Proposed World Bank-Assisted

Safeguard Diagnostic Review

Piloting the Use of Tunisian Systems to Address Environmental Safeguard Issues in the Proposed World Bank-Assisted

Tunisia

Sustainable Management of Municipal Waste Project

Equivalence and Acceptability Report

March 2006 CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... V BACKGROUND...... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 2 METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS FOLLOWED IN DETERMINING EQUIVALENCE AND ACCEPTABILITY...... 3 PART I. EQUIVALENCE ANALYSIS...... 5

A. APPLICABLE WORLD BANK SAFEGUARDS...... 5 B. TUNISIAN LEGAL SYSTEM FOR EA...... 5 C. ANPE TOR FOR EIA IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SECTOR...... 6 D. LAND USE PLANNING LEGISLATION...... 6 E. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LEGISLATION...... 6 F. APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL NORMS...... 8 G. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND CONSULTATION...... 8 H. EQUIVALENCE TO OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF OP 4.00, TABLE A1: DISCUSSION...... 9 CONCLUSION...... 11 PART II. ACCEPTABILITY ASSESSMENT...... 11

A. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY...... 11 B. BORROWER IMPLEMENTATION PRACTICES AND TRACK RECORD...... 15 CONCLUSION...... 18 PART III. GAP FILLING SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES...... 19 PART IV. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ANPE, ANGED AND THE BANK...... 20 PART V. PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE...... 21 ANNEXES...... 25

ANNEX A. EQUIVALENCE TABLE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...... 26 ANNEX B. ACCEPTABILITY ASSESSMENT OF EA CONDUCTED BY ANPE FOR MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTES FOR THE GOUVERNORAT OF KAIROUAN...... 31 ANNEX C. PROGRAMMATIC ACHIEVEMENTS: SOLID WASTE SECTOR...... 37 LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED...... 38

iii ACRONYMS AMTVD Agence Municipale pour le Traitement et la Valorisation des Déchets (Municipal Agency for the Treatment and Valorization of Waste) AfDB African Development Bank AMSE Agence Municipale des Services Environnementaux (Municipal Agency for Environmental Services) ANGED Agence Nationale de Déchets (National Agency for the Management of Waste) ANPE Agence Nationale de Protection de l’Environnement (National Environmental Protection Agency) CDM Clean Development Mechanism (Kyoto Protocol) CEA Country Environmental Analysis CITET Centre Internationale des Technologies de l’Environnement de Tunis (Tunis International Center for Environmental Technology) E&A Equivalence and Acceptability EA Environmental Assessment EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIB European Investment Bank EMP Environmental Management Plan GTZ Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit INOPRI Institut National de la Normalisation de la Propriété Industrielle (National Institute of Normalization and Industrial Property) JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JORT Journal Officiel de la République Tunisienne KfW Kreditanstalt für Wideraufbau Bankengruppe MEDD Ministère de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable (Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development) METAP Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program MNA Middle East and North Africa Region (World Bank) MSW Municipal Solid Waste NGO Nongovernmental Organization NT Normes Techniques ONAS Office National d’Assainissement (National Sanitation Office) OP Operational Policy PCR Physical Cultural Resources PPAH Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook (PPAH) PRONAGDES Programme National de Gestion des Déchets Solides (National Program for the Management of Solid Waste) SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SMMWP Sustainable Management of Municipal Waste Project SPMSW Support Program for the Management of Solid Waste SOMAGED Société Maghrébine de Gestion et d’Elimination des Déchets (Maghreb Company for Waste Management and Disposal) SWP Specialized Wastes Project ToR Terms of Reference UCS Use of Country Systems CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective March 24, 2006 Currency Unit = Tunisian Dinar (TD) TD 1.3575 = US $1 Vice President: Christiaan J. Poortman Country Manager/Director: Theodore O. Ahlers Sector Director: Inger Andersen Sector Manager: Vijay Jagannathan Team Leader: Dahlia Loyatef

iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report is an Equivalence and Acceptability (E&A) Report of Tunisia’s environmental assessment (EA) system in relation to the World Bank Operational Policy, OP/BP 4.00, “Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address Environmental and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects,” and in particular, the Objectives and Operational Principles set forth in Table A1 of OP 4.00.

2. Tunisia is one of the initial countries being considered for piloting the use of country systems (UCS), due to the relatively advanced state of its environmental regulatory framework, institutional capacity and performance as indicated by previous World Bank diagnostic studies. This review is applied to a prospective project to be funded by the World Bank in Tunisia, the Sustainable Management of Municipal Waste Project (SMMWP) that is scheduled for appraisal during the second quarter of 2006. This analysis is supported by independent comparative studies of Tunisian and other EA systems in the Middle East and North Africa (MNA) Region.

3. The municipal solid waste management (MSW) sector was selected for piloting because Tunisia is the first MNA region country to invest in the integrated management of MSW, from collection to final disposal. The project consists of several inter-related components involving the degasification of newly constructed controlled landfills and the closure and reclamation of corresponding uncontrolled landfill sites, along with technical assistance to Tunisian agencies responsible for the management of the MSW sector. Major project components include: (a) investments for the development of containment infrastructure for municipal waste; (b) collection and treatment of biogas at ten sanitary municipal waste landfills; (c) rehabilitation of five priority uncontrolled regional landfills; and (d) associated institutional support and capacity enhancement at the national and regional levels and to the public at large.

EQUIVALENCE ANALYSIS

4. Environmental Assessment is the only World Bank safeguard policy that is applicable to the proposed project. This Equivalence Analysis is based on a detailed review of Tunisia’s EA system as reflected in applicable Tunisian legislation and administrative orders as compared to the eleven Objectives and Operational Principles for EA contained in Table A1 of OP 4.00. The legislation and administrative orders analyzed include the totality of Tunisian laws and regulations that affect EA, including but not limited to the July 2005 Decree on Environmental Assessment (2005 EA Decree); Terms of Reference (ToR) for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the MSW sector; substantive legislation pertaining to the MSW sector; and other legislation applicable to sensitive industries in general, land management and norms for discharges to air, water and soil.

5. Pursuant to this Equivalence Analysis it is concluded that the totality of Tunisian laws and regulations applicable to the MSW sector are in nearly complete harmony with the Objectives and Operational Principles of OP 4.00, Table A1 and that any remaining gaps can be addressed through project-based measures without recourse to changes in Tunisian legislation or regulations. These gaps result from the fact that Tunisian legal requirements applicable to the MSW sector tend to be distributed in diverse legislative frameworks such as codes relating to land use and “dangerous, unsanitary and disagreeable facilities” (classified facilities or “établissements classés” in French) that are incorporated into the EA process by reference in the EA legislation rather than directly into the body of the EA legislation itself.

6. Key issues relating to these gaps include:

v . The need for sufficient detail in prescribed content for Environmental Management Plans (EMPs), in particular, with respect to monitoring, institutional capacity development and training measures; and

. The need for explicit cross references between public consultation and disclosure requirements contained in legislation on land use and on classified facilities on the one hand, and EA legislation on the other hand.

The above-cited equivalence gaps can be remedied within the scope and term of the SMMWP by updating the ToR for the MSW sector. Beyond the scope and term of the SMMWP the sustainability of the Tunisian EA system can be enhanced by consolidating Tunisian environmental legislation into a more coherent and integrated structure. The Government of Tunisia has begun to undertake both of these tasks with technical assistance from the World Bank provided by the Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Programme (METAP).

ACCEPTABILITY ASSESSMENT

7. The Acceptability Assessment is based on a detailed review of the EA process and documentation in Tunisia, as applied to activities undertaken by the Government of Tunisia in the MSW sector over a period of time from the 1990s to the present. These activities include EA, EMP and environmental monitoring and compliance processes implemented in connection with:

. The design, construction and operation of the first large-scale municipal sanitary landfill at Djebel Chekir, serving the Tunis metropolitan area; and

. The design and construction of nine new sanitary landfills, located in regional centers (gouvernorates).

8. It is important to note in this connection that the more recent July 2005 EA Decree that was the basis of the Equivalence Analysis was not in effect during the period when the landfills were designed and constructed, and that some of the MSW sector legislation and regulations referenced in the Equivalence Analysis were enacted subsequent to these activities. Therefore, with respect to EA and EMP, the EA Decree issued in March 1991 (1991 EA Decree) is the appropriate basis on which to conduct the Acceptability Assessment of Tunisia’s implementation of its own laws and procedures.

9. Based on this Acceptability Assessment, the main gaps between Tunisia’s applicable system requirements and its implementation of those requirements include:

. Sequencing of alternatives assessment in early stages of Master Planning process for MSW management, thereby narrowing the scope of the siting and technology assessment in the EIA process;

. Limited scope and depth of EMPs for sanitary landfills;

. Limited capacity to monitor EMP implementation on site; and

. Inconsistent approach to information disclosure and public participation, including that of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the EA process.

vi GAP FILLING AND SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES

10. To address these equivalence and acceptability gaps during the term of the project and beyond, the Government of Tunisia has agreed to the following gap filling measures:

Equivalence

. August 1, 2006: Update, with assistance from the World Bank, the ToR for the MSW sector to incorporate all of the elements of an EMP that are stipulated in OP 4.00, Table A1. The specifications will take into consideration the conclusions of the EIA and the EMP and translate them into precise legal obligations from all pertinent diverse legislative instruments that are binding on the operator, including the obligation to undertake a periodic independent audit to ensure that the EMP is implemented in a satisfactory manner and fulfills ANPE and ANGED regulatory requirements. It is important in this regard that the register cited in the legislation on referenced establishments be put in place and approved by ANPE to permit regular monitoring.

Acceptability

. January 15, 2006: Update the EIA and EMP previously prepared for the Djebel Chekir landfill (all five containments) consistent with the requirements of Tunisian legislation and regulations (Status: Draft update completed);

. February 1, 2006: Prepare an EMP for each of the new landfills conforming to Tunisian requirements per the 2005 EA Decree, the 1996 Law on MSW and the Administrative Order of February 28, 2001. In particular, as required by the Administrative Order, the EMP should ensure that “the operator of a waste storage, treatment or disposal facility must undertake an environmental control and monitoring program during the entire period of operation and after closure.” The content and format of this program should be elaborated based on the results of the EIAs for each separate landfill in conformity with the 2005 EA Decree, which requires that the operator spell out “a detailed [EMP] comprising proposed measures to eliminate, or minimize and compensate for adverse environmental consequences and an estimate of corresponding costs” (Status: Draft EIA/EMP Updates completed);

. February 15, 2006: Organize consultation with and participation of interested parties and local organizations on the components of the SMMWP through a seminar (“journée(s) d’études et de réflexion”) (Status: Consultation completed, see Part V);

. April 1, 2006: For the five uncontrolled landfills to be rehabilitated with World Bank financing, prepare technical studies in conformity with all applicable Tunisian legislation and regulations (Status: Work-in-progress);

. April 15, 2006: Publish a summary of the revised EIA, EMPs and technical studies on the websites of ANPE and/or the National Agency for the Management of Waste (ANGED) to ensure the visibility of the project and that affected parties are informed. Notify the public of the availability of this information through Tunisian news media (Status: Work- in-progress); and

. September 2007: Incremental deployment of newly trained ANGED staff resources to regional offices and/or municipalities in order to provide sufficient resources for

vii monitoring and compliance in the operation of the new landfills as the landfills reach full operational capacity.

Equivalence and Acceptability Sustainability Measures

. Throughout SMMWP: World Bank provision of institutional and technical capacity building support to ANGED and ANPE; and

. As part of a future World Bank-supported operation: Consolidate applicable elements of EA currently distributed through diverse legislative instruments into a fully coherent and integrated Environmental Code.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

11. A public consultation, in the form of a “Journée d’études et de réflexion” took place at the Abu Nawas hotel in Tunis on February 14, 2006 to discuss the content of the report. There were approximately 130 people in attendance, including representatives of public and private sector entities, NGOs, the media, and international donors. This consultation was widely reported in the Tunisian media and the press.

12. Participants raised relevant issues related to the application of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), the need to address the entire chain of solid waste management, clarifications on the roles of local government and the private sector and the participation of the international donors and the NGOs. After the participants received responses on the issues raised, they endorsed the report.

viii BACKGROUND

1. Beginning in March 2005, and for the next two years, the World Bank will be supporting a limited number of pilot projects in which lending operations will be prepared using the borrowing country’s systems1 for environmental assessment (EA) and other environmental and social safeguards, rather than the World Bank’s operational policies and procedures on safeguards. The rationale for using country systems is to scale up development impact, increase country ownership, build institutional capacity, facilitate harmonization and increase cost effectiveness. These pilot operations are governed by a new operational policy2 (OP/BP 4.00) on “Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address Environmental and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects.” OP/BP 4.00 elaborates on the approach, enumerates the criteria for assessing country systems, and specifies documentation and disclosure requirements and respective roles of the Borrower and the World Bank.

2. The World Bank considers a borrower’s environmental and social safeguard system to be equivalent to the World Bank’s if the borrower’s system, as determined by the World Bank, is designed to achieve the objectives and adhere to the applicable operational principles set out in Table A1 of OP 4.00. Since equivalence is determined on a policy-by-policy basis in accordance with Table A1, the World Bank may conclude that the borrower’s system is equivalent to the World Bank’s in specific environmental or social safeguard areas in particular pilot projects, and not in other areas.3 Before deciding on the use of country systems (UCS), the World Bank also assesses the acceptability of the borrower’s implementation practices, track record, and institutional capacity. The above approach and criteria for assessment were developed with inputs from external stakeholders such as representatives of governments, bilateral and multilateral development institutions, civil society organizations, and the private sector and is consistent with commitments made by the development community in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness of March 2005.

RATIONALE FOR PROJECT SELECTION

3. Tunisia is one of the initial countries being considered for piloting UCS, specifically the proposed World Bank-assisted Sustainable Management of Municipal Waste Project (SMMWP). The World Bank has a long track record of environmental assistance in Tunisia, beginning with the preparation of the first National Environmental Action Plan in 1989. The World Bank was instrumental in helping to establish Tunisia’s National Environmental Protection Agency (ANPE) and has continued to provide assistance to Tunisia through the Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program (METAP) and establishing the first regional EA unit in ANPE’s Tunis International Center for Environmental Technology (CITET).

4. On the basis on this experience, Tunisia was selected from among the countries of the Middle East and North Africa Region (MNA) due to the relatively advanced state of its environmental regulatory framework, institutional capacity and performance as indicated by

1 “Country systems” is defined as the country’s legal and institutional framework, consisting of its national, subnational, or sectoral implementing institutions and relevant laws, regulations, rules, and procedures that are applicable to the proposed pilot project. 2 OP/BP 4.00 can be viewed at this website: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PROJECTS/537857- 1129662724162/20687952/OP4-00andTable.pdf. 3 The World Bank’s environmental and social safeguard policies will apply to the areas which the World Bank has determined not to be equivalent to its applicable policy framework and will continue to apply to all projects that are not part of the pilot program. previous World Bank diagnostic studies.4 With respect to World Bank safeguards, and to Environmental Assessment in particular, preliminary reviews of Tunisia’s conformity with the Operational Principles of OP 4.00 and independent comparative studies of Tunisian and other EA systems in the MNA region5 demonstrate that Tunisia is an appropriate candidate for a UCS pilot project for EA.

5. The sector selected for piloting in Tunisia is the municipal solid waste management (MSW) sector. Tunisia is the first MNA country to have invested in the entire chain of integrated solid waste management activities. A National Program for the Management of Solid Waste (PRONAGDES) was initiated in 1993 and comprehensive legislation to guide this sector was enacted in 1996. Public expenditures for this sector increased from US$20 million in 1992-1996 to US$45 million for 2000-2005, as solid waste collection services reached 95 percent of the urban population and 90 percent in rural areas. However, waste transfer and disposal practices still require major improvements as a substantial proportion (60 percent) of MSW continues to be dumped into designated areas without a proper sanitary landfill system.

6. Part I of this report comprises the Equivalence Analysis carried out by World Bank legal and policy staff in collaboration with ANPE counterparts, while Part II comprises the Acceptability Assessment carried out by World Bank policy, legal and technical staff in collaboration with ANPE and the newly created Tunisian Agency for the Management of Waste (ANGED). Annex A to this report contains a matrix summarizing the major equivalence findings relative to the project-applicable safeguards of OP 4.00, the remaining gaps and proposed gap- filling measures.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

7. To support Tunisia in this sector, the World Bank and the Government of Tunisia have jointly initiated a Support Program for the Management of Solid Waste (SPMSW). The general objective of the SPMSW is to treat and dispose of all solid wastes in a sustainable manner so as to improve the quality of life of Tunisian citizens. The SPMSW consists of two complementary projects:

. The SMMWP will treat ordinary household and other non-hazardous wastes generated from diverse sources in municipal areas; and

. The Specialized Wastes Project (SWP) will address treatment of medical waste and polychlorinated biphenyls.

8. The SMMWP and its institutional support mechanisms are the only components of the SPMSW that will be piloted under UCS. The SWP will not be included under the UCS pilot, but will be subject to standard World Bank safeguards.

9. The SMMWP consists of several inter-related components involving the operation of new controlled landfills, gas collection and flaring (in the context of a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) operation, one of the flexible tools of the Kyoto Protocol), and the closure

4 See World Bank (Middle East and North Africa Region/Water, Environment and Social Development Unit) “Tunisia: Country Environmental Analysis (1992-2003);” METAP, “Evaluation and Future Development of the EIA System in Tunisia, December 2000;” Mohammed Bekhechi, “Tunisian Harmonization Analysis,” December 11, 2003. 5 Ahmad and Wood, “A Comparative Evaluation of the EIA systems in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia, Environmental Impact Assessment Review,” Vol. 22 (2002) and El-Fadl, “Comparative Assessment of EIA systems in MENA countries: Challenges and Prospects,” Ibid., Vol.24 (2004).

2 and rehabilitation of corresponding uncontrolled landfill sites, along with technical assistance to Tunisian agencies responsible for the management of the municipal waste sector. The project will be implemented by ANGED with support from the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MEDD) and ANPE. Specific activities to be financed by the World Bank and to be subject to the UCS provisions include:

. Construction of a fifth containment cell at the Djebel Chekir landfill site in metropolitan Tunis along with the implementation of a contractual management system for the entire Djebel Chekir landfill, and the implementation of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP);

. Installation of methane collection and flaring systems at nine newly constructed controlled landfills (in the regions of Bizerte, Djerba, Gabes, Kairouan, Medenine, Monastir, Nabeul, Sfax, Sousse) and at Djebel Chekir within the context of the CDM component;

. Rehabilitation of five priority uncontrolled landfills in various municipalities within the regions of Bizerte, Sousse, Monastir, Sfax and Nabeul, including stabilization, cover, methane removal for safety purposes, leachate treatment and revegetation;

. Technical assistance for strengthening ANGED and the capacities of regional institutions responsible for waste management, principally at the local and inter-communal levels; and

. Development and implementation of a strategy of public communication and consciousness raising regarding waste management issues through the development of an ANGED website, TV spots, brochures and other media with the participation of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other institutions.

10. Some components of the SMMWP have been or are currently benefiting from external funding (loans and technical assistance) from other donors, including the European Investment Bank (EIB), with respect to six of the new landfills; the German Kreditanstalt für Wideraufbau Bankengruppe (KfW), with respect to three new landfills; and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) for technical assistance.

METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS FOLLOWED IN DETERMINING EQUIVALENCE AND ACCEPTABILITY

11. The methodology used to determine equivalence between Tunisian EA systems and the Objectives and Operational Principles of OP 4.00 that are applicable to the proposed project involved: (a) a review of the above-cited analyses conducted by the World Bank; (b) a close analysis of the relevant Tunisian laws and decrees pertaining to EA and the municipal waste sector and related environmental impacts in comparison with each of the applicable Operational Principles of OP 4.00; and (c) interviews with Tunisian officials charged with drafting and implementing the Tunisian EA legal and administrative framework. The desk review took place at World Bank headquarters in Washington during August and the early part of September 2005, followed by additional desk reviews and interviews in Tunisia undertaken by World Bank missions in September and November, 2005.6

6 The E&A Assessment was conducted at headquarters and in the field by the Mission Leader, Sherif Kamel Arif, MNA Regional Safeguards Coordinator; Mohammed Bekhechi, Lead Counsel, Legal Department; and Harvey Himberg, Senior Environmental Specialist, Quality Assurance and Compliance Unit.

3 12. The Acceptability Assessment includes an evaluation of Tunisia’s institutional capacity and track record with respect to EA in the MSW sector in comparison with the requirements of Tunisia’s legal and institutional system as described in the previous Equivalence Analysis.

13. The methodology included: (a) reviews of previous World Bank studies of Tunisia’s institutional capacities for implementation of the EA process; (b) current interviews relevant to EA and associated environmental management and monitoring in the MSW sector; (c) extensive document review of recent EIAs conducted for projects in this sector; and (d) site visits to Djebel Chekir and three of the nine new landfill sites by experienced environmental and social safeguard specialists from the World Bank (see para. 18).

14. The ten controlled landfill sites are not currently World Bank funded projects, but are to be funded by the World Bank in forthcoming stages of rehabilitation and expansion (in the case of Djebel Chekir) and degasification with respect to the nine regional controlled landfills.

15. Precisely because the EIAs prepared for these landfills were not funded or supervised by the World Bank, they provide a source of empirical data on Tunisia’s EA practices that is independent of data generated under World Bank supervision or that of other donors. 7 A second major benefit is that the landfills are in various stages of construction, some virtually completed, and mitigative measures can be verified. A third benefit is that because the construction of the landfills is funded in part by European donors (EIB and KfW), there is an opportunity for the World Bank to coordinate with these donors in reviewing the EIAs as well as the project impacts.

16. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) were reviewed for the following sanitary landfills: Bizerte, Djerba, Gabes, Kairouan, Medenine, Monastir, Nabeul, Sfax, Sousse and Tunis (Djebel Chekir expansion).

17. Interviews were held with senior Tunisian officials at the national and regional levels responsible for selection of environmental consultants to conduct the EIAs as well as for EIA review and approval, and with officials responsible for monitoring project implementation.

18. Two members of the team that prepared this report visited four of the landfill sites during the UCS Safeguards Diagnostic Review mission in September 2005. In addition, a technical consultant and a Social Development Specialist, MNA Rural Development, Water and Environment Group (MNSRE), accompanied Project Preparation Missions to Tunisia in July 2005 and November 2005, which included visits to these and other landfill sites.

PART I. EQUIVALENCE ANALYSIS

A. APPLICABLE WORLD BANK SAFEGUARDS

19. Of the eight World Bank safeguard policies included in the UCS pilot program, only EA is applicable to the project. As the existing and new landfills are already constructed or are under construction, land acquisition has already taken place, from lands previously in the public domain and without recourse to resettlement, the World Bank safeguard on involuntary resettlement is not applicable to the project. Implementation of the project does not impact natural habitats, forests, Indigenous Peoples, cultural property, pest management or safety of dams, as all

7 The EIAs were prepared by several consortia of consulting firms: (a) Sadat Associates (Princeton, NJ, USA)- Camp Dresser & McKee International, Inc. (Cambridge MA, USA)- Méditerranéenne Internationale de l‘Environnement (Tunis) ; (b) SGI Ingénierie (Paris)- SERAH (Tunis); and (c) Fichtner (Stuttgart, Germany)-STUDI (Tunis); as well as independent Tunisian firms (Geo-Environnement Tunisie). The EIAs were not funded by external donors.

4 proposed activities are to be conducted within the footprint of these existing landfill sites. Rehabilitation of existing landfills involves coverage, closure and fencing and is not anticipated to involve any change in land use. Based on these criteria, the project has been screened as Category B.

B. TUNISIAN LEGAL SYSTEM FOR EA

20. In the following analysis, the term “Tunisian EA system” applies to the full range of Tunisian legal instruments relating to the environmental impacts of the MSW management sector, including but not limited to EA (see in particular Section C, below). From 1991 through July 2005, the Tunisian EA system was governed primarily by the 1988 law establishing ANPE, as amended, and the framework EA Decree of March 14, 1991 (1991 EA Decree). 8 The 1991 EA Decree contained many of the elements referenced in OP 4.00, including requirements for a screening process, specifications for impact assessment, alternatives assessment, and mitigative measures.

21. ANPE’s authority was further defined and strengthened by Law No. 2001-14 of January 30, 2001 on the Simplification of Administrative Procedures relative to Authorizations of the Ministry of the Environment and Land Use Planning, which instituted a provision requiring ANPE’s prior approval of any industrial, agricultural or commercial facility subject to an environmental impact study or to other specifications (“cahier des charges”) issued by order of the Ministry, according to the type of facility, the nature of its activity and the risks it presents to the environment.

22. Tunisia issued a new framework Decree on July 11, 2005, which abrogated the 1991 EA Decree (2005 EA Decree).9 The 2005 EA Decree contains several important innovations with respect to the previous system:

. Projects not requiring a full EIA due to the nature of the activity and limited scope of impacts, are subject to specifications designed to mitigate environmental impacts;

. Sectoral Terms of Reference (ToRs) are to be provided for all major sectors requiring EIA;

. Tunisian environmental and land use laws, administrative orders and norms are referenced in the Decree;

. Detailed EMPs are required, following pre-approved ToRs; and

. EIAs must be prepared by experts specializing in the affected sector.

xxiii. A detailed matrix containing the analysis of the provisions of the 2005 EA Decree as compared to the Operational Principles for EA of OP 4.00 is contained in Annex A.

8 Decree 91-362 of March 13, 1991 regulating the procedures for the preparation and approval of Impact Studies (JORT March 26, 1991). 9 Decree 2005-1991 of July 11, 2005 (JORT, July 19, 2005).

5 C. ANPE TOR FOR EIA IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SECTOR

24. In 1996, ANPE issued “Terms of Reference for Impact Study for Projects involving Collection, Transport, Elimination, Recycling, Valorization and Treatment of Waste” (MSW ToR):

. The MSW ToR requires that an EIA for a project in the MSW sector address a full range of elements that are included within the EA as defined by OP 4.00 Table A1 and by the 2005 EA Decree, including: a project description; baseline site conditions (land use, water quality, air quality, noise, existing waste disposal methods, transportation, geology); anticipated direct and indirect environmental impacts; anticipated mitigation measures and monitoring provisions (for collection and treatment/valorization/recycling); and

. Consistent with Articles 26-28 of the 1996 Law on the Control, Management and Elimination of Waste (see below), the ToR requires that operators throughout the waste management sector:

o Maintain a register including information about: the types and quantities of waste; their nature and source; and as required, their destination, frequency of collection, transportation, mode of treatment, disposal or valorization; and

o Prepare for and provide access to monitoring officers of ANPE for periodic inspection visits.

 The ToR is currently being revised by ANPE and ANGED to respond to the requirements of the 2005 EA Decree.

D. LAND USE PLANNING LEGISLATION

26. The Tunisian EA system as applied to the MSW sector is strongly interrelated with the Tunisian legislative framework for land use planning, and in particular the Land Use Code (Code of Land Management and Urban Development, Law 94-122 of November 28, 1994). Article 5 of the Land Use Code prescribes the use of a Master Plan (Schéma Directeur) and provides that the agency responsible for the affected territory develops the Master Plan in collaboration with other interested ministries and public agencies (organized in an inter-ministerial committee), including the MEDD. Under Article 10 of the Land Use Code, the Master Plan is required to summarize all feasible options for use of the land and propose appropriate mitigative measures to respond to environmental and other impacts.

E. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LEGISLATION

27. Substantive legislation applying to the management of municipal waste was first enacted in 1996 when Tunisia issued its framework Law on the Control, Management and Elimination of Waste (Law 96-41 of June 10, 1996). The main provisions of the law that are relevant to EA in Tunisia are discussed below.

28. Law 96-41 has three main objectives:

. Prevention and reduction of waste and its hazards, in particular at the level of production and distribution of products;

6 . Valorization of waste via reutilization, recycling and other actions aiming at recovery of reusable materials and their utilization as energy resources; and

. Resort to controlled landfills for discharge of residual waste, following exhaustion of all other possibilities of valorization.

29. With respect to landfills the law classifies wastes according to their source, as either residential or industrial waste as well as according to their characteristics as:10

. Hazardous waste;11

. Residential and other non-hazardous waste; and

 Inert waste.12

30. A single landfill is permitted to receive a single type of waste, or several categories of waste so long as the treatment processes specific to each category are implemented in separate compartments and correspond to the regulations specific to that category. Individual landfill permits specify the types of wastes that could be accepted (and which rejected) for disposal, and the particular regulations for treatment and disposal, along with control procedures, and closure and rehabilitation of the site. Operators of landfills (collection, sorting and storage sites) are responsible for the rehabilitation of closed sites to their initial state and for avoiding all pollution or threat to public health and the environment.

31. Under Law 2001-14 of January 30, 2001, the Minister of the Environment and Sustainable Development was given authority to issue permits for all activities involving the collecting, sorting, transportation, storage, treatment, valorization and disposal of waste. To obtain such a permit, the operator would be required to provide information regarding:

 The types and quantities of wastes;

 Technical processes and modes of treatment;

 Safety precautions; and

 Sites for collection, sorting, storage and disposal.

32. The law also set forth penalties for non-conformity with the specifications.

33. An Administrative Order of the Minister of the Environment and Land Management regarding approval of Specifications (cahier de charges) setting conditions for collection, transport, storage, treatment, disposal, recycling and valorization of non-hazardous waste was issued on February 28, 2001.13 Article III of the Administrative Order included monitoring

10 Separate legislation was anticipated to deal with other specific wastes such as hospital waste, sludge from water treatment facilities, and slaughterhouse, organic and other wastes. 11 Specific provisions regarding hazardous wastes were incorporated into Chapter V of the law. 12 Defined as “earth and rocks in their natural state or waste resulting from demolition, construction and renovation, primarily of a mineral nature uncontaminated by hazardous or other substances susceptible of posing nuisances,” Chapter III, Article 16. 13 Administrative Order of February 28, 2001, relating to the specifications for the modalities and conditions for the implementation of activities of storage, treatment and elimination of non hazardous waste.

7 responsibilities for operators throughout the waste chain, consistent with Articles 26-28 of the 1996 Law on the Control, Management and Elimination of Waste. Under these provisions, operators are required to:

 Maintain a register including information about: the types and quantities of waste, their nature and source, and as required, their destination, frequency of collection, transportation, mode of treatment, disposal or valorization; and

 Prepare for and provide access to monitoring officers of ANPE for periodic inspection visits.

F. APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL NORMS

34. The Tunisian National Institute of Normalization and Industrial Property (INOPRI) began issuing environmental norms in 1983 based on guidance from European Union Directives, foreign national regulations, specialized organizations and its own technical studies and comparative assessments. Norms relevant to the MSW sector include:

 NT 106.01 (1983) ENR: Norms for discharge of non-hazardous waste;

 NT 106.02 (1989) HOM: Discharge of effluents into receiving waters; and

 NT 106.04 (1994) HOM: Threshold limits and guidelines for certain pollutants in ambient air and beyond workplace perimeters.

NT 106.01 has been pre-empted by the enactment in 1996 of comprehensive legislation applicable to the MSW sector. However, the other two norms continue to be referenced in legislation applicable to the MSW sector.

G. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND CONSULTATION

35. Specific provisions of other legislation in addition to that applying directly to EA and the MSW sector also have relevance to this project. Of particular importance to the Tunisian EA system are provisions for establishing the authorities of ANPE,14 the provisions of the 1968 Decree on Hazardous, Unsanitary and Disagreeable Facilities (1968 Decree)15 and the 1994 Code of Land Management and Urban Development16 (1994 Code) pertaining to public disclosure and comment on classified facilities and land use changes.

36. In particular, Article 5 of the 1968 Decree provides that the public be provided a one month period to comment on projects involving “dangerous, unhealthy or disagreeable establishments” as these are defined in Articles 294 and 295 of the Labor Code (Law 66-27 of April 30, 1966),17 with any public comments to be forwarded to the permitting agency for action.

14 Establishment of ANPE (Law 88-20, April 13, 1988, as amended by Law 1992-115 of November 30, 1992). 15 No. 68-88, March 28, 1968. 16 Law 94-122 of November 28, 1994. 17 Chapter VI of the Labor Code applies to any establishment that presents hazards or threats to public safety or health. It establishes three categories of such establishments according to the inherent hazards and threats that they present. Establishments presenting the highest category of risk are required to be sited far from urban centers and other habitations. The second category need not necessarily be sited away from habitation but must be authorized to operate under administrative oversight designed to prevent hazards and nuisances associated with them. In the third category of establishments are those considered to not pose significant threats to public health and which are to be submitted to

8 Based on such public comments, the relevant ministry may impose mitigation measures to satisfy “environmental, safety or public health requirements” before the project may be implemented.

37. Under Article 16 of the 1994 Land Use Code, projects involving modification of land use, including the siting of municipal waste landfills or the conversion of existing landfill sites to other uses, require broad consultation with all agencies and affected local governments and are to be publicly disclosed for a two month period during which affected persons and the public at large may provide comments.18

H. EQUIVALENCE TO OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF OP 4.00, TABLE A1: DISCUSSION

38. Tunisia’s EA system, including the totality of laws and regulations (decrees and administrative orders and norms applicable to the MSW sector), meets nearly all of the criteria for equivalence to the eleven Operational Principles of Table A1 of OP 4.00. This is particularly the case with respect to screening, impact assessment, applicable legal frameworks, mitigation, monitoring, and the use of independent expertise in the EA process. Weaknesses in the EA system result from lack of coherence among certain elements of the Tunisian legal system itself rather than from gaps between the Tunisian legal and institutional framework for EA and the elements of OP 4.00, Table A1. This lack of coherence affects primarily the way that alternatives assessment is undertaken, the nature of public consultation and disclosure and formal integration between the EA process and studies of economic and technical feasibility.

39. Annex A of this report contains a comparison of Tunisia’s EA systems with all eleven Operational Principles relative to EA contained in OP 4.00, Table A1. The following paragraphs highlight the major areas of equivalence relevant to the pilot project that require further discussion, and identify those provisions of Tunisia’s current EA legal structure applicable to the project for which there are remaining gaps relative to these Operational Principles.

40. Tunisia’s 2005 EA Decree establishes a screening system consisting of three categories based on the nature and scope of the activity proportionate to potential risks and impacts. These categories are analogous to the World Bank’s, A, B, and C classifications. Although the EA Decree does not stipulate the basis for the three-fold categorization, the specific types of facilities designated for a lengthier ANPE review process of up to three months would normally be classified as Category A by the World Bank. Likewise, the types of facilitates designated for a more streamlined ANPE review process of up to 21 days would normally be classified as Category B by the World Bank.19 The development of MSW facilities is appropriately included with the classification equivalent to World Bank Category A.

41. With respect to impact assessment, Tunisia’s 2005 EA Decree requires that an EIA include an assessment of project impacts on natural resources, diverse species of fauna and flora; legally protected areas (especially forests, natural or historic landscapes); other sensitive and protected areas, and national and urban parks. Consistent with OP 4.00, Table A1, it also requires that the EIA evaluate and measure direct and indirect impacts, and it goes beyond OP 4.00 in requiring the EA to evaluate and measure short-, medium- and long-term impacts. Tunisia’s general prescriptive regulations in the interest of public health. The designation of specific establishments in the three categories is established by order of the Secretary of State for the National Economy on the advice of an Inter- Ministerial Committee on Dangerous, Unsanitary or Disagreeable Establishments. 18 Law on the Code of Land Use and Urbanization, 94-122, November 28, 1994 (JORT December 6, 1994). 19 In the case of the 2005 EA Decree, the alphabetical. designations are the reverse of those used by the World Bank, with “Annex I, Category B” projects subject to the more extensive review, Annex I, Category A projects subject to the more streamlined review and Annex II projects subject only to specifications (cahier de charges).

9 initial EA legislation and extensive legislative framework relating to the preservation of physical cultural resources (PCR) applies to the identification and protection of any PCR affected by the MSW sector.20 Other components of this element, including cumulative or associated impacts, or sectoral or regional assessment, are not relevant to the proposed pilot project due to its site specific nature.

42. Tunisia’s 2005 EA Decree references specific Tunisian laws applicable to the MSW sector. The Constitution of Tunisia requires that all activities undertaken by the Government of Tunisia conform to Tunisia’s international obligations.21

43. Article 10 of the Land Use Code requires that any change in land use (such as the construction of a MSW landfill) be accompanied by an analysis of alternative land uses.22 Although the Land Use Code is referenced in the 2005 EA Decree, neither the Decree itself nor the MSW ToR requires that alternatives analysis be undertaken as part of the EA process itself. It is important to note here that the alternatives analysis required in the Land Use Code refers only to land use, not alternative means of waste treatment and disposal. Likewise, the MSW ToR requires a justification of the project, which in practice has been interpreted to require consideration of the “no-action” alternative, but not of alternative means of waste treatment and disposal.

44. Tunisia’s 2005 EA Decree requires the EA to include a “detailed Environmental Management Plan” (EMP), the contents of which are to be specified in the Sectoral ToRs for EIA. As summarized above, the MSW ToR provides specific guidance on the content of EMP for the MSW sector. However, the MSW ToR does not specify measures related to alternatives assessment, monitoring, institutional capacity, training and implementation schedules.

45. As noted above, legislation relating to “dangerous, unhealthy or disagreeable establishments” and modification of land use requires public consultation and disclosure for prescribed periods of time. Although these laws are referenced in the 2005 EA Decree, the Decree itself does not require any mechanisms for public consultation during the EA process.

46. Also as noted above, the laws relating to “dangerous, unhealthy or disagreeable establishments” and modification of land use require public disclosure of project information

20 Law 88-91, Creation of the National Environmental Protection Agency, August 2, 1988; Decree 91-362, Environmental Impact Studies, March 13, 1991 and Law 2001-14, Simplification of Administrative Procedures Relative to Authorizations Issued by the Ministry of Environment and Land Use Planning, January 30, 2001. 21 Article 32 provides that “treaties duly ratified have an authority superior to laws.” Tunisia has ratified several international accords related to management of transboundary waste including: Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movements and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa, Bamako, 1991; Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Caused during Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road, Rail and Inland Navigation Vessels, Geneva, 1989; Convention on the Control of Trans-boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention), Basel, 1989; Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, Helsinki, 1992; Convention to Ban the Importation into Forum Island Countries of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes and to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within the South Pacific Region (Waigani Convention), Waigani, 1995; European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road, Geneva 1957; FAO International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, Rome, 1985; European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road, Geneva 1957; and FAO International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, Rome, 1985 (Source: Countrywatch.com). 22 Alternatives assessment was a requirement under the 1991 EA Decree, which required project proponents to include an analysis of the reasons and technical choices for the project as well as the procedures proposed to respond to environmental impacts. Article 4 of Decree 91-362 of March 13, 1991 required that the EIA include “the reasons and technical justifications for the choice of project as well as the procedures to be applied …to account for environmental impacts.”

10 prior to project approval. Although these laws are referenced in the 2005 EA Decree, the Decree itself does not otherwise require or provide for timely public disclosure of draft EIA documents in an accessible place and in a form and language understandable to key stakeholders as is required by OP 4.00.

CONCLUSION

47. In conclusion, this analysis finds that there is a significant degree of equivalence between the legal and institutional framework of Tunisia’s EA system and the applicable elements of the Operational Principles of OP 4.00, Table A1 for the SMMWP. However, there are several areas, as outlined in paras. 43-46 above that require gap filling measures to be consistent with those elements. For example, the ToR for the MSW sector does not specify measures related to alternatives assessment, monitoring, institutional capacity, and training and implementation schedules. The Government of Tunisia has acknowledged the necessity of updating the ToR for the MSW sector to conform fully to the requirements of 2005 EA Decree and has undertaken to do so by August 1, 2006, with technical assistance from the World Bank. Although the 2005 EA Decree takes note of existing legislation requiring project proponents to engage in public consultation and disclosure with respect to changes in land use and classified facilities, it does not require such consultation and disclosure in the context of the EIA process. With respect to the project and beyond, the Government of Tunisia also acknowledges the need to consolidate applicable elements of EA currently distributed through diverse legislative instruments into a fully coherent and integrated Environmental Code, with particular attention to the applicable requirements for public consultation and disclosure for certain categories of projects.

PART II. ACCEPTABILITY ASSESSMENT

A. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

48. An assessment was conducted of the capacity of institutions responsible for implementing the SMMWP and for implementing the applicable laws and regulations relating to EA for the MSW sector. This included the roles and responsibilities of different agencies, their organizational structure and the availability of human and financial resources; their decision- making processes, including the existence of appropriate mechanisms for verification and remediation; and the procedures and practices for report preparation and monitoring.

49. It was determined that Tunisia has a well-developed institutional and technical capacity for EA at the national level. This capacity continues to improve and is increasingly adapted to and aligned with current international practices for EA.

50. Apart from EA and with respect to the management of the MSW sector, the institutional framework is currently in a transitional phase, with the transfer of the functions for management of MSW from ANPE’s Department of Solid Waste to an Agency for Solid Waste under the MEDD. This transition is consistent with the recommendations of METAP supported studies.

A.1. Institutional Capacity for EA

51. As described in detail in the Country Environmental Analysis (CEA) issued by the World Bank in April 2004,23 Tunisia’s considerable economic and social progress since gaining independence 40 years ago has put the country on the path to sustainable development and has 23 Tunisia, Country Environmental Analysis (1992-2003), Final Report, April 2004, Water, Environment, Rural and Social Development, Middle East and North Africa Region, World Bank (Report No. TN-255866).

11 been coupled with undeniable progress in environmental policies. Notably, Tunisia has the lowest cost of environmental degradation among the countries of the MNA region, measured as percentage of GDP.

52. With respect to EA, the primary authority is vested in ANPE, created in 1988, 24 along with the introduction of EIA requirements for development projects. Together with the majority of environmental agencies in Tunisia, ANPE is under the supervision of MEDD, which until February 2005 was named the Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources. 25 The EIA Directorate of ANPE is responsible for administering, reviewing and monitoring EIA in Tunisia.26 In addition to its central structures, ANPE has six regional offices serving the North, North-East, North-West, Central, South-West and South-East regions of the country.27

53. In addition to EA, ANPE’s functions include the development of environmental norms; public awareness, environmental training and education; control of pollution at the source; monitoring of national air quality; technical agreement for pollution control projects as well as their promotion for the allocation of financial and tax benefits as provided by law; management of anti-pollution funds; and management of urban parks. Until recently ANPE was also directly responsible for the management of solid waste through its Department of Solid Waste. Consistent with the recommendation of the World Bank, this Department has been spun off into a separate agency (ANGED) under the auspices of MEDD.

54. With respect to its EA functions, ANPE has developed the ToRs for twenty sectors subject to EIA requirements, including MSW. Approximately 1,200 EIAs are reviewed annually by ANPE. Under the EA Decree of 1991 (which remained in effect until July 2005), projects not requiring an EIA were also reviewed by ANPE based on a summary description of the project meeting ANPE specifications. Other government authorities charged with issuing authorizations for development activities may not do so until ANPE has issued its approval for the project.

55. ANPE’s resources included a total annual budget of TD 18.8 million in 2005, and consisted of 222 full-time employees, and 27 contractors of which 22 full-time employees were dedicated to EIA review. In addition, its annual project budget of TD 11.1 million allocated nearly TD 100,000 to specialized studies for the environmental management and rehabilitation of uncontrolled landfills and feasibility studies for proposed composting facilities.

56. Another indicator of Tunisia’s capacity for EA is the increased role of local consulting and engineering firms in the preparation of EAs for the MSW sector. The EIAs for landfills conducted in the mid 1990s were led by foreign based consortia with participation of Tunisian firms.28 In contrast, the EIAs for the Nabeul landfill, conducted in 2004, and for the expansion and rehabilitation of the Djebel Chekir landfill, conducted in 2005, were accomplished entirely by Tunisian firms. The quality of the data gathering and analysis conducted by the Tunisian firms was equivalent to that of the foreign led consortia.

24 Law 88-91 of August 2, 1988 established ANPE. ANPE’s authorities were further defined by Law 92-115 of November 30, 1992. 25 Decree 2005-315 of February 16, 2005 transferred the relevant structures of the former Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources to the new Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. 26 METAP/University of Manchester, “Evaluation and future development of the EIA system in Tunisia,” December 2000. 27 http://www.anpe.nat.tn. 28 For example, the majority of the EIAs prepared during this period were conducted by a consortium consisting of Sadat and Associates and Camp Dresser and McKee of the United States with the participation of MEDIEN, a Tunisian firm. Several EIAs were conducted by German and French firms.

12 A.2. Institutional Capacity: Environmental Monitoring

57. Independent sources have confirmed that in general ANPE has effective national systems for monitoring and enforcement. ANPE is sufficiently well funded to employ reasonable numbers of inspectors, with clearly defined responsibilities for monitoring and enforcement, the power to impose effective fines for infringements, and to instruct relevant authorities to initiate legal proceedings to close facilities if necessary. In support of these systems, extensive educational and training facilities and programs are available, covering a wide range of scientific, technical and managerial aspects of environmental protection. The private sector also possesses appreciable capabilities in assessing environmental impacts. Sectoral authorities also have monitoring and enforcement powers, following ANPE guidance.29

A.3. Institutional Capacity: Public Participation in EA

58. As noted in the Equivalence section, laws pertaining to land use changes and sensitive industrial facilities require project information disclosure and public consultation. Although these laws are referenced in the 2005 EA Decree, the Decree itself does not provide for disclosure of draft or final EIAs or public consultation in the EA process. To the extent that such disclosure and consultation take place, it tends to be done in an ad hoc manner, typically late in the process and in response to public opposition. This practice has sometimes resulted in costly project delays, the incidence of which has reinforced the reluctance of project proponents, and even ANPE itself, to engage in proactive information disclosure and consultation on EIAs. NGO representatives have confirmed to the World Bank that they are sometimes consulted on EIAs, more likely for internationally funded projects, but that this does not happen regularly.30

A.4. Institutional Capacity: MSW Management

59. In August 2005 the Government of Tunisia created ANGED by decree and transferred to it the waste management functions previously assigned to ANPE’s Department of Solid Waste.31 ANGED’s mandate includes:

. Elaboration of national programs for waste management;

. Participation in drafting legislation and regulations relative to waste management;

. Implementation of projects and procedures within the framework of national programs for waste management;

. Consolidation of regional structures and assistance to communes in the management of waste;

. Promotion of partnerships between local communities, industry and the private sector;

29 Decree 90-2273 of December 25, 1990, relating to the status of ANPE expert monitors. See also Abderrafi Abid Lahlou, “Capacity Building for the Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework,” United Nations Environment Programme, December 15, 2005; and Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, “Sustainability Impact Assessment Study of the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area: The Evolving Economic, Social and Environmental Conditions in Mediterranean Partner Countries,” June 2005. 30 METAP, op cit.. 31 Decree 2005-2317 of August 22, 2205, Creation of an Agency for the Management of Solid Wastes (ANGED Decree).

13 . Direction and maintenance of specialized facilities undertaken by the government with respect to hazardous waste; and

. Preparation of specifications and authorizations relative to the management of waste as required by regulations in effect and monitoring of their execution, including registers maintained by facilities involved in collection, transportation, elimination and valorization of waste.

lx. It is stipulated in the decree transferring to ANGED the authorities of the ANPE Department of Solid Waste, that ANPE will retain its current EA regulatory functions with respect to the entire waste sector.32

lxi. Prior to August 2005, the 1996 framework law on waste management assigned responsibility for the disposal of wastes, following collection and treatment, to ANPE, and in 1996 ANPE established a Department of Solid Waste. In January 2000, an inter-ministerial committee designated ANPE as the lead agency for the implementation of PRONAGDES (see below), with the responsibility of managing national and international funding and ensuring coordination among different entities active in the sector, including municipal governments (communes) and the private sector.

lxii. Until the transfer of its MSW authority to ANGED, ANPE’s Department of Solid Waste had a staff of 35 professionals charged, among other duties, with monitoring implementation of Tunisia’s MSW legal requirements. In the case of continuous noncompliance with regulatory requirements, ANPE inspectors are authorized to instruct other authorities to initiate legal proceedings to close facilities.33 In addition, ANPE’s program of monitoring the first three stages of the controlled landfill at Djebel Chekir demonstrated a capacity to undertake adaptive management with respect to the excessive volumes of leachate produced as a result of moisture content in the MSW stream that was greater than anticipated. A detailed study of alternative methods of leachate collection and treatment for each landfill was subsequently prepared for ANPE by a specialized consultant in July 2004.34 The results of this study have led to the re-engineering of the entire landfill in preparation for its forthcoming expansion.

lxiii. With the transition of authority for implementation from ANPE to ANGED effective August 2005, the new agency will inherit the resources of ANPE, which will be significantly enhanced through the technical assistance that ANGED will receive from the World Bank and METAP directly as part of the technical

32 Ibid. 33 METAP, op. cit. 34 ANPE, Etude sur la gestion des lixiviats, op. cit.

14 assistance component of the SMMWP. In addition, as a condition to the financing that it received from KfW for construction of three of the new landfills (in the gouvernorats of Bizerte, Sousse, and Kairouan) ANPE (now ANGED) agreed to add 21 dedicated staff to oversee project implementation. As noted in the public consultation, it is important that some of these additional staff resources be deployed to regional offices and that these resources, as well as the municipalities, be provided with training and other resources for monitoring compliance in the operation of the new landfills.

lxiv. From 1966 and up to establishment of ANPE’s mandate, the management of solid waste had been delegated to municipal authorities35 with technical support from the National Sanitation Office (ONAS).36 ONAS has had direct management responsibility for two existing semi-controlled landfills in Tunis as well as the four small operating controlled landfills serving the Medjerda basin.37

lxv. In 1990 the municipality of Tunis assumed control of the management of its solid waste with the establishment of the Municipal Agency for the Treatment and Valorization of Waste (AMTVD) through an Administrative Order of the Minister of Interior (January 17, 1990), which was enlarged by a further Administrative Order of June 10, 2004. The latter authorized the municipality to establish a Municipal Agency for Environmental Services (AMSE) with the mandate to operate and manage controlled landfills and transfer centers for waste, as well as waste collection and transport, along with the provision of other environmental services.38 Also in 2004 the Municipal Management Agency was created to promote inter- communal management of waste in Tunis.39 However, ANPE has continued to provide overall monitoring of the Djebel Chekir landfill, a function that has now been officially transferred to ANGED.

lxvi. Other agencies with specific mandates and responsibilities for waste management include MEDD, the Ministry of Interior and Local Development and the Ministry of Public Health. At the local level, collection of wastes remains the responsibility of the municipalities with administrative support from the regions

35 Under the Organic Law of Communes (Law 98-66 as amended by Law 75-33 of May 14, 1975), the “collection, sorting, treatment, removal, containment of waste into controlled landfills” was made the responsibility of local communities. See Mohammed Zghidi, “Tunisie: Projet d’Appui à la Gestion Intégrée des Déchets Solides, Mission de Pré-Evaluation: Evaluation Sociale, Août, 2005,” p. 4. 36 Law 93-41 of April 19, 1993. 37 GTZ-ERM-GKW, p. 27; The Medjerda River originates in Algeria and includes a surface area of 15,000 km sq. in Tunisia (JICA, p. 3). 38 Leila Chikhaoui, "Cadre Juridique et Institutionnel du Secteur des Services en Tunisie," November 2004, p. 6. 39 Decree 2004-2265, September 27, 2004; Chikhaoui, op. cit.

15 (Gouvernorats).40 Relations with local communities are regulated by a framework convention between MEDD and the Ministry of Interior and Local Government. International donors have been particularly active in the field of environmental management and EA. The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) is providing support in environmental management, GTZ is also financing a technical assistance project in solid waste management, and METAP has provided technical assistance and training in EA and established a regional EA center in CITET.

B. BORROWER IMPLEMENTATION PRACTICES AND TRACK RECORD

B.1. EA Documentation

67. This Acceptability Assessment compares Tunisia’s implementation practices in carrying out the EIAs for the Djebel Chekir landfill and the nine new regional controlled landfills with Tunisia’s applicable legal and administrative requirements. Accordingly, as the EIAs for these landfills were conducted prior to the adoption of the 2005 EA Decree, the 1991 EA Decree and other laws constituting Tunisia’s EA system serve as the legal framework for the Acceptability Assessment. The EIA for a representative site, the new proposed landfill for the Gouvernorat of Kairouan, is presented in matrix form in Annex B using the same elements as the matrix used in the Equivalence Analysis (Annex A). The following discussion highlights some of the major elements of acceptability in Tunisia’s EA documentation for the MSW sector, including the acceptability gaps relative to the requirements of OP 4.00.

68. Each of the EIAs was conducted as part of a three part Master Plan (“Schéma Directeur”) process for the management of solid waste within a particular municipality as part of PRONAGDES, and was contracted by the ANPE and ONAS.

69. The first stage of the Master Plan consisted of seven sequential tasks, the sixth of which was the EIA. The second stage typically included technical and financial feasibility studies, whereas the third stage involved technical reports on project execution; detailed technical specifications and formal tenders for project implementation. The structure of the planning process has an important bearing on the scope and process used in the EIA and subsequent environmental management and monitoring.

70. Although the quality of the analyses and the level of detail of the EIAs varied somewhat depending on the consultant used (the EIAs were conducted by three different consortia of Tunisian and international firms), in general the content of the EIAs conformed closely to the requirements of the 1991 EA Decree and the MSW ToR. The EIA included a description of the project, an analysis of the baseline conditions (including the impacts of pre-existing uncontrolled landfills in the vicinity), a description and analysis of the proposed site for the new landfill, and an analysis of the potential impacts and mitigation measures as well as their corresponding costs. All the EIAs considered the “no action alternative” to the extent that they included in the baseline assessment the likely consequences of a continuation of uncontrolled and undifferentiated landfill discharge.

40 The 24 gouvernorats of Tunisia are: Ariana, Beja, Ben Arous, Bizerte, Gabes, Gafsa, Jendouba, Kairouan, Kasserine, Kebili, el Kef, Mahdia, Manouba, Medenine, Monastir, Nabeul, Sfax, Sidi Bou Zid, Siliana, Sousse, Tataouine, Tozeur, Tunis, and Zaghouan.

16 71. The Master Plan for the MSW sector does require a comparative assessment of alternative waste disposal technologies including incineration and composting and this has been conducted in each case as a free-standing technical-economic study. The results of these studies were subsequently incorporated in summary fashion in most of the EIAs, but neither the studies nor the EIAs analyzed or compared the alternatives from the standpoint of their environmental impacts.

72. Based on interviews with national and regional level officials involved in the EA and project permitting process, it appears that extensive stakeholder consultation took place during the Master Planning process (although not apparently during the EIA process per se) in all of the communities affected by the project, and included issues such as the siting of landfills, collection and transfer stations as well as choice of technology (composting, compaction, semi-compaction, etc.). However, it is unclear from available documentation and interviews whether this consultation included the general public or NGOs, whether the information about the project was disclosed to the general public, or whether comments were solicited from the public as required by Tunisian laws pertaining to land use and to classified facilities. From interviews and documentation provided, it does not appear that draft EIAs or final EIAs for any of the landfills have been disclosed to the public, prior to the public consultation described in Part V, below.

73. Tunisian officials involved in the site selection process for the landfills indicated that NGOs as well as representatives of diverse political parties participated actively in the consultations. However, the consultation and disclosure process was not documented in sufficient detail to determine the extent and quality of public information and input into the EIA process.

74. The social impact evaluation (Zghidi, 2005) noted that NGOs—in particular the Tunisian Association for the Protection of Nature and the Environment (the largest NGO with more than 5,000 members)—have intervened at both national and regional levels regarding the impacts of existing uncontrolled landfills on local populations, particularly in the larger municipal areas. In Tunis a local NGO was created to represent the inhabitants of El Mourouj, a settlement located in close proximity to the uncontrolled landfill at El-Yahoudia; it is credited with drawing the attention of the President to the situation, resulting in the subsequent closing of the landfill at the instigation of the central government. Social impact evaluation of the proposed SMMWP noted that the start of construction of two of the new sanitary landfills—Nabeul and Medenine—was delayed until 2005 due to local opposition to selected sites.41

75. The local mechanisms for consideration of complaints and related procedures for access to the legal systems for their resolution were analyzed. It was concluded that the regulations in this regard are clear42 and they are frequently applied in practice. For example in the case of the site selection for the new controlled landfill in the Sousse region, the choice of site was subject to a legal process initiated against the municipality by a private citizen claiming ownership of the site and was resolved in favor of the municipality.

76. The available documentation does not indicate to what extent the stakeholder consultation or public disclosure objectives of the applicable sector legislation pertaining to “dangerous, unsanitary and disagreeable facilities” or to changes in land use are being regularly implemented. This includes the involvement of non-official stakeholders, project-affected groups and local NGOs as early as possible in the project preparation process, in order to ensure that their views and concerns are made known to decision makers and taken into account. The

41 Zghidi, p.19. 42 Decree 68-88, op cit., Article 5.

17 apparent lack of consistent application of the Tunisian legal procedures designed to facilitate stakeholder consultation and public disclosure of project information constitutes a significant deviation with respect to one of the key elements of OP 4.00.

B.2. Environmental Management: Site Visits

77. The World Bank visited the existing landfill at Djebel Chekir and three of the new landfills under construction (Bizerte, Sousse and Kairouan). The field visits provided an opportunity to observe the sites in the context of the data provided in the EIAs for these sites as well as the mitigative measures prescribed in the EMPs.

78. In general all four sites were as described in the EIAs with respect to distance from surface waters, inhabited areas, and natural vegetation and arable lands. However, the Bizerte and Sousse sites were located within a kilometer of active agricultural areas (grazing areas in the case of Bizerte and olive groves in the case of Sousse) which could be affected by nuisances associated with the landfills such as insects, loose paper or plastic, truck traffic and feral dogs.

79. Visits to Djebel Chekir, which has been operational since 1999, and the three new regional landfill sites, nearly all of which are almost complete and ready to receive waste, indicated that the design and mitigative measures anticipated in the EIAs for each of the sites were being thoroughly implemented. The only exception to this observation was that the Sousse landfill, although constructed in an appropriate manner, followed a simple semi-compacted landfill design rather than the composting facility that was the subject of the EIA. In all cases the firms selected to construct the landfills appeared to be adhering to uniformly high quality construction techniques reflecting broad international experience.43 All of the sites are lined by a layer of compacted natural clay under a lining of high density polyethylene as proposed in the EIAs. In the higher rainfall coastal zones of Tunis, Bizerte and Sousse, separate drainage systems were in place to remove storm water runoff and leachates, respectively. A unified system was used in Kairouan, which receives significantly less rainfall than the other sites due to its location on the arid steppe.

80. Medium-term impacts were evident at the Djebel Chekir site. Some, such as the increased truck traffic and dust resulting from the passage of approximate 350 trucks per day through the adjoining suburban neighborhoods, had been anticipated in the EIA and mitigative measures were being implemented. However, the volume of leachate production has substantially exceeded the forecasts in the EIA, resulting in insufficient storage and treatment capacity with potential risks to surface and groundwater. As a result the entire landfill, at the initiative of the Tunisian authorities, is being re-engineered (see para. lxii, above). It remains to be seen whether sufficient containment has been allocated to store and treat the volume of leachates that will be generated at Djebel Chekir and some of the regional sites, particularly those located in higher rainfall coastal areas.44

CONCLUSION

81. Regarding the acceptability of Tunisia’s EA system, substantial consistency is observed with respect to Tunisia’s implementation of its legal and administrative requirements as these apply to the MSW sector. Projects in this sector are appropriately screened into the category of projects requiring a full EIA. ToRs for EIAs are consistent with the objectives of the EA

43 Firms selected are from China, Belgium and Tunisia. 44 Zghidi, pp. 11-12.

18 legislation. Impact assessment is relatively robust with respect to direct impacts and includes critical necessary measures. EIAs are conducted by specialized consulting firms independent of project proponents.

82. Despite these strong practices, there are gaps in acceptability between the legal requirements of Tunisia’s EA system and its practices. These gaps reflect some of the challenges for improving the Tunisian system for carrying out and implementing measures relating to EA at the institutional and legal levels. The principal gaps that will need to be satisfactorily addressed in order for the Tunisian EA system to be acceptable to the World Bank include: (a) the lack of integration between the alternative site and technology assessments required under legislation pertaining to land use changes and classified facilities and the EA process as described in the EA Decree; (b) insufficient detail in EMPs with respect to institutional arrangements, monitoring and training; (c) lack of reference to legally required technical norms in EIAs; and (d) inconsistent application of Tunisian legal requirements for public consultation in the EA process and public disclosure of EA documentation. In the context of the SMMWP all of these gaps should be able to be remedied if actions can be agreed upon between the World Bank and Tunisia and fulfilled by Tunisia. As set forth in this document, the World Bank specifies the actions that should be undertaken.

PART III. GAP FILLING SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES

83. To address these equivalence and acceptability gaps during the term of the project and beyond, the Government of Tunisia has agreed to the following gap filling measures:

Equivalence

84. August 1, 2006: Update, with assistance from the World Bank, the ToR for the MSW sector to incorporate all of the elements of an EMP that are stipulated in OP 4.00, Table A1. The specifications will take into consideration the conclusions of the EIA and the EMP and translate them into precise legal obligations from all pertinent diverse legislative instruments that are binding on the operator, including the obligation to undertake a periodic independent audit to ensure that the EMP is implemented in a satisfactory manner and fulfills ANPE and ANGED regulatory requirements. It is important in this regard that the register cited in the legislation on referenced establishments be put in place and approved by ANPE to permit regular monitoring.

Acceptability

. January 15, 2006: Update the EIA and EMP previously prepared for the Djebel Chekir landfill (all five containments) consistent with the requirements of Tunisian legislation and regulations (Status: Draft updates completed);

. February 1, 2006: Prepare an EMP for each of the new landfills conforming to Tunisian requirements per the 2005 EA Decree, the 1996 Law on MSW and the Administrative Order of February 28, 2001. In particular, as required by the Administrative Order, the EMP should ensure that “the operator of a waste storage, treatment or disposal facility must undertake an environmental control and monitoring program during the entire period of operation and after closure.” The content and format of this program should be elaborated based on the results of the EIAs for each separate landfill in conformity with the 2005 EA Decree, which requires that the operator spell out “a detailed [EMP] comprising proposed measures to eliminate, or minimize and compensate for adverse

19 environmental consequences and an estimate of corresponding costs” (Status: Draft EIA/EMP Updates completed);

. February 14-15, 2006: Organize consultation with and participation of interested parties and local organizations on the components of the SMMWP through a two-day seminar (“journées d’études et de réflexion”). This is an important gap-filling measure to the extent that it integrates existing legislative requirements on public consultation and disclosure that are applicable to classified facilities and land use changes into the EIA process for the MSW sector (Status: Consultation completed, see Part V);

. April 1, 2006: For the five uncontrolled landfills to be rehabilitated with World Bank financing, prepare technical studies in conformity with all applicable Tunisian legislation and regulations (Status: Work-in-progress);

. April 15, 2006: Publish a summary of the revised EIA, EMPs and technical studies on the websites of ANPE and/or ANGED to ensure the visibility of the project and that affected parties are informed. Notify the public of the availability of this information through Tunisian news media (Status: Work-in-progress); and

. September 2007: ANPE (now ANGED) previously agreed to add at least 21 dedicated equipped staff to oversee project implementation. It is important that some of these additional staff resources be incrementally deployed to regional offices and/or municipalities in order to provide sufficient resources for monitoring and compliance in the operation of the new landfills as the landfills reach full operational capacity.

Sustainability:

. Institutional and Technical Capacity Building of ANGED: As part of the SMMWP, ANGED is currently developing its new organizational structure, while continuing to operate during the actual transitional period on the basis of the structure of the former Department of Solid Waste at ANPE. The SMMWP of the World Bank is providing ANGED with the necessary technical assistance, as part of its institutional support and capacity building component. The development of the new organizational structure is intended to provide ANGED with the adequate capacity to fulfill its mandate, and also to facilitate the future evolution of this structure in the medium and long terms. Monitoring and evaluation activities will be subject to new directives and operational procedures to be developed by ANGED. Training requirements are currently being assessed, and priority training needs will be covered by the project. It should be noted that other donors, in particular, GTZ, have been and will continue to be engaged in providing technical and institutional support for the decentralization of environmental management in Tunisia. The World Bank will continue to coordinate its activities closely with those of GTZ.

. Reinforcement of the Technical Capacity of ANPE: Likewise, within the context of the SMMWP, technical assistance will be provided to ANPE, primarily with respect to: the revision of ToRs; elaboration of evaluation guidance for the MSW sector; and training of staff responsible for the evaluation of EIAs with respect to: (a) evaluation of EMPs; (b) calculation of greenhouse gas emissions; (c) integration of EA into financial and economic analysis; and (d) monitoring and supervision of EMPs.

20 . As part of a future World Bank-supported operation: Consolidate applicable elements of EA currently distributed through diverse legislative instruments into a fully coherent and integrated Environmental Code. It should be noted that preliminary work on the integration of Tunisia’s environmental legal provisions has begun under the auspices of GTZ.

PART IV. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ANPE, ANGED AND THE BANK

85. ANPE will be responsible for:

. Organization of a day of “study and reflection” In cooperation with ANGED on the results of the analysis of equivalence and acceptability and the utilization of the Tunisian national system of EA in the MSW sector;

. Consolidating applicable elements of EA currently distributed through diverse legislative instruments into a fully coherent and integrated Environmental Code; and

. Revising the MSW ToR to include, where applicable, analysis of cumulative impacts within the scope of a given project, alternatives assessment, and integration of the EA into the economic and social analysis of projects in support of sustainable development.

86. ANGED will be responsible for the following actions:

. Organization of a day of “study and reflection,” in collaboration with ANGED with respect to the revised EIA for Djebel Chekir, the EMPs for the nine regional sanitary landfills and closure and rehabilitation of existing uncontrolled landfills;

. Updating the EIA previously prepared for the Djebel Chekir landfill following the requirements of the 2005 EA Decree and MSW ToR;

. Preparing an EMP for each of the new landfills conforming to Tunisian requirements per the 2005 EA Decree, the 1996 Law on MSW and the Administrative Order of February 28, 2001;

. Undertaking technical studies consistent with applicable Tunisian legislation and with technical assistance under the auspices of METAP for the five uncontrolled landfills to be rehabilitated with World Bank financing;

. Reinforcing the control and monitoring of the operators’ environmental and social obligations by clarifying the linkage between EIA, EMP and the project specifications in the revised ToR; and

. Preparing quarterly reports on the above for the World Bank’s review.

lxxxvii. The World Bank is responsible for the following actions:

. Reviewing the updated EIA for Djebel Chekir to assess its acceptability with respect to the 2005 EA Decree and MSW ToR;

. Reviewing the draft EMPs for the nine regional controlled landfills to assess acceptability with respect to the 2005 EA Decree and MSW ToR;

21 . Attending the “study and reflection” seminar to be held under the auspices of ANGED and ANPE;

. Reviewing draft technical studies for the closure and rehabilitation of the five priority landfills;

. Reviewing environmental audits undertaken by ANGED;

. Periodic supervision of project implementation, including field visits to new landfill projects as these become operational as well as existing landfill sites undergoing rehabilitation; and

. Agreement on remedial actions to be taken by ANGED to achieve compliance.

PART V. PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE

88. For the purpose of presenting the results of the analysis of equivalence and acceptability of the Tunisian national system of EA in the municipal waste sector, a public consultation, in the form of a “journée d’études et de réflexion” took place at the Abu Nawas hotel in Tunis on February 14, 2006.

89. There were approximately 130 people in attendance, including representatives of public and private sector entities, NGOs and the media, and international donors including KfW Bankengruppe (KfW), GTZ, JICA, and the African Development Bank (AfDB).

90. Two presentations were made by ANPE and ANGED, respectively, related to the Tunisian system of EA and the SMMWP. Representatives of the World Bank introduced the context and methodology for the analysis of equivalence and acceptability of the national system of EA in the municipal waste sector and the results of this analysis as well as the gap filling measures necessary for the application of the Tunisian EA system to projects financed by the World Bank, and in particular to the World Bank-financed project for the sustainable management of municipal waste.

91. During the consultation it was concluded that the report reflects the current status of the EA system in Tunisia and that the World Bank has in fact identified the gaps between the Tunisian system and the requirements of World Bank Operational Policy 4.00 on Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address Environmental and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects.

92. The principal points raised during the consultation focused on the gaps observed between the Tunisian EA system and the requirements of the World Bank’s environmental policy. After explanation was given on the comments raised herein, the participants endorsed the content of the report.

A. STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA):

. Comment: The report did not consider in its gap analysis the role of SEA in the Government’s strategy in the solid waste management sector.

. Response: It was clarified that with respect to equivalence, SEA is not a requirement in the present legal system in Tunisia. However the report indicated that the MEDD has

22 already begun considering the introduction of this technique and the elaboration of an Environmental Code.

B. CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE WASTE MANAGEMENT CHAIN IN EA:

. Comment: The acceptability assessment and the gap analysis were focused primarily on the disposal of waste and did not consider the health impacts from the entire chain including collection, transport and recycling of waste.

. Response: It was clarified that there was information related to the impacts of upstream activities in the initial and updated EIAs but that the World Bank focused its acceptability and gap analyses on the downstream (i.e., landfill) sector because this is the component for which the World Bank is proposing supplemental financing.

. It was also noted that the revision of the ToR for MSW would include this aspect in the analysis of the diverse components of the project (collection, transport, treatment and recycling) and in the mitigation measures and EMP.

C. ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT:

. Comment: The report did not elaborate on the role of the local government (municipalities and communes) or their need for technical assistance and capacity building, in particular with respect to compliance and monitoring of the requisite environmental measures for solid waste management.

. Response: The World Bank clarified that this issue will be included as part of the final version of the report and that the accompanying technical assistance component of the SMMWP to be financed by the World Bank will include training and capacity building for the local government, including on monitoring and follow up of environmental impacts throughout the entire chain of solid waste management.

D. PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION:

. Comment: Representatives of the private sector noted their participation in the solid waste management system. However, these representatives stated that the report did not acknowledge the lack of partnership between ANPE and ANGED. The representative of the EIA consultant emphasized the importance of norms and their role in EA, and recommended an elaboration of norms and the training of consultants and experts in the waste management sector.

. Response: It was stated that communication between the three partners (ANPE, ANGED and the private sector) would improve as a result of the establishment of ANGED in August 2005 and the clarification of the respective roles of these two agencies. It was further clarified that ANPE would continue to be responsible for EIAs while monitoring and compliance would be the responsibility of both agencies. Private sector operators will undertake self-monitoring of the environmental impacts in accordance with EMP requirements, an obligation that will be incorporated into their operating services contracts.

23 E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DISSEMINATION:

. Comment: A representative of a major NGO stated that contrary to what is inferred in the report, NGOs are usually consulted in the EA process, and proposed to put in place a training program for NGOs and the elaboration of a communications strategy.

. Response: The World Bank clarified its observation that NGOs had been consulted in the process of selecting sites for the landfills but not during the formal EIA process itself. The World Bank agreed that further actions are required for ensuring the dissemination of information regarding activities in the solid waste sector and that the capacity building component of the World Bank financed SMMWP would include one sub-component entirely dedicated to consultation and public information dissemination, including project beneficiaries, the media, and NGOs as well as local government.

F. ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL DONORS IN TUNISIA:

. Comment: The report did not adequately elaborate on the important role of international donors such as GTZ and JICA in providing technical assistance for strengthening the capacity of environmental management, and in particular the Tunisian EA system. There was also a recommendation that it would be beneficial for the international donors to participate in addressing the mitigation of the gaps identified by the World Bank, especially the preparation of the Environment Code in which GTZ is already involved.

. Response: It was clarified that reference will be made in the report to the role of the international donors as related to EA and that international donors will be encouraged to support some of the proposed gap filling actions such as training and capacity building. The role of GTZ in assisting with the initial preparation of the comprehensive Environmental Code will also be recognized.

24 ANNEXES

25 ANNEX A. EQUIVALENCE TABLE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (WORLD BANK OPERATIONAL POLICY 4.00)

Relationship of Operational Principles of Agreed Gap-Filling Tunisian Legal and Institutional Framework Important Gaps Gaps to the OP 4.00 Measures SMMW Project 1. Use a screening process for each Decree 2005-1991 of July 11, 2005 (abrogating None. None. None. proposed project, as early as possible, to the dispositions of Decree 91-362 of March 14 determine the appropriate extent and type 1991) established a system of initial review of environmental assessment (EA) so that comprised of three categories, according to the appropriate studies are undertaken nature and scope of the project: proportional to potential risks… …. Annex I: Projects that require the preparation of an EIA: Category :A projects requiring an EIA to be approved by the government on a non-objection basis within 21 days;

6 Category B; projects requiring government approval on a non-objection basis within three months; and Annex II: projects not requiring an EIA but subject to sector-specific requirements specifications of environmental mitigation measures. …and to direct, and, as relevant, indirect, The 2005 EA Decree requires consideration of The EA system does not Limited, some Associated and cumulative, and associated impacts. direct and indirect impacts. It does not require require consideration of associated impacts cumulative impacts of consideration of cumulative and associated cumulative or associated are to be expected each project will be impacts. impacts. from projects in the incorporated into EA MSW sector. through Terms of However the Reference (ToRs) for the geographic various sectors, as distribution of appropriate on a case by landfills does not case basis. ANPE is in pose cumulative the process of developing impacts. revised ToRs for 24 sub- sectors which will deal with the management of cumulative or associated impacts. The ToR for the waste sector will be drafted by August 2006. Relationship of Operational Principles of Agreed Gap-Filling Tunisian Legal and Institutional Framework Important Gaps Gaps to the OP 4.00 Measures SMMW Project Use sectoral or regional environmental The EA system does not No. The None. assessment when appropriate. require sectoral or geographic regional EA. distribution of landfills is not conducive to sectoral or regional EA. 2. Assess potential impacts of the For projects requiring an EIA, physical, The legislative Global impacts are Calculations of proposed project on physical, biological, biological and sociological resources are framework for EA does limited to greenhouse gases will be socio-economic and physical cultural generally taken into account. not include trans- calculations to made part of the ToRs resources, including trans-boundary and boundary and global reduce greenhouse for EA and will be global concerns, and potential impacts on impacts. gases produced preceded by training of human health and safety. through the release staff responsible for the of methane. evaluation of EIAs in this sector. 3. Assess the adequacy of the applicable Key laws and regulations that relate directly or International conventions Within the scope of The project’s conformity

3 legal and institutional framework, indirectly to EA are the following: Law 66-27 relative to protection of the proposed with the CDM will be

6 including applicable international of April 30, 1967 (Labor Code); Law 75-16 of the environment that are project, obligations made part of the EA environmental agreements, and confirm March 31, 1975 (Water Code); Law 88-20 of ratified by Tunisia apply are limited to the under preparation by that they provide that the cooperating April 13, 1988 (Establishment of the National to project operators and management and ANGED and made government does not finance project Agency for Environmental Protection) as must be taken into calculation of the subject to review by activities that would contravene such amended by Law 1992- 115 of November 30, consideration in the reduction of ANPE. international obligations. 1992; 45 Law 94-122 of November 28, 1994 obligations of operators greenhouse gases (Code of Land Management and Urban with respect to project in conformity with Planning); Law 95-70 of July 1995 (Water and management and the Clean Soil Conservation); Decree 68-88 (Dangerous, environmental Development Unsanitary and Disagreement Establishments); protection. Mechanism of the Decree 2005-1991 of July 11, 2005 (EIA); Law Kyoto Protocol. 96-41 of June 10 1996 (Control, Management and Disposal of Waste); and Administrative Order of February 28, 2001 (Approval of Specifications establishing the Conditions and Modes of Operation for the Collection, Transport, Storage, Treatment, Disposal, Recycling and Valorization of Non-Hazardous Wastes). Tunisia has ratified numerous important international environmental agreements including those concerning the trans-boundary

45 Article 5 of this law, amended by Law 115 of 1992, defined the roles of ANPE and makes obligatory the undertaking of an EA for all activities that affect the environment. Relationship of Operational Principles of Agreed Gap-Filling Tunisian Legal and Institutional Framework Important Gaps Gaps to the OP 4.00 Measures SMMW Project shipments of waste and the Kyoto Protocol. 4. Provide for assessment of feasible None. Alternatives assessment, This is important Evaluation of alternatives investment, technical, and siting including the no-action for the will be made part of the alternatives, including the “no action” alternative, is not identification of ToRs for sectoral EA alternative, potential impacts, feasibility of required as part of the alternative prepared by ANPE. mitigating these impacts, their capital and EA process. However, it approaches for the recurrent costs, their suitability under local is required as part of the rehabilitation of conditions, and their associated Master Plan for the landfills and the institutional, training and monitoring MSW sector. reduction of requirements. greenhouse gases. 5. Where applicable to the type of project Tunisia has issued legal requirements specific None. The PPAH does None. None. being supported, normally apply the to the management and removal of solid wastes not include guidelines for Pollution Prevention and Abatement as referenced in Law 96-41 of June 10, 1996 the management of solid Handbook (PPAH). Justify deviations and its implementing provisions. Furthermore, wastes. when alternatives to measures set forth in Tunisia has issued regulations that define the PPAH are selected. national norms relative to ambient air

3 (Administrative Order of April 13, 1996), limits

6 and standards for air emissions (per Administrative Order of December 28, 1994), and the national norms relative to discharges of effluents into receiving waters (Administrative Order of July 20, 1989). 6. Prevent and, where not possible to The EA system takes into account both positive The Tunisian system is Yes. ToRs for the MSW prevent, at least minimize, or compensate and negative impacts, with a focus on not sufficiently precise sector will incorporate all for adverse project impacts and enhance mitigative measures to reduce negative impacts. with respect to the relevant elements of positive impacts through environmental Mitigation and monitoring plans and associated requirements for World Bank Operational planning and management that includes institutional requirements are treated in a Environmental Policy 4.01, Annex C: the proposed mitigation measures, general manner in EA legislation. Management Plans. Environmental monitoring, institutional capacity Management Plans. development and training measures, an implementation schedule, and cost estimates. 7. Involve stakeholders, including project- EA legislation does not require public None. Public Public consultation took affected groups and local consultation in the process of EIA preparation. consultations can place through a two day nongovernmental organizations, as early However, public consultation is required for be held for all seminar held in Tunisia, as possible, in the preparation process and projects subject to other regulations, as major components which will be followed ensure that their views and concerns are follows : of the project by publication of a made known to decision makers and taken (a) Projects described in legislation relating to including the summary of updated into account. Continue consultations “hazardous, unsanitary and disagreeable rehabilitation of EIAs and EMPs on the throughout project implementation as establishments” must submit to public existing landfills new landfills on the Relationship of Operational Principles of Agreed Gap-Filling Tunisian Legal and Institutional Framework Important Gaps Gaps to the OP 4.00 Measures SMMW Project necessary to address EA-related issues dissemination of information and public by virtue of laws websites of ANPE and/or that affect them. consultation regarding the proposed project. and regulations ANGED. Article 5 of Decree 68-88 of March 28, 1968 applicable to stipulates that any request for project hazardous, implementation subject to this legislation must unsanitary and include prior notification of the affected public disagreeable and that such public shall have one month to establishments and comment. Public comments are to be to the use of land transmitted to the authorizing agency for action. assets within the On the basis of such comments the Minister can framework of local impose mitigation measures to protect the and regional environment and to ensure that measures for the development protection of public health are developed before activities. project implementation; an. (b) Projects relating to land development (Law 94-122 of November 28, 1994). Article 16

3 requires a lengthy and detailed period of

6 consultation for any project involving land management or modification. Following consultation with responsible agencies and local authorities, public notification of the project takes place for a two month period to permit affected populations to comment. 8. Use independent expertise in the Decree 2005-1991 of July 11, 2005 (Article 2) Tunisia’s EA regulations Limited. In Competent consulting preparation of EA where appropriate. Use requires that EIAs be prepared by competent do not require that expert practice, EIAs are firms independent of the independent advisory panels during expert consultants. consultants be conducted by prospective landfill preparation and implementation of independent from project independent operators are conducting projects that are highly risky or sponsors. There is no Tunisian and all EIAs. contentious or that involve serious and provision for expert international multi-dimensional environmental and/or panels to advise consulting firms. social concerns. authorities on EA for The project does complex projects. not present sufficient risks, points of controversy or complexities to justify the creation of an expert panel. 9. Provide measures to link the Within the Tunisian legal framework, the EA Integration of the results Yes. The thorough integration environmental assessment process and process is generally limited to technical of EA into project of the results of the EA findings with studies of economic, analysis of the project and the analysis of financial and economic and the financial and Relationship of Operational Principles of Agreed Gap-Filling Tunisian Legal and Institutional Framework Important Gaps Gaps to the OP 4.00 Measures SMMW Project financial, institutional, social and technical related costs. Decree 2005-1991 requires that analysis is limited. economic analyses of the analyses of a proposed project. the project sponsor estimate the costs associated project would require the with the elimination, reduction of and training: (a) of consulting compensation for environmental impacts. firms responsible for the preparation of feasibility studies for the project; (b) sectoral ministries; and (c) officials responsible for review of the EAs. These gaps will be filled as part of the institutional capacity development component of the project. 10. Provide for application of the Subprojects financed by a financial None. None. None. principles in this Table to subprojects intermediary, such as national banks through

3 under investment and financial lines of credit, are treated in the same manner

6 intermediary activities. as projects financed directly by public or private sector entities. The current EA Decree does not authorize the delegation of a legal function to third party. 11. Disclose draft EA in a timely manner, Dissemination of the EIA may be undertaken as Under the EA legislation, Yes. Public dissemination of before appraisal formally begins, in an part of the public consultations provided for in the public dissemination project information is accessible place and in a form and Decree 68-88 and Law 94-22. of the EIA is not mandatory under Decree language understandable to key mandatory. Public 68-88 and Law 94-22. stakeholders. disclosure requirements Dissemination of the EA included in other has been undertaken by: legislation referenced but (a) the presentation of the not clearly integrated EA during the “days of into the EA process. study and reflection” provided for principal parties affected by the project, and wlll be further undertaken through: (b) publication of the major findings of the EA on the ANPE and ANGED websites (when the latter is operational). ANNEX B. ACCEPTABILITY ASSESSMENT OF EA CONDUCTED BY ANPE FOR MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTES FOR THE GOUVERNORAT OF KAIROUAN (WORLD BANK OPERATIONAL POLICY 4.00)

Gaps relative Gap–Filling Operational Principles Applicable Tunisian to Tunisian Measures Implementation per OP 4.00 Legal & Regulatory Framework laws and Agreed for regulations SMMWP 1. Use a screening process for Decree 91-362 of March 13, 1991 (1991 EA The EIA satisfies the The EIA did EIA updates each proposed project, as Decree) (since superseded by Decree 2005-1991 requirements of Annex I but not describe make explicit early as possible, to of July 11, 2005): without explicit reference to any the basis on reference to determine the appropriate Annex I: Projects that require the preparation of screening process. which the nature and extent and type of an EIA; and: project was extent of environmental assessment Annex II: projects not requiring an EIA but determined to environmental (EA) so that appropriate subject to the requirement to submit summary be subject to risks so as to studies are undertaken descriptions of the project, including anticipated Annex I of the justify proportional to potential risks. environmental impacts and proposed mitigation 1991 EA appropriate measures. Decree. extent and type

6 of EA under the 2005 EA Decree. and to direct, and, as relevant, indirect, The 1991 EA Decree required analysis of direct The EIA included consideration None. None. cumulative, and associated impacts and indirect impacts (Art.8, Para. 3) but not of both direct and indirect cumulative or associated impacts. impacts on the surrounding environment and waste management practices throughout the service area. Use sectoral or regional environmental Use of sectoral and regional EA is not required in Although not required by the None. None. assessment when appropriate. the Tunisian EA system. 1991 EA Decree, the EIA was effectively a region-wide study which took into account the solid waste flows of smaller communities in the region as well as the municipality of Kairouan and the synergies among these communities. 2. Assess potential impacts of the The 1991 EA Decree required assessment of The EIA assessed project None. Greenhouse proposed project on physical, impacts on the physical setting; , the landscape; impacts on soils;, surface waters; gas impacts biological, socio-economic and the natural resources and the natural groundwater; air; quality will be physical cultural resources, including environment; biological equilibrium;, the (including odor); flora; fauna; included in trans-boundary and global concerns, standard of living; hygiene and public health; and natural formations (dunes), revised ToR and potential impacts on human health on the comfort and convenience of neighboring existing roads; public services for EIAs in the Gaps relative Gap–Filling Operational Principles Applicable Tunisian to Tunisian Measures Implementation per OP 4.00 Legal & Regulatory Framework laws and Agreed for regulations SMMWP and safety. inhabitants with respect to noise,; vibration,; (including the supply of electric MSW. odors,; and luminosity. power); noise; aesthetics; historical sites; public heath, socio-economic conditions; aesthetic surroundings; and habitations. 3. Assess the adequacy of the Key laws and regulations in effect when the EIA The EIA referenced the 1991 EA None. The EIA References to applicable legal and institutional was conducted included the following: Law 66- Decree and a Protocol went beyond applicable framework, including applicable 27 of April 30, 1967 (Labor Code); Law 75-16 of Agreement between the Ministry the Tunisian international environmental March 31, 1975 (Water Code); Law 88-20 of of Interior and Local requirements legislative agreements, and confirm that they April 13, 1988 (Establishment of the National Government and the Ministry of of the 1991 EA framework provide that the cooperating Agency for Environmental Protection Agency) as Environment and Land Use Decree in will be government does not finance project amended by Law 115-1992 of November 30, Planning of July 13, 1993 making included in activities that would contravene such 1992; 46 Law 94-122 of November 28, 1994 designating the National references to project in international obligations. (Code of Land Management and Urban Sanitation Office as the relevant revised ToR

3 6 Planning); Law 95-70 of July 1995 (Water and implementing agency for the Tunisian laws and future Soil Conservation); and Decree 68-88 National Program for the and EIAs in the (Dangerous, Unsanitary and Disagreement Management of Solid Waste. international MSW. Establishments). The EIA also referenced standards. secondary sources on applicable Tunisia has ratified numerous important Tunisian domestic and international environmental agreements including international law. those concerning the trans-boundary shipments of waste and the Kyoto Protocol. 4. Provide for assessment of feasible Decree 91-362 (Article 9, Para. 4) required the The EIA included an None relative A more robust investment, technical, and siting EIA to include consideration of the technical environmental and economic to the alternatives alternatives, including the “no action” rationale and justifications for the selection of the alternatives analysis of different requirements assessment alternative, potential impacts, project and the process used by the proponent to waste composition alternatives of the 1991 EA will be feasibility of mitigating these impacts, take account of environmental impacts. The “no- (semi-compacted; compacted Decree. included in the their capital and recurrent costs, their action” alternative was not required to be and composted waste) and of revised ToR suitability under local conditions, and included; nor were the capital and recurrent costs alternative technologies for for the MSW the institutional, training and or their corresponding institutional, training and containment of waste sector and in monitoring requirements associated monitoring requirements. (impermeable soils; geo- the EIAs and with them. membrane or asphalt liner). It technical did not include an analysis of studies related alternative sites for the landfill. to the future This analysis was conducted land use of prior to the EIA in the context of existing

46 Article 5 of this law, amended by Law 92-115, defined the roles of ANPE and makes obligatory the undertaking of an EA for all activities that affect the environment. Gaps relative Gap–Filling Operational Principles Applicable Tunisian to Tunisian Measures Implementation per OP 4.00 Legal & Regulatory Framework laws and Agreed for regulations SMMWP the Master Planning process and landfills to be was based largely on technical closed and and economic rather than rehabilitated. environmental considerations. 5. Where applicable to the type of At the time the EIA was conducted Tunisia had The EIA cited ANPE summary None relative The ToR for project being supported, normally not issued specific legislation on the management of principal then-applicable texts to the the SMMWP apply the Pollution Prevention and and discharge of solid waste. Relevant legal regulating the environment in requirements will make Abatement Handbook (PPAH). Justify requirements in effect at the time included norms Tunisia and the Water Code as of the EA reference to deviations when alternatives to relative to ambient air (Administrative Order of well as well as French, EU and Decree. applicable measures set forth in the PPAH are April 13, 1996), limits and standards for air US legislation on solid wastes. However, the Tunisian and selected. emissions (per Administrative Order of EIA did not international December 28, 1994), and the Tunisian technical integrate performance norms relative to discharges of effluents into Tunisian and standards receiving waters (Administrative Order of July other relevant where relevant. 20, 1989). national

6 performance standards into the assessment. 6. Prevent and, where not possible to Decree 91-362 required the EIA to include The EIA included a detailed The EMP did Institutional prevent, at least minimize, or measures to eliminate, reduce and if possible, description of mitigative not include an capacity and compensate for adverse project compensate for adverse impacts of the project on measures for all phases of the assessment of human impacts and enhance positive impacts the environment as well as estimate the costs project including collection, institutional resource through environmental management corresponding to these measures. transfer; compaction; landfill and human training needs and planning that includes the construction, containment of resource of ANGED are proposed mitigation measures, wastes; treatment and training needs being monitoring, institutional capacity containment of runoff, worker for addressed development and training measures, an protection, monitoring; closure management through a US$ implementation schedule, and cost and revegetation; along with of the 3 million estimates. implementation and cost environmental World Bank estimates. impacts of the loan to the landfill. project as well as continuing capacity building activities through METAP. 7. Involve stakeholders, including The 1991 EA Decree did not require public There is no documented record There appears Tunisia has project-affected groups and local consultation during the EIA preparation process. of public consultation with to be a instituted Gaps relative Gap–Filling Operational Principles Applicable Tunisian to Tunisian Measures Implementation per OP 4.00 Legal & Regulatory Framework laws and Agreed for regulations SMMWP nongovernmental organizations, as However, the landfill project was subject to other respect to the EIA conducted for significant gap procedures for early as possible, in the preparation legislation that required public consultation: the project or implementation of with respect to public process and ensure that their views (a) Decree 68-88 of March 28, 1968 relating to public disclosure requirements the consultation and concerns are made known to “hazardous, unsanitary facilities” provided in its under legislation regarding implementation and disclosure decision makers and taken into article 5 that any request to implement such a classified plants or land use of relevant in the form of account. Continue consultations project would be disclosed in its area of changes. legal public a two day throughout project implementation as influence, and the public would be granted a one consultation seminar, necessary to address EA-related month period to comment on the project and requirements February 14- issues that affect them. public comments would be forwarded to the relating to 15, 2006. The permitting agency for action. Based on these classified revised ToR public comments, the Minister was authorized to facilities or for the MSW impose mitigation measures to satisfy land use sector will environment, safety and health requirements changes. include before the project could be implemented. provisions for (b) Article 16 of Law 94-122 of 28 November public

3 6 1994 relating to land use planning provided for a consultation lengthy and comprehensive consultation process and disclosure for any project land use likely to modify existing of EIAs as land uses. In addition to a wide consultation with required by all agencies and local government, the Master Tunisian law. Plan would be disclosed during a two -month period during which affected people and the public at large could comment on it. 8. Use independent expertise in the Decree 91-362 did not address the qualifications The EIA was prepared by a joint None. The revised preparation of EA where appropriate. or independence of EA practitioners. venture of independent EA Decree Use independent advisory panels consulting firms including 2005-1991 of during preparation and MEDIEN (Tunisia); Sadat July 11, 2005 implementation of projects that are Associates and Camp, Dresser & (Article 2) highly risky or contentious or that McKee (both of the United requires that involve serious and multi-dimensional States). EIAs be environmental and/or social concerns. prepared by qualified experts. Independent Tunisian consulting firms are preparing revised EIAs Gaps relative Gap–Filling Operational Principles Applicable Tunisian to Tunisian Measures Implementation per OP 4.00 Legal & Regulatory Framework laws and Agreed for regulations SMMWP for Djebel Chekir, EMPs for the new controlled landfills and technical studies for closure and rehabilitation of existing landfills. 9. Provide measures to link the Decree 91-362 did not require EIAs to include Although not required by the EA None. Full environmental assessment process and linkages to other studies. Decree, the EIA made reference integration of findings with studies of economic, to the National Program for the EA results financial, institutional, social and Solid Waste Management as the into the project

6 technical analyses of a proposed appropriate context for a site- financial and project. specific EIA. economic analysis requires training of: (a) consulting firms that prepare the feasibility studies of projects; (b) the sector ministries; and (c) environmental evaluators. These gaps will be addressed in institutional capacity building component of the project. Gaps relative Gap–Filling Operational Principles Applicable Tunisian to Tunisian Measures Implementation per OP 4.00 Legal & Regulatory Framework laws and Agreed for regulations SMMWP 10. Provide for application of the Tunisian EA legislation made no distinction None. None. None. principles in this Table to subprojects between subprojects financed through financial under investment and financial intermediaries and stand alone projects. There intermediary activities. were no provisions for delegation of any regulatory function to a third party 11. Disclose draft EA in a timely The public disclosure requirements mandated by There is no record of public There appears Disclosure of manner, before appraisal formally Decree 68-88 and Law 94-22 (as summarized disclosure of the draft or final to be a summaries of begins, in an accessible place and in a above) were referenced in the EA Decree and EIA. significant gap revised EIA form and language understandable to applicable to the project. with respect to for Djebel key stakeholders. the Chekir landfill, implementation EMPs for of relevant existing legal public landfills and consultation technical requirements studies for

6 relating to closure and classified rehabilitation facilities or of existing land use landfills will changes. be posted on ANPE and ANGED websites prior to public consultation meetings. The revised ToR for the MSW sector will include provisions for public consultation and disclosure of EIAs as required by Tunisian law.

ANNEX C. PROGRAMMATIC ACHIEVEMENTS: SOLID WASTE SECTOR

As of 2001, total production of waste in Tunisia was estimated at 2.3 million tons, of which 1.74 million tons consisted of domestic waste. Municipal waste collection services reached 95 percent of the population in urban areas and 90 percent in rural areas. Approximately 34 percent of the country’s population had access to sanitary landfills, which handled approximately 40 percent of the country’s municipal wastes. All other collected municipal waste (along with other wastes including hazardous and medical wastes) is discharged into uncontrolled dumps, lacking containment structures or management systems for runoff or leachate.47

For neighboring communities, these uncontrolled dumps are a significant and growing source of air pollution from spontaneous fires and dust, noxious odors, pollution of adjacent surface and ground waters; and sanitary nuisances and risks from rodent and insects for neighboring communities. Limited landfill capacity leads to results in upstream bottlenecks at collection and transfer stations with the result that garbage remains visible on the streets in many urban centers. Tunisia’s increased affluence and consumption of disposable products, in particular plastics, are a contributing factor to the growing volume of municipal waste products.48

In 1993 the Ministry of Environment and Land Use Planning launched PRONAGDES in order to address the impacts generated by these wastes and to improve their management, through an integrated sectoral approach from production of waste, through collection, transport, elimination and treatment. The principal objectives of PRONAGDES are:

 Prevention and reduction of production of waste and its hazards;  Valorization of waste by reuse, recycling and other actions to recover usable materials;  Storage and treatment of waste in appropriate installations;  Promotion of new technologies in the waste management sector; and  Promotion of private enterprise in the management of wastes.

Initially, ONAS was designated as the lead implementing agency for the PRONAGDES program for the development and operation of controlled landfills in the major municipalities of each gouvernorat.49 However, in January 2000 an inter-ministerial committee assigned this responsibility to ANPE.50

Within the framework of PRONAGDES, Master Plans for the Management of Solid Wastes have been undertaken for all 24 gouvernorats.

Five relatively small (15 to 55 tons per day) controlled landfills for household and other nonhazardous waste have been constructed for the regions of metropolitan Tunis, Béja, Siliana, Jendouba and Medjez el Bab, all of which have been operational since early 1999. A pilot composting plant (1000 tons/year) has operated in Béja since early 1998. All of these facilities are undergoing or are planned to undergo expansion.

The closure and rehabilitation into 30 hectares of urban parkland of a portion of the uncontrolled landfill at Henchir El Yahoudia in Tunis has been completed.

With funding from EIB and KfW nine new controlled landfills and 40 associated regional sorting and transfer stations are nearing completion or under construction.

A central unit for treatment of hazardous waste is being constructed at Jradou in the gouvernorat of Zaghouan with financing from KfW. Recycling programs for packaging wastes (“Eco-Lef”) and used oils and filters (“Eco-Zit”) were launched between 1997 and 2002. Projects planned for the near future including three additional controlled landfills (Zaghouan, Madhia and Tozeur) and a second controlled landfill for Tunis.

47 Tunisia CEA, p. 36. 48 Approximately five percent of household waste is recycled. Fifty percent of packaging wastes are separated and recycled. 49 Protocol Agreement between the Ministry of Interior, and the Ministry of Environment and Land Use Planning, July 12, 1993. 50 http://www.anpe.nat.tn.

37 LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

Agence Nationale de Protection de l’Environnement (ANPE), Département des Déchets Solides,; Réalisation d’Une Décharge Contrôlée pour l’Elimination des Déchets Ménagers du Gouvernorat de Nabeul, Etude de l’Impact sur l’Environnement, Geo-Environnement Tunisie, Juillet 2004.

Ahmad and Wood, “A Comparative Evaluation of the EIA systems in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 22 (2002).

ANPE, Diagnostic et caractérisation environnementale des dépotoirs sauvages et élaboration des dossiers d’appel d’offres en vue de leur réhabilitation, Phase 1 Diagnostic de la situation actuelle, Volume 1, Rapport, October 2004.

ANPE, Programme National de Gestion de Déchets Solides (PRONAGDES), Etude sur la Gestion des Déchets Solides dans le Gouvernorat du Grand Bizerte; Mission A: Etude et Recherches des Sites, Sadat Associates-Camp Dresser & McKee, Méditerranéenne Internationale de l’Environnement, December 1997.

Arif, S. and M. Bekhechi, “Use of Country Systems for Environmental Assessment Policies in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia,” May 19, 2005.

Bekhechi, M., “Evaluation and Future Development of the EIA System in Tunisia,” December 2000.

Bekhechi, M., “Tunisian Harmonization Analysis,” December 11, 2003.

Chikhaoui, Leila, “Cadre Juridique et Institutionnel du Secteur des Services en Tunisie,” November 2004.

El-Fadl, “Comparative Assessment of EIA systems in MENA Countries: Challenges and Prospects,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol 24 (2004).

Jamei, M., M. Janayah, and M. Ferchichi, “[The] Tunisian Experience in Landfill Projects: Jebel Chekir – A Typical Case,” International Workshop on Hydro-Physico Mechanics of Landfills, Grenoble, March 2005.

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), “Country Profile on Tunisia,” February 2002.

Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, “Sustainability Impact Assessment Study of the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area: The Evolving Economic, Social and Environmental Conditions in Mediterranean Partner Countries,” June 2005.

Lahlou, Abderrafi Abid, “Capacity Building for the Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework,” United Nations Environment Programme, December 15, 2005.

METAP (GTZ-ERM-GKW), Rapport du Pays- TUNISIE (Final), January 15, 2004.

METAP/University of Manchester, “Evaluation and future development of the EIA system in Tunisia,” December 2000.

Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Environnement et des Ressources Hydrauliques, Etude de l’Evolution biologique et de l’impact de quatre décharges publiques en Tunisie, Centre International des Technologies de l’Environnement de Tunis (CITET)-Centre Wallon de Biologie Industriel, Rapport Intermédiaire, March 2003.

Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Aménagement du Territoire, Agence Nationale de Protection de l’Environnement (ANPE), Etude Sur la Gestion des Déchets Solides dans le District de Tunis; 2éme

38 Phase: Etude de Faisabilité, Rapport 3: Etude d’Impact sur l’Impact sur l’Environnement, Edition Définitive, October 1994.

Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Aménagement du Territoire, Agence Nationale de Protection de l’Environnement (ANPE), Programme National de Gestion de Déchets Solides, (PRONAGDES), Etude d’Impact de la Décharge Contrôlée de Bizerte, Sadat Associates-Camp Dresser & McKee, Méditerranéenne Internationale de l’Environnement, February 1999.

Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Aménagement du Territoire, Agence Nationale de Protection de l’Environnement (ANPE), Etude sur la Gestion des Déchets Solides, Gouvernorat de Kairouan, Etude d’Impact du Schéma Directeur de Gestion des Déchets Solides, July 1996.

Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Aménagement du Territoire, Agence Nationale de Protection de l’Environnement (ANPE), Programme National de Gestion de Déchets Solides (PRONAGDES), Etude d’Exécution de l’Unité de Compostage des Ordures Ménagères de Sousse, Etude d’Impact, SWECO International AB (Stockholm)/Méditerranéenne Internationale de l’Environnement, January 1999.

Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Aménagement du Territoire, Agence Nationale de Protection de l’Environnement (ANPE), Programme National de Gestion de Déchets Solides (PRONAGDES), Etude d’Impact du Schéma Directeur d’Elimination des Déchets Solides; Gouvernorat de Jerba, Sadat Associates-Camp Dresser & McKee, Méditerranéenne Internationale de l’Environnement, June 1996.

Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Aménagement du Territoire, Office National d’Assainissement, Etude sur la Gestion des Déchets Solides, Gouvernorat de Kairouan, Schéma Directeur; Partie 2: Etude Comparative des Schémas de Gestion et Présentation de la Variante Retenue, Sadat Associates- Camp Dresser & McKee, Méditerranéenne Internationale de l’Environnement, June 1996.

Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Aménagement du Territoire, Office National d’Assainissement, de l’Assainissement, Programme National de Gestion de Déchets Solides (PRONAGDES), Etude de Gestion des Déchets Solides dans la Ville de Sfax; Etape A5: Etude d’Impact, SGI Ingénieur-Serah, July 1996.

Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Aménagement du Territoire, Office National d’Assainissement; Etude sur la Gestion des Déchets Solides, Gouvernorat de Mahdia; Schéma Directeur; Partie 3 Annexes, Sadat Associates-Camp Dresser & McKee, Méditerranéenne Internationale de l’Environnement, June 1996.

Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Aménagement du Territoire, Office National d’Assainissement; Etude sur la Gestion des Déchets Solides, Gouvernorat de Mahdia; Schéma Directeur; Partie & Situations Actuelle; Données de Base et Evaluation des Technologies de Gestion des Déchets Solides, Sadat Associates-Camp Dresser & McKee, Méditerranéenne Internationale de l’Environnement, December 1995.

Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Aménagement du Territoire, Office National d’Assainissement; Etude sur la Gestion des Déchets Solides, Etude sur l’Impact sur l’Environnement du Site de la Décharge Contrôlée; Commune de Gabes; Données de Base et Evaluation des Technologies de Gestion des Déchets Solides, Sadat Associates-Camp Dresser & McKee, Méditerranéenne Internationale de l’Environnement, September 1995.

Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Aménagement du Territoire, Office National d’Assainissement, Programme National de Gestion de Déchets Solides (PRONAGDES), Projet de Décharge Contrôlée du Gouvernorat De Monastir située à Menzel Harb, Rapport Technique d’Exécution, Fichtner, Stuttgart, 1995.

39 Office National d’Assainissement, Office National de l’Assainissement, Programme National de Gestion de Déchets Solides (PRONAGDES), Décharge Contrôlée; Choix de Site, Sousse, Fichtner (Stuttgart), STUDI (Tunis), 1995.

Office National d’Assainissement, Office National de l’Assainissement, Programme National de Gestion de Déchets Solides (PRONAGDES), Décharge Contrôlée; Choix de Site, Monastir, Fichtner (Stuttgart), STUDI (Tunis), 1995.

Programme National de Gestion de Déchets Solides en Tunisie,; Etude d’impact sur l’environnement, Monastir, Fichtner (Stuttgart), STUDI (Tunis), 1995.

République Tunisienne, Ministère de Environnement et du Développement Durable, Agence Nationale de Protection de l’Environnement (ANPE), Etude d’Impact sur l’Environnement du 5ème casier de la décharge contrôlée de Jebel Chekir, Août 2005 (Société d’Engineering et de Réalisations Industrielles (Tunis), August 2005.

République Tunisienne, Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Environnement et des Ressources Hydrauliques; Agence Nationale de Protection de l’Environnement (ANPE), Etude sur la gestion des lixiviats dans les décharges contrôlées des les centres de transfert y afférents dans les régions de Bizerte; Sousse; Nabeul; Monastir; Gabes; Medenine; Kairouan; Sfax et Jerba, Phase 1 Avant Projet Sommaire et Avant Projet Detaille, Etape: Avant Projet Sommaire (Rapport Provisoire), TPE-Ingénieur Buro Roth & Partner (Tunis), April 2004.

République Tunisienne, Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Environnement et des Ressources Hydrauliques; Agence Nationale de Protection de l’Environnement (ANPE), Programme National de Gestion de Déchets Solides (PRONAGDES), Etude d’Impact du Schéma Directeur d’Elimination des Déchets Solides, Gouvernorat de Medenine, Sadat Associates-Camp Dresser & McKee, Méditerranéenne Internationale de l’Environnement, June 1996.

SOMAGED (Société Maghrébine de Gestion et d’Elimination des Déchets); Exploitation de la Décharge de Djebel Chekir, Rapport. Mensuel Relatif Au Mois de Juillet 2005 (No. 63).

Steinemann, A., “Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment,” EIA Review, 12 (2001) pp. 3-21.

World Bank (Middle East and North Africa Region/ Water, Environment, Rural and Social Development Unit), “Tunisia, Country Environmental Analysis (1992-2003), Final Report, April 2004,” (Report No. TN-255866).

World Bank (Middle East and North Africa Region/Water, Environment and Social Development Unit), “Tunisia: Country Environmental Analysis (1992-2003),” Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Project.

World Bank (Middle East North Africa Region, Rural Development, Water and Environment Unit), “Guidance for the Preparation and Review of Environmental Impact Assessment, October 2000.”

World Bank Sourcebook Update No. 17, “Analysis of Alternatives in Environmental Assessment,” December 1996.

Zghidi, Mohamed, “Tunisie: Projet d’Appui a la Gestion Intégrée des Déchets Solides, Mission de Pré- Evaluation: Evaluation Sociale,” August 2005.