INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 05/19/2010 Report No.: AC5330 Public Disclosure Authorized 1. Basic Project Data Original Project ID: P115486 Original Project Name: LIFELINE ROADS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Country: Armenia Project ID: P121287 Project Name: LIFELINE ROADS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - 2ND ADDL. FIN. Task Team Leader: Olivier P. Le Ber Estimated Appraisal Date: May 26, 2010 Estimated Board Date: July 15, 2010 Managing Unit: ECSSD Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Roads and highways (96%);Public administration- Transportation (4%) Theme: Rural services and infrastructure (100%) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 40.00 Public Disclosure Authorized IDA Amount (US$m.): 0.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: Borrower 9.88 9.88 Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [X] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) Yes [ ] No [X] or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies) Public Disclosure Authorized 2. Project Objectives The Project Development Objective of the proposed second Additional Financing (LRIP- AF2) is the same as under the original Lifeline Roads Improvement Project (LRIP) and the first Additional Financing (LRIP-AF1), which is to upgrade selected sections of the Lifeline Road Network (LRN) and create temporary employment in road construction. 3. Project Description The proposed LRIP-AF2 would rehabilitate about 190km of additional lifeline roads. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis The LRIP-AF2 will rehabilitate road sections in seven regions, namely: Lori, Armavir, Tavush, Gegarquniq, Kotayk, Aragatcotn and Sunik marzes. All roads are new additions Public Disclosure Authorized to the project. All civil works will be conducted within the existing Right of Way (RoW). Below is the detailed list of road sections to be rehabilitated under the project. 1. M3-Metsavan (8.5km) 2. M5-Amasia-Nalbandyan-Janfida-Pshatavan (14.45km) 3. Armavir-Noravan-Lukashin-Khanjyan (6.6km) 4. M5-Nor Kesaria-Shenavan-Getashen (6.7km) 5. Chinari-Aygedzor-Artsvaberd-Verin Karmir Aghbyur-Berd (32.5km) 6. Berd-Navur-Itsakar (11.06km) 7. T-4 -16 Gavar-Noratus (2.14km) 8. Artsvakar region-Gavar-Karmirgyugh (9.2km) 9. Ddmashen-Zovaber-Hrazdan (5.5km) 10. M10-Lchashen (1.7km) 11. M10-Nerkin Getashen-Verin Getashen-Madina (10.18km) 12. M1-Balahovit-Mayakovski-Aramus-Katnaghbyur-Akunk-Zar-Sevaberd (6.8km) 13. M1-Balahovit-Mayakovski-Aramus-Katnaghbyur-Akunk-Zar-Sevaberd (7.8km) 14. Mayakovski-Nor Gyugh-Kotayk-Kaputan-Hatis-Zovashen (19.8km) 15. Aramus-Kamaris-Geghashen-Saranist (6.3km) 16. M1 - Agarak-Byuarakan-Antarut (8.65km) 17. Mastara-Dzoragyugh-Zovasar-Garnahovit (6.0km) 18. Mastara-Dzoragyugh-Zovasar-Garnahovit (3.24km) 19. Agarak-Karchevan (4.04km) 20. M2-Halidzor (12.0km) 21. Talin-Dashtade (6.0km) 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Ms Darejan Kapanadze (ECSS3) Mr Satoshi Ishihara (ECSS4) 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 proposed LRIP-AF2 is not expected to have significant negative impact on environment. All planned physical works are limited to the rehabilitation of existing roads within the current RoW. No permanent acquisition of private land or other impact that will trigger OP 4.12 is anticipated. The rehabilitation of project roads will not induce immediate or mid-term land development of a significant scale. Therefore, negative social and environmental impacts due to LRIP-AF2 will be of minor scope and duration, and typical for small scale road rehabilitation activities, while the long-term social impact will be positive. The Environmental Management Framework (EMF), first developed under the original LRIP and then updated for LRIP-AF1, has been updated further to add roads under LRIP- AF2 and disclosed in country and through the Bank’s InfoShop. The EMF provides general guidelines for applying environmentally sound practices to local roads rehabilitation. A stakeholder consultation meeting on the original EMF was held on January 22, 2009, and no additional consultations on the updated EMF would be required. The Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) of the activities performed under LRIP and LRIP AF-1 have been prepared in a satisfactory manner. Site-specific EMPs for LRIP AF-2 sites will be developed prior to the beginning of works and disclosed to, and consulted with, local stakeholders prior to commencement of civil works. The EMPs will be included as part of the bidding documents to ensure that contractors are aware of their responsibilities. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: No indirect or long-term negative impacts are anticipated due to future activities in the project area. Private land may be temporarily occupied to store construction materials, strictly on a voluntary basis - so no involuntary land acquisition is involved. Contractors are responsible to negotiate with land owners on terms of land use, and will be required to reinstate the land used after the civil works, as per measures spelled out in the EMPs. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. The project would rehabilitate the existing LRN which provides the only access to rural population to inter-state roads. Therefore, no alternative routes were considered. The project roads were selected based on the screening criteria including the absence of land acquisition and minimum environmental impact. 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 the owner of the LRN, has the overall responsibility for implementing the project. The MOTC delegates day-to-day project implementation to the existing Transport Project Implementation Unit (PIU) under the MOTC. The PIU is governed by a Project Management Board chaired by the MOTC, which comprise stakeholder ministries and Government agencies. The existing PIU and the Armenia Road Directorate (ARD) implemented the earlier World Bank-financed Transport projects. PIU and ARD have been successfully implementing the LRIP and LRIP-AF1 for the most part. Past supervision of these operations had noted environmental issues related to construction waste disposal and provided recommendations for their improvement. Positive changes are visible on the ground, though waste management will require continued close attention throughout the project implementation. PIU and ARD are demonstrating good supervision practice using services of the qualified firm for the technical oversight. This firm has a good command of the EMF and site-specific EMPs, and is using the prescribed monitoring checklists for reporting the environmental compliance of works. PIU and ARD have their own presence at project sites as well. The PIU is adequately staffed and has the capacity to address all aspects of the project implementation, including safeguard compliance. Civil works under SLRP AF-2 will be supervised by a consulting firm commissioned by the PIU. Along with other responsibilities, this firm will be assigned to track compliance of civil works contractors with the EMPs and will monitor implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. The PIU will provide the general oversight of safeguard compliance through the regular monitoring of the quality of works and by directly addressing outstanding safeguard 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 original EMF was consulted with stakeholders on January 22, 2009 and the updated EMF will be disclosed in country and through the Bank’s Infoshop and in the MOTC website. Site-specific EMPs will be prepared prior to the beginning of works and disclosed to, and consulted with, local stakeholders prior to commencement of civil 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 05/03/2010 Date of "in-country" disclosure 05/11/2010 Date of submission to InfoShop 05/11/2010 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