INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE

I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 01/29/2009 Report No.: AC4166 Public Disclosure Authorized 1. Basic Project Data Country: Armenia Project ID: P115486 Project Name: LIFELINE ROADS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Task Team Leader: Christopher R. Bennett Estimated Appraisal Date: January 14, Estimated Board Date: February 24, 2009 2009 Managing Unit: ECSSD Lending Instrument: Emergency Recovery Loan Sector: Roads and highways (100%) Theme: Rural services and infrastructure (P);Other rural development (S) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 0.00 IDA Amount (US$m.): 25.00 Public Disclosure Authorized GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: BORROWER/RECIPIENT 5.20 5.20 Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) Yes [X] No [ ] or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies)

2. Project Objectives Public Disclosure Authorized The project objective is to upgrade selected sections of the lifeline road network and create temporary employment in road construction.

3. Project Description The Project has two components: Component 1: Rehabilitation of the Lifeline Road Network (US$ 27.9million including contingencies): Rehabilitation of approximately 100 km of the lifeline road network. These road sections are located in the seven different Marzes of the country and their lengths vary between 1 and 14 km. The component includes: (i) civil works for road rehabilitation; (ii) consultancy services for the supervision and technical auditing of rehabilitation works; (iii) updating of the original MCA financed 2007 designs and environmental documents to meet the requirements of the project; and, (iv) project implementation expenses including but not limited to funding project audits, incremental

Public Disclosure Authorized operational implementation costs and additional costs for intensified project supervision.

Component 2: Technical Assistance (US$ 2.2million including contingencies): The project will also include technical assistance for strengthening of road sector capacity. Including but not limited to (i) a study to review low cost pavement options for Armenia which will explore different options for different pavement types and ways to increase labor based activities; (ii) a vehicle; and (iii) related training.

4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis About 100km of local roads to be rehabilitated under the project are located in seven regions, namely, Aragatsotn, Armavir, Shirak, Gegharkunik, Lori, Tavush, and Vayots- Dzor. The detailed list of the road sections to be rehabilitated is provided below:

1. Vardenut-link to M3 Highway (3.5km) 2 Aygeshat-Janfida (3.5km) 3 Lernakert-link to M1 Highway (3.8km) 4 Voskehask-link to M7 Highway (2km) 5 Karchaghbyur-link to M11 Highway (1.3km) 6 Akunk-Vardenis (2.1km) 7 Chkalov-link to M6 Highway (2.4km) 8 Dzoragyugh-link to M10 Highway (5km) 9 Geghanist-Horom (12.3km) 10 Voghji-link to M1 Highway (14.2km) 11 Aygabats-Gyumri (10.4km) 12 Zorakert-Ardenis-Aghvorik-Tavshut-link to M1 Highway (10.1km) 13 L.Karmiraghbyur-Berd (7.2km) 14 Chochkan-Pokr Ayrum (7.9km) 15 Kurtan-Gyulakarak (8.1km) 16 Aghavnadzor-link to M2 Highway (6km)

5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Ms Darejan Kapanadze (ECSSD) Mr Satoshi Ishihara (ECSSD)

6. Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) X Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) X Forests (OP/BP 4.36) X Pest Management (OP 4.09) X Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) X Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) X Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) X Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) X Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) X Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) X II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues 1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: The project is not expected to have significant impact on the environment. All planned physical works are limited to rehabilitation of the existing alignments. All project roads are local roads connecting villages with secondary or primary roads whose main function is to provide basic access, and the rehabilitation will not induce immediate or mid-term land development of a significant scale. Therefore, negative social and environmental impacts of the project will be of minor scope and duration and typical for any small scale road rehabilitation activity, while the long term social impact will be positive.

An Environmental Management Framework is being developed for the project, which will provide general guidelines for applying environmentally sound practices to local roads rehabilitation. Site-specific EMPs were prepared for 14 of the 16 road sections in the project some time ago. They are now being revised to reflect current implementation arrangements. These site-specific EMPs specify environmental risks associated with rehabilitation works to be carried out in the respective locations, recommend respective mitigation measures, and provide monitoring schemes for tracking adherence to the mitigation plans. Adherence to the EMPs in the course of civil works will be sufficient for keeping environmental impacts of the project at the acceptable minimum level. EMPs also contain sections to confirm absence of land acquisition and other impact that would trigger OP 4.12. EMPs also include measures to be taken against short-term negative social impacts such as temporary loss of access.

2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: No indirect and long term negative impacts are anticipated due to future activities in the project area.

3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. Considering project alternatives was not relevant, as the proposed project does not include a new development. It will improve the existing network of roads critically important for rural livelihood.

Sections of roads, rehabilitation of which would require land acquisition, were excluded from financing.

4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard policy issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. The Ministry of Transport and Communication (MOTC), as owner of the lifeline road network and policy making authority, will have the overall responsibility for implementation of the project. The MOTC will delegate day-to-day implementation of the project to the existing Transport Projects Implementation Unit State Agency (PIU) under the Ministry of Transport and Communication of Armenia. The PIU is governed by a Project Management Board chaired by the MOTC and comprised of stakeholder ministries and Government agencies.

The PIU was established to implement development projects financed by the Bank and Government of Armenia and is currently managing a PHRD grant financed Railways Restructuring project. The PIU is adequately staffed and has the capacity to address all aspects of the project implementation, including safeguard compliance.

The civil works will be supervised by a consulting firm commissioned by PIU. Along with other responsibilities, this firm will be assigned to track compliance if civil works contractors with the Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) and will monitor implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. The PIU will provide general oversight of the environmental compliance by regular checking and ensuring quality of the works supervisor and by direct involvement into any outstanding environmental issues identified by the supervisor.

5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. The Environmental Management Framework is disclosed through the national media and the public consultation will be carried out on January 22, 2009. After the consultation meeting the document will be re-disclosed in-country and posted at the Bank’s Infoshop.

Site-specific EMPs prepared for the sections of roads covered by the project will be made available for project-affected communities and discussed with them in stakeholder meetings to be held in several locations of the country prior to commencement of works.

B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 01/20/2009 Date of "in-country" disclosure 01/22/2009 Date of submission to InfoShop 01/29/2009 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive

Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Pest Management Plan: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop * If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources, the respective issues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of the Environmental Assessment/Audit/or EMP. If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why:

C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (to be filled in when the ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting)

OP/BP/GP 4.01 - Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? Yes If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) Yes review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the Yes credit/loan? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank’s Yes Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a Yes form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? All Safeguard Policies Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities Yes been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project Yes cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the Yes monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the Yes borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? D. Approvals

Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Mr Christopher R. Bennett 01/17/2009 Environmental Specialist: Ms Darejan Kapanadze 01/18/2009 Social Development Specialist Mr Satoshi Ishihara 01/17/2009 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Ms Agnes I. Kiss 01/18/2009 Comments: Sector Manager: Mr Olivier P. Le Ber 01/21/2009 Comments: