumption and power factor for motors; and leak reduction in main pipe from pumping station to the city. Monitoring and evaluation: will be undertaken through the specific plan for Verification of Emissions Reductions that will be developed in the clean development mechanism 2
(CDM) Project Design Document. KUIDFC will be accountable for overall reporting on implementation progress, preparation of monitoring reports, and preparation of audited project accounts. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis. The proposed locations at Belgaum, Gulbarga, Hubli/Dharwad, Mangalore, Bellary, and Mysore are medium to large cities in Karnataka State, India. The project includes water supply systems examination and installation of water pumps and other equipments, and appropriate collection and disposal of de-commissioned equipments. Some of the replacements have already been completed, as reported in the EA document. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Mr Sita Ramakrishna Addepalli (SASDN) Mr. Venkata Rao Bayana (SASDS) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Forests (OP/BP 4.36) Pest Management (OP 4.09) Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) 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: 1. Environmental Assessment OP 4.01: The proposed project is expected to improve the energy efficiency in water supply systems. The proposed project activities related to system optimization by refurbishing and/or replacement of some of the electromechanical systems, and reducing unaccounted water. These activities are expected to lead to efficiency improvements and also achieve better water supply throughput. The proposed project activities would lead to limited environmental issues, including disposal of decommissioned equipment, increased water consumption, as well as occupational Health and Safety aspects, and impacts during implementation phase of the project. The proposed water supply systems improvement has been implemented in three towns - Belgaum, Gulbarga, and Hubli/Dharwad under Karnataka Urban Water Sector 3
Improvement Project (KUWASIP) funded by World Bank. The environmental assessment of proposed improvements has already been covered as part of the assessment of the environmental impacts of KUWASIP. In KMWEEP, a separate Environmental Audit and Environmental Management Plan (EA/EMP) has been carried out. The existing EA and EMP documents for the three towns under KUWASIP have further been reviewed to update the EMPs as part of EA/EMP. In case of Mangalore, Bellary, and Mysore towns the EA/EMP has been prepared to address the potential environmental issues. The EA/EMP for the six towns indicates that environmental management measures have been considered during implementation. The residual environmental issues are very limited to the proposed activities, and a specific EMP is prepared to mitigate the environmental risks. 2. Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04): Not applicable. 3. Forests (OP/BP 4.36): Not applicable. 4. Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11): Not applicable 5. Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60): Not applicable 6. Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12): No land acquisition is contemplated and hence the OP is not triggered 7. Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10): Not applicable. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: Potential indirect and/or long term negative impacts are not expected. The project indeed improves the energy efficiency. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. The project alternatives relate to choice of equipment which do not have any specific bearing on environmental impacts and hence the alternative analysis is not applicable. 4
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. There are no specific requirement of safeguard measures to be followed except safety and compliance with equipment installation and operational procedures to ensure the noise emissions are within standards. The borrowers already have an established system for safety, and operational and maintenance protocols as part of regular operational works. In addition, the EMP for the proposed project specifies measures to minimize noise emissions at work place as well as safety protocols to be followed. These measures would be integrated in the existing system. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. As part of the conduction of EA for the proposed project, consultations have been conducted with the respective municipalities, employees who are involved in plant operation. In addition, the EA outcome has been discussed with the respective municipalities as well as Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation (KUIDFC). The final EMP documents will be disclosed by the respective municipalities at their head offices and at the operational sites of the proposed project. The document will also be disclosed on KUIDFC s web site B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Date of receipt by the Bank 05/08/08 In process Date of submission to InfoShop 05/30/08 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: Not Applicable Date of receipt by the Bank Date of submission to InfoShop Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Not Applicable Date of receipt by the Bank Date of submission to InfoShop Pest Management Plan: Not Applicable Date of receipt by the Bank Date of submission to InfoShop 5
* If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources, 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) /No OP/BP/GP 4.01 - Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? OP/BP 4.04 - 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/BP 4.11 - Physical Cultural Resources Does the EA include adequate measures related to cultural property? Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on cultural property? OP/BP 4.10 - Indigenous Peoples Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework (as appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager 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 or Sector Manager? OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? OP/BP 4.36 Forests Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional 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? 6
OP 7.60 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 Does the PAD/MOP include the standard disclaimer referred to in the OP? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information 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 measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project includes the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Mr. Da Zhu and Oscar E. Alvarado (SASDU) 05/13/2008 Environmental Specialist: Mr.Sita Ramakrishna Addepalli (SASDN) 05/13/2008 Social Development Specialist Mr.Venkata Rao Bayana (SASDS) 05/13/2008 Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Mr Frederick Edmund Brusberg 05/15/2008 Comments: Sector Manager: Mr. Junaid Kamal Ahmad 05/30/2008 Comments: 7