TTTHHHEEE RRREEEPPPUUUBBBLLLIIICCC OOOFFF SSSIIIEEERRRRRRAAA LLLEEEOOONNNEEE

SIERRA LEONE WETLANDS CONSERVATION PROJECT OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FOOD

SECURITY (MAFFS)

Revised Draft

ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK (ESMF)

Prepared By: Dyson T. Jumpah dyson.jumpah@gmail.com

February 2011

7TH FLOOR, TRUST TOWERS FARRAR AVENUE, ADABRAKA ACCRA, GHANA.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

i

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... VI

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 OVERALL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 5

2.1 APPROACH ................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 6

3.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE ESMF ....................................................................................................................... 7

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................... 8

4.1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE .................................................................................................................. 8 4.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS .................................................................................................................................. 8 4.3 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................... 9

4.3.1 Sierra Leone River Estuary .............................................................................................................. 9 4.3.2 Mamunta Mayosso Complex ........................................................................................................ 10

5.0 BASELINE OF PROPOSED WETLANDS CONSERVATION AREAS ............................................................... 11

5.1 SIERRA LEONE RIVER ESTUARY ....................................................................................................................... 11 5.1.1 Historical ....................................................................................................................................... 11 5.1.2 Geographical ................................................................................................................................. 11 5.1.3 Biological Diversity in the Sierra Leone River Estuary ................................................................ 13 5.1.4 Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics ...................................................................... 15 5.1.5 Environmental and Ecological Issues ............................................................................................ 23

5.2 MAMUNTA MAYAWSO COMPLEX ................................................................................................................... 25 5.2.1 Important Customary and traditional rites related to M-MWR .................................................... 26 5.2.2 Historical ....................................................................................................................................... 27 5.2.3 Geographical ................................................................................................................................. 28 5.2.4 Environmental and Ecological ....................................................................................................... 31 5.2.5 Socio-Cultural and Demographic .................................................................................................. 32 5.2.6 Equity and Gender Issues .............................................................................................................. 32

6.0 DESCRIPTION OF WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARD POICIES AND TRIGGERS . 34

6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (OP4.01, BP 4.01) ......................................................................................... 35 6.2 NATURAL HABITATS (OP 4.04, BP 4.04) ........................................................................................................ 35 6.3 INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT (OP/BP 4.12) .................................................................................................. 36 6.4 FORESTS (OP/BP4.36) ................................................................................................................................ 36

7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE, POLICY, LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ............... 38

7.1 THE ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE FOR GOVERNANCE, ENVIRONMENTAL AND WETLANDS CONSERVATION ................... 38 7.2 POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ................................................................... 38 7.3 FORESTRY POLICY-DRAFT 2010 ...................................................................................................................... 39

7.3.1 National Policy and Institutional Frameworks for Natural Resource Management ..................... 40 7.4 CONSERVATION AND WILDLIFE POLICY-DRAFT 2010 ........................................................................................... 41 7.5 THE LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR WETLANDS MANAGEMENT .................................................. 42

7.5.1 Institutional Responsibilities and Capacities ................................................................................. 43 7.6 THE LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT .......................................... 43 7.7 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS ...................................................................................................................... 43

8.0 CONSULTATION .................................................................................................................................... 45

8.1 CONSULTATION STRATEGY ............................................................................................................................ 45 8.1.1 Objectives of Consultation ............................................................................................................ 45 8.1.2 Stakeholders Consulted ................................................................................................................. 45

8.2 CONSULTATION IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS ESMF ......................................................................................... 46

ii

8.2.1 Socio-cultural background of groups of persons living adjacent to the Mamunta-Mayoso wetlands and conservation areas ................................................................................................. 47

8.2.2 Customary and traditional rites related to wetlands and natural resources ................................ 47 8.2.3 Equity and gender issues............................................................................................................... 48 8.2.4 Land acquisition issues and /or restriction of access to natural resources ................................... 49 8.2.5 Sustainable alternative livelihood options and community-based activities that the local

populations might be interested to pursue ................................................................................... 50 8.2.6 Important roles of the traditional authorities ............................................................................... 50 8.2.7 Social Issues of concern ................................................................................................................. 50 8.2.8 Owners of the natural resources ................................................................................................... 51 8.2.9 Mechanisms to be set up in the project to disseminate information to channel any grievances of

the community members .............................................................................................................. 51 8.2.10 Constraints and opportunities for participation in the project activities ................................. 51 8.2.11 The short and long term risks that different stakeholder groups are likely to face because of

the project intervention............................................................................................................ 52 8.2.12 The threats to the success of the proposed project intervention. ............................................ 52 8.2.13 Socio-cultural background of groups of persons living adjacent to the Sierra Leone River Estuary 53 8.2.14 Equity and gender issues regarding access to natural resources, utilisation and sharing of

benefits from natural resources ............................................................................................... 54 8.2.15 Sustainable alternative livelihood options and community-based activities that the local

populations might be interested to pursue .............................................................................. 54 8.2.16 Social Issues of concern ............................................................................................................ 54 8.2.17 Environmental Concerns .......................................................................................................... 54

8.3 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 55

9.0 DETERMINING POTENTIAL ENVIROMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ...................................................... 56

9.1 OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ................................................................................................ 56 9.2 POTENTIAL POSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WCP ............................................................................. 56 9.3 POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY ASPECTS .................................................................... 58 9.4 BIOPHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES AND CONCERNS FACING TARGETED WETLANDS .................................... 59

9.4.1 Biophysical .................................................................................................................................... 59 9.4.2 Socio-economic ............................................................................................................................. 61 9.4.3 Consequences of Wetland Loss ..................................................................................................... 62

9.5 POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WCP ............................................................................ 62 9.5.1 Physical Environment .................................................................................................................... 62 9.5.2 Biological - biodiversity, ecology and nature conservation ........................................................... 65 9.5.3 Socio-cultural and socio-economic conditions including land use, infrastructure and human

health ............................................................................................................................................ 66 9.6 IMPACT ON HUMAN USE VALUE..................................................................................................................... 67

9.6.1 Loss of Monuments/Historical Areas ............................................................................................ 67 9.6.2 Health, Safety and Hygiene for Construction Workers ................................................................. 68 9.6.3 Aesthetic Values ............................................................................................................................ 68

9.7 POTENTIAL ADVERSE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF WCP ................................................................................................ 68

10.0 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND TYPICAL MITIGATION MEASURES ..... 76

10.1 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROCESS .................................................................................. 76 10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 76 10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 77 10.4 MITIGATION MEASURES – GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN...................................................... 77 10.5 ESMF IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES ...................................................................................... 81

10.5.1 Implementation Responsibilities .............................................................................................. 81 10.5.2 Project Institutional and Implementation Arrangements ........................................................ 83 10.5.3 ESMP Implementation Schedule .............................................................................................. 89 10.5.4 Estimated Budget ..................................................................................................................... 89

11.0 CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING ................................................................................................ 91

iii

11.1 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 91 11.2 PROPOSED CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING BUDGET ................................................................................ 92 11.3 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (EMP)................................................................................ 92

12.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING ....................................................................................................... 95

12.1 MONITORING ........................................................................................................................................ 95 12.2 PROPOSED MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................................. 95 12.3 REPORTING ........................................................................................................................................... 96

12.3.1 Environmental Baseline Assessments ...................................................................................... 96 12.3.2 Environmental Reviews ............................................................................................................ 96 12.3.3 Annual Reports ......................................................................................................................... 96

11.1 COSTS ................................................................................................................................................ 98

13.0 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENT ................................................ 99

13.1 MINISTRY OF LANDS, COUNTRY PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT ............................................... 99 13.2 MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATION (MTC) ................................................................. 99 13.3 MINISTRY OF MINERAL RESOURCES (MMR) ..................................................................................... 99 13.4 MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FOOD SECURITY (MAFFS). ..................................... 100 13.5 MINISTRY OF FISHERIES AND MARINE RESOURCES .......................................................................... 100 13.6 MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND CULTURE ............................................................................................ 100 13.7 MINISTRY OF WORKS AND TECHNICAL MAINTENANCE ................................................................... 101 13.8 MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND POWER ................................................................................................. 101 13.9 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 101 13.10 NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOS)............................................................................ 101 13.11 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL ........ 101

14.0 ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................ 103

14.1 ANNEX 1- REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 103 14.2 ANNEX 2-SUMMARY OF WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARD POLICIES .................................. 103 14.3 ANNEX 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCREENING FORM ................................................................................ 104 14.4 ANNEX 4-ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL APPRAISAL FORM ........................................................................... 111 14.5 ANNEX 5-INDICATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MITIGATION MEASURES CHECKLIST ................................... 115 14.6 ANNEX 6-SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL/REGIONAL TREATIES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION ............................... 118 14.7 ANNEX 7-MINUTES OF CONSULTATIONS .................................................................................................... 120 14.8 ANNEX 8-FIELD VISITS PHOTO GALLERY...................................................................................................... 132 14.9 ANNEX 9: IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS ........................................................................................... 133

List of Tables TABLE ES.2:ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING ................................................................................................. XVI

TABLE 5.1: DISTRIBUTION OF CHIEFDOMS, WARDS AND SECTIONS, ENUMERATION AREAS AND LOCAL COUNCILS IN THE PROJECT AREAS ................. 15

TABLE 5.2: DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICTS IN THE PROJECT AREA .................................................................... 16

TABLE 5.3: POPULATION OF MAJOR AND MINOR LOCAL COUNCILS BY SEX IN THE PROJECT AREAS .................................................................. 16

TABLE 5.4: POPULATIONS BY CHIEFDOMS AND WARDS IN THE PROJECT AREAS ........................................................................................... 16

TABLE 5.5: DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL LABOUR FORCE 15-64 YEARS BY DISTRICT AND SEX IN THE PROJECT AREA ................................................. 17

TABLE 5.6: DISTRIBUTION OF THE TOTAL INACTIVE POPULATION 15-64YEARS BY DISTRICT AND SEX IN THE PROJECT AREA ................................... 17

TABLE 5.7: DISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................. 21

TABLE 5.8: DISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH FACILITIES, HOSPITALS AND BEDS PER POPULATION ............................................................................. 21

TABLE 5.9: INCIDENCE, DEPTH AND SEVERITY OF POVERTY BY DISTRICTS IN THE PROJECT AREA ...................................................................... 22

TABLE 5.10: INCIDENCE OF POVERTY BY DISTRICT AND RURAL/URBAN SPLIT .............................................................................................. 22

TABLE 5.11: HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN THE PROJECT AREA (IN PERCENT) ........................ 23

iv

TABLE 8.1: STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED ............................................................................................................................................. 46

TABLE 9.1: THE LIKELY IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY DURING CONSTRUCTION ARE GIVEN BELOW ...................................................................... 64

TABLE 9.2: POTENTIAL RISKS, EXPLANATION AND MITIGATION ................................................................................................................ 69

TABLE 9.3: POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF THE SLWCP ......................................................................................... 72

TABLE 10.1: IMPACTS ON PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATIONS ..................................................................................... 78

TABLE 10.2: IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL-BIODIVERSITY, ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATIONS. ............................ 79

TABLE 10.3: IMPACTS ON THE SOCIO-CULTURAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................... 79

TABLE 10.4: IMPACT ON HUMAN USE VALUE ...................................................................................................................................... 81

TABLE 10.5: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROCESS – IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES. ..................................................................... 81

TABLE 11.1: CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING ................................................................................................................................. 91

TABLE 11.2:ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING ................................................................................................. 93

TABLE 12.1: MONITORING PLAN. ..................................................................................................................................................... 98

List of Figures

FIGURE 5.1: SIERRA LEONE RIVER ESTUARY .................................................................................................................... 12

FIGURE 5.2: MAMUNTA-MAYOSSO RESERVE AREA ......................................................................................................... 29

FIGURE 10.1: PROJECT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ............................................................................................................ 85

FIGURE 10.2: ESMP IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT .................................................................................................. 88

v

List of Key Acronyms BCP Biodiversity Conservation Project BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand BP Best Practise CAPs Community Action Plans CBOs Community Based Organisations CECAF CMPs Conservation Management Plans CSMTs Conservation Management Teams EA Environmental Assessment EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework GEO Global Environmental Objective GoSL Government of Sierra Leone GPS Global Positioning System IEM Integrated Environmental Management MAFFS Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security MFMR Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources M-MWR Mamunta-Mayosso Wildlife Reserve NaCEF National Commission on Environment and Forestry NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NEAP National Environmental Action Plan NEP National Environmental Policy NEPA National Environmental Protection Act NGOs Non Governmental Organisations NOx Oxides of Nitrogen NPRC National Provisional Ruling Council NSC National Steering Committee OoP Office of' the President OP Operational Policy OPN Operational Policy Note PDO Project Development Objective PF Process Framework PMT Project Management Team RPF Resettlement Policy Framework SLEPA Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency SLIHS SLWCP Sierra Leone Wetlands Conservation Project SO2 Sulphur Dioxide SPM Suspended Particulate Matter UN United Nations WCP Wetlands Conservation Project

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Country Background Sierra Leone has a land area of approximately 72,300 km2. It lies between latitudes 6o 55’ and 10o 00’ N and longitudes 10o 00’ and 13o 17’ W. The country shares border with Guinea at the North and North-east and with Liberia at South-east. On the west it is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean. In addition to the mainland proper, Sierra Leone also includes Banana, Turtle and Sherbro Islands, as well as other minor islets. It has a coastline that stretches for 506 km and its total continental shelf area is about 27,500 km2. The continental shelf gradually descends to a depth of 200m before it breaks off (continental slope) (Domain, 1979).

The continental shelf in northern Sierra Leone is about 125 km wide and is a continuation of the vast Guinea Shelf. The northern shelf constitutes more than 75% of the total shelf area, and it represents the most productive zone of Sierra Leone's coast (demersal pelagic and shellfish resources are found there). It is influenced by the outer, fringes of the Canary Current. The major rivers (Scarcies, Sierra Leone and Sherbro) Figure ES1 Map of Sierra Leone scharge large quantities of sediment along this coastline, the effects of which are felt both on the continental shelf and in the coastal region. The southern shelf, from Sherbro to Liberia border tapers to about 13 km wide and is a continuation of the narrow northern Liberia shelf. It has limited fish resources and is influenced by the Equatorial Counter Current. Few rivers flow out along this coast. Project Background The Government of Sierra Leone has identified the urgent need to establish effective systems for conservation management of wetland ecosystems in Sierra Leone. The World Bank is therefore assisting the Government of Sierra Leone to prepare this Wetlands Conservation Project (WCP). The project will provide technical assistance support for the establishment of effective conservation planning and management in two wetland areas (a) Sierra Leone River Estuary and (b) Mamunta Mayosso complex. The WCP is ranked as a Category B project for which an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF; to address any

vii

land acquisition issues) and a Process Framework (PF; to address any restriction to access to natural resources issues). Thus, this ESMF is prepared to provide information to (i) better understand the nature and degree of negative impacts on the sites as well as on local communities whose lives are traditionally intricately dependent on these eco-systems; and (ii) contribute towards achieving the wetlands conservation objectives by avoiding or mitigating activities that are likely to impact negatively on the sites or people whose lives are intricately dependent on these systems; and (iii) ensure compliance with environmental legislations and procedures in Sierra Leone and with the World Bank’s environmental and social safeguard policies.

The screening criteria provided in the ESMF includes relevant questions on conservation areas, involuntary resettlement and land acquisition, , impacts to wetlands and forestry resources, impacts to cultural property and inclusion of community people in the project identification process. This will ensure that all concerns related to the Bank’s safeguard policies are taken into account during the screening of subprojects for potential impacts, and that the appropriate mitigation measures can be adopted to address them. OBJECTIVES The overall objective of the project is to improve sustainable management of priority wetland ecosystems as part of the national framework of conservation in Sierra Leone and in close consultation and active participation of local communities living in the vicinity of the wetland ecosystems. It will enable the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) to consolidate and expand on the ecological coverage of ongoing initiatives to build a coherent national conservation program that will include wetlands and coastal priority areas. Expected outcomes of the project include: (1) functioning eco-systems maintained in wetland areas and plans for improvement designed in close consultation with, and agreement of local stakeholders, including traditional authorities; (2) capacity for participatory planning and management and planning of wetland ecosystems strengthened; and (3) enabling environment, including support for sustainable alternative livelihood activities for local communities in order to support wetland conservation strengthened. TARGET AREAS On-the-ground activities on conservation planning and management will be implemented in two priority wetland ecosystems including: i) Sierra Leone River Estuary (coastal wetland, 34,234 ha) and ii) Mamunta Mayosso (inland wetland, 2,076 ha). The exact boundaries of these conservation sites will be confirmed and demarcated during project implementation phase.

The Sierra Leone River Estuary covers an area of more than 259,000 ha and was designated a “Wetland of International Importance” on December 13, 1999 under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. This site is the drowned estuary of the Rokel/Seli River. It is bounded to the north by a coastal plain indented by creeks, and to the south by the mountainous Western Area peninsula. At the point of entry into the Atlantic Ocean, the estuary widens to about 11 km and abruptly deepens along its southern shore to form a natural harbour (the third-largest in the world). The estuary is lined by 110 ha of mud and sand foreshore, backed by mangroves, and 1,800 ha of intertidal mudflat and muddy

viii

sandflats, containing key mangrove tree species and abundant wader species. The predominant mangrove tree species are Rhizophora sp., Avicennia africana, Laguncularia sp. and Conocarpus sp. The site is a critical bird habitat. Major threats to the site include, inter alia, unsustainable clearing of mangroves for firewood and construction materials; dumping of untreated waste from industries in the Freetown area; and oil spillage from tankers unloading at the main port. Furthermore, salt processing and curing of fish, which requires large quantities of firewood, provide additional threats to the site. Figure ES2: Sierra Leone River Estuary

ix

The Mamunta Mayosso complex is situated in Kholifa and Mabang Chiefdoms, Tonkolili district, Northern Province about 180km due east of Freetown, and was the first site to be managed as a wildlife sanctuary in Sierra Leone. Located almost at the centre of the country, Mamunta Mayosso supports a wide range of vegetation types. The predominant vegetation is boliland (seasonally flooded grassland) with occasional occurrence of swamps, savanna, secondary forest and two perennial lakes. This 2,000 ha site is important for its diverse endemic flora and has excellent eco-tourism potential; it is one of the few areas in Sierra Leone still supporting viable populations of the threatened Dwarf Crocodile, and hosts 252 species of birds, belonging to 51 families. The communities within the vicinity of the reserve operate a raffia produce-manufacturing group that deals in high quality raffia products like handbags, baskets, hand fans etc. Makeni, which is the headquarter town in the Northern Province is within 50 km to the north. 1

The selected sites will therefore not only enhance the ecosystem representativeness within the protected area system but also offer a high potential for tourism activities in the future.

Figure ES3: Mamunta-Mayawso Site

1 Some information on Mamunta Mayosso is from Conservation Society of Sierra Leone

x

INSTITUTIONAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS The project will be implemented at two levels: (i) the national level for overall project coordination, planning, monitoring and evaluation, as well as implementation of Component 1 in support of a strategic plan for wetland conservation; and, (ii) the conservation site level for implementation of Component 2 in support of conservation site planning and management.2

Implementation arrangements respond to existing capacity of Government structures at central, district and site levels, and will contribute to building management processes for long-term sustainability beyond the project’s lifespan.

The project will utilize existing institutional structures and the same institutional arrangements as defined for the BCP and will include arrangements for oversight at both the national and conservation site levels. Further details are included in Annex 9. The various levels of the project management are:

• Project Management at the National Level

• Project Oversight at the National Level.

• Project Management at Conservation Site Level.

• Project Oversight at Conservation Site Level.

REPORTING Environmental Baseline Assessments

Environmental Baseline Assessment will be prepared by Administrative Councils (District etc) (where possible) for rural sub-projects, or by those consultants hired to carry out technical design and construction supervision. All EBAs will be categorized (A, B, C) then submitted to the SLEPA for review.

Environmental Reviews

The MLCPE Regional Branches will provide a quarterly summary of Environmental Reviews. Annual Reports

Regional SLEPA, WCP Authorities annual environmental monitoring reports and reviews, consistent with the draft sheet to be provided by SLEPA in consultation with MAFFS. The Ministry of Lands, Country Planning and the Environment will review the reports. The report contents will be the following. A summary of environmental Reviews (based on the quarterly summaries prepared by

the regional MLCPE); A summary of EIAs and site-specific EMPs developed during the year; A summary of environmental monitoring carried out on systems at both construction

and operation phases.

2 The Project Organizational Chart is presented in Fig 9.1.

xi

WETLAND CONSERVATION SITE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT The project will provide services to support: planning and management; goods (e.g. motorbikes, small boats, global positioning systems (GPS), radios, lap tops, etc.); minor infrastructure improvements; training, including workshops and study tours; and some operational costs in order to develop and implement effective conservation management at the selected priority wetland conservation sites. Best practice will be shared with managers and stakeholders at other wetland sites around the country in the context of implementing a national strategic plan for wetland conservation. The component will include three sub-components: (a) Pilot Site Management Planning and Implementation. (b) Community Mobilization and Outreach and Conservation-linked Development, (c) Mainstreaming Conservation in District Development Planning, which will entail supporting the Government’s decentralization process by training conservation staff and local officials to work with District Councils and Ward Development Committees to ensure that conservation and sustainable natural resource management is incorporated in district and regional planning for development and service delivery. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Sierra Leone River Estuary The estuary borders both Port Loko District and part of the Western urban and Western rural districts. The population is very much cosmopolitan with diverse socioeconomic activities ranging from all works of life. The Western Area Rural has four (4) wards with a total population of 174,249 comprising 86,094 (49.41%) males and 88,155 (50.59%) females. The Pork Loko District has a total population of 453,746 with a male population of 212,948 (46.93%) and female population of 240,798 (53.07%). West 2 ward of Western Area Urban population is 91,345 made up of 45,657 males (49.99%) and 45688 females (50.01). Hence, as per the 2004 Sierra Leone Housing and Population Census, the population of people in the Sierra Leone River Estuary area tragetted under the Wetlands Conservation Project is 719,435 with 344,699 (47.91%) males and 374736 (52.09%) females. See Tables 5.1-5.4 in Section 5.0. Fishing is the main occupation of inhabitants along the banks of the estuary. Artisanal fishing is done with 2-8 man canoes and nets. Legislation limiting the mesh size of fishing nets exists, but there is little or no enforcement. Wood-cutting is also a major economic activity in the area. The rate of mangrove extraction is high particularly along the Bunce River because of its proximity to Freetown where the demand for fuel-wood is high. The wood is mainly used for cooking and fish smoking. There are many small permanent settlements and a few large ones on the banks and creeks of the estuary. Most of the islands in the estuary are inhabited. The main activities that preoccupy the coastal dwellers include the following: boat building, making of handicrafts, wildlife hunting, wood cutting, oyster farming, agriculture, sea transportation, sand mining and salt processing.

xii

Mamunta-Mayosso Complex Manunta-Mayawso complex is in the Tonkolili District under the Northern Province. There are eleven (11) chiefdoms, Eighty (80) sections and One thousand three hundred and ninety eight localities in the District. The number of households in the Tonkolili Districts is 52,861 with a household population of 346,456. This household population is made up of 161,347 males and 185,109 females representing and sex ratio of 87.2 and an average household size of 6.6. The 11 chiefdoms in the district are: (i) Kholifa Rowalla, (ii) Kholifa Mabang, (iii)Yoni, (iv) Malal Mara,(v)Gbonkolenken (vi) Tane, (vii) Kafe simira, (viii) Sambaya (ix)Khalansogia (x)Konike Barina and (xi) Konike Sanda. The population of the various chiefdoms and the numbers of males and females are as indicated in the tables 5.1-5.5 above. The key villages or communities near the conservation area are the Mamunta line, Mayosso line, Makabre line, Makoni, Makaba and Robinke. The main economic activities in the area are farming (rice, cassava, potatoes, groundnut, cola-nut, coffee, pepper, vegetables, okro), fishing, palm oil production, weaving of raphia palm, rattan (NTP) and beekeeping. The main tribe is Temne and Muslims and Christians are the main religious groups. The main land owners are the Kamara, Bangura and Conteh families.The Kamara and Bangura Families are entitled to the Paramount Chieftaincy. The Na Yenki Family are Women Chiefs. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS The proposed project will involve interventions in the biophysical and human environments. The potential environmental impacts can be categorized as biophysical, and social. These impacts can occur at various stages of the project development and can be positive or negative. Mitigation measures for the negative impacts can be applied at each stage of the project development. Community involvement in decision-making and management process may bring lasting improvement in the livelihoods of people, and can lead to better use and protection of natural resource base. Consequently, environmental and social sustainability are fundamental to the success of the Sierra Leone Wetlands Conservation Project. There is, however, a critical balance between two contrasting scenarios:

• Firstly, under a scenario of a successful SLWCP which works in accordance with the strategies and objectives set out in project documents, a significant and positive contribution would be made to environmental and social sustainability by providing the tools and support to community driven development whilst pursuing the wetlands conservation objectives and ensuring the protection of the local and global environment.

• Secondly, under a scenario of a failing SLWCP, activities supported and funded

would contribute to a further decline in environmental and social sustainability in the conservation areas, by not providing adequate support and guidance for community development, and perhaps accelerate degradation of the local and global environment.

xiii

PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND TYPICAL MITIGATION MEASURES Proposed Environmental Management Process The SLWCP will include multiple sub-projects, resulting from the demand to towns and communities. These sub-projects will vary in magnitude and technical scope. Types of ancillary developments and sub-projects that could spring up include: the provision of access roads; extension of power supply and installation of electricity sub-stations; developments of quarries or burrow pits for the supply of construction materials; construction buildings, guest houses, hotels and restaurants; establishment of market centre in the communities for art and craft products; emergence of small-scale and village level income generating activities. The cumulative impacts of the proposed SLWCP and the ancillary developments could be potentially significant. Category A Sub- Projects Category A Sub-projects will undergo a full environmental Impact Assessment, carried out in accordance with E1A Procedure and Guidelines of Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (SLEPA) and the World Bank Group OP 4.01.The main requirements applicable to these EIAs are as follows: To be carried out by independent, experienced consultants; To include meaningful public consultation in accordance with OD 401; To include public disclosure of relevant documents in a culturally-adequate form

(terms of reference, draft EIA report, draft EMP), and to demonstrate that public’s comments and observations have been taken into consideration;

To result in a full Environmental Management Plan with detailed implementation budget and phased.

EIAs for Category A sub-projects will be based upon specific terms of reference to be developed on a case-by-case basis by the SLEPA.

Environmental Baseline Assessment

The Environmental baseline Assessment (EBA) is a rapid field investigation to screen on-site whether any environmental issues may require specific attention. It is proposed that all Category B Sub-projects (including the simplest ones) undergo the EBA process in order to avoid any omission in screening potential environmental issues. The EBA process is designed to meet the following criteria: To be as simple as possible; To be undertaken by field staff with basic training only; To be completed within a few hours at the most and probably within less than one

hour for the most simple sub-projects. Appendix 3 proposes a draft framework for the work to be carried out at the level of the EBA. Field personnel in charge of the EBAs at the Provincial/District or site level will categorize the EBAs as follows:

• Category A – A proposed project is classified as Category A if it is likely to have adverse impacts that are significant (based on type, location, sensitivity, and scale of the project and the nature and magnitude of its environmental impacts).

• Category B –A proposed project is classified as category B if the potential impacts are typically site specific, reversible in nature, less adverse than category A projects, and for which mitigatory measures can be designed more readily.

xiv

• Category C – A proposed project is classified as a category C if there are minimal or no adverse impacts.

Environmental Review

EBAs once completed will be forwarded to SLEPA for review. The Environmental Review will have the following objectives; Check the completeness of the Environmental Baseline Assessment; Check the soundness of the conclusions (i.e. soundness of the categorization in A, B

or C, see above); Sort the sub-projects for further review of those sub-projects for which potential

environmental issues have been identified (categories A and B). Category A sub-projects are those for which the Environmental Baseline Assessment concludes that changes to the design or the sitting/routine of facilities are required. These changes may be needed to eliminate unacceptable adverse impacts such as; Impact on a fragile eco-system Impact on inhabited dwellings. Impact on structures used for commercial activities or other business. Impact on graves or other cultural resources. Impact on land use and/or users.

Category B Sub projects Once redesigned or relocated, the sub-project may fall under category B or C. Generic EMP The Generic EMP applies to all schedules (1 or 2) and EBA category they fall under. A framework for this generic EMP, shall be developed. Site-specific EMPs as additions to the generic EMP will be developed for the following types of sub-projects: Schedule 13

Schedule

sub-projects: Site-specific EMPs will be derived from the full EIA developed for such sub-projects:

4

2/Category B sub-projects: Site-specific EMPs will be developed on a case-by-case basis.

Mitigation Measures – Generic Environmental Management Plan

The Environmental Management and Monitoring Plans contain the environmental impacts and risks, the mitigating provisions and management actions, the Environmental Monitoring Plan, enhancement or corrective actions and training and institutional measures. The following tables (Table 10.1: Impacts on the Physical Environment, Table 10.2: Biological-Biodiversity, Ecology, and Nature Conservation, Table 10.3: Impacts on the Socio-cultural and Socio-economic Environment and Table 10.4: Impact on Human use value) provide typical mitigation measures associated with impacts identified. They form the Generic EMP applicable to construction and operation phases of all sub-projects. 3 Projects requiring environmental impact assessment licences, EPA 2008, Section 24 4 Project for which factors for determining whether the project requires EIA are considered, EPA Act 2008 Section 25

xv

Proposed Capacity Building and Training Budget

Capacity building and training needs as briefly summarized in Table ES1 identifies two categories of stakeholders.

i. Managers including SLEPA officials, Officials from the MAFFS, Ministry Marine Resources and Fisheries, Ministry of Mines and Minerals, Ministry of Tourism, MLCPE and Local Government (Paramount Chiefs, Districts Officers) NGOs and

ii. Rural communities including village/town headmen, elders, Area Committees and

Town Committees members. See Table ES2: Estimated Budget for Capacity Building and Training. Table ES1: Capacity Building and Training

Level Capacity Building and Training Needed

Rural or Local communities -Training of the rural or local communities and site groups on Conservation area management and empowering them to participate in the management and monitoring of conservation sites.

SLEPA -General awareness on environmental issues. -Brief training session (half a day) on environmental management at operation phase (as part of the training on technical management of the new or rehabilitated / expanded system). -Training workshop on environmental Baseline Assessments. -Training workshop on Environmental Review and EMPs.

Provinces Training of Environment or natural Resources Desk on environmental Baseline Assessments for rural sub-projects (2 days sessions).

Consultants Training workshop on Environmental Baseline Assessments.

MAFFS Training workshop on environmental Baseline Assessments. -Training workshop on Environmental Review and EMPs.

Ministry of Lands, Country Planning and the Environment.

Training workshop on environmental Baseline Assessments. -Training workshop on Environmental Review.

NGOs Training workshop on EBA and Environmental Reviews

xvi

Table ES.1:Estimated Budget for Capacity Building and Training Targeted Group Training Topic (s) Estimated Budget

The training program for Managers in category (i) shall be held in each of the proposed districts and shall consist of One (1) complete training module of 9 days for each of the 3 main Districts.

Environmental and Social Management Process Review of Environmental and Social Management Process Use of screening form and EBA guidelines Measurement of adverse impacts Management of Social Issue associated with subprojects Review and clear of the subprojects Public consultations on the EA process Monitoring subproject Performance Monitoring subproject mitigation Measures

Each complete module of 9 days will cost of USD 5,000. The total estimated cost is USD 45,000.

Environmental and Social Policies, Procedures and Guidelines Review and discussion of Sierra Leone’s environmental policies, procedures and

legislation Review and discussion of the Bank’s safeguard policies Review of Sierra Leone’s policies, laws and requirements in Land Tenure, Land

acquisition and property valuation Strategies for consultation, participation and social inclusion

Environmental and Social Policies, Procedures and Guidelines 3 days USD 3,000 =USD9000

Environmental Protection and Wetlands Conservation Natural Resource Management Conservation and sustainable use of resources Integration of wetlands conservation measures into projects Threat of human activities to wetlands and ecological resources Development activities likely to induce significant impacts upon wetland resources.

Selected Topics on Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation 3 days USD 3000 =USD9000

Training for Rural Communities shall consist of one (1) complete module of 3 days in each of 8 proposed pilot Districts.

Project Origins and Types of subprojects Awareness on the positive aspects of the project

Training Program for Rural Communities Negative Aspects of Project Impacts of forestry practices on the conservation of biodiversity Impact of different land uses on the maintenance of biodiversity Impacts of fishing practice on conservation of biodiversity Role of the rural communities towards sustainable environmental management.

Training for Rural Communities shall consist of one (1) complete module of 3 days in each of the Districts in the conservation area. Each complete module shall cost USD 5000. The total estimated cost is USD 15,000.

TOTAL USD78,000

1

Estimated Budget

The budget needed for ESMP /SLWCP environmental and social management covers the following:

- Institutional development activities - Training program, awareness - Allowances for the preparation / implementation of sub-projects EIA / EMP/RAPs.

(The costs of implementing such plans measures are included in the budgets of sub-projects.)

- Annual assessments. The costs of environmental measures as well as training and awareness are summarized in tables ES 3 and 4 below.

Table ES 3: Estimated costs of technical measures

Activity Quantity Unit cost ($US)

Total cost ($US)

EIA / RAP development To be determined later

20,000

Environmental and social guidelines development (ENRMO / MAFFS) 1 guide 10,000

Development health and safety plan (construction companies) 5 000

Supervision and permanent monitoring (to add in SLWCP M&E budget) During 2 years 15 000

ESMP Evaluation (mid-term, final) 2 5 000 10,000

TOTAL

50, 000

Table ES 4: Training and awareness measures costs

Actors involved Topics Quantity Unit cost ($US)

Total cost ($US)

Training

MAFFS/CSMCs&CSMTs

- Training on Environmental and Social Assessment (screening and classification of activities, identification of impacts, mitigation options and indicators)

- Drafting ToR for EIA - Selection of mitigation measures in the

checklists - Legislation and national environmental

procedures - Safeguard Policy World Bank

3 days workshop 20,000 20 000

Awareness

2

- Commuities - Local

associations and NGOs

- Reps of construction companies

- Public awareness and advocacy on projects environmental and social issues, good environmental practices, good conduct in the yards, respect for hygiene and safety, compliance with development standards

- Awareness Campaign HIV / AIDS

2 10,000 20 000

TOTAL 40 000

3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Government of Sierra Leone has identified the urgent need to establish effective systems for conservation management of wetland ecosystems in Sierra Leone. The World Bank is therefore assisting the Government of Sierra Leone to prepare this Wetlands Conservation Project (WCP). The project will provide technical assistance support for the establishment of effective conservation planning and management in two wetland areas (a) Sierra Leone River Estuary and (b) Mamunta Mayawso complex. The overall objective of the project is to improve sustainable management of priority wetland ecosystems as part of the national framework of conservation in Sierra Leone and in close consultation and active participation of local communities living in the vicinity of the wetland ecosystems. It will enable the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) to consolidate and expand on the ecological coverage of ongoing initiatives to build a coherent national conservation program that will include wetlands and coastal priority areas. Expected outcomes of the project include: (1) functioning eco-systems maintained in wetland areas and plans for improvement designed in close consultation with, and agreement of local stakeholders, including traditional authorities; (2) capacity for participatory planning and management and planning of wetland ecosystems strengthened; and (3) enabling environment, including support for sustainable alternative livelihood activities for local communities in order to support wetland conservation strengthened. The project will fund international expertise and support national concerted effort to build capacity for wetland conservation, and will expand conservation management to the priority wetland areas not included in the scope of the on-going GEF Biodiversity Conservation Project (BCP). One of the three components of the proposed project is the Strategic Planning for Wetland Conservation. The envisaged field investments will cover 36,300 hectares of globally significant wetland ecosystems and improve the status of protection and management of key wetlands of global biodiversity importance. The priority sites were identified in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP, 2003), following consultations with Central and Local Government, traditional authorities, and local communities. As an initial step, selection criteria were established for guiding the consolidation of the protected areas system and sites have been selected to include priority wetland ecosystems based on biological significance, level of threat, feasibility of achieving conservation impacts, and availability of donor support. The selected sites will enhance the ecosystem representativeness within the protected area system, and also provide for potential future tourism development. The first priorities are to control further degradation and loss, establish effective management and jointly develop strategies for sustainable conservation together in consultation with and active participation of local stakeholders, including the traditional authorities. The project may entail: (i) limited land acquisition as and when the boundaries of proposed conservation sites are finally demarcated as well as for small infrastructure works; and (ii) restriction of access to selected resources (e.g. seasonal gardening, harvesting non-timber forest products, other wetland coastal products, artisanal fishing, cattle grazing, hunting) from within the proposed wetlands conservation sites; the project will continue to allow traditional local practices for sustainable land use.

4

The Project recognizes the need to address social and environmental priorities in order to achieve wetlands conservation objectives. Communities in villages adjacent to the wetlands conservation and coastal sites are economically poor, and they lack alternative income-generating opportunities. While local communities recognize the importance of supporting conservation objectives, they may need to support for sustainable alternative livelihoods in order to partly compensate for losses as may be incurred due the possible restriction of access to resources and partly to ensure the success of wetland conservation. The proposed project, therefore, aims to actively engage communities and traditional authorities in proposing, preparing and implementing conservation management plans, as well as in monitoring and evaluating the overall impact of project activities. The WCP triggered Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04), Forests (OP/BP 4.36) and Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Safeguard Policies of the World Bank. The WCP is ranked as a Category B project for which an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF; to address any land acquisition issues) and a Process Framework (PF; to address any restriction to access to natural resources issues). Thus, this ESMF is prepared to provide information to (i) better understand the nature and degree of negative impacts on the sites as well as on local communities whose lives are traditionally intricately dependent on these eco-systems; and (ii) contribute towards achieving the wetlands conservation objectives by avoiding or mitigating activities that are likely to impact negatively on the sites or people whose lives are intricately dependent on these systems; and (iii) ensure compliance with the World Bank safeguard policy requirements.

5

2.0 OVERALL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 APPROACH

The ESMF study has been prepared in accordance with applicable World Bank safeguard policies and Sierra Leone environmental assessment guidelines. The distinct phases of the study include:

• Data Gathering; • Consultations with conservation management teams and other relevant stakeholder

institutions, including the local communities and traditional authorities; • Literature review; • Environmental screening and scoping; • Socio-economic survey; • Identification of potential impacts, including the livelihood and health of local

communities; • Identification of measures to avoid adverse impacts and if this is not feasible,

measures to mitigate the potential impacts; • Preparation of an Environmental and Social Management Plan; and • Preparation of sub-project guidelines.

• Literature Review The approach was based on review of available project literature and other strategic planning documents at the national and sector level. Documents reviewed are listed in Annex 1: References. - Consultations

During the assessment, consultations with key stakeholders, affected groups, local communities and non-governmental organizations were held from 14th-23rd November 2010. Selected conservation management teams and communities consulted during the period (see Annex 7: Minutes of Consultation).

• Data Gathering

The ESMF Consultant assembled and evaluated relevant baseline data related to the biophysical and socio-economic characteristics of the environment to be covered by the project. The baseline data (See Chapter 5.0 below) on the proposed wetlands conservation areas reviewed included historical, geographical, socio-cultural and demographic as well as environmental and ecological.

6

2.2 METHODOLOGY

KEY ACTIVITIES SPECIFIC TASKS

Development of the Environmental and Social Management Framework

1. Provide general information on the project 2. Present the ESMF objectives 3. Describe the project activities and components 4. Present and analyze the baseline data (biophysical and socioeconomic

environment) 5. Analyze the national, legal and regulatory framework and the World Bank

safeguard policies 6. Analyze the country environmental and social management institutional

framework and within the framework of the project 7. Assess the project impacts 8. Develop the Environmental and Social Management Plan including:

i. Screening process

ii. Mitigation measures

iii. Environmental monitoring plan

iv. Responsibility and Institutional arrangements in implementation and monitoring

v. Capacity Strengthening plan

vi. Consultation plan

vii. Implementation schedule

viii. Cost estimation 9. Technical appendices/ recommendations/ List of individuals/institutions

contacted/ references

7

3.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE ESMF

The objective of this consultancy is to conduct due diligence and prepare the World Bank safeguard policy instruments related to the application of safeguard policies triggered in this operation namely, OP/BP 4.01 (predicated on the assumption that the project, particularly the civil work activities, could impact adversely on the biophysical environment); OP/BP 4.04 and 4.36 (on the assumption that project activities may impact negatively on these sensitive areas); and OP/BP 4.12 (predicated on the assumption that there will be limited land acquisition and/or restriction of access to natural resources). Thus, this consultancy will provide information to (i) better understand the nature and degree of negative impacts on the sites as well as on local communities whose lives are traditionally intricately dependent on these ecosystems; and (ii) contribute towards achieving the wetlands conservation objectives by avoiding or mitigating activities that likely to impact negatively on the sites or people whose lives are intricately dependent on these systems; and (iii) ensure compliance with the World Bank safeguard policy requirements. In addition, this consultancy undertakes field assessments needed towards drafting and preparing (a) the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), (b) the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF; to address any land acquisition issues) and Process Framework (PF; to address any restriction of access to natural resources issues). A desk review of relevant project literature (see Annex I for the list of literature references) was conducted and field visits to the communities in the targeted conservation areas was undertaken from 14-23 November 2010 to assess the following aspects:

• Context of the proposed wetlands conservation areas (historical, geographical, socio-cultural and demographic as well as environmental and ecological);

• Ecological and environmental sensitivity aspects and the potential of the sites to provide ecological services on a sustainable manner;

• Preventive and mitigative actions for maintaining the integrity of these wetland sites for provision of ecological and livelihood improvement services;

• The various but distinct socio-cultural groups living adjacent to wetlands conservation areas and estimating their numbers (based on the 2004 census)

• Relevant customary rights to wetlands and the natural resources therein; • Equity and gender issues; • The possible extent of land acquisition and/or restriction of access to natural

resources; and • Sustainable alternative livelihood options that local populations might be interested to

pursue.

8

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT

4.1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE

The Project Development Objective (PDO)/Global Environmental Objective (GEO) are to improve management of priority wetland ecosystems as part of the national framework of conservation in Sierra Leone. The project will support two strategic choices, in piloting an integrated eco-systems approach, by addressing: (1) institutional weaknesses and policy barriers and strengthening the enabling environment for sustainable biodiversity conservation; and (2) knowledge and technology barriers for improving conservation planning. The envisaged field investments will improve the status of protection and management of key wetlands of global biodiversity importance. The proposed operation has 3 components.

4.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS

Component 1: Strategic Planning for Wetland Conservation: This component will provide technical assistance support establishment of two wetland areas (Sierra Leone River Estuary, and Manunta Mayosso complex) as formal protected areas. This will include a) undertaking feasibility studies; b) completing baseline assessments (including biodiversity and social assessments; c) preparing survey and legal documents for formal protected area status and d) developing a strategic plan for wetland conservation nationwide.

Component 2: Wetland Conservation site Planning and Management: The project will provide services to support: planning and management; goods (e.g. motorbikes, small boats, global positioning systems (GPS), radios, lap tops, etc.); minor infrastructure improvements; training, including workshops and study tours; and some operational costs in order to develop and implement effective conservation management at the selected priority wetland conservation sites. Best practice will be shared with managers and stakeholders at other wetland sites around the country in the context of implementing a national strategic plan for wetland conservation. The component will include three sub-components:

(a) Pilot Site Management Planning and Implementation, which will entail: (i) establishing conservation management teams (CSMTs) at each of the selected sites, and building partnerships among government, non-government organizations, community-based organizations, traditional village leaders and the private sector; (ii) developing site specific conservation management plans (CMPs) that are endorsed by traditional and local authorities; (iii) implementing conservation management plans (include minor infrastructure improvements for staff and visitors such as observation posts, water supply, road access, research facilities, trails and camp sites; boundary demarcation; working with local communities to improve resources management, implementing monitoring systems, exploring financing options; and (iv) building capacity of field staff and key stakeholders to undertake conservation planning, management, and enforcement through joint training programs. (b) Community Mobilization and Outreach and Conservation-linked Development, which will entail provision of consultant services, goods, and training for: (i)

9

community outreach and awareness through strategic local and national communication programs that will include contributing to schools curricula, preparing information materials, extension by field staff, and developing nature clubs; and (ii) conservation-linked community development through the preparation and implementation of Community Action Plans (CAPs), which will, jointly with local stakeholders, identify priority threats to conservation in each site and explore options for addressing them. Activities under the CAPs may include: (a) providing training for developing income-generating activities; (b) supporting potential small-scale entrepreneurs to develop business plans and partnerships in support of conservation-linked investment initiatives; (c) supporting local practices for sustainable land use; (d) strengthening linkages with government programs and service providers (such as Farmer Field Schools); and (e) possible introduction of energy-saving technologies to reduce unsustainable dependency on natural resources. (c) Mainstreaming Conservation in District Development Planning, which will entail supporting the Government’s decentralization process by training conservation staff and local officials to work with District Councils and Ward Development Committees to ensure that conservation and sustainable natural resource management is incorporated in district and regional planning for development and service delivery. Component 3: Project Management: The Project will primarily finance services and some goods to support the existing BCP Project Management Team (PMT) within the Forestry Division of MAFFS, to ensure that the team has the necessary resources to effectively expand the scope of work to include the wetland sites and wetland conservation strategy development. Activities will include: (i) ongoing operation of the National Steering Committee (NSC) and Project Management Team, (ii) developing and supervising annual and quarterly work plans and budgets, (iii) overseeing procurement and financial management and conducting annual audits, and (iv) establishing baselines, and developing planning, monitoring and evaluation systems for wetlands in the context of the national conservation program.

4.3 PROJECT LOCATION

On-the-ground activities on conservation planning and management will be implemented in two priority wetland ecosystems including: i) Sierra Leone River Estuary (coastal wetland, 34,234 ha) and ii) Mamunta Mayosso (inland wetland, 2,076 ha). The exact boundaries of these conservation sites will be confirmed and demarcated during project implementation phase.

4.3.1 Sierra Leone River Estuary

The Sierra Leone River Estuary covers an area of more than 259,000 ha and was designated a “Wetland of International Importance” on December 13, 1999 under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. This site is the drowned estuary of the Rokel/Seli River. It is bounded to the north by a coastal plain indented by creeks, and to the south by the mountainous Western Area peninsula. At the point of entry into the Atlantic Ocean, the estuary widens to about 11 km and abruptly deepens along its southern shore to form a natural harbour (the third-largest in the world). The estuary is lined by 110 ha of mud and

10

sand foreshore, backed by mangroves, and 1,800 ha of intertidal mudflat and muddy sandflats, containing key mangrove tree species and abundant wader species. The predominant mangrove tree species are Rhizophora sp., Avicennia africana, Laguncularia sp. and Conocarpus sp. The site is a critical bird habitat. A total of 36 wader species have been recorded in the estuary and numbers are known to regularly exceed 20,000. This is one of the four major sites for wintering waders in the country. Concentrations are usually found along the banks of the Bunce River and Aberdeen Creek, where mangroves provide suitable roosting sites, as well as breeding habitat for such species as the striated heron Butorides striatus, and other species of egrets and herons. Less common migrant Palearctic waders (less than 500 individuals) found include ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres, Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata, marsh sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis and Temmink’s stint Calidris temminckii.5

Major threats to the site include, inter alia, unsustainable clearing of mangroves for firewood and construction materials; dumping of untreated waste from industries in the Freetown area; and oil spillage from tankers unloading at the main port. Furthermore, salt processing and curing of fish, which requires large quantities of firewood, provide additional threats to the site.

4.3.2 Mamunta Mayosso Complex

The Mamunta Mayosso complex is situated in Kholifa and Mabang Chiefdoms, Tonkolili district, Northern Province about 180km due east of Freetown, and was the first site to be managed as a wildlife sanctuary in Sierra Leone. Located almost at the centre of the country, Mamunta Mayosso supports a wide range of vegetation types. The predominant vegetation is boliland (seasonally flooded grassland) with occasional occurrence of swamps, savanna, secondary forest and two perennial lakes. This 2,000 ha site is important for its diverse endemic flora and has excellent eco-tourism potential; it is one of the few areas in Sierra Leone still supporting viable populations of the threatened Dwarf Crocodile, and hosts 252 species of birds, belonging to 51 families. These include two near threatened species - Turati's Boubou and Rufous-winged Illadopsis. A waterfowl census conducted at the two wetlands of Dakrafi and Robierra (Thompson, 1994) gave a total of 1280 birds of 18 species and includes a large count of the White-faced Whistling Duck. In addition to birds, eight species of primates are known to occur in this sanctuary. Also present are big game mammals such as bushbuck, bushpig, genets and duikers. The threatened primate species are Western Chimpazee and Red Colobus monkey. Other threatened fauna includes the Dwarf Crocodile. The major threat to the site is cultivation of agricultural crops (rice and cassava). Other threats include cattle grazing, fishing, and hunting. The communities within the vicinity of the reserve operate a raffia produce-manufacturing group that deals in high quality raffia products like handbags, baskets, hand fans etc. Makeni, which is the headquarter town in the Northern Province is within 50 km to the north. 6

5 BirdLife International (2009) Important Bird Area factsheet: Sierra Leone River estuary, Sierra Leone.

The selected sites will therefore not only enhance the ecosystem representativeness within the protected area system but also offer a high potential for tourism activities in the future. At the outset it is thus critical that the selected sites are brought under proper management and the basic critical needs of these areas be met to enable any further action in the longer term

6 Some information on Mamunta Mayosso is from Conservation Society of Sierra Leone

11

5.0 BASELINE OF PROPOSED WETLANDS CONSERVATION AREAS

5.1 SIERRA LEONE RIVER ESTUARY

5.1.1 Historical

The Sierra Leone River comprises major rivers such as the Rokel River, the Bunce river and the Port Look creek. It is 16 km wide and 40 km long. The Queen Elizabeth II Quay, which is the major port, is situated on this river. This proposed area is bordered with main fishing villages or coastal villages which include Fernandopo, Gbonkobankala, Kirima Village, Rogberay, Kakim, Mayagba, Shylor, Robana, Kasanko, Mathamkiya, Benkia, Tumba, Kegbeli, Makainkay, Makambo, Manday, Aberdeen creek, around Mange, Ropolon, Tumba, Makipte, Kasuko, Mene town, Beke bana, Makambo, Manday, Kegbele, Makainkay.

The Sierra Leone River is the combined estuary of many smaller creeks and few major rivers, with over 110 km of mud or mud-sand foreshore, essentially backed by mangroves and 1800 ha of intertidal mud and muddy sand (Tye, A. and Tye, H. 1987). Only three areas were found to have extensive mudflats: Aberdeen Creek, Bunce Creek and mudflats south of Tasso Island. All other areas were exposed sandbanks or smaller mudflats bordering mangrove coasts. The sand-flats are less extensive here than at the Scarcies River. An area of 295,000 hectares of the Sierra Leone River estuary is classified as a Wetland of International Importance (RAMSAR convention) in the west of Sierra Leone (UN EPWCMC, 2004, RAMSAR Sites, 1999). The Sierra Leone River estuary mouth holds deeper waters and strong marine currents. See an illustration of the Sierra Leone River Estuary in the figure 5.1 below. The estuary currently has no official protection status. However large fishing vessels are not allowed within this area (20 nautical mile buffer zone) and only artisanal fishing activities are allowed. The site was designated a Ramsar site (Sierra Leone’s first; 1014th in the world) following the signing of the Ramsar Convention by the Government in December 1999.

5.1.2 Geographical

The Sierra Leone River Estuary estuary is located on the western coast of Sierra Leone. It stretches across the coastal regions of the Koya, Maforki, Loko Massama and Kafu Bullom chiefdoms, Northern province and the northern coast of the Freetown Peninsula. It is the drowned estuary of the Rokel/Seli River, bounded on the north by a coastal plain indented by creeks and on the south by a mountainous peninsula with peaks ranging from 330 to 950m in height. At its entrance into the Atlantic ocean the estuary widens to about 11km and suddenly deepens at its southern shore to form a natural harbour, the third largest in the world.

12

FREETOWN

Airport Lungi

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Lumley Wellington

Hastings

Tagrin Jetty

Tasso Island

Tasso Pepel

Mahera

Ferry

Service SIERRA LEONE RIVER ESTUARY

N

Mangroves

Forest reserve areaMain roads / feeder roads

Streams/small riversTowns/villages

Capital city

Swamps

0 5 10Kilometres

Peninsula Forest reserve

Figure 5.1: Sierra Leone River Estuary The estuary is lined by 110ha of mud/sand foreshore and around 1800ha of intertidal mud and muddy sand. The vegetation is predominantly mangrove swamp of Rhizophora sp, Avicinnia africana, Laguncularia sp and Conocarpus sp. It also accounts for 19% (34,234ha) of the mangrove swamps in Sierra Leone, and a large proportion of the mangrove resources in the Western Area. Annual rainfall at the catchment areas of the Rokel river ranges between 2200 and 3200mm. Most of the rainfall enters the estuary as runoff due to the topography of the drainage basin and the relatively impermeable soil structure. Average diurnal range in temperature is 21-320C, becoming hotter during the dry season. Relative humidity at 15.00h varies between 50% and 90% annually. The estuary is composed of part of the Bullom series, which consist of Eocene and Lignite bearing clay, overlain discomformably by quaternary gravel, sand and clay. Salinity figures ranges from 21.6% to 34.1% and 8.2% to 30.5% during the dry and rainy seasons respectively. Freetown, the capital city, forms the southern bank of the estuary's mouth. Other areas within the estuary can be accessed by motored boats. Bunce Island is found in the waters of the Rokel river and still has the ruins of a slave castle, which is a tourist attraction. There are other small, inhabited islands along the inner reaches of the estuary. Pepel, which is a small coastal settlement within the estuary, has a port for the now defunct iron ore mines at Lunsar 60 km away. The warehouses at the port still contain the moribund ore and passenger locomotive trains. A 35 minutes ferry service operates between Freetown and Targrin; the latter is about 12 km from the Freetown International Airport, Lungi. The Queen Elizabeth II Quay, which is the main seaport in Sierra Leone, is situated on the Freetown shores.

13

5.1.3 Biological Diversity in the Sierra Leone River Estuary

The Sierra Leone River estuary has been the most widely investigated because of its proximity and accessibility to the commercial capital, Freetown. This estuary is rich in biological diversity which includes mangrove, birds, fish stock and other coastal and marine organisms.

5.1.3.1 Mangrove Mangroves are again well developed at the mouths of the Rokel River, behind Tagrin Point, and several islands in the estuary, e.g. Yema and Tasso Islands are covered by mangroves. The mangrove belt extends southwards to the Bunce River and along the landward side of the mountainous Freetown Peninsula. The mangrove swamps are 0.5-3 km wide and are broken up by numerous creeks, behind which are the mangroves and strips of freshwater swamp forest (FAO. 1979, Technical Report No. 2-SIL/73/002; Ramsar Convention, 2000). The Sierra Leone River Estuary, which is dominated by mangrove systems and includes 19% of the total national mangrove forest (Chong, 1987), is a very important habitat for migrant birds. The main mangrove tree species are Rhizophora racemosa, R. mangle and R. harrisonii and they are found at the edge of the water. The others (Avicennia germinans, Conocarpus erectus and Laguncularia racemosa are dominant upstream at the tidal limits, where R. mangle and R. harrisonii can also be found. With regards to protection of the mangrove vegetation, the Sierra Leone River Estuary has been designated as wetland of international importance in 1999.

5.1.3.2 Faunal diversity The plankton of the Sierra Leone River estuary and parts of its creeks and bays has been studied by many researchers including (Watts, 1958; Bainbridge, 1960; Aleem, 1973; Leigh, 1973; Findlay, 1978; COMARAF, 1990; Conteh, 2001). The spatial distribution and temporal fluctuations in plankton production are linked with the changes in climate during the rainy season (May-September). The estuary is rich in both phytoplankton and zooplankton. The major phytoplankton species are Thalassiosira, Nitzchia, Pleurosigma, Coscinodiscus, Thalassionema, Skeletonema, Amphora, Ceratium, Peridinum, Senedesmus and Oscillatoria (Ndomahina, 2002). The principal phytoplankton species in the dry season are Coscinodiscus and Thalassiothrix and in the rainy season, Thalassiothrix, Coscinodiscus and Thalassiosira. Average production levels of 100-150 C/m2/yr have been recorded (Ndomahina, 2002). In the case of zooplankton, principal categories such as Copepoda (Temora turbinate, Centropages furcatus, Schmackeria serricaudatus), Cladocera (Evadne tergestina, Penilia avirostrius), Mysiidacea; Brachuran larvae, Brachyuran megalopa, Amphipoda; Hyperiidae, Gammaridae; Decapoda (Lucifer faxoni); Chaetognatha (Sigitta enflata, Sagitta frideric); Appendicularia; Thalacea; Polychaeta (Leigh, 1973; Finlay, 1978) have identified in the Sierra Leone River estuary. The most dominant of the zooplankton categories are the Copepoda (Ndomahina, 2002).

14

With regards to benthic organisms, the following organisms have been identified: the Venus community; Amphioplus sub-community; Venus/Amphioplus transition; Pachymelania community and Estuarine gravel community (Longhurst, 1958).

5.1.3.3 Fish species of the Sierra Leone River estuary The Sierra Leone River estuary is endowed with vast fisheries resources. A large number of fish species to the tune of over 60 have been recorded in the estuary. The fish species in the Sierra Leone River estuary have been categorized into two broad categories: a) Pelagic fish community and b) Estuarine and Creek sub-communities (Longhurst, 1969; Fager and Longhurst, 1963; Longhurst and Pauly, 1987).

a) Pelagic Fish Community

The pelagic fish resources of the Sierra Leone River estuary have been extensively studied either as an assemblage or as single species by various studies (Longhurst, 1963; Williams, 1968; 1969; Brainnard, 1978; Nieland, 1980; 1982; Ssentengo and Ansa-Emmin, 1986; Anyangwa, 1988; 1989; Coutin, 1989). The most important species of this group are the Clupeidae (Ethmalosa fimbriata, Sardinella maderensis, Ilisha Africana), Chloroscombrus chrysurus and others include the Carangidae (Caranx Senegallus; Caranx caranx. Other Carangids such as Decapterus spp are found in high tide.

b) Estuarine Fish Community

This assemblage of fish largely consists of demersal fish species that have high range of salinity tolerance. The assemblage is diverse and dominated by Sciaenids such as Pseudotolithus elongates, P. senegalensis, P. brachygnatus, P. typus; Drepanidae (Drepane africana); Polynemidae (Galeoides decadactylus); Pomadasyidae (Pomadasys jubelini, P. rogerii, P. peroteti); Lutjanidae (Lutjanus goreensis, L. agenes); Cynoglossidae (Cynoglossus goreensis, C. senegalensis); Psettodidae (Psettodes belcheri); Tetraodontidae (Lagocephalus laevigatus); Gerridae (Gerres melanopterus); Ariidae (Arius spp); Sphyraenidae (Sphyraena spp); Dasyatidae (Dasyatis margarita); etc. (MFMR Records; Ndomahina, 2002). In addition, this estuary, also serves as nursery ground for other important species like Penaeus atlantica and Penaeus notialis, marine mammals such as manatee (Reeves et al., 1988), turtles, etc.

5.1.3.4 Birds The Sierra Leone River estuary is a very important habitat for migrant birds. Within the estuary, highest numbers of waders were present at the Aberdeen Creek mudflats and on the Tasso Mudflats. But due to the long coastline bordering creeks, many bird species are numerous although present in low densities (e.g. Common Sandpiper, herons). Terns are common in the estuary as well as at the estuary river mouth, especially Royal Tern which feeds mainly offshore. The area is of international importance for Lesser Crested Tern. The area is an Important Bird Area (SL005) and designated as Wetland of International Importance in 1999 (Ramsar Convention) (Okoni-Williams et al. 2001).

15

Few detailed ornithological records were available before the IBA inventory, but several bird counts have been conducted in areas within the estuary, especially the Aberdeen Creek. The estuary is regarded as one of the four most important sites for Palaearctic migrants in the country. The site supports seven wintering wader species whose numbers exceed 1% of their biogeography population. A total of 36 waterbird species has been recorded and it is known to regularly hold over 20,000 birds (Tye and Tye, 1987; Thompson and Wood, 1992). The most common Palaearctic migrant species found in the estuary is Curlew sandpiper. Less numerous Palaearctic migrants (<500 individuals) that regularly winter in the estuary include Turnstone, Curlew, Marsh Sandpiper and Temmink's Stint. Concentrations are usually found along the banks of Bunce River and Aberdeen Creek, where mangrove provide suitable breeding sites for such species as Green-backed Heron.

5.1.3.5 Mammals and Reptiles The threatened West African Manatee occurs. Five species of marine turtles occur; Leatherback, Green, Hawksbill, loggerhead and Olive Riddle.

5.1.4 Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics

The estuary borders both Port Loko District and part of the Western urban and Western rural districts. The population is very much cosmopolitan with diverse socioeconomic activities ranging from all works of life.

5.1.4.1 Population and Social Characteristics The Western Area Rural has four (4) wards with a total population of 174,249 comprising 86,094 (49.41%) males and 88,155 (50.59%) females. The Pork Loko District has a total population of 453,746 with a male population of 212,948 (46.93%) and female population of 240,798 (53.07%). West 2 ward of Western Area Urban population is 91,345 made up of 45,657 males (49.99%) and 45688 females (50.01). Hence, as per the 2004 Sierra Leone Housing and Population Census, the population of people in the Sierra Leone River Estuary area tragetted under the Wetlands Conservation Project is 719,435 with 344,699 (47.91%) males and 374736 (52.09%) females. See Tables 5.1-5.4 below. Table 5.1: Distribution of Chiefdoms, Wards and Sections, Enumeration areas and Local Councils in the Project Areas

No Local Council Area Chiefdoms Wards

Sections Enumeration Areas

Localities

1 Port Loko 11 162 890 2,370 2 Tonkolili 11 80 825 1,398 3 Western Rural 4 22 176 217 4 Western Urban (West 2) 1

16

Table 5.2: Distribution of Population by Administrative Districts in the Project Area Administrative District Number of Persons Percentage (%) SEX Ratio Port Loko 453,746 9.12 88 Tonkolili 347,197 6.98 87 Western Rural 172,249 3.5 95 Western Urban 772,873 15.53 98 Table 5.3: Population of Major and Minor Local Councils by Sex in the Project Areas Local Council

No. of H/Hold

H/Hold Pop

Males Females Sex Ratio

Avg. H/H Size

Special Pop

Final Pop

Port Loko

65,590 453,019 212,319 240,700 88.2 6.9 727 453,746

Tonkolili 52,861 346,456 161,347 185,109 87.2 6.6 741 347,197 Western Rural

30,060 169,807 82,643 87,164 94.8 5.6 4,442 174,249

Total 148,511 969,382 456,309 512,973 975,192 Table 5.4: Populations by Chiefdoms and Wards in the Project Areas

Province District Chiefdom/Ward House Hold Population Special Population Final Population

N

OR

TH

ER

N P

RO

VIN

CE

Por

t Lok

o

Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Bkm 32,174 15096 17,078 32,174 15,096 17,078 Buya Rmende 27,881 13,230 14,651 27,881 13,230 14,651 Dibia 15,077 7,123 7,954 15,077 7,123 7,954 Kaffu Bullom 69,026 32,929 36,097 611 544 67 69,637 33,473 36,164 Koya Western 63,614 29,519 34,095 63,613 29,519 34,095 Lokomasama 72,348 33,469 38,879 72,348 33,469 38,879 Maforki 67,927 31,724 36,203 115 84 31 68,042 31,808 36,234

Masimera 32,845 15,232 17,613 32,845 15,232 17,613 S/Magbolontor 15,088 7,017 8,071 15,088 7,017 8,071 TMS 20,932 9,732 11,200 20,932 9,732 11,200

Sub-Total 453,019 212,319 240,700 453,746 212,948 240,798

Ton

kolil

i

Gbonkolenken 47,655 21,925 25,70 173 107 66 47,838 22,032 25,806 Kafe Simira 19,817 9,307 10,510 19,817 9,307 10,510 Kalansogia 16,406 7,604 8,802 16,406 7,604 8,802 Kholifa Mabang 12,437 5,721 6,716 23 15 8 12,460 5,736 6,724 Kholifa Rowalla 47,391 22,344 25,047 284 199 85 47,675 22,543 25,132 Kumike Barina 13,411 6,581 6,830 13,411 6,581 6,830 Kunike Sanda 42,968 20,280 22,688 42,968 20,280 22,688 Malal Mara 14,025 6,478 7,547 14,025 6,478 7,547 Sambaya 22,728 10,479 12,249 22,728 10,479 12,249 Tane 22,242 10,318 11,924 22,242 10,318 11,924 Yomi 87,366 40,310 47,056 261 151 110 87,627 40,461 47,166

Sub-Total 346,456 161,347 185,109 741 472 269 347,197 161,819 185,378

W

este

rn A

rea

Rur

al

Koya 22,987 10,972 12,015 9 6 3 22,996 10,978 12,018 Mountain 8,874 4,571 4,303 1051 917 134 9,925 5,488 4,437 Waterloo 76,323 36,393 39,930 1468 1122 346 77,791 37,515 40,276 York Rural 61623 30,707 30,916 1914 1406 508 63,537 32,113 31,424 Sub-total 169,807 82,643 87,164 4442 3451 991 174,249 86,094 88,155

Urban West 2 88,532 43,825 44,707 2813 1613 591 91,345 45,657 45,688 1,057,81

4 500,134 557,680 1,066,53

7 506,527 561,019

17

5.1.4.2 Employment and Labour Force The Labour Force distribution is proportional regionally but clearly shows gender disparity. There is a fair share of an inactive population with over 60 engaged in household work (about 12 percent not working and not looking for work, retired and others. The distribution of the Labour Force classified by industry tells the entire story about labour mismatch. About 80 percent of those employed are either in the crop farming (60.4 percent) or Trade/Repairs (14.32 percent) or Commercial/Social Work (4.4 percent). At the district level Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry loomed paramount. The distribution of labour force and total inactive population by sex in the districts in the project area are presented in tables 5.5 and 5.6 below. Classifying Labour Force by cash earning shows that 50 percent of the labour force is self employment, 5 percent paid employment. There is dire need for small and medium scale (SM) enterprise development. Agriculture accounts for about 61 percent of total cash earning. The preponderance of Agriculture as the major means of earning cash, the ultimate job for a lot rural people implies the vogue of “decent work” propagated by the ILO is yet a far cry in Sierra Leone. The desire for job creation as a strategy for poverty reduction is well placed because te bulk of the economically active are at economic risk and therefore vulnerable to the vagaries of climate and shortage of input supplies and credit/loans. Table 5.5: Distribution of Total Labour Force 15-64 years by District and Sex in the Project Area Male Female District Total Male

Pop Total Labour Force

Distribution of Male Labour Force (%)

Total Female Pop

Total Female Labour Force

Distribution of Female Labour Force (%)

Port Loko 97,311 62,785 7.91 129,172 72,241 10.38 Tonkolili 74,929 43,486 5.48 99,629 42,229 6.07 Western Rural

44,855 32,022 4.04 48,163 30,602 4.40

Western Urban

231,324 145,788 18.38 226,793 115,263 16.56

Sierra Leone

1,235,078 793,290 100 1,386,695 696,170 100

Table 5.6: Distribution of the Total Inactive Population 15-64years by District and Sex in the Project Area Male Female District Inactive

Pop Distribution of Inactive Pop (%)

% of Inactive Male Pop

Inactive Pop

Distribution of Inactive Pop

% of Inactive Female

18

within District

Pop within District

Port Loko 24063 7 25 37,789 7 29 Tonkolili 18,543 6 25 37,887 7 38 Western Rural

11,423 4 25 15,190 3 32

Western Urban

81,444 25 35 105,643 21 47

Sierra Leone

322,758 100 26 513,353 100 37

5.1.4.3 Economic Activities in the Project Area Fishing is the main occupation of inhabitants along the banks of the estuary. Artisanal fishing is done with 2-8 man canoes and nets. Legislation limiting the mesh size of fishing nets exists, but there is little or no enforcement. Wood-cutting is also a major economic activity in the area. The rate of mangrove extraction is high particularly along the Bunce River because of its proximity to Freetown where the demand for fuel-wood is high. The wood is mainly used for cooking and fish smoking. There are many small permanent settlements and a few large ones on the banks and creeks of the estuary. Most of the islands in the estuary are inhabited. The main activities that preoccupy the coastal dwellers include the following: Fishing activity Fishing plays a pivotal role in the economic development of fisherfolks in most coastal communities bordering the Sierra Leone river estuary. The 2003 Frame Survey recorded 5728 fulltime fishermen and 1869 part time fishermen operating in fishing communities bordering the estuary in the Port Loko axis. On the Western District axis (Urban and Rural), about 20% of the total full time fishermen (4664) and part time fishermen (832) operate along the Sierra Leone River estuary (Fisheries of Siera Leone , 2003). The fishermen target diverse fish species found in the estuary using various fishing crafts such as Kru canoe, Std 1-3, Std 3-5, Std 5-10 and Ghana boats that employ diverse fishing gears such as ringnets, surface driftnets, surface setnets, bottom driftnets, bottom setnets, beach seine, castnets and hook &line (Fisheries of Siera Leone , 2003). The bulk of the landings constitute Clupeids such as Sardinella maderensis, Ethmalosa fimbriata, Ilisha africana, etc. Some demersal species such as the snapper family (Pagrus caeruleosticus, Pagellus bellottii, etc), Pomadasys sp., Arius sp., etc are caught by hook and line fishermen who also target semi-pelagic species such as Sphyraena spp (Barracudas) and carangids such as Caranx species (Cowrehs). In addition, fishermen land demersal species which include: the croakers (Pseudotolithus sp.), etc. (MFMR Records). Furthermore, the white shrimp (Penaeus atlantica) and the Oysters (Crassostrea tulipa) are largely targeted by fish women. The bulk of the shrimp sold by artisanal market women in the city of Freetown are caught upstream in the Sierra Leone River estuary. The fishery of Sierra Leone can from a management perspective be divided into 2 sections: Artisanal and Industrial. There are over 500 landing sites along the coastline (23 in WAP).

19

There are an estimated 30,000 artisanal fisheries operating 8000 boats of different sizes and designs (kru canoe, standard 1-3, standard 3-5, Ghana Plank). A variety of gear types are also in use (Ring nets, Drift nets, Beach seines, Cast nets, Hosk and Line) WAP has 8000 fishers.

The industrial sector operates about 55 vessels (Demersal trawlers, Shrimpers, Canoe Support, Purse seiners and Liners). Trawling destroys both topography and the biota especially of suspension feeders and fish. The seabed topography and integrity are altered. The Artisanal sector lands about 120,000mt of fish annually with 20,000mt being contributed by the industrial sector. Unsavoury fishing methods (Channel fishing, Poisons, Explosives, monofilament nets), and increased shrimping activities especially in the Inshore Exclusive Zone have lead to a decline in fish stocks and an over-exploitation of some species including endangered species (Turtles, mammals).

The following important species considered either fully exploited or overexploited include: Pseudotolithus elongates, drepane Africana, Arius latisticatus, Galeiodes decadactylus, Pagellus belloti, Sparus Sparus, Polydactylus quadrifilis and Pentanemus quinquarius The bulk of the fish caught are preserved by smoking using mangrove wood as fuel wood. However, the valued demersal fish caught by hook and line boats are sold fresh to rich consumers. Boat building Boat building is one of the pre-occupations of the coastal dwellers. Various types of boats are built ranging in length from 4m – 8m. Some of the canoes are either dug-out or made with planks of wood. These boats are used to transport the mangrove wood from the sites where felling has taken place to the market areas. The main uses of these boats are for fishing and transportation. Handicrafts Handicraft is the practical use of local plants and other natural resources. Items produced are mainly for household purposes and include roofing materials, mats, bags, baskets, trays, etc. using traditional designs and patterns. Wildlife Hunting Wild life hunting is a common tradition in the coastal area of Sierra Leone. The coastal forest is a home to monkeys, birds, antelopes, daikas etc. These animals are often hunted as a supplementary meat source to the more formal and expensive cow, goat, sheep or pig meat found in the market. This so called bush meat hunting particularly in border towns in some of the coastal areas have graduated from a subsistence activity to a commercially oriented activity.

20

Forest Resources Exploitation Forest resources in the coastal zone of the Sierra Leone River estuary are exploited for a variety of uses. Prominent amongst these is the fuel wood trade in mangrove forest wood as well as poles for building and other purposes. As already mentioned, coastal forests are exploited for boat building and handicraft. The wood cutters along the estuary have been motivated by the ready market that is available in main fishing communities such as Portee wharf, Old wharf, etc along the Rokel River (MFMR, AFCOD Records). In addition to the above, mangrove vegetations in some mudflats near Freetown are being cleared and reclaimed for construction of dwelling houses. A typical example is Aberdeen creek point. Oyster Farming Oyster farming from mangroves and other hard sub-strata is another activity of coastal dwellers along the estuary. Oysters are harvested for both commercial and subsistence purposes. Agriculture Agricultural practices such as rice farming does exist along Sierra Leone River estuary but the alteration of the mangrove vegetation for rice farming is not as extensive as in the Scarcies River estuary (Tye, A; Tye, H. 1987). In fact the areas most affected by swamp rice farming are the upstream villages bordering the estuary in Port Loko District (Tye, A; Tye, H. 1987). Sea transportation Another activity of economic value in the estuary is sea transportation. Almost all farmers, traders and fishermen operating in coastal communities in Port Loko District are border the Sierra Leone River estuary use transport boats to convey their goods and products to Freetown. Sand mining Sand mining is operating on a large scale along the Targrin point. A lot of sand miners, who are mostly unemployed unskilled youths operating from Kissy Dock yard point use large motorized canoes to convey sand from the sand bank at Targrin point. An average of 70 tons sand has been estimated to be bought per day (Per. Comm.) Major commercial ports

The Sierra Leone River estuary holds the major ports of Queen Elizabeth II Quay and a defunct port called Pepel that was used for transporting iron ore to Europe. The estuary is also important for shipping. It is the largest natural harbour in the African continent. The Queen Elizabeth II Quay generates huge revenue for the Government merchant shipping activities. In addition, it provides a source of employment for a lot of Sierra Leoneans, both skilled and unskilled labour.

21

5.1.4.4 Access to Health Facilities At national level, 3 percent of households have health facilities on their premises, 47 percent walk between half a mile (0.8km) to a mile (1.6km), 24 percent walk between one mile (1.6km) and less than five miles (8km) and 26 have to walk five miles (8km) or more to the nearest health facilities. There are marked variations in access to Health facilities between the western area on the one hand and the eastern, southern and northern regions on the other. In the eastern, northern and southern regions, 31, 25 and 28 percent respectively of the households are less than half a mile (0.8km) distance from a health facility compared to 59 percent in the western area. At the extreme, only 3 percent of the household have to walk at least 5 miles (8km) to the nearest health facility in western area whilst 26, 36 and 32 percent of the household in eastern, northern and southern provinces respectively have to walk for more 5 miles (8km). At the district level between 50 and 60 percent of the households walk 1–5 miles (1.6km-8km) to access a health facility.The distribution of health facilities in the districts in the project area are presented in Tables 5.7 and 5.8 below. Table 5.7: Distribution of Health Facilities

Dis

tric

t

Gov

t Hos

p.

Com

m

Hea

lth

Cen

tre

Com

m

Hea

lth

M

ater

nal

& C

hld

H.

G

ovt

Clin

ics

Mili

tary

H

osp

Priv

ate

Hos

p

Com

mun

ity

Hos

p

Indu

st

Clin

ics

Mis

sion

C

linic

s

Mis

sion

H

osp

NG

O

Clin

ics

Priv

ate

Clin

ic

Tot

al

Port Loko

2 11 21 55 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 95

Tonkolili 1 8 9 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 74 W. Area 12 20 10 15 9 0 2 0 1 12 2 2 23 108 Source: Ministry of Health and Sanitation Table 5.8: Distribution of Health Facilities, Hospitals and Beds per Population District Population Pop/Health

Facility Pop/Hospital Pop/Bed

Port Loko 453,746 4,776 151,249 1,371 Tonkolili 347,197 4,692 173,599 911 Western Area 947,122 8,770 59,195 450 Source: Ministry of Health

22

5.1.4.5 Distribution of Poverty Levels At the district level of the project areas, the incidence, depth and severity of poverty and the rural/urban split of the incidence of poverty are presented in tables 5.10 and 5.11 respectively. Table 5.9: Incidence, Depth and Severity of Poverty by Districts in the Project Area District Simple

Share Food Poor (%)

Total Poor (%)

Poverty Gap Index P1

Poverty Severity Index P2

Contribution to Poverty Co (%)

Income Gap Ratio P1/P2

Port Loko 5.8 32 84 35 20 7 42 Tonkolili 9.8 20 82 31 15 11.5 38 Western Rural

1.9 15 45 16 9 1.2 36

Western Urban

10.8 2 15 4 4 2.2 27

Source: SLIHS, 2003/2004 Table 5.10: Incidence of Poverty by District and Rural/Urban Split District Urban Rural Food Poor Total Poor Food Poor Total Poor Port Loko 12.7 71.9 22.6 85 Tonkolili 36.4 87.7 31 84.2 Western Area 3.2 17.1 26.3 70.1 Source: SLIHS, 2003/2004

5.1.4.6 Energy for Cooking and Lighting At national level, 87 and 7 percent, respectively, of the households use wood and charcoal as the principal sources of energy for cooking. This pattern of fuel use for cooking is common at regional and district levels. Between the 1985 and 2004 censuses, there were drops in the use of electricity (0.30 – 0.15 percent), Kerosene (4.40 – 4.22 percent) and wood (93.20 – 87.04 percent) for cooking at national level. These drops are reflected at the Provincial and District levels. The use of charcoal increased from 0.80 percent in 1985 to 7.52 percent in 2004. The use of wood as the main source of fuel in the Port Loko, Tonkolili and Western Rural Project Districts are 95.7, 96.15 and 84.28 respectively (See table 5.12). It is important to point out that the extent of use of wood and charcoal by the majority of the population at regional and district levels is a great disincentive for the numerous natural resource conservation initiatives by MAFFS. A radical initiative to encourage the use of alternative sustainable energy sources is needed. At the national level, 86 percent of the households use kerosene for lighting. At regional level, 4, 5 and 10 percent, respectively, of households use electricity for lighting in the eastern, southern and western regions. Less than 1 percent of the households use electricity for lighting in northern region. In the Port Loko, Tonkolili and Western Rural districts, kerosene is the main source of energy for lighting (See table 5.12).

23

Table 5.11: Household Size and other Household Socio-economic Characteristics in the Project Area (In Percent) Port Loko Tonkolili Western

Rural Western Urban

National Avg

Household Size

6.9 6.6 5.6 5.7 6.0

Occupancy Status

Owning 86.6 89.0 48.3 32.5 75.1

Renting 6.2 5.6 34.9 58.7 19.3 Employer

Provided 3.3 3.0 9.4 5.3 3.2

Other 3.8 2.3 7.3 3.6 2.4 Main source of lighting

NPA/BKPs 0.02 0.05 2.25 11.93 4.10

Gas 0.22 0.23 0.46 0.57 0.31 Kerosene 97.03 90.93 92.77 79.08 85.63 Generator 0.51 0.40 1.77 4.02 1.07 Battery 0.42 0.49 1.12 0.89 0.80 Candle 0.28 0.09 0.98 2.75 0.78 Wood 0.99 7.28 0.46 0.43 5.12 Other 0.51 0.54 0.19 0.34 2.19 Main source of fuel

Gas 0.19 0.12 0.4 1.02 0.36

Kerosene 3.06 3.22 5.22 10.75 4.22 Charcoal 0.69 0.26 9.01 34.17 7.52 Wood 95.76 96.15 84.28 50.74 87.04 Electricity 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.61 0.15 other 0.27 0.20 0.93 2.70 0.71 Source: Statistics Sierra Leone; 2004 Population and Housing Census.

5.1.4.7 Education and Literacy There is an urban-rural divide in school attendance with percentage school attendance being significantly greater in the more urban areas than the more rural areas. For instance the Port Loko and Tonkolili Districts the distribution of School attendance of 6-29years is about 42%. The literacy rates for the Port Loko and Tonkolili, which are the project area districts, are 32% and 30% respectively.

5.1.5 Environmental and Ecological Issues

Like other estuaries in Sierra Leone, the coastal resources in Sierra Leone River estuary are subjected to increasing exploitation pressures in the hands of coastal dwellers principally for their living. The economic, social and nutritional values of the fisheries and other coastal resources have badly weakened the resilience of these resources to live in perpetuity. The environmental challenges that facing this sector are summarized below:

5.1.5.1 Mangrove over-exploitation

24

The mangrove vegetation in the Sierra Leone has suffered some clearance for rice farming especially in the upstream villages in Port Loko District. Mangroves are exploited on a minor scale although in some areas they were replaced by rice fields (See figure). The estuary mouth holds deeper waters and strong marine currents. The major threats the mangrove vegetation is facing presently are the use of mangrove as fuel wood and the clearing and reclaiming of mangrove mudflats for urban developments. The uncontrolled and unchecked cutting down of mangroves as fuel wood (Chong, 1987, Johnson and Johnson, 1991, 1992), and for development works along the rokel, bunce rivers and the Aberdeen creek respectively has become ecological concerns as the potential for habitat destruction of spawning and nursery areas are growing. The fish species spawning in these areas are faced with the possibility of recruitment failure. In addition the most important areas for migrant birds such as waders have been damaged or destroyed by reclamation for building works (Tye, A. and Tye, H. 1987) Furthermore, the growing exodus of unskilled population into the coastal areas (2004 Population census) has led to indiscriminate cutting down of mangrove trees for rice cultivation, harvesting of Oysters; boat building and construction has led to the declining trend or over-exploitation of mangrove vegetations in most coastal creeks and open shores of the coastline as indicated in the figure 4 below. (Coastal profile of Sierra Leone, 2007). This situation has catastrophic consequences for biological productivity of the marine environment as most spawning and nursery grounds have been destroyed. In addition, threat to the mangrove ecosystem has ecological implications on the wildlife biodiversity conservation efforts as it serves as a unique habitat for some animal species, notably the West African Manatee, Trichechus senegalensis. This animal is highly dependent on the mangrove habitat for its survival and daily existence as it feeds on mangrove leaves and other overhanging vegetation (Siaffa and Jalloh, 2006). But due to the extensive clearing of the mangrove vegetation in this area, the Manatees are forced to graze on rice fields which eventually expose them to human threats such as hunting. Furthermore, alteration of the coastal habitat has caused extensive sedimentation leading to blocking of waterways for manatees. The situation also affects the population and diversity of birds in this area, with emphasis on wintering birds such as Wintering Waders (Tye, A. and Tye, H. 1987).

5.1.5.2 Over-exploitation of the inshore fish stocks The Sierra Leone River Estuary is prohibited for industrial trawlers to trawl. The inshore fish stocks are exploited mainly by artisanal fishing fleet. The use of illegal fishing nets (Mina and Channel nets) and destructive fishing methods such as explosives and poisons has devastated the spawning stocks of most pelagic species. The use of small mesh size fishing nets to targets both spawners and juveniles of estuarine demersal fish species (Galeoides decadactylus, Pseudotolithus species, etc) and pelagic species such as Ethmalosa fimbriata, Sardinella maderensis has possibly led to recruitment over fishing and increasing fishing mortality on juvenile fish (Seisay and Ndomahina, 2005; MFMR Records). Recent assessment of the fisheries has indicated a decline in the catch per Unit rate (CPUE) for most commercially exploited fish species (see figures 4 and 5) (Seisay, M.B.D. 2006). The heavy pressure on the selective removal of inshore and offshore target fish species has depleted the spawning stocks, thus reducing the fish populations’ ability to replenish itself.

25

This condition has contributed to the overexploitation of some important commercial species, both pelagic and demersal resources (CECAF Report 2005; 2008) and Sardinella maderensis (CECAF Report 2009).

5.1.5.3 Exploitation of marine mammals The indiscriminate destruction of coastal habitats has affected most marine mammals and most commonly affected is the West African Manatee, Trichechus senegalensis. This species is being considered as pest by farmers (Reeves, et al. 1988) and hence they are being hunted by hunters and farmers and the meat sold to village members.

5.1.5.4 Industrial pollution Many of the industries in and around Freetown dump untreated wastes into this estuary. Oil spillage from tankers offloading at the Freetown port affects marine life. Pepel iron ore port used to be a source of heavy metal pollution when the mines were in operation. This is a future potential threat if the mines resume operations.

5.1.5.5 Siltation and erosion These threats mainly come from run-offs from the hillside overlooking Freetown, where clearing of forest cover has exposed the soil to erosion from heavy rainfall. Already, there is evidence of the effect of this process on some of the wetland microhabitats along the southern banks of the estuary. There is high rate of erosion along the banks of Konakridee, probably due to rise in sea levels in recent times.

5.2 MAMUNTA MAYAWSO COMPLEX

This site is important for its variety of vegetation types and is one of the few areas in Sierra Leone holding the threatened Dwarf Crocodile. The site is important for the economy and culture of the local people and is the first site to be managed as Wildlife Sanctuary in Sierra Leone for the following reasons(Philipson, 1978) among others:

• The Mamunta-Mayosso Wildlife Reserve(M-MWR) area has significant wildlife value and good transport facilities and adequate accommodation or where they could be provided for quickly;

• The local residents including the Paramount Chief in the M-MWR have taken the initiative in sanctioning the establishment of the reserve as a future investment worthy of development;

• The area contains Raffia Swamp Forest which constitutes only 0.5% (355km2) of the country (Gordon et al., 1979). This limited vegetative type (No. 14) within the reserve, provides critical habitat for the little known and endangered (CITES) species of crocodile Osteolaemus tetraspis;

• The Reserve provides habitat for over 242 species of birds. It also provides key habitat for five species of birds uncommon to the rest of Sierra Leone and West Africa. Also potential habitat exists for the elusive Bongo. Habitat is also provided for seven threatened species of Tubulidantata, the Ardvaark (CITES);

26

• Bolilands are a distinct and limited landform of Sierra Leone that needs preservation for scientific, economic and aesthetic use;

• The diversity of the Reserve would provide an environment for the teaching of conservation education to Sierra Leoneans of all ages, research in biology and agriculture and training in natural resources management;

• As tourism in Sierra Leone develops, the Reserve will provide a source of revenue to the local residents in the form of guiding, selling of handicrafts, facility construction and maintenance crews, commodity purchase, boat rentals and employment of wildlife staff; and

• The development and maintenance of the Reserve would complement the development of Outamba-Kilimi National Park, in that the Reserve is enroute and would provide travelers with a place to stay and view a completely different habitat than that of the National Park.

5.2.1 Important Customary and traditional rites related to M-MWR

Special customary rites are performed by the people in the Ronietta, lake Robela,lake Dakrifie and swarms in the area. Fishing is strictly regulated through traditional bye-laws. There are the closed (raining season-June to October) and the opened (dry season-November to May) fishing seasons. During the raining season fishing is not allowed since it is their traditional belief that this is the spawning period for the fishes. On an agreed date among the chiefs, elders, traditional and spiritual leaders, and all the community members, customary ceremonies are performed to invoke the ancestral spirits and by such rites lift the ban on fishing. The lifting of the ban only permits the community members to undertake fishing in the rivers only on that day. In course of the fishing disturbance of crocodiles are prohibited. It is a taboo to interfere with such creatures in the wetlands. The fishing activity ceases after that date until another year in order to allow the fishes to multiply again. The fishing customary rite is the same as the main fishing festival of the people in the area. It provides an opportunity for descendants from the area to travel home and several hundreds of people assemble to catch fish. The Mayosso section owns a swamp which is called Fotaneh (i.e. a resting place). Farming activities in this particular swampy area yields bumper harvest which lasts most of the year. However, as part of the communities own commitment towards conservation activities, farming in the Fotaneh area has stopped and the area is mainly used as a resting place. There is also a small forest area called Limanin Forest, which has small pockets of Water Lake with various fish species. It serves as a sacred place for the Mayosso community and a source of early or first fish in readiness for the commencement of the farming/fishing season. The Tecboma Forest, which is considered a place of refuge and a haven for games. If a game being pursued by a hunter runs into the Tecboma Forest (a demarcated area) the game must no longer be pursued and set free. The Tecboma forest is therefore considered as a resting place for animals and a sacred groove. The Tecboma forest is also a place for performing special rites to their ancestors. It is the expectation of the people that before the conservation project takes off, provision is made to allow the community chiefs and elders to perform the necessary customary rites. The demands and

27

requirements for these rites will be spelt out at the appropriate time as part of the project implementation agreement between the community and government.

5.2.1.1 Owners of the natural resources The Mayosso, Mamanor, Mamunta, Mafumba, Makoni sections are the main resource owners and communities in the conservation area. The key land owner families for the Mamanor section are the Koroma and Kamara families, whilst the Kargbo family is the main land owner in the Makoni village, which is under the Mayosso section. The Mayosso Section land owner families are the Kamara, Bangura and Conteh Families.

5.2.2 Historical

Legislation for wildlife protection in the Mamunta-Mayosso conservation area was enacted in 1901 (Ordinance for the Preservation of Wild Animals, Birds and Fish) and later updated in 1972 (Wildlife Conservation Act). To the local people, Robera, Dakraffi, and Ronieta forests in the Reserve were considered “devil’s” places and no one dared farm in the area. The area is considered the Temne County. The Temnes are historically known as a war-like tribe with an interesting history of logs during the peak logging industry in the mid-19th century and also several tribal battles were kown to have occurred in the area (Fyfe, 1962). Government Policy and Gazettement

A committee of twelve land owners in the Kholifa and Mabang Chiefdoms signed over the land to government for use as a wildlife sanctuary in 1980. This agreement was made possible by the efforts of Dr. Lowes and Peace Corps volunteers who worked in the area up to 1992. Wildlife staff from the Forestry Division now manage the affairs of the sanctuary. No immediate development plans exist for the area. The uncompromising attitude of landowners due to unfulfilled promises by the government is the major problem affecting the sanctuary’s management. Poor incentives, economic hardship and inadequate logistics to wildlife staff have worsened the situation.

Government’s failure to fulfill her promise regarding the handing over of land by the Kholifa and Mabang Chiefdoms to government for use as a wildlife sanctuary was discussed with the affected land owners during the community consultation as part of the processes for preparing this ESMF. The Mayosso section elders acknowledged that Mumunta did make a request for a resettlement at Mabobo, which is owned by the Mayosso section. Mayosso elders indicated their willingness to resettle the Manuta people at Mabobo but will not be able to give them land for farming because the Mayosso section itself do not have enough land for farming. Further, the Mayosso section disclosed their preparedness to discuss how to handle the resettlement of the Mamunta Section comprehensively with other chiefs, landowners and relevant stakeholders.

28

To address the concerns of the communities regarding poor incentives, economic hardships and logistic challenges of the community people, the provision of the following were requested by the communities in course of the consultations held during the preparation of this ESMF:

- Scholarship schemes for their school going children, especially project affected persons and their children; School for Mamunta section community;

- Bridge to connect the Magbas and the Mamunta sections - Medical and health support for the aged and most vulnerable such as women and

children; - Employment for the youth in the management of conservation areas as rangers, tour

guides etc; Eco-tourism development, springing up of hotels and guest houses; - Equitable distribution of employment benefits among the communities in the

conservation areas; - Skills training in areas such as carpentry, masonry, plumbing, soap making, technical

jobs etc; - Co-management and protection of conservation areas and natural resources with the

communities - Support for vegetable farming by women groups (i.e. Tamaraneh, which means let us

help each other schemes, sorbeh, which means let us all farm) - Alternative land for farming and support for the preparation of new farmlands and

provision of farming machinery, equipments, implements and inputs; - Priority educational support for the youth and children.

5.2.3 Geographical

This sanctuary occurs in the Kholifa and Mabang Chiefdoms, Tonkolili district, Northern Province, about 180 km east of Freetown. Located almost at the centre of the country, this sanctuary supports a wide range of vegetation types. The predominant vegetation is boliland (seasonally flooded grassland) with occasional occurrence of swamps, savanna, secondary forest and two perennial lakes. Water depths in swamps rise to 1.5 m during flooding. Mean annual rainfall ranges from 3048 to 3556 mm, Mean daily temperatures vary from 26-32oC in the dry season, and 20-30oC in the wet season. Relative humidity at 1500h varies between 50% and 80% annually. The area is founded on Precambrian-Bintumani granite rocks.

29

Figure 5.2: Mamunta-Mayosso Reserve Area Mayosso is on a motorable but untarred road that runs between Magburaka (30 km to the northeast) and Yonibana (35 km to the southwest). Yonibana (Mile 91) is on the Bo - Freetown highway. A dilapidated visitors centre, which needs urgent rehabilitation is situated on the Mayosso road. The communities within the vicinity of the reserve operate a raffia produce-manufacturing group that deals in high quality raffia products like handbags, baskets, hand fans etc. Makeni, which is the headquarter town in the Northern Province is within 50 km to the north.

5.2.3.1 Hydrology The reserve exists within the boliland of Sierra Leone and is therefore, subject of seasonally fluctuating water levels. This fact has a significant bearing on the recreational use of the area and what the visitor can expect to see at any one time. The mode of transportation to various parts of the Reserve is also influenced by water levels. One can walk in and around the low lying areas of the swamps from January to July. Sometime in the latter part of July, water begins to cover most parts of the swamps. By August through to December a boat must be used to traverse the swamps. The Reserves tributary system facilitates the use of a boat during the wet season to almost all the swamp areas, with limited portaging.

30

The only permanent waterbody that exists is the Ronieta Lake surrounded by a Raphia (Raphia vinifera) swamp forest. This lake is part of the Rokel River drainage in the northwest via the Marinki River. Approximately 20% of the water is covered in a solid mat of floating vegetation of the dominant Pycrus sp. The rest of the lake contains the emergent Nymphaea micrantha. Most of the four forests within the Reserve boundaries, namely Robera, Ronieta, Takboma and Dakraffi and Senkame forest near the Reserve, contain standing water during the wet season making access difficult. Forests within inland “bolis” or swamps of the Reserve are filled with water seasonally through rising water levels of he adjacent Rokel River. Also, direct rainfall and upland runoff add to the increased levels (Stobbs 1963). Fishermen in the Reserve take advantage of this seasonal flooding by locating fish traps in strategic locations in the narrow drainages such as on the south tributary of the Kasete near Robera swamp.

5.2.3.2 Vegetation There are four basic vegetative associations within the Reserve. These are: Secondary Forest (Riverain, fringing forest or sacred bush). All the forests within the Reserve, including Takboma, Ronieta East and Wets, Dakraffi, Robera, and Senkame outside the Reserve, fall within the secondary forest type. Characteristics of this type were (a) tree crop species of mango (Mangifera indica), and palm (Elaeis guineensis); and (b) remnants of tall trees typical of closed high (primary) forest. Forest Regrowth (Lophira-Chasmapodium association) This vegetation, often referred to as farm brush, is confined mainly to Dakraffi swamp area and, if allowed to develop, it will produce probably the largest secondary forest in the Reserve with the potential of primary forest development. Smaller portions of farm bush exist elsewhere such as near Lamani Swamp, Ronieta Lake and Rorinka Swamp. Lophira Tree Savannah (Lophira-Chasmopodium association) Typical of upland areas in the Reserve and numerous is the Lophira tree savannah of Lophira lanceolata-Chasmopodium caudatum. The latter is a common grass associated with Lophira lanceolata and is commonly referred to other tall grasses as “elephant grass”. A shrub associated with Lophira lanceolata commonly seen and collected along the railway south of Mamunta was Crossopteryx ferbrifuga. Upland Grassland (Chasmopodium-Nauclea association) According to Gordon et a;. (1978) this association is transitional in areas between the annually flooded grasslands and the Lophira sp. Tree savannah and consist of 3m tall grasses of Chasmopodium cuadatum and Hyparrhenia rufa. Low grasses will occur in this association on the soils with lateritic sheet such as schizachyrium scintellans (Gordon et al., 1978). Often, oil palm trees (Elaeis guineensis) will be scattered throughout the tall grasses.

31

According to Bakshi in Stobbs (1963) the association cannot withstand prolonged flooding and so will not be found in the same area as the boliland vegetation the receives annual flooding. The area is used for grazing by the Foulah and receives constant annual burning. Raphia Swamp Forest (Riverain, fringing forest, or sacred bush) This vegetation type is referred to by Cole (1968) as freshwater inland swamp forest. Only one such forest occurs in the Reserve and it surrounds Ronieta Lake. Parts of the Forest are dump and water-logged during the dry season but flooded during the wet season. A common usable tree of this type is the Raphia palm (Raphia vinifera) Swamp and Riverain Grassland (Anadelphia-Rhytachne association) Cole (1968) refers to this vegetation type as boliland grassland. It receives seasonal flooding and consists of short to medium size grasses, sedges and some forbs. For example in the south arm of the Kasete tributaries at Dakraffi and in Robera swamp a promininent forb was Jussiaes sp., prominent sedges were Eleocharis dulcis, Fimbristylis sp and Diplacrum africanum. According to Bakshi in Stobbs (1963) the Anadelphia-Rytachne association is a typical climax over groundwater laterite and acid gleisols.

5.2.4 Environmental and Ecological

Field (1979) and Tye and Tye (1987) produced bird lists for the area. These surveys listed a total of 252 species of birds belonging to 51 families. These include two near threatened species - Turati's Boubou and Rufous-winged Illadopsis. A waterfowl census conducted at the two wetlands of Dakrafi and Robierra (Thompson, 1994) gave a total of 1280 birds of 18 species and includes a large count of the White-faced Whistling Duck. The Reserve contains or has the potential of containing many speices of mammals that are considered in Sierra Leone as being scarce (Teleki, 1980; Philipson 1978) such as the Bongo (Boocercus euryceros); Bush Buck (Tragelaphus scriptus); Red Colobus (Colobus badius badius); Black and White Colubus (Colubus polykomos polykomos); and Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus). A significant feature of the Reserve is that it provides habitat for eight threatened (CITES) species of mammals and one endangered (CITES) species. All of these species, except the aardvardk (Oryctoropus ofer), fall in the Primate order. The small and isolated forests of Takboma, Robera, Dakraffi, and Ronieta within the Reserve collectively support populations of Black and White Colobus and Red Colobus monkeys; both threatened species. A number of species of forest duiker (Cephalphus sp) are known to occur in the REeserve. Their small size and territory combined with available forest regrowth and secondary forest habitat makes the Reserve an excellent habitat for duikers.

32

Amphibians and Reptiles Of the amphibians and reptiles sighted by Lowes, six reptiles are threatened (CITES) and one is endangered (CITES), tht is Osteolaemus tetraspis commonly called the dwarf, broad nosed, broad fronted, or short nosed crocodile. The monitor lizard (Varanus sp) was also seen on the Kasete tributary near Mayarima Village as well as a python (Python sp.)

5.2.5 Socio-Cultural and Demographic

Please refer to section 5.1.4 and Tables 5.1 -5.12 Manunta-Mayawso complex is in the Tonkolili District under the Northern Province. There are eleven (11) chiefdoms, Eighty (80) sections and One thousand three hundred and ninety eight localities in the District. The number of households in the Tonkolili Districts is 52,861 with a household population of 346,456. This household population is made up of 161,347 males and 185,109 females representing and sex ratio of 87.2 and an average household size of 6.6. The 11 chiefdoms in the district are: (i) Kholifa Rowalla, (ii) Kholifa Mabang, (iii)Yoni, (iv) Malal Mara,(v)Gbonkolenken (vi) Tane, (vii) Kafe simira, (viii) Sambaya (ix)Khalansogia (x)Konike Barina and (xi) Konike Sanda. The population of the various chiefdoms and the numbers of males and females are as indicated in the tables 5.1-5.5 above. The key villages or communities near the conservation area are the Mamunta line, Mayosso line, Makabre line, Makoni, Makaba and Robinke. The main economic activities in the area are farming (rice, cassava, potatoes, groundnut, cola-nut, coffee, pepper, vegetables, okro), fishing, palm oil production, weaving of raphia palm, rattan (NTP) and beekeeping. The main tribe is Temne and Muslims and Christians are the main religious groups. The main land owners are the Kamara, Bangura and Conteh families.The Kamara and Bangura Families are entitled to the Paramount Chieftaincy. The Na Yenki Family are Women Chiefs. The two wetlands of Dakraffi and Robierra provide fish for the local inhabitants who annually celebrate a fishing festival. The pressure is especially high on the Robierra swamps during the dry season and this may deplete fish resources, if not controlled. Pressure through hunting is low to moderate and this is probably a result of the control exerted by the game guards. There is usually an increased incidence of hunting of the threatened Dwarf Crocodile during festive ceremonies at Ronietta. Spur-winged Geese and other ducks become victims when big animals are scarce.

5.2.6 Equity and Gender Issues

It was disclosed by the community representatives that all community members, irrespective of age, gender, status or ethnic group have equal access to available natural resources such fish and other ecosystem goods and resources. Particularly, before the fishing customary rites are performed to open the fishing season, all groups of persons are granted unrestricted and equal access to fish. However, in terms on land ownership, women are not allowed to have long-term access and ownership of land with the belief that when the woman gets married she

33

then becomes a member of the husbands family and it is feared that the husband, who is not a member of the family would assume ownership of the land. During the consultations at the Mayosso Section, it was revealed that as a taboo, women are not allowed to take part in customary rites that are performed in the Ronetta swamp in the Mamunta-Mayosso Reserve area. It is strongly believed by the people that women participating in some customary rites would not give a good omen for future successes in their economic activites.

34

6.0 DESCRIPTION OF WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARD

POICIES AND TRIGGERS This ESMF has been designed so that all project activities under the Wetlands Conservation Project at the two wetland areas (a) Sierra Leone River Estuary and (b) Mamunta Mayawso complex will comply with national and local laws of Sierra Leone and the Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies of the World Bank. In this chapter, the Bank's safeguards policies and their applicability are discussed and in the subsequent chapter those of Sierra Leone are presented. The World Bank safeguard policies are:

1. Environmental Assessment (OP4.01, BP 4.01) 2. Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04) 3. Forests (OP 4.36, GP 4.36) 4. Pest Management (OP 4.09) 5. Physical Cultural Property (OP/BP 4.11) 6. Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10, BP 4.10) 7. Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) 8. Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37) 9. Projects on International Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50) 10. Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60)

(OP - Operational Policy, OPN - Operational Policy Note, BP - Best Practice) In preparing this ESMF, the project activities were considered against the baseline data in Chapter 5 and the requirements of the Bank safeguard policies. This indicated that only the following Bank policies are triggered: 1. Environmental Assessment (OP4.01, BP 4.01) 2. Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04) 3. Forests (OP/BP 4.36) 3. Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) (See Annex 2-Summary of World Bank Environment and Social Safeguard Policies) The envisaged field investments will cover 36,300 hectares of globally significant wetland ecosystems and improve the status of protection and management of key wetlands of global biodiversity importance. The priority sites were identified in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP, 2003), following consultations with Central and Local Government, traditional authorities, and local communities. As an initial step, selection criteria were established for guiding the consolidation of the protected areas system and sites have been selected to include priority wetland ecosystems based on biological significance, level of threat, feasibility of achieving conservation impacts, and availability of donor support. The selected sites will enhance the ecosystem representativeness within the protected area system, and also provide for potential future tourism development. The first priorities are to control further degradation and loss, establish effective management and jointly develop strategies for sustainable conservation together with local stakeholders.

35

6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (OP4.01, BP 4.01)

This policy requires environmental assessment (EA) of projects/investments proposed for Bank financing to help ensure that they are environmentally sound and sustainable, and thus improve decision-making. EA is a process whose depth and type of analysis depend on the nature, scale, and potential environmental impact of the activities proposed for funding under the Wetlands Conservation Project. The EA process takes into account the natural environment (air, water, and land), human health and safety, social aspects (involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, and cultural property) and transboundary and global environmental aspects. It incorporates all aspects of environmental impact assessments (EIA) but is broader in scope. This ESMF is GoSL's response to the Bank's EA policies and guidelines so that adverse environmental and social impacts are eliminated, offset or reduced to acceptable levels. OP 4.01 further requires that the ESMF report must be disclosed as a separate and stand alone document by the GoSL and the World Bank as a condition for Bank appraisal of the Wetlands Conservation Project. The disclosure should be both in Sierra Leone where it can be accessed by the general public and at the Infoshop of the World Bank and that the date for disclosure must precede the date for appraisal of the project. 6.2 NATURAL HABITATS (OP 4.04, BP 4.04)

The conservation of natural habitats, like other measures that protect and enhance the environment, is essential for long-term sustainable development. The Bank therefore supports the protection, maintenance, and rehabilitation of natural habitats. Natural Habitats are land and water areas where (i) the ecosystem's biological communities are formed largely by native plant and animal species, and (ii) human activity has not essentially modified the areas primary ecological functions. All natural habitats have important biological, social, economic, and existence values. Important habitats may occur in tropical humid, dry, and cloud forest; temperate and boreal forests; Mediterranean-type shrub lands; natural arid and semi-arid lands, mangrove swamps, coastal marshes, and other wetlands; estuaries, sea grass beds, coral reefs, freshwater lakes and rivers; alpine and sub-alpine environments, including herb fields, and grasslands; and tropical and temperate grasslands. Therefore, the Natural Habitats policy is triggered because the investments proposed under this project are located in wetland management areas within and around Sierra Leone River Estuary and Mamunta Mayawso complex. The selected wetland areas are part of globally significant wetland ecosystems known to support complex arrays of natural flora and fauna. Therefore this OP requires that activities funded under the wetlands conservation project that adversely impact these ecosystems are successfully mitigated so that the balance of the ecosystems is enhanced or maintained. This requires the wetlands conservation project to design appropriate conservation and mitigation measures to remove or reduce adverse impacts on the wetlands resources or their functions, keeping such impacts within socially defined limits of acceptable change. Specific measures may depend on the ecological characteristics of the affected forests. Such measures must include provision for monitoring

36

and evaluation to provide feedback on conservation outcomes and to provide guidance for developing or refining appropriate corrective actions.

6.3 INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT (OP/BP 4.12)

Significant efforts will be made in the design and screening stages of proposed WCP project investments to avoid impacts on people, land and property, including people's access to natural and other economic resources, as far as possible. The project may entail (i) limited land acquisition as and when the boundaries of proposed conservation sites are finally demarcated as well as for small infrastructure works; and (ii) restriction of access to selected resources (e.g. artisanal fishing, sand wining, wood cutting, salt processing, seasonal gardening, hunting, cattle grazing, charcoal burning, harvesting forest and wetland products) from within the wetlands conservation sites and while supporting local practices for sustainable land use. Compensation and resettlement of livelihoods would be required for certain investments where specific project activities may involve land acquisition and restriction of access of selected resources by people to natural resources in and around the targeted Sierra Leon River Estuary and Mamunta Mayawso Complex Wetland areas. This social issue is of crucial concern to GoSL and the Bank as its impact on poverty, if left unmitigated, is negative and immediate. OP 4.12 will be triggered in those cases. Therefore a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and Process Framework (PF) have been prepared by the project proponents for review and approval by the Bank in compliance with OP 4.12. The RPF provides the policies and procedures for land acquisition and mitigation of related impacts whilst the PF is prepared when the establishment or the re-establishment of a protected area could limit access to this area for customary and economic uses. The PF also sets the guidelines and processes by which potentially affected persons participate in the design of measures necessary to achieve resettlement policy objectives, and implement and monitor relevant project activities. OP 4.12 requires the RPF and PF to be disclosed both in Sierra Leone and at the Bank Infoshop before appraisal of this project can occur. 6.4 FORESTS (OP/BP4.36)

The Bank's involvement in the forest sector aims to reduce deforestation, enhance the environmental contribution of forested areas, promote afforestation, reduce poverty and encourage economic development. In pursuit of these objectives, the Bank's lending operations in the forest sector are conditional on government commitment to undertake sustainable management conservation-oriented forestry. This policy prohibits Bank financing for commercial logging operations or purchase of logging equipment for use in primary tropical moist forest. This policy requires the adoption of a legal and institutional framework to (a) ensure conservation and sustainable management of existing forests, (b) promote active participation of local people and the private sector in the long term sustainable management of natural forests, and (c) adopt a comprehensive and environmentally sound forest conservation and development plan that clearly defines the roles and rights of the government, the private sector, and local people (including forest dwellers).

37

38

7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE, POLICY, LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

There is an overall institutional and legal framework for the management and protection of the environmental in the national context. The National Environment Policy (1994) and the National Environmental Protection Act (2000), cover environmental management including environmental impact assessment. The 2008 Environmental Protection Agency Act, which repeals the former Act, established the Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (SLEPA) with authority for technical implementation and licensing of environmental management activities. Policies, laws and regulations governing local government, land rights, land use planning and terrestrial and aquatic natural resource use intersect with, and need to be consistent with, those governing wildlife. 7.1 THE ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE FOR GOVERNANCE, ENVIRONMENTAL AND WETLANDS

CONSERVATION The Environmental Protection Act of 2000 provides for the establishment of an Environmental Protection Board. This Board which has now been set up has the following functions:

• Facilitates coordination, cooperation and collaboration among government ministries, local authorities and other agencies in areas of' environmental protection;

• Review national and sectoral policies and make such recommendations or proposal it may think necessary to the Minister.

• Review environmental impact assessments prepared pursuant to this Act and make appropriate recommendations to the Director.

• Investigate or cause to be investigated, any activity, occurrence or transaction which it considers is likely to have or result in harmful consequences to the environment and advise on measures necessary to prevent or minimize such consequences

• Advise the Minister on areas of environmental protection and control requiring special or additional measures indicating the priorities and specific goals to be achieved;

• Undertake or cause to be undertaken specific studies and research aimed at developing strategies for the protection of the environment and make appropriate recommendations to the Minister; and

• Consider any other matters which may be referred to it by the Minister and make appropriate recommendations or proposal thereon.

7.2 POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

In 1995 the GoSL developed together with World Bank Support, the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). This Plan is presented in two volumes. Volume I analvses the environmental issues in Sierra Leone and the recommended interventions. Volume 2 contains the environmental proposals. A National Environmental Policy (NEP) has been prepared in

39

1994. The goal of' the National Environmental Policy is to achieve sustainable development in Sierra Leone through sound environmental management. The objectives of the (NEP) include:

• To secure for all Sierra Leone a quality of' environment adequate for their health and

well being; • To conserve and use the environmental and natural resources for the benefit of present

and future generations; • To restore, maintain and enhance the ecosystems and ecological processes essential

for the functioning of the biosphere; to preserve biological diversity and the principle of optimum sustainable yield in the use of living natural resources and ecosystems; and

• To raise public awareness and promote understanding of the essential linkages between environment development and to encourage individual and community participation in environmental improvement efforts.

• The following strategies will be pursued in order to achieve the policy goals and objectives.

• To establish and/or strengthen environmental protection standards, monitor changes in, and publish relevant data on, environmental quality and resource use.

• To make prior environmental impact assessment (EIA) of proposed activities which may significantly affect the environment or use of a natural resource and to provide relevant information, in a timely manner, to persons likely to be significantly affected by a planned activity and to grant them equal access and due process in administrative and judicial proceedings; and

• To promote environmental management through the creation of administrative and infrastructural support with appropriate financial backing;

• To cooperate in good faith with other countries and agencies to achieve optimal use of transboundry natural resources and effective prevention or abatement of' transboundry environmental protection.

The legal basis for the implementation of the N1EAP and for environmental management and protection in Sierra Leonie is the Environmental Protection Act of 2000. The environmental protection Act (EPA) 2000 empowers the Division with responsibilities for environmental management under NaCEF to perform the following tasks amongst others:

• Screen projects for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) • Issue Environmental Impact Assessment Licenses • Formulate or promote the formulation of and monitor the implementation of

environmental policies, programmes, projects, standards and regulations

7.3 FORESTRY POLICY-DRAFT 2010

Sierra Leone’s Forestry and Wildlife Sector policy has been inadequate in addressing contemporary issues in forestry governance and management. The Forestry Act of 1988 remains the principal legislation guiding the management and regulation of forestry and

40

Forest Reserves in Sierra Leone. The Wildlife Conservation Act of 1972 is the principal legislation guiding the management and regulation of wildlife and protected areas. To date, the most complete statement of policy is the draft Forestry and Wildlife Sector Policy from 2003, which was never formally adopted by the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL). The 2003 draft policy includes a wide-ranging pre-amble covering background issues and external sector policies that impact on forestry and wildlife but the policy statement itself is brief, covering less than twenty percent of the document and touching on general policy issues, as well as policies for community forests, private forests state forests and bio-prospecting. The main objective of the wildlife policy section was to integrate the propagation, conservation and exploitation of wild animal life and wild vegetation into the national land use policy. The Constitution of the Republic of Sierra Leone provides that the State shall “harness all the natural resources of the nation to promote national prosperity and an efficient, dynamic and self-reliant economy” (Section 7(1)a). This policy provides one tool by which this constitutional requirement is met. Specific policy statements and strategies within the Forestry policy find support in other relevant provisions of the Constitution. This includes Section 18, which permits restrictions on activities within forests “which is reasonably required in the interests of … conservation of the natural resources” (§18); and Section 10.D which requires “respect for international law and treaty obligations, as well as the seeking of settlement of international disputes by negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or adjudication.” The Forestry Policy also supports strategies outlined in the Framework for Effective Management of Natural Resources, found in Section 11 of the Sierra Leone Poverty Reduction Strategy II, “Agenda for Change” (PRS II). The Vision driving the Forestry Policy, is “An integrated forest sector that achieves sustainable, rights-based management of forests for economic, social, cultural, aesthetic, and environmental benefits for the present and future generations of Sierra Leone, and for humankind in general” The principles sustainability, equitable economic benefits sharing and rural livelihoods improvement, public awareness creation and education, consideration of cultural heritage etc are some of the key guiding principles of the Forestry Policy.

7.3.1 National Policy and Institutional Frameworks for Natural Resource

Management

The Division of Forestry is housed within the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security. The Division of Forestry is responsible for forest management and biodiversity conservation within Sierra Leone. The Division of Forestry recently reorganized at the national level into three Units, “the three C’s” to emphasis their management priorities: Conservation, Commercial and Community. The Forestry Act of 1988 is the primary basis for law that guides forest management in Sierra Leone. In 2008, development, exploitation and trade reforms were introduced with Cabinet

41

approval of regulations. The reforms standardise the processes and guidelines for leasing Community and Forest Reserve forests, issuing logging permits, use of stumpage fees, benefit sharing from forest exploitation, transportation of forest products, urban tree management services, export permits, import of chain saws and sawmills, registration of timber and wood product enterprises, and establishes a Conservation Trust Fund. The Environmental Protection Act of 2000 created the National Environment Protection Board which is charged with coordination of all environmental programming between Ministries, agencies and local authorities. The Act also identified the need for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for certain projects, and provides guidelines for the scope of the EIA. In 2008, legislation created the Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (SLEPA) through which overall responsibility for environmental management was allocated. 7.4 CONSERVATION AND WILDLIFE POLICY-DRAFT 2010

The main objective of the wildlife policy section was to integrate the propagation, conservation and exploitation of wild animal life and wild vegetation into the national land use policy. This Conservation and Wildlife Policy supports application of three sections of the constitution of the Republic of Sierra Leone: 1. Section 7. (1) a. “harness all the natural resources of the nation to promote national prosperity and an efficient, dynamic and self-reliant economy”. 2. Section 18. (1) 3 a. concerning restrictions on freedom of movement “which is reasonably required in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or the conservation of the natural resources, such as mineral, marine, forest and other resources of Sierra Leone, except in so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society”. 3. Section 10. d. concerning Foreign Policy Objectives “respect for international law and treaty obligations, as well as the seeking of settlement of international disputes by negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or adjudication. The Conservation and Wildlife Policy supports the second national Poverty Reduction Strategy 2008-2012, “an Agenda for change” Section 11 “Framework for Effective Management of Natural Resources” which commits to “Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss”. In addition the following sections are addressed by this policy:

• 11.1 Tourism and Economic Development: “The major asset for the development of the tourism industry in Sierra Leone is the country's natural beauty ... the biodiversity of the forest reserves and protected areas within the country bear potential for development, which remains untapped”;

• 11.3 Land Management and the Environment: “[the Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency will] Act in liaison and cooperation with Government agencies, local councils and other bodies and institutions to ... promote studies, research, surveys and analyses for the improvement and protection of the environment and the maintenance of a sound ecological system ... promote effective planning in the management of the environment ... establish a data bank on natural resources management and utilization”;

42

• 11.4 Enhancing the Contribution of Forestry to Economic and Social Development: “Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and program and reverse the loss of environmental resources ... there is an urgent need to conserve the remaining natural rainforests, the Government will also explore possibilities for investment in sustainable financing mechanisms, for example through carbon markets and trading schemes, under the current and future Climate Change protocols, as well as by signing up to future Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) programmes”.

7.5 THE LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

Policies and laws designed to foster the conservation and national management of natural resources date back to the colonial era. In the 1960’s most of these laws were incorporated into the laws of Sierra Leone. The military interregnum in 1992, of the National Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC) saw some of these laws replaced by decrees. Legislation dealing with biological diversity can be classified under three categories.

(a) Laws dealing with Agro-biological diversity; (b) Laws dealing with Forestry Biological Diversity; and (c) Laws dealing with coastal and marine Biological diversity.

There is no specific legislation for the protection and Conservation of biological diversity as a whole. The provinces Land Act Cap 122 of the laws of Sierra Leone 1960 on Land Tenure, the Wildlife Act of 1972, the Forestry Act of 1988 and the Fisheries Management and Development Act of 1996 form the current basis for the conservation of biological diversity in Sierra Leone. Some of the provisions of these legislations are insufficient, obsolete and above all, the institutions set up to implement the legislation lack manpower capacity to effectively implement the provisions contained there in. In 1990, the Wildlife Conservation (Amendment) Act was passed. It was captioned “Being an Act to Amend the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1972”. The amendment merely relates to definition of terms, modifications and qualifications. For instance section 25 of the Wildlife Act of 1972 prohibits hunting of elephants in prohibited forest reserves only where as section 7 of the wildlife (Amendment) Act of 1990 prohibits hunting elephants in any forests, protected areas or National Parks without the written permission of the Chief Conservator. Further, the 1990 wildlife (Amendment) Act provided for the change of name from the Forestry Department to Forestry Division. Despite these minor amendments, the 1972 wildlife Conservation Act and the Forestry Act of 1988 are still regarded as the substantive legislations on forest biological diversity in Sierra Leone. Legislations relating to biological resources have traditionally been split amongst a number of statutes, many of them covering other materials with little to do with the area of conservation. However, this is undoubtedly changing as the international concern and political importance for the conservation of natural resources has gained momentum. This is substantiated by the enactment of the Environmental Protection Act of 2000 in which an attempt is made to make provision for the effective protection of the environment and the institutional and administrative machinery for its implementation.

43

Responsibility for wildlife conservation is housed within the Forestry Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security. The Division of Forestry is responsible for forest management and biodiversity conservation within Sierra Leone and was recently reorganized at the national level into three technical Units, “the three C’s” to emphasis their management priorities: Conservation, Commercial and Community. Current wildlife legislation is widely recognized as out of date. The Wildlife Conservation Act of 1972 does not reflect the great advances in biodiversity conservation in the last forty years, nor international obligations. Draft wildlife conservation regulations of 1997 were not promulgated and also do not reflect modern conservation requirement. Given that wildlife management is currently part of the forestry sector, Forestry legislation is important, but again the Forestry Act of 1988 and its implementing Regulations of 1990 are not compatible with modern forest or wildlife management. As described in Section 1 a combined draft forestry and wildlife sector policy was prepared in 2003, but was never adopted.

7.5.1 Institutional Responsibilities and Capacities

The conservation and management of biological diversity in Sierra Leone currently cuts across several sector Ministries, Divisions and Units-including the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security; the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources; the Ministry of Lands County Planning and the Environment, the University of Sierra Leone and several Non-Governmental Organizations. The Institutions have different capacities but generally lack trained manpower, and equipment to execute their mandates. Other institutions with indirect responsibilities for the conservation of biological diversity include the Ministries of Finance, Tourism; Economic Planning and Development, Transport and Communications; Energy and Power and Mineral Resources. Several International and National Non-Governmental Organizations have an indirect bearing on the environment. However, it is only the Conservation Society of Sierra Leone that directly carries out conservation of biological diversity activities. 7.6 THE LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The National Environment Policy (1994) and the National Environmental Protection Act (2000), cover environmental management including environmental impact assessment. The 2008 Environmental Protection Agency Act, which repeals the former Act, established the Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (SLEPA) with authority for technical implementation and licensing of environmental management activities. Policies, laws and regulations governing local government, land rights, land use planning and terrestrial and aquatic natural resource use intersect with, and need to be consistent with, those governing Wetland Conservation.

7.7 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

Sierra Leone has ratified a range of international treaties and obligations that affect the wetlands conservation, though in most cases national legislation does not reflect these

44

instruments. Sierra Leone is party to various regional and international treaties and agreements related to forestry. International conventions include:

• The Convention on Biological Diversity; • Convention on International Trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora

(CITES); • Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention); • Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

(World Heritage Convention); • United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; • United Nations convention to Combat Desertification; • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;

Regional Agreements include:

• Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region;

• Convention Establishing a Permanent Inter-state Committee for the Control of Drought in the Sahel;

• African Convention on Nature and Natural Resources; • Mano River Declaration; • Memorandum of Understanding concerning Conservation Measures for Marine

Turtles of the Atlantic Coast of Africa; • Memorandum of Understanding concerning Conservation Measures for the West

African Populations of the African Elephant; Sierra Leone expresses its intention to sign, ratify and implement two additional international conservation agreements relating to migratory species:

• Convention on Migratory Species (CMS or Bonn Convention) • Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds

See Annex 6: Summary of International/Regional Treaties and their implementation. As well as meeting formal international obligations, this policy will seek to apply international best practice in wildlife conservation. The last twenty years has seen an explosion of experience in implementing wildlife conservation in developing countries, with many documented approaches and outcomes. Analysis of success, failure and a range of outcomes in between, has led to a body of accessible best practice consensus which is applied in this policy.

45

8.0 CONSULTATION 8.1 CONSULTATION STRATEGY An effective consultation strategy is essential to the successful implementation of SLWCP ESMF and RPF and PF safeguard instruments, as well as to guaranteeing all affected persons and other stakeholders the opportunity to be directly involved in planning, prioritizing, implementation and monitoring of the proposed activities.

8.1.1 Objectives of Consultation

The consultation objectives are:

• To involve stakeholders in (i) identifying issues which affect them; (ii) expressing their needs, desires, ideas and concerns; (iii) identifying solutions to problems relating to RAP implementation; and (iv) setting and monitoring targets for effective implementation of the SLWCP Environmental and Social safeguard instruments;

• To empower all stakeholders, by giving them a voice in the decision-making process as key players in the successful implementation of both the safeguard instruments and the Project as a whole; and

• To establish a consultation process so that all stakeholders involved and made to understand the diverse priorities and constraints involved in the safeguard documents implementation and the Project as a whole.

Specifically, the consultation seeks:

• To enable the active involvement of all affected persons in implementation of the ESMF and ensure that they are adequately informed;

• To inform all eligible beneficiaries of the benefits for which they are eligible, including the available sets of options;

• To communicate clearly to all parties their rights and obligations under agreed arrangements; and

• To improve relations and understanding among all stakeholder groups.

8.1.2 Stakeholders Consulted

The following categories of stakeholders were consulted from the 14th to 23rd November 2010:

46

Table 8.1: Stakeholders Consulted MDA / NGO consultation Ministry / Department / Agency (MDAs) & NGOs

# participants Remarks

District Forestry Officers 4 District Agriculture Officers 1 Wildlife Division 5 Fisheries Division 3 MAFFS 5 Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources

3

Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (SLEPA)

2

Conservation Society of Sierra Leone 1 Sierra Leone Information Systems (SLIS) 2 Statistics Sierra Leone 3 AFCOD 3 Concern Worldwide-Community NGO 1 Sub-total 35 Community consultation District # Participants Remarks Tonkolili District 118 Mayosso,Makabre, Makoni, Makaba,

Robinke, Mabobo, Mamanor, Mamunta, Mafumba community elders, youth, women and representatives

Western Rural District 64 Old Wharf, Waterloo Johntop elders, youth, women and community representatives

Sub-total 182 8.2 CONSULTATION IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS ESMF The SLWCP recognizes the need to address social and environmental priorities in order to achieve wetlands conservation objectives. Communities in villages adjacent to the wetlands conservation and coastal sites are poor, and they lack income-generating opportunities. While local communities recognize the importance of supporting conservation objectives, they may need to pursue sustainable alternative livelihoods in order to partly compensate for losses as may be incurred due to the possible restriction of access to resources. The proposed project, therefore, aims to actively engage communities and traditional authorities in preparing and implementing conservation management plans, as well as in evaluating the overall impact of the project activities. In view of the foregoing, series of consultations were held with communities, community representatives, traditional authorities, Local Government and NGO members and relevant other stakeholder institutions from 14th-23rd November 2010 to discuss the preparation, social and environmental safeguards of the Sierra Leone Wetlands Conservation Project. The field team comprising the World Bank Environment and Social Safeguards Consultant, Focal Person for Sierra Leone Wetland Areas, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security and Rangers of MAFFS visited the communities and villages surrounding Mamunta-

47

Mayawso Complex and Sierra Leone River Estuary and consulted with relevant stakeholder institutions and wetland resources conservation professionals in Sierra Leone. At each of the consultation fora, broad presentations were given by members of the Consultation Team on:

1. Overview of the Sierra Leone Wetlands Conservation Project by Sheikh Mohammed Mansaray.

2. Socio-economic activities in the selected wetland corridors by Community Elders and Leaders, District Agricultural and Forestry Officers

3. Environmental issues and World Bank safeguard policy (s) by Dyson Jumpah- World bank.

4. Proposed recommended mitigation measures of negative social and environmental impacts by Participants.

Specific issues discussed in order to understand the socio-economic background of the communities near the wetlands and solicit their inputs for integration into the project design covered the areas below:

8.2.1 Socio-cultural background of groups of persons living adjacent to the Mamunta-Mayoso wetlands and conservation areas

Manunta-Mayawso complex is in the Tonkolili District under the Northern Province. There are eleven (11) chiefdoms, Eighty (80) sections and One thousand three hundred and ninety eight localities in the District. The 11 chiefdoms in the district are: (i) Kholifa Rowalla, (ii) Kholifa Mabang, (iii)Yoni, (iv) Malal Mara,(v)Gbonkolenken (vi) Tane, (vii) Kafe simira, (viii) Sambaya (ix)Khalansogia (x)Konike Barina and (xi) Konike Sanda. The population of the various chiefdoms and the numbers of males and females are as indicated in the table 5.1 below. Some of the key villages or communities near the conservation area that participated in the consultation are the Mayosso line, Makabre line, Makoni, Makaba and Robinke. The main economic activities in the area are farming (rice, cassava, potatoe, groundnut, cola-nut, coffee,pepper, vegetables, okro), fishing, palm oil productionweaving of raphia palm, rattan (NTP) and beekeeping. The main tribe is Temne and Muslims and Christians are the main religious groups. The main land owners are the Kamara, Bangura and Conteh families.The Kamara and Bangura Families are entitled to the Paramount Chieftaincy. The Na Yenki Family are Women Chiefs. About 40 people comprising the elders, youth and women from the Mayosso section participated in the consultation exercise. Members from the Mamunta section who tookpart in the consultion were bout 78 in number.

8.2.2 Customary and traditional rites related to wetlands and natural resources

The special customary rites performed by the people in the Ronietta, lake Robela,lake Dakrifie and swarms in the area. Fishing is strictly regulated through traditional bye-laws. There are the closed (raining season-June to October) and the opened (dry season-November to May) fishing seasons. During the raining season fishing is not allowed since it is their traditional belief that this is the spooning period for the fishes. On an agreed date among the chiefs, elders, traditional and spiritual leaders, and all the community members, customary ceremonies are performed to invoke the ancestral spirits and by such rites the lift the ban on

48

fishing. The lifting of the ban only permits the community members to undertake fishing in the rivers only on that day. In course of the fishing disturbance of crocodiles are prohibited. It is a taboo to interfere with such creatures in the wetlands. The fishing activity ceases after that date until another year in order to allow the fishes to multiply again. The fishing customary rite is the same as the main fishing festival of the people in the area. It provides an opportunity for descendants from the area to travel home and several hundreds of people assemble catch fish. A major limitation of the people associated with the fish festival is that bumper fish harvest made are consumed within a short period since there are no fish preservation facilities such refrigeration or other cold storage that could enable the fishes to be stored and consumed over a reasonably long period such as a month or more. The only means of preservation is smoking using firewood, salting and sun drying. The Mayosso section owns a swamp which is called Fotaneh (i.e. a resting place). Farming activities in this particular swampy area yields bumper harvest which lasts most of the year. However, as part of the communities own commitment towards conservation activities, farming in the Fotaneh area has stoped and the area is mainly used as a resting place. During the war the Fonateh area provided a place of refuge of some civil war victims. Coupled with the seemingly abandonment of the proposed conservation project, these civil war victims have since began to undertake farming activities in the Fotaneh area. The communities have stressed their preparedness to relinquish the place and partner government to manage the place provided Government is ready to revisit the proposed conservation project. The community disclosed that there is also a small forest area called Limanin Forest, which has small pockets of Water Lake with various fish species. It serves as a sacred place for the Mayosso community and a source early or first fish in readiness for the commencement of the farming/fishing season. The community requested that they would like to be allowed to continue to have access to this Limanin forest in the period of the proposed conservation project. There is also a place called Tekboma Forest, which is considered a place of refuge and a haven for games. If a game being pursued by a hunter runs into the Tekboma Forest (a demarcated area) the game must no longer be pursued and set free. The Tekboma forest is therefore considered as a resting place for animals and sacred groove. The Tekboma forest is also a place for performing special rites to their ancestors. It is the expectation of the people that before the conservation project takes off, provision is made to allow the community chiefs and elders to perform the necessary customary rites. The demands and requirements for these rites will be spelt out at the appropriate time as part of the project implementation agreement between the community and government.

8.2.3 Equity and gender issues

Community members, irrespective age, gender, status or ethnic group have equal access to available natural resources such fish and other ecosystem goods and resources. Particularly, after the fishing customary rites are performed to open the fishing season, all groups of persons are granted unrestricted and equal access to fish. However, in terms on land ownership, women are not allowed to have long-term access and ownership of land with the

49

belief that when the woman gets married she then becomes a member of the husbands family and it is feared that the husband, who is not a member of the family would assume ownership of the land. It was revealed that women are not allowed to take part in customary rites that are performed in the Ronetta swamp. It is believed that if the women take part in the customary rites the omens for their future success will not be good. However, the women fully participate in all socio-economic activities in the area.

8.2.4 Land acquisition issues and /or restriction of access to natural resources

Ownership of land and natural resources belongs to the community and particular

families. Generally the resources are held in trust for the people by the Paramount Chief Land. Users of the resources are the community members as their means of livelihood. The community people wanted to know what mechanisms are being put in place to enable them continue to depend on their tree crops in the conservation areas when restrictions are imposed. The team explained that a resettlement policy framework is being prepared to ensure that resettlement action plans are prepared to cover specific areas where there will be loss of livelihood or restriction of access to natural and economic resources so the appropriate compensation and other impacts mitigation measures are put in place.

Government’s failure to fulfil her promise regarding the handing over of land by the

Kholifa and Mabang Chiefdoms to government for use as a wildlife sanctuary was discussed. The Mayosso section elders acknowledged that Mumunta did make a request for a resettlement at Mabobo, which is owned by the Mayosso section. Mayosso elders indicated their willingness to resettle the Manuta people at Mabobo but will not be able to give them land for farming because the Mayosso section itself do not have enough land for farming. Further, the Mayosso section disclosed their preparedness to discuss how to handle the resettlement of the Mamunta Section comprehensively with other chiefs, landowners and relevant stakeholders.

The Mamunta section community members revealed that over 80% of their land size

of about 12km squared has demarcated to be used for the conservation project. The actual area of land being cultivated within the demarcated area to be lost is yet to be determined. They mentioned that to get alternative farm lands elsewhere would be difficult and such lands must be leased under special arrangements, which will require the support of the project.

The community elders said if there is a need for relocation under the project,

alternative land could be arranged for but must be accompanied with support from government and other relevant stakeholders. Other alternative land areas that could be used for farming will require mechanised farming so relocating farmers to such areas hinges on the guarantee of support for agricultural machinery, equipments and farming inputs. Other specific points highlighted to facilitate relocation of farmers to alternative lands are:

- Support to the vulnerable such as the elderly and women - Compensations and royalty payment to alternative land owners

50

- Agreements and proper modalities for determining royalties(e.g. a bushel of rice for a piece of land planted with a bushel of rice) and compensations

8.2.5 Sustainable alternative livelihood options and community-based activities

that the local populations might be interested to pursue

- Relocation to alternative lands to undertake mechanized agriculture through support with tractors, equipments and agricultural inputs.

- Development of cooperatives and micro-finance schemes for women couple with intensive education and sensitization

- Gardening and cottage industries development

8.2.6 Important roles of the traditional authorities

The traditional leaders, chiefs and elders play important role in the control and management of natural resources through regulations as to how fishing practices are done and in a manner to avoid causing body injuries and oozing of blood into the wetlands during fishing. Regulations are in place to deter carrying fire into the forest.

8.2.7 Social Issues of concern

- Lack of schools, healthcare centres and adequate medical services, water and

sanitation facilities - Employment creation through skills training and carrier development - Soap and gari making facilities for the women - Supply of seeds for vegetable growing -

Community Elders and members from the Mumunta section raised some specific issues of concern covering the following areas:

- Understanding of the project concept and the release of their land: worries about the alleged release of the land for the conservation project on behalf of the community by the Paramount Chief without adequately seeking the consent of the Mumunta community was expressed. The community members disclosed that their earlier understanding was that the land was being released for a zoo project. It was later that they were informed that the purpose of the Mamunta land take was to conserve the wildlife in the area. They also had the suspicion that investigations were being done scientist to undertake mining in the area since they believe that there mineral resources in the area.

- Encroachment of the sanctuary by Fulani Herdsmen is a major concern of the Mamunta community people.

- Since the recommendation to acquire the Mamunta land for conservation project in 1980, they have not received any benefit despite being restricted over these years to fully benefit from the natural resources in the conservation area.

- Women are not allowed to participate in certain customary rites. The community would want these practices to be respected and maintained under the conservation project.

51

8.2.8 Owners of the natural resources

The Mayosso, Mamanor, Mamunta, Mafumba, Makoni sections are the main resource owners. The key land owner families for the Mamanor section are the Koroma and Kamara families, whilst the Kargbo family is the main land owner in the Makoni village, which is under the Mayosso section. The Mayosso Section land owner families are the Kamara, Bangura and Conteh Families.

• The roles, needs and interests of each natural resource user group, ethnic and tribal groups and user and other economic activity groups

• Likely trends in future natural resource management and use (ie in the absence of any interventions)

• The distinct natural resource use patterns and trends of the poor and vulnerable groups in the area

• Incentives and mechanisms needed to encourage participation in the co-management of the natural resources

The community expects that: - The project should enter into an agreement with the community on the clear terms and

conditions for the implementation and management of the conservation of the project taking cognizance of their needs at the local level and anticipated benefits;

- The involvement of the community people in the project implement and management will best help safeguard and project the conservation areas.

- Provision of a voluntary services scheme under the project. - The women are concerned that the living standard of their community is very low.

The women therefore expect support to the community in terms of food security, health care service, prompt payment of compensations and benefits to the community in terms of community infrastructure.

• Traditional and customary forms of participation in the project area. Exclusion of

certain groups in the project area • Interaction among local leaders, village chiefs, officials and the poor and

marginalized groups in the project area

8.2.9 Mechanisms to be set up in the project to disseminate information to

channel any grievances of the community members

Use of natural resources and the ecosystem goods by the community members is not a source of grievance among the community members. The resources are seen as assets to all community members and everybody is entitled to user rights. Movement of various community members within the natural resource areas are not restricted. However, there is a system of dispute resolution by the section chiefs and community elders in instances where there are unavoidable grievances.

8.2.10 Constraints and opportunities for participation in the project activities

The community members identified the following as constraints for their participation in the project: - There is the need of a binding agreement between all stakeholders. Lack of it will be a

major constraint to the conservation project

52

- Loss of farmlands and farming rights; - Delayed or non-payment of compensations for loss of means of livelihoods and

assets; - Lack of sustainable alternatives to resource user rights and activities such as raffia,

rattan, bamboo, palm collection; - Loss of animal protein; - Displacement of elders of their farming rites etc

Opportunities the communities identified to be derived from the conservation project are: - Scholarship schemes for their school going children, especially project affected

persons and their children; School for Mamunta section community; - Bridge to connect the Magbas and the Mamunta sections - Medical and health support for the aged and most vulnerable such as women and

children; - Employment for the youth in the management of conservation areas as rangers, tour

guides etc; Eco-tourism development, springing up of hotels and guest houses; - Equitable distribution of employment benefits among the communities in the

conservation areas; - Skills training in areas such as carpentry, masonry, plumbing, soap making, technical

jobs etc; - Co-management and protection of conservation areas and natural resources with the

communities - Support for vegetable farming by women groups (i.e. Tamaraneh, which means let us

help each other schemes, sorbeh, which means let us all farm) - Alternative land for farming and support for the preparation of new farmlands and

provision of farming machinery, equipments, implements and inputs; - Priority educational support for the youth and children.

8.2.11 The short and long term risks that different stakeholder groups are likely

to face because of the project intervention

The community Elder disclosed that agreement on this proposed conservation intervention project was reached as far back as 1980 but nothing has been done by the Government notwithstanding the patience of the land owners and affected communities. The Community Elder stressed that they are not able to pre-empt any short-term or long-term risks but they will continue to exercise their usual patience and respect the terms of the agreement and still consider it valid. The community members will however continue to depend on the resources of the ecosystem in the project area to realise their livelihood anticipating that the conservation project will takeoff. The community elder disclosed that the proposed conservation project was conceived at the time when they were young but they are now in the twilight of their life and could not perceive the thinking of the upcoming generation, whether they will continue to cooperate with Government if the project implementation delays further. The elder however assured that the community leaders and chiefs will continue to support the project.

8.2.12 The threats to the success of the proposed project intervention.

- The position of the community leaders is that as long as every party to the project agreement fulfils what is expected of each party under the project, no threat to the success of the project is anticipated.

53

- The land in the conservation areas are not being sold to Government for the project. The community therefore do not expect that in future some group of persons will claim ownership of the land contrary to the agreement under which the land will be released to the government for the project. Any variation or claim to the ownership of the land to the disadvantage of the communities will be a major threat to the project.

- Encroachment by the Fulani herdsmen for cattle grazing is a threat to the conservation project.

- Wildfire by the Fulanis is another threat to the conservation project.

8.2.13 Socio-cultural background of groups of persons living adjacent to the

Sierra Leone River Estuary

The Sierra River Estuary borders both Port Loko District and part of the Western urban and Western rural districts. The targeted areas within the conservation area under the WCP are Aberdeen Creek-Tagrin-Bunce River-Islands of Tasso-Mount of the Rokel River. There are ten (10) chiefdoms and five Wards in the districts in the targeted areas in the Sierra Leone River Estuary. The are about 95, 650 households in the selected districts with a household population of 622,826. This household population is made up of 294,962 males and 327,864 females. The Port Loko District has a sex ratio of 88.2 and an average household size of 6.9 whilst those of the Western Area rural are 94.8 and 5.6 respectively. The 10 chiefdoms in the districts are: (i) Bkm, (ii) Buya Romende, (iii)Dibia, (iv) Kafu Bullan,(v)Koya Western(vi) Lokomasama, (vii) Maforki, (viii) Masimera (ix)S/Magbolontor and (x) TMS. Koya, Mountain, Waterloo, York Rural and Central 2 are the five wards. The population of the various chiefdoms and Wards and the numbers of males and females are as indicated in the table xxxx. The population is very much cosmopolitan with diverse socioeconomic activities ranging from all works of life. However, the main activities that preoccupy the coastal dwellers are fishing, boat building, making of handicrafts, wildlife hunting, forest resources exploitation, oyster farming, sea transportation, sand wining, salt processing, commercial port operations and shipping. Old Wharf Some of the key tribes undertaking various economic activities at the Old Wharf are the Temnes, Fullas, Limbas, Shabomas, Lokos and Creos. It is estimated that there about 4900 persons leaving in the Old Wharf area with about 1000 households. Other villages in the island settlements of the estuary are Makasha, Malal, Mabnya, Royof, Tidokom, Komrabai, Bakerbana. The people in these villages engage in wood cutting, charcoal production, farming, palm oil production etc. Waterloo, Johntop At Waterloo, there are different tribes such as the Temnes, Limbas, Mendes, and Susus. There about 900-1000 residents in the Johntop community. Their main economic actities are sand winning, fishing, wood cutting, oyster mining, cocoon collection and petty trading.

54

8.2.14 Equity and gender issues regarding access to natural resources,

utilisation and sharing of benefits from natural resources

- Women and children are not allowed to engage in fishing activity. The women have

the responsibility for fish mongering and selling. - Fishing is done all year round as the main means of livelihood as well as sand wining.

8.2.15 Sustainable alternative livelihood options and community-based

activities that the local populations might be interested to pursue

- Poultry keeping - Support to undertake improved farming - Tree planting and aforestation - Ecotourism - Development of cooperatives and micro-finance schemes for women couple with

intensive education and sensitization - Gardening and cottage industries development

8.2.16 Social Issues of concern

- Lack of support to acquire fishing equipments; - Inadequate housing - Lack of primary and JSS schools, healthcare facilities, community centres, water and

sanitation facilities(toilets) - Support to send children to school - Employment creation through skills training and carrier development

8.2.17 Environmental Concerns

- Mangroove over-exploitation

Mangroves are exploited on a minor scale although in some areas they were replaced by rice fields. The major threats the mangrove vegetation is facing presently are the use of mangrove as fuel wood and the clearing and reclaiming of mangrove mudflats for settlement developments. The uncontrolled and unchecked cutting down of mangroves as fuel wood and for development works along the rokel, bunce rivers and the Aberdeen creek respectively has become ecological concerns as the potential for habitat destruction of spawning and nursery areas are growing.

- Over-exploitation of the inshore fish stocks The inshore fish stocks are exploited mainly by artisanal fishing fleet. The use of illegal fishing nets (Mina and Channel nets) and destructive fishing methods such as explosives and poisons has devastated the spawning stocks of most pelagic species. The use of small mesh size fishing nets to targets both spawners and juveniles of estuarine demersal fish species.

55

- Exploitation of marine mammals The indiscriminate destruction of coastal habitats has affected most marine mammals and most commonly affected is the West African Manatee.

- Poor Environmental Sanitation and Water Pollution Environmental sanitation along the beaches and within the communities is very poor. Solid wastes are indiscriminately dumped along the beaches thereby contributing to the pollution, contamination and siltation of the wetlands. 8.3 CONCLUSIONS Overall there was a high level of support for the project and its objectives, with valuable suggestions provided for its improvement, but without any serious criticism of the project approach or the measures proposed for mitigation of social and environmental impacts.

56

9.0 DETERMINING POTENTIAL ENVIROMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS

9.1 OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT

The proposed project will involve interventions in the biophysical and human environments. The potential environmental impacts can be categorized as biophysical, and social. These impacts can occur at various stages of the project development and can be positive or negative. Mitigation measures for the negative impacts can be applied at each stage of the project development. Community involvement in decision-making and management process may bring lasting improvement in the livelihoods of people, and can lead to better use and protection of natural resource base. Consequently, environmental and social sustainability are fundamental to the success of the Sierra Leone Wetlands Conservation Project. There is, however, a critical balance between two contrasting scenarios:

• Firstly, under a scenario of a successful SLWCP which works in accordance with the strategies and objectives set out in project documents, a significant and positive contribution would be made to environmental and social sustainability by providing the tools and support to community driven development whilst pursuing the wetlands conservation objectives and ensuring the protection of the local and global environment.

• Secondly, under a scenario of a failing SLWCP, activities supported and funded

would contribute to a further decline in environmental and social sustainability in the conservation areas, by not providing adequate support and guidance for community development, and perhaps accelerate degradation of the local and global environment.

9.2 POTENTIAL POSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WCP

Wetlands perform a variety of important functions including but not limited to the following: • Maintain ecosystem health and biodiversity by providing habitats to a wide variety of

economically important fish and wildlife species; • Form a vital link in the hydrologic (water) cycle by acting as groundwater recharge,

discharge and storage reservoirs; • Act as water purification systems by treating potentially harmful products in runoff

from terrestrial sources by removing bacteria, assimilating nutrients (nitrates, phosphates, ammonia) and accumulating and retaining suspended sediments (silt).

• Contribute to productivity of rivers and estuaries by producing and exporting organic material and nutrients vital to nursery, growth and survival of valuable fish and wildlife species;

• Contribute to the global recycling of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur through anaerobic reduction which occurs in the wetland bottoms; and

• Accumulate organic matter and contribute to carbon sequestration thus acting as “carbon sinks” which aid in reducing the “greenhouse effect”.

57

Additional Benefits:

• Stabilize shorelines of rivers and coast; and • Provide areas for recreation (hunting, fishing, trapping, bird watching and canoeing),

food production and other commercial opportunities. Other potential positive impacts will be realized at local, national and global levels. These include:

• At the local level the project is expected to generate many positive impacts on the socio-economic front that could lead to improvements in reduction of poverty, improved food security through better crop yields, diversified agricultural resource base, and improved household income. The project will also result in a multiplier effect on the local economy through development of entrepreneurial activities;

• The effective management and reversal of degradation of natural habitats through conservation techniques will lead to conservation of natural habitats and biodiversity. This will result in increased quantities of and diversity of goods and services provided by the ecosystems to the local communities;

• Threats and barriers to integrated ecosystem management will be removed and in particular to conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in natural habitats such as gallery forests, sacred forests, wetlands and reserves of medicinal plans, various types of woods, grass vegetation, microorganisms, birds and mammals.

• At the national, provincial, district, chiefdom, ward and section levels, the project will promote rural development strategies that integrate ecosystem concerns. The project will contribute to the decentralization process through community management and natural resources conservation management decision making processes. The project will also strengthen the local social organization structures to evaluate ecosystem concerns that cover more than one village will also be realized through the project.

• At the global level, the project will contribute to the reduction of soil degradation, improvement of biomass production and sequestration of above and below ground carbon, and reduced siltation, and nutrient runoff and pollution of rivers draining into the wetlands in the targeted conservation areas such as the Sierra Leone River Estuary and the Rokel River.

• International waters of the Sierra Leone River and its tributaries will be protected through restoration of river banks from erosion, siltation, mangroves exploitation, pollution and encroachment, which is expected to significantly reduce pollution of international waters by sedimentation and pollution.

• The project will also contribute to the commitments under several global conventions and treaties, in particular, Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Wetlands, UN Framework on Climate Change and Convention to Combat Desertification.

• Pressure on natural habitats (remnant forests, mangroves, riparian areas, wetlands, wildlife, etc) will be decreased through improved biodiversity and wetland conservation practices.

• Capacity for local communities, women, farmer and fishing associations, national and international institutions to identify opportunities and formulate and implement policies to support the integrated ecosystem management approaches, combining local and global benefits will be enhanced. However, communities are more likely to

58

express demands for social income-generating activities rather than for local and global environment protection activities;

• Contribution will be made to the decentralization process through community management of natural resources and Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) decision–making processes; and

• Partnerships with international, public, NGOs and private development communities to acquire IEM financing capacity through various financial schemes will be established.

Therefore the SLWCP has the potential to make a significant contribution to Sierra Leone’s wildlife and forestry conservation policies as well as policies to protect and preserve the environment while reducing poverty in rural areas. 9.3 POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY ASPECTS

Sierra Leone’s five main ecosystems host significant indigenous biodiversity in terms of endemism and number of rare and threatened species. Indigenous fauna includes 15 species of primates, 18 species of antelopes and duikers, and over 500 bird species. The main ecosystems are: (i) lowland rainforests; (ii) montane forests; (iii) savanna woodlands; (iv) freshwater and wetlands; and (v) coastal and marine. More than 4,800 km2 of Sierra Leone is wetlands, including riverine ecosystems, freshwater and coastal swamps and mangroves, which support unique ecosystems, and also provide valuable ecosystem services, including inland and marine fisheries, as well as the potential for tourism. Sierra Leone's biological diversity is diminishing rapidly and the capacities of ecological systems to function properly are being reduced. As much as 70 percent of the country was formerly dominated by forest, whereas less than 5 percent of intact natural forests remain. In some areas, deforestation followed in the wake of industrial-scale commercial logging during the colonial period, when subsistence farmers moved directly into logged areas and burned the remaining vegetation to clear the land for agriculture. The decline of Sierra Leone's forests continues largely as a result of slash-and-burn agriculture involving short fallow periods as well as unsustainable harvesting. This is leading to erosion and sedimentation of aquatic ecosystems, and loss of mangroves that are the nurseries for multi-million dollar marine fisheries. Nationwide, deforestation continues unabated at an estimated 2 percent of cover per annum, emphasizing the need for urgent action. Mangroves are being degraded and destroyed as a result of unsustainable harvesting for fuel wood and building materials, and conversion to other land uses. In addition to feeding the supply of fuel wood to urban areas, mangrove wood is used by local communities for smoking fish, as well as the construction of housing, canoes and small vessel boats. Large tracts are also converted to rice fields and salt production. Because of the long period of rice cultivation in these areas, the naturally fragile soil structure is now very vulnerable to erosion A 1987 report indicates that mangroves occupied 47% of the Sierra Leonean coastline, covering an area of about 174,000 ha. An ongoing study is expected to reveal significant losses during the intervening period. Mangroves do not currently have national legal protection status, and most of the threats to their conservation are regulated only by

59

traditional by-laws or international agreements. There is an urgent need to establish effective systems for conservation management of wetland ecosystems in Sierra Leone. and siltation.

Attempts to ensure effective conservation of biological diversity and sustainable natural resource management have been hampered by: (a) weaknesses in conservation legislation and regulations and inadequate capacity for enforcement; (b) lack of effective partnerships for conservation, including full participation of affected local communities and traditional authorities; (c) insufficient funding to support conservation site management; and (d) lack of alternative sustainable livelihood opportunities.

Government capacity to effectively conserve Sierra Leone's biodiversity assets is severely stretched. Multiple donors and aid agencies are active in the sector, and all projects emphasize the importance of responding to the immediate threat of irreversible loss as a matter of urgency, as well as developing Government capacity and stakeholder awareness of the needs and opportunities for conservation. 9.4 BIOPHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES AND CONCERNS FACING TARGETED WETLANDS

Broadly speaking, direct threats to wetlands may result from physical, chemical or biological changes to the surrounding environment. Each of these impacts is considered below:

9.4.1 Biophysical

Biological changes Biological changes result from: Over-exploitation of natural resources The over-exploitation of wetland resources, such as vegetation and fisheries, can cause changes to the wetland habitat. This may expose the wetland to erosion, produce changes to soil structure and cause the loss of protection and food for juvenile fish species. Over-fishing will change the species composition of the wetland, encouraging smaller and less commercially attractive species to achieve dominance. Introduction of exotic species This may occur intentionally or accidentally. Exotic species tend to have no or fewer biological controls on their population growth than do indigenous species. This gives them a biological ‘edge’ over local species, which may result in the latter’s loss. Species of concern include the Nile perch (Lates niloticus) and the water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes). Physical changes Physical changes may be the result of:

60

Reduced water input This will happen as a result of drainage, ground water abstraction and surface water diversion, which may lead to the drying of wetlands and the shrinkage of their areas. If prolonged, this results in flora and fauna loss. Wetlands’ inability to reabsorb moisture after drainage impairs their flood control functions. Other important impacts are the acidification of wetland soils and increased salinity. Increased water input Increases to the groundwater table may arise as a result of upstream impoundment, and may cause an increase to the wetland area, its deepening and an increase of its productivity. In arid areas, however, salinisation and alkalinisation may result from evaporation and reduce the productivity of soils or wetlands and undermine them as a reliable water source. In addition, stagnant water may represent a potential health hazard from waterborne disease. Artificial stabilisation of water levels This can occur as a result of barriers and flood control measures. The natural productivity of the wetland will be reduced since its normal nutrient cycling, which normally occurs when water levels rise and fall, will be curtailed. Flooding in wetlands When flooding occurs, marginal habitats may be lost. Regular or seasonal variations to water levels may inhibit vegetation growth at wetland margins and reduce productivity and habitat availability. The incidence of water-associated diseases may also increase. Rises to the ground level Wetlands may be filled to, for example, develop infrastructure or urban areas to curb the health risks that wetlands pose, or increasing the area under agriculture. Wetland habitats, their functions and products may be completely destroyed in the process. Increase of sediment in wetlands Deforestation, upstream soil erosion, construction and mining activities may cause sediment loads in the water to increase. This will reduce the penetration of light and hence primary productivity. Too much sediment can have abrasive effects on aquatic organisms, especially fish. Increased sediment loading can reduce the life span of a reservoir and aggravate the risk of flooding. Reduction of sediment in wetlands This may happen as a result of upstream impoundment, causing increased bank erosion downstream. The final consequence will be loss of property, habitat and productivity. Chemical changes The impacts related to chemical changes are: Water salinity This occurs as a result of natural salinisation and the release of irrigation drainage water, certain industrial effluents and mine waters. Salinisation may cause ecological changes, and cause the loss of salt-sensitive species and, possibly, their replacement with salt-tolerant species. In sudden and extreme cases, this can cause habitat destruction. Otherwise,

61

salinisation will reduce water quality and curb its usefulness as a source for drinking or industrial use. Increased organic loading of water The discharge of sewage and industrial waste directly into a wetland can increase its organic load. This, in turn, increases the water’s Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), possibly causing its de-oxygenation and the death of aquatic life. Such nutrient additions to water may also cause eutrophication when the concentration of nitrates and phosphates reach levels that encourage the growth of algae. Depending on conditions, the type of algae to grow may be undesirable – such as filamentous algae and red tides. Fish kills may also result and biodiversity could decrease. Increased levels of toxic materials Common toxic materials include heavy metals, organic chemicals and pesticides, originating from agriculture, industry, mining and other hazardous waste. These may cause the mortality of aquatic life and, if persistent, the destruction of the wetland’s habitat.

9.4.2 Socio-economic

- Lack of schools, healthcare centres and adequate medical services, water and sanitation facilities

- Employment creation through skills training and carrier development - Soap and gari making facilities for the women - Supply of seeds for vegetable growing

Community Elders and members from the Mumunta section raised some specific issues of concern covering the following areas:

- Understanding of the project concept and the release of their land: worries about the alleged release of the land for the conservation project on behalf of the community by the Paramount Chief without adequately seeking the consent of the Mumunta community was expressed. The community members disclosed that their earlier understanding was that the land was being released for a zoo project. It was later that they were informed that the purpose of the Mamunta land take was to conserve the wildlife in the area. They also had the suspicion that investigations were being done scientist to undertake mining in the area since they believe that there mineral resources in the area.

- Encroachment of the sanctuary by Fulani Herdsmen is a major concern of the Mamunta community people.

- Since the recommendation to acquire the Mamunta land for conservation project in 1980, they have not received any benefit despite being restricted over these years to fully benefit from the natural resources in the conservation area.

- Women are not allowed to participate in certain customary rites. The community would want these practices to be respected and maintained under the conservation project.

62

9.4.3 Consequences of Wetland Loss

When wetlands are lost or their functions diminished, the natural capacity to filter and purify agricultural and domestic runoff is decreased. The impacts of high nutrient loads, over-enrichment (eutrophication), and oxygen depletion on rivers and estuaries are increased. Loss of in-stream wetlands increases the potential for coliform bacterial contamination of shellfish beds. Wetland loss results in a loss of wildlife habitat and reduced productivity. Loss of wetland also decreases the ecosystem’s capacity to contribute to the recycling of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur as well as carbon sequestration. 9.5 POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WCP

The proposed Wetlands Conservation Project could lead to the development of ancillary facilities and sub-projects such as access roads, buildings (hotels, guest houses and restaurants). commercial centers for art and craft products, small scale village-level income generating activities, etc. Among other things, the provision of these ancillary facilities and the sub-projects could give rise to some adverse environmental impacts during the entire development phases of the proposed wetlands conservation project including pre-construction, construction and operational phase's impacts. These impacts can be avoided or mitigated by taking proper precautions during the design, development and operational stages of the proposed project by observing the national environmental laws and regulations, international conventions and protocols relevant to protected area development. The development activities to be undertaken through the entire development phases of the proposed project will have potential impact on the following environmental components:

• Physical Environment • Environmental Quality • Ecological Resources • Human use values.

The impacts of the project activity on each of the environmental attributes are briefly discussed below:

9.5.1 Physical Environment

9.5.1.1 Impact on Climate The proposed project may involve construction activities relating to upgrade or rehabilitation of infrastructure facilities such as access roads, buildings and other social amenities. Construction of buildings may lead to moderately significant vegetative cover loss. In circumstances where there would be a major access road upgrade or rehabilitation there will be significant loss of vegetative cover. However, this construction related activities would not cause considerable changes in wind profile, temperature and rainfall pattern in the project areas.

63

9.5.1.2 Impact on Topography During the construction works, the micro-level topography will change to some extent due to site clearing, levelling, filling and construction of project-related structures etc. With adequate planning the topographical impacts can be kept within acceptable limits and can even enhance the local aesthetics.

9.5.1.3 Impact on Land Stability The terrain and geological conditions are such that it does require reasonable care in undertaking the construction works planning and design. The likely interaction between the construction works and the existing land features will involve minimal significant impact on land stability in the project areas.

9.5.1.4 Noise At present noise in the project areas is not a major issue though there are human activities taking place in some of the project areas. However, noise is expected to be one of the negative impacts during provision of infrastructure facilities for the proposed project areas. The intensity of noise levels during the construction stage will increase significantly, but it will be intermittent and temporary in nature. However, considering the intensity of impacts and duration of the implementation, the noise impact is considered to be insignificant. Impact Source Increased noise level causing discomfort or threat to wildlife species

Mobilization of construction machinery, Acceleration/deceleration/gear changes by the vehicles, Construction of structures and facilities, Loading, transportation and unloading of construction materials

9.5.1.5 Impact on Surface Water The proposed project areas are endowed with wetlands. These wetlands are sources of basic socio-economic benefits to most of the inhabitants and communities. The development of ancillary facilities for the proposed project will have likely impacts on these water sources due to a possible extraction of water from the water bodies for various development activities and clearing of forest cover and catchment areas of the water bodies. There could be impact on the flow regime and floodplain during construction. Water pollution could also be caused by accidental spillages, flooding, fire-fighting, runoff from construction works, runoff from or disturbance to contaminated ground or river sediments. These pollution events could have adverse impacts on water quality, amenity, aquatic habitats or potable resources.

64

9.5.1.6 Impact on Ground Water Ground water pollution may take place if a dump contains chemical substances, which will get leached out by precipitation of water and percolate to the ground water table. In this project no such material in any substantial quantity will be used. Hence the impact on ground water quality is not anticipated from the development of ancillary facilities and sub-project activities if proper design and citing of facilities are done.

9.5.1.7 Impact on Air Quality The proposed project would not have any adverse impact on air quality. However, the provision of ancillary facilities such as construction of buildings and upgrade or rehabilitation of access roads may have adverse impact on air quality. These adverse impacts could arise from:

• Dust and odour emissions from construction materials, plant and machinery; • Exhaust emission from construction traffic; • Increased level of road traffic pollutants caused by traffic congestion or increased

traffic flows on routes during construction. Construction activities that have the potential impact on air quality are mainly related to dust from, for example excavations, breaking of concrete and rocks, and the movement of loose materials. Construction dust has the potential to cause nuisance through soiling of property and of vegetation. Disruption of traffic during construction also has the impact to affect local air quality. It is expected that the air quality will be affected to some extent by dust and particulate matters generated by construction, vehicular movements, site clearance, earth filling and material loading, and unloading. However, the likely impact on air quality will be localized, temporary and confined to the construction sites. It is expected that the suspended particulate matter (SPM) level will be increased during construction works. The noise levels for various construction activities/equipments though may exceed the permissible World Bank guideline values, however, due to their intermittent nature; the impact of increased noise levels would only be temporary. Air quality baseline level in the localities suggests that concentrations of sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), dust and particulate matter are not higher than World Bank guideline values. Table 9.1: The Likely Impacts on Air Quality During Construction Are Given Below

Impact Source Generation of Dust Site clearing, land levelling, digging of

foundation; Transportation and tipping of cleared material; Transportation of sand and stone from sources; Handling and storage construction materials such as cement, sand etc

Generation of polluting gases including SO2, NO2 and HC

Concrete mixers, pay-loaders, trucks and large construction equipment; Movement of' heavy machinery is likely to

65

contribute towards higher emission of gases; Inadequate vehicle maintenance and of' adulterated fuel in vehicles being used at the construction site.

9.5.2 Biological - biodiversity, ecology and nature conservation

9.5.2.1 Impact on Vegetation The WCP will not have direct negative impact of vegetation. Any potential negative impacts will be related to the provision of ancillary infrastructure facilities and sub-projects. The potential ecological degradation from the provision of the ancillary facilities and the subprojects will result from the direct loss of grasses and forest cover due to land clearing, land levelling and digging of land. Considering the intensity of' impact associated with transport projects, if the access roads are to be upgraded or rehabilitated as part of the ancillary facilities under the WCP, the ecological degradation due to loss of vegetation will be significant.

9.5.2.2 Farmlands There are farmlands within the areas for the proposed for the WCP. There is the potential that these farmlands would be converted into non-agricultural uses. This would lead to the loss of arable lands, standing crops and loss of trees. This potential impact triggers issues of resettlement and payment of' compensation for losses. An entitlement matrix would have to be undertaken to identify all affected persons, identification of type and quantum of loss and determination of eligibility for compensation payment within a resettlement policy framework and resettlement action plan in accordance with Sierra Leone's Land Act, .and World Bank OP1. 4.12 (RPF document).

9.5.2.3 Cattle Grazing and Ranching There are cattle ranches in some areas for the proposed WCP. There should be loss of grazing land under the project requiring the relocation of affected pastoralist thus triggering O.P. 4.12 of the World Bank Safeguard policies. The cattle grazing by the Fulanis is a source of land use conflicts and a threat to the maintenance of the population of flora and fauna in their natural state and numbers for use by the local and tourists alike. A common practice by the Fulani herdsmen to improve grazing is to burn the grasslands where possible. This indiscriminate burning along with grazing causes constant habitat changes and is particularly detrimental to natural forest succession with the reserves and protection of the watersheds of wetlands. The cattle grazing within the Reserve can cause competition with other similar species of Bovidae particularly the bush cow (Syncercus cafer). The competition would be through the following: (a) the human and cattle disturbance factor of herding; (b) the direct competition for food; and (c) destruction of habitat by trampling and grazing due to herd concentrations.

9.5.2.4 Impact on Aquatic Ecology

66

The provision of ancillary facilities under WCP could affect aquatic resources in wetlands in the area since it may involve filling, levelling, digging and some other major earth works. There is however no likelihood that there will be extraction of sand from the banks of water bodies for construction purposes that may create any disturbance to the aquatic fauna, which may result in any displacement of the' aquatic fauna.

9.5.3 Socio-cultural and socio-economic conditions including land use, infrastructure and human health

9.5.3.1 Loss of Assets and Means of Livelihood The principal social impacts are those associated with land acquisition, relocation and community disruption, which will be caused by the proposed project and the provision of its ancillary facilities. The proposed project may involve the need to relocate community residences and farmlands, disrupt established communities and deprive affected persons of their means of livelihood. The involuntary taking of' land resulting in relocation of communities or loss of shelter, lost of assets or access to assets; or loss of income sources such farming, logging, charcoal burning, mining and other means of livelihood triggers issues of involuntary resettlement as stipulated under World Bank Operational Safeguard Policy OP 4.12 as well as the regulatory requirements of Sierra Leone's Land Act. The provisions of this policy, OP 4.12 and land Act must be met. Sufficient information is needed in the environmental assessment to assure that the relocation can be managed. Preliminary evaluations indicates that involuntary resettlement under the proposed WCP, if unmitigated, could give rise to economic, social, and environmental risks: production systems are dismantled; people face impoverishment when their productive assets or income sources are lost; people are relocated to environments where their productive skills may be less applicable and the competition for resources greater; community institutions and social networks are weakened: kin groups are dispersed; and cultural identity, traditional authority, and the potential for mutual help are diminished or lost. This has been dealt with in the RPF document.

9.5.3.2 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts For the kind of proposed project there is the potential for induced or secondary impacts on surrounding communities. The induced impacts could be significant, particularly where there are also significant impacts in other categories especially land use or direct social impacts. In such circumstances, a more thorough analysis of induced effect may be needed in an environmental impact statement. The existence of this potential induced socioeconomic impact necessitates that the environmental assessment describes such factors as shifts in patterns of population movement and growth, community services demands and change in business and economic activity to the extent influenced by the WCP.

9.5.3.3 Impact on Tourism No matter what sort of protection an area enjoys, the danger that tourism will harm the natural and aesthetic value of the area is always present. The proposed WCP would contribute significantly however to the development and promotion of tourism in the sub-region, Sierra Leone and particularly in the communities concerned. The migration of various

67

travellers, businesspersons, visitors etc would create markets and stimulate economic activities. Further the proposed WCP would open new markets not only for tourism but also for other export opportunities for Sierra Leone. Within the context of the Blue Print of the Ministry of Tourism, the proposed WCP shall contribute to optimizing socio-economic growth and provide positive environmental impact for the benefit of deprived communities in the project areas and the country at large. Some other specific benefits to be realized are:

• The preservation of the country's wildlife and promotion of nature tourism which is in great demand by today travellers.

• Upgrading the standard, quality and effectiveness of' tourism marketing to increase tourists' arrivals and foreign exchange earnings.

• Promotion of domestic tourism, fostering of cultural cohesion and national integration as well as the redistribution of incomes.

9.5.3.4 Impact on Infrastructure The proposed WCP is a kind of project that will bring with it several ancillary developments and sub-projects that could significantly change the infrastructural regime of the project communities and its neighbourhoods. Types of ancillary developments and sub-projects that could spring up include:

• Access roads • Power supply (overhead lines or buried cables) • Electricity sub-stations • Quarries or burrow pits for the supply of materials • Construction compounds • Waste disposal sites. • Markets for art and craft products • Hotels, guest houses and restaurants. • Small-scale, village-level income-generating schemes.

The cumulative impacts of the proposed WCP project and the ancillary developments could be potentially significant. 9.6 IMPACT ON HUMAN USE VALUE

9.6.1 Loss of Monuments/Historical Areas

Some of' the sites earmarked for the WCP are said to have religious, sacred groves and unique natural values. The declaration of such locations as wetland conservation areas could lead to a loss of access to these sites and deny the inhabitants of the benefits or the spiritual significance they attach to those sites. This triggers the World Bank safeguard policy on Cultural Property, OP4.1. However, based on the objective of the WCP, the sacred grooves or the sites of religious significance would not be damaged. The project could be design to assist in the protection and enhancement of the cultural properties encountered in the targeted protected areas.

68

9.6.2 Health, Safety and Hygiene for Construction Workers

With reference to the provision of ancillary facilities and sub-project components that are construction related, there could be minor impact on community health during construction period. Due to the concentration of people, the transmission of potential disease is likely to be increased. Additional concerns arising from inadequate health and safety practices may be encountered at the construction sites are.

• High rates of population increase; • Potential increase of waterborne and water-related diseases; • Potential encroachment into sacred groves, historical sites and archaeological sites

9.6.3 Aesthetic Values

Aesthetic values in terms of the natural vegetative cover and landforms of the project area would be disturbed as a result of buildings and infrastructure facilities that may spring up in the project area. Measures to be put in place to minimize the loss of certain aesthetic values (visual impacts) from destruction of vegetative cover are presented in table 8.2 below. . 9.7 POTENTIAL ADVERSE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF WCP

The project triggers the Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP/BP 4.12) as it may entail: (i) limited land acquisition once conservation sites’ boundaries are demarcated and for small infrastructure works; (ii) relocation of a small number of human settlements located inside any of the conservation sites; and (iii) restriction of access to the selected legally designated parks and conservation sites. Overall impacts are yet to be determined as boundaries need to be re-demarcated and the status of villages inside and outside of the conservation sites needs to be identified. The risk exists that the project will have negative impacts if the participatory processes designed for the project break down or are not implemented. Likewise if bad governance and exploitative divisions of the past reappear, the vulnerable, powerless and/or marginalized groups could be blocked from effectively participating and benefiting from the project. Failure to implement the Process Framework's provisions would lead to individuals living in or restriction of access to selected resources, or being blocked from doing so in which case their incomes and living standards would not be restored to pre-project levels. The environmental and social screening form and checklist in Annexes 3.0 and 4.0 are designed specifically to ensure that adverse social impacts from the Wetlands Conservation project are identified in the planning stages and effectively mitigated in advance. Both environmental and social mitigation measures would be verifiably monitored during the various stages of the project cycle. Other specific anticipated potential negative impacts may include the following:

• Alternative livelihoods and intensification of agricultural production which may result in community well-being, may also lead to an increase in areas brought under cultivation, which may increase demand on natural resources or degrade the surrounding environment.

69

• Rural livelihoods and environments are often complex, unpredictable and fragile and achieving effective participation by the vulnerable, including women and the poor may be challenging.

• The initial involvement of chiefs and communities that own land in contractual

agreements may change the employment equity of the vulnerable groups including the landless, the youth and women and create negative feelings, beliefs or positions by the residents of the impacted area regarding the proposed conservation project

• The successful establishment of trees on degraded lands will require that the current

free grazing of livestock systems on such lands will have to be restricted. This will lead to disruption in daily living and movement patterns as well as social network systems in some communities such as Mayosso. In these communities, restricting grazing land would not be pleasant to the affected persons.

• Rapid institutional change in the formal community systems for governance and the

implementation of natural resources conservation initiatives may create competing institutions and decrease overall effectiveness, especially in budget allocation and management.

• There are a significant number of NGOs and development agency-financed projects

throughout Sierra Leone, with considerable rural development experience, that may be undermined if they are not effectively involved in the project.

The implementing agents of the SLWCP will consider the above risks carefully in the preparation and design of the project. Table 9.2 below sets out the factors contributing to these risks carefully and the features of the project design to mitigate the risks. Table 9.2: Potential Risks, Explanation and Mitigation Risk Explanation SLWCP Approach Rural livelihoods and environments are often complex, unpredictable and fragile and achieving effective participation may not be easy.

Rural livelihoods are diverse and complex in nature; hence it is people living in a particular area who understand the local environment, interactions within their community and their economy more than outside intervening parties. It is also challenging to achieve genuine participation on all sections of the community.

SLWCP is based on a full-participatory demand-driven approach containing direct funding for community initiated sub-projects including community contribution in kind and providing for mobilization of local resources through the support to community based income generation activities. Through tools of PRA and PAPs these groups will be involved.

Lack of adequate capacity for environmental and social screening of small-scale activities may exacerbate existing environmental and social issues affecting communities within the target area.

Sierra Leone lacks adequate qualified staff and mechanisms for the screening and mitigation of impacts induced from activities such as developing small-scale infrastructure. This is especially important since subprojects will be community

The project includes a component for training and capacity building for communities and government agencies. Villages will develop their plans, and use a predetermined screening procedure to determine those

70

driven where such expertise may be lacking. This may exacerbate current environmental stress.

interventions that require mitigation.

The initial involvement of persons that own land, in drawing up “contracts” for the conservation project, may change the employment equity of vulnerable groups including the landless, younger persons and women who do not own any land. This may further create negative feelings.

Public attitudes are crucial in mobilizing the necessary local support for the project among minority groups because these will more often than not provide labour. Women will be most involved in farming activities; labour for planting trees will mostly be drawn from family members particularly the younger persons.

SLWCP will carry out sensitisation workshops geared towards creating awareness on the project at all levels of the communities. Issues of land tenure will be dealt with on a site-to-site basis. The participatory approach of the project will be most useful in this regard

Differential impacts of SLWCP training and investments (according to gender, poverty level, or livelihood strategy) may result in some interest groups capturing

The relationship between poverty and environment is not always straightforward. Some sub-categories of the population which stand to gain like the elite groups may capture some of the intended village investments, whereas more disadvantaged groups may be forced to rely on an unsustainable use of their natural resource base.

Special attention will need to be paid to poverty targeting within villages to ensure that investments in support activities and subprojects are identified and implemented so as not to lead to unsustainable use or impacts on natural resources.

Alternative livelihoods and intensification of agricultural production (including livestock), which may result in improved well-being, may also lead to an increase in areas brought under cultivation and overall numbers of livestock.

Improved access to markets may increase incentives to increase areas under production or increase animal numbers. In the absence of viable systems for land management and natural resource protection, this may lead to overexploitation or degradation of resources in some areas.

Alternative livelihood strategies will seek to strengthen and add value to existing systems. The integrated nature of the project will ensure counter measures to secure the natural resources, particularly through the conservation activities.

For the successful establishment of trees on degraded lands, the current free grazing livestock systems on such lands will have to be restricted. This will lead to disruption in daily living and movement patterns as well as social network systems in some communities such as the Mayosso.

Competition between different land use systems is often a critical issue in agricultural related projects.

SLWCP and the communities through the participatory approaches to be adopted will come up with mechanisms for the protection of trees on the degraded lands from destruction by grazing livestock and work out mechanisms acceptable by the communities on a site-to-site basis.

Considering current poverty levels, incentives for effective community management of natural resources in a sustainable manner (e.g.

The poor, in their need for immediate gratification of pressing needs such as household income for food and other basics, may not be in a

SLWCP will carry out problem analysis and priority setting as part of participatory planning with communities (community development plan – local

71

restricted harvesting of trees) may be weak in comparison to incentives for unsustainable use (e.g. charcoal burning).

position to wait out the long term benefits of agro-forestry based subprojects.

development plan). This approach offers the opportunity to ascertain communities’ needs on the more effective management practices and to identify where immediate interventions are required.

Rapid institutional change in the formal community systems for governing and implementing natural resources and conservation initiatives may create competing institutions and decrease overall effectiveness.

PRA’s in the districts revealed that there is general lack of large enough legally recognized community based institutions. However there were such organized groups as women groups, youth groups, clan groups, school development committees, etc. in most villages.

SLWCP will seek to clarify decision-making responsibilities between individual small groupings and introduced systems (village development committees) and promote joint systems for effective management of wetlands and natural resources.

Even where systems of governance are strong, incentives for effective community management of natural resources in a sustainable manner may be weak in comparison to incentives for unsustainable use.

A common assumption of development projects is that community management practices necessarily lead to sustainable resource management. Whether or not it actually does depends on the community decisions and effectiveness of the community management systems.

Capacity Building for Community Driven Wetland Conservation Management will focus on enhancing the capacity of communities to formulate decentralized action plans called Participatory Action Plans (PAPs) and providing technical assistance to promote adoption of wetlands conservation management approaches.

Rapid institutional change in the formal national, provincial and community systems for governing natural resource areas may create competing or ineffective institutions within government.

Recent changes or trends in Sierra Leone include the move toward decentralization with the accompanying risk of ineffective restructuring, training and empowerment to ensure a successful transition.

SLWCP support for institutional change will be monitored carefully, in full view of political sensitivities between the different systems, and be carried out with regular consultation with the affected parties.

There are a significant number of NGO and development agency-financed projects throughout Sierra Leone with considerable rural development experience, which may be undermined if they are not effectively included in the process.

The financial size and scope of the SLWCP is significant in comparison to the smaller scale NGO and bilaterally-funded development projects in rural areas. This may have implications for the relation between government administrations and NGOs, between existing projects, and communities, and for staff of government and NGOs.

SLWCP will work to build capacity within national, provincial, and community administrations, and continue the collaborative approach; and consider making use of NGOs as service providers, in addition to private sector contractors where appropriate.

Rising population pressures, deteriorating resource base and intensification of the traditional production systems have led to an increase in the number of

SLWCP investments may serve to bring back those who had migrated out in search of income earning alternatives into the recipient communities and

SLWCP will work carefully with communities to devise measures to support sustainable investments and ensure the inclusion of migrants into their

72

land-related conflicts, and introduction of investments in such areas may attract outside migrants that will increase pressure on existing resources.

they will also seek to benefit from the improvements. This could lead to friction or conflict and put additional pressure on limited resources.

communities.

Table 9.3 below describes many of the proposed investment activities, community infrastructure provision and sustainable alternative livelihood programs that are likely to be undertaken under the SLWCP and predicts both positive and negative impacts. However, the screening and review process included in the ESMF will identify risks and recommend further measures. The sub-projects list presented here is not exhaustive as these projects and programs will be selected and developed at the community level. Table 9.3: Potential Environmental and Social Impacts of the SLWCP Activity/Types of Investments and programs

Positive Impacts Negative Impact Mitigation Measures

Feeder Road Improvement/ Infrastructure • Construction and repair of rural roads; • Construction and maintenance of forest roads; • Construction of bridges and crossing structures; • Construction of road embankments; etc.

Improvement of communication; • Connecting rural areas to principal road networks; • Access to markets, transportation of goods and services-overall positive impact on the economy; • Facilitation of communication between neighbouring villages; • Accessibility to village of conservation areas, forests or other areas for land development and use; • Protection against bush fires (firebreak); • Improvement of commercial exchanges; • Access to health and education centres.

Destruction of vegetation in and near roadways; • Deforestation; • Increase in poaching and illegal and excessive removal of firewood and timber; • Destruction of wildlife habitat; • Impeding wildlife movement; • Reduction in biodiversity; • Water pollution and negative effect on surrounding ecosystem; • Loss of certain aesthetic values (visual impacts) from destruction of vegetative cover; • Acceleration of soil erosion due to poor maintenance and drainage of roads; • Social instability.

• Avoid infringing on protected areas, critical habitats or areas with significant biodiversity (e.g. wetlands); • Avoid areas of soil, slope or geological instability; • Provide comprehensive community participation in planning, construction and management; • Migration issue to be resolved through local conflict resolution system; • Community decision-making in selecting sites for construction in order to avoid encroachment upon productive land.

Water Supply Infrastructure • Boreholes equipped with pumps; • Rehabilitation of boreholes; • Development and rehabilitation of wells; • Development of water storage reservoirs; • Maintenance of water supply/storage infrastructure; • Rehabilitation of water storage reservoirs, etc.

• Supply of potable water; • Improvement of pastoral activities due to availability of water for livestock; • Availability of water for agriculture and irrigation; • Development of lowlands for vegetable and crop production; • Improvement in raising the groundwater level; • Creation of ponds favourable for fishing; • Enrichment wildlife diversity; • Improvement in health; • Shortened distance to carry

• Increase in disease and insect vectors such as malaria, bilharzia, onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, trypanosomiasis; • Contaminated water by chemical pesticides and fertilizers; • Soil degradation due to Stalinization or alkalisation, etc; • Loss of wildlife, vegetation and cultivated land; • Overuse of water and surrounding land resources due to increased population

• Protect groundwater sources from surface runoff and pollution; • Ensure planning, design and maintenance of infrastructure is appropriate to local needs, traditions, culture and desires; • Ensure sufficient community participation and organization for effective planning and management of infrastructure; • Include downstream water users (e.g. water supply, irrigation, livestock watering) in planning of

73

water, saving women’s and children’s labour; • Increase in economic activity.

pressures; • Attraction of livestock and pressure on vegetation cover and soils with increase in erosion; • Lowering or drying up of groundwater level; • Lack of clear definition of user rights for wells and pumps may create exclusion of vulnerable groups.

water storage reservoirs; • Identify proper mechanism of rights and responsibilities over well/pump/reservoir usage through participatory village focus groups;

Social and Economic Infrastructure • Agricultural storage warehouses; • Cereal banks, Cold store facility for fishing storage etc.

• Improved storage and conservation of agricultural inputs and production; • Increased productivity; • Improved well-being; • Employment generation.

• Spread of disease from incoming laborers; • The vulnerable groups (women, poor children, migrants, trans-human pastoralists) and the poor) may not benefit from infrastructure construction and rehabilitation; • Infrastructure investments may be misappropriated by government agencies;

• Ensure planning, design and maintenance of infrastructure is appropriate to local needs, traditions, culture and desires; • Conduct mandatory participatory focus groups with the vulnerable groups regarding infrastructure subprojects • Establish transparent monitoring and evaluation system

Soil and Water Conservation • Composting pits; • Riverine recovery and protection; • Re-vegetation; • Dykes and embankments; • River or stream bank protection, etc.

• Improved land use; • Improved drainage and runoff protection; • Land recovery for cultivation; • Improved soil quality (fertility); • Improved water retention; • Restoration of vegetative cover; • Erosion control; • Improved productivity; • Employment generation; • Improved food security.

• Soil and groundwater pollution if pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are used; • Some households’ livelihood opportunities may be restricted due to conservation efforts; • Alien invasive aquatic weeds infestation in wetlands; • Sediment flow into natural water bodies during de-silting.

• Employ suitable prevention and mitigation measures, including education of local population on proper handling, use and disposal of chemical pollutants; • Livelihood diversification opportunities identified through participatory needs assessment; • Conservation efforts need to be carried out with minimum disruption to productive activities; • Aquatic weeds control.

Structural Support for Improving Animal Husbandry • Grazing land rehabilitation; • Marking off pasture lands; • Strengthening of a land tenure system • Milk production improvement; • Improved pasture management and production; • Forage collection and storage (bales); • Forage storage structures.

• Modernization of agro-pastoral practices; • Secure access to pasture lands • Land tenure institutional mechanism established at village, district and provincial levels • Improved livestock productivity; • Improved pasture management; • Livestock manure collection and use; • Reduced conflict between livestock herders and farmers; • Improved animal health; • Improved human health; • Improved food security.

• Risk of concentrating livestock numbers; • Over grazing and loss of vegetative cover; • Pressure on water points and resulting risk of pollution; • Livestock diseases and sickness if numbers too high and too concentrated; • Increased conflict between livestock herders and farmers/local population; • Vulnerable groups’ livelihoods made more insecure.

• Limit animal numbers or control access to grazing lands; • Control length of grazing time through introduction of rotational grazing, development of dry-season grazing areas and reserves; • Strategic development and placement of water points; • Establish conflict resolution mechanisms for the various subproject sites; • Integrate the vulnerable groups into each pasture management/land tenure subproject.

Structural Support for Improving Agricultural

• Protection against soil

• Loss of vegetative cover,

• Avoid infringing on

74

Production • Vegetable and multi-purpose gardens; • Construction and rehabilitation of irrigation schemes downstream of water reservoirs; • Modernization and diversification of agricultural production; • Strengthening of land tenure systems; • Improved fallows; • Flood control through small dams; • De-silting of water pans; • High value trees;

erosion; • Improved soil fertility; • Diversification of crop production; • Intensification of crop production; • Improved land use; • Increased crop yields; • Food security; • Discouraging outward migration; • Livelihood security through improved land tenure and agricultural diversification/ intensification; • Improved food security.

decrease in soil fertility; • Possible pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer use leading to soil and water pollution; • Irrigation system may break down and not be repairable; • Conflict over user rights of irrigation systems; • Potential diversion of water resources from its natural course/location; • Vulnerable groups may loose access to water resources or land.

protected areas, critical habitats or areas with significant biodiversity (e.g. wetlands); • Introduce integrated pest management (IPM) in agricultural lands; • Use containment basins during de-silting. • Educate population in the proper use, storage and disposal of potential chemical pollutants; • Ensure that construction and rehabilitation of irrigation systems are carried out by using materials easily accessible through local market; • Conduct needs and sustainability assessment for each agricultural activity (irrigation, vegetable growing, etc); • Ensure that the interests/rights of the vulnerable groups are integrated into the activities.

Structural Support for Improving Forestry • Development of natural and plantation forests; • Establishment of nurseries; • Protection/ conservation of nature reserves & fragile ecosystems; • Reforestation; • Develop alternatives for the use of firewood (e.g. LPG) for energy purposes and other uses; • Reorganization and training of communities in village forest management; • Training in improved firewood use; • Stream or river bank protection; • Wildlife protection; • Management of hunting and fight against poaching; • Development of apiculture in forested areas; • Development of ecotoursim; • Fight against bush fires or forest fires • Construction and maintenance of forest roads; • Joint management of gazetted forests.

• Qualitative and quantitative regeneration of vegetation; • Improvement in wildlife habitat; • Inward migration of wildlife; • Re-establishment of forest tree species through forest plantations; • Soil fertility improvement and erosion control; • Improved soil drainage; • Availability of LPG for domestic and industrial uses; • Reduced energy consumption; • Reduction in bush fires; • Better organization of hunting; • Reduction in poaching; • Development of eco-tourism; • Recovery and restoration of deforested areas by direct seeding; • Introduction of agroforestry; • Enhancing general biodiversity; • Employment generation; • Reduced greenhouse gases (GHGs)

• Plantation made up of mono species more vulnerable to disease, insects, fire, etc; • Use of certain tree species can lead to decrease in soil fertility, nutrients, water, etc; • Harvesting by clear cutting can expose soil to greater evaporation, degradation, etc; • Increase in population pressures on forested areas with unintended results; • Introduction of foreign species may potentially disrupt eco-balance; • Households may lack fuel if alternative measures are not taken into an account; • People’s livelihoods that are dependent on forestry/forest resources may worsen (e.g. hunters); • Human-wildlife conflicts; • Biodiversity loss due to introduction of exotic species.

• Consider use of a variety of multipurpose and fast-growing indigenous tree species and management practices to enhance disease, insect, and fire resistance, and biodiversity. • Select tree species and management practices that promote sustainable soil and water conservation; • Educate local population on proper harvesting techniques and practices; • Include local population in the design, site selection, development and management of forested areas; • Take special care of not introducing foreign plant species that may cause disruption in eco-balance; • Introduce sustainable practices of fuel wood gathering and hunting (rather than just restrictive measures); • Problem animal control;

Human and Cultural • Poverty alleviation; • Waterborne and water-related diseases control;

• Increased rural employment opportunities; • Improved health of

• High rates of population increase; • Potential increase of

• Awareness creation on family planning; • Take prophylactic

75

• HIV/AIDS; • Protection of sacred groves, historical and archaeological sites.

participating communities; • Medicinal products; • Community well-being.

waterborne and water-related diseases; • Potential encroachment into sacred groves, historical sites and archaeological sites.

measures and apply biological control by introducing predator fish such as Gambusa affinis and Tilapia zilli; • Health education programs for the local people; • Gazette sacred groves; historical and archaeological sites as national monuments.

76

10.0 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND TYPICAL MITIGATION MEASURES

10.1 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROCESS

As mentioned above, (see NEPA -2000), the E1A procedure 2000 categorizes projects into three “groups” according to their potential impacts: Category A (projects with adverse and significant environmental impacts, requiring a full E1A), Category B (projects which may cause some significant environmental impacts, not likely to warrant an environmental impact study), and Category C (projects with no impacts). The SLWCP will include multiple sub-projects, resulting from the demand to towns and communities. These sub-projects will vary in magnitude and technical scope. Types of ancillary developments and sub-projects that could spring up include: the provision of access roads; extension of power supply and installation of electricity sub-stations; developments of quarries or burrow pits for the supply of construction materials; construction buildings, guest houses, hotels and restaurants; establishment of market centre in the communities for art and craft products; emergence of small-scale and village level income generating activities. The cumulative impacts of the proposed SLWCP and the ancillary developments could be potentially significant. Category A Sub- Projects Category A Sub-projects will undergo a full environmental Impact Assessment, carried out in accordance with E1A Procedure and Guidelines of Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (SLEPA) and the World Bank Group OP 4.01.The main requirements applicable to these EIAs are as follows: To be carried out by independent, experienced consultants; To include meaningful public consultation in accordance with OP 401; To include public disclosure of relevant documents in a culturally-adequate form

(terms of reference, draft EIA report, draft EMP), and to demonstrate that public’s comments and observations have been taken into consideration;

To result in a full Environmental Management Plan with detailed implementation budget and phased.

EIAs for Category A sub-projects will be based upon specific terms of reference to be developed on a case-by-case basis by the SLEPA.

10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT

The Environmental baseline Assessment (EBA) is a rapid field investigation to screen on-site whether any environmental issues may require specific attention. It is proposed that all Category B Sub-projects (including the simplest ones) undergo the EBA process in order to avoid any omission in screening potential environmental issues. The EBA process is designed to meet the following criteria: To be as simple as possible; To be undertaken by field staff with basic training only; To be completed within a few hours at the most and probably within less than one

hour for the most simple sub-projects.

77

Appendix 3 proposes a draft framework for the work to be carried out at the level of the EBA. Field personnel in charge of the EBAs at the Provincial/District or site level will categorize the EBAs as follows: A One or more major adverse impacts are likely, significant changes to the project design

are required (changes in design, site or route); B Potential environmental issue identified, specific mitigation required. C No significant environmental issue identified, no specific mitigation required.

10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

EBAs once completed will be forwarded to SLEPA for review. The Environmental Review will have the following objectives; Check the completeness of the Environmental Baseline Assessment; Check the soundness of the conclusions (i.e. soundness of the categorization in A, B

or C, see above); Sort the sub-projects for further review of those sub-projects for which potential

environmental issues have been identified (categories A and B). • Category A – A proposed project is classified as Category A if it is likely to have

adverse impacts that are significant (based on type, location, sensitivity, and scale of the project and the nature and magnitude of its environmental impacts).

• Category B –A proposed project is classified as category B if the potential impacts are typically site specific, reversible in nature, less adverse than category A projects, and for which mitigatory measures can be designed more readily.

• Category C – A proposed project is classified as a category C if there are minimal or no adverse impacts.

Generic EMP The Generic EMP applies to all schedules (1 or 2) and EBA category they fall under. A framework for this generic EMP, shall be developed. Site-specific EMPs as additions to the generic EMP will be developed for the following types of sub-projects: Schedule 1 sub-projects: Site-specific EMPs will be derived from the full EIA

developed for such sub-projects: Schedule 2/Category B sub-projects: Site-specific EMPs will be developed on a case-

by-case basis.

10.4 MITIGATION MEASURES – GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Environmental Management and Monitoring Plans contain the environmental impacts and risks, the mitigating provisions and management actions, the Environmental Monitoring Plan, enhancement or corrective actions and training and institutional measures. The following tables (Table 10.1: Impacts on the Physical Environment, Table 10.2: Biological-Biodiversity, Ecology, and Nature Conservation, Table 10.3: Impacts on the Socio-cultural and Socio-economic Environment and Table 10.4: Impact on Human use value) provide typical mitigation measures associated with impacts identified. They form the Generic EMP applicable to construction and operation phases of all sub-projects.

78

Table 10.1: Impacts on Physical Environment and Associated mitigations

Issues/Impacts Mitigation

Impact on Wetlands

The risk to wetlands and water resources could be managed by ensuring that suitable mitigation measures are incorporated into the design, development and usage of ancillary facilities. The impacts on water quality and flows of any water-body that any ancillary development would impact would be assessed through a project specific EIA. The detailed environment assessment to be conducted would provide sufficient description of design, mitigation measures, and construction controls applicable to the proposed ancillary development to demonstrate that water quality standards and permit requirements can be met. Facilities such as storm and sanitary sewer design, requirement for additional water supplies or waste treatment capacity, erosion controls to prevent siltation, provisions for containing fuel spills and waste water from washing, designs to preserve existing drainage or to minimize dredge and fill, and location with regard to an aquifer or sensitive ecological area such as wetlands area shall be considered to the extent applicable to the proposal.

Impact on Air Quality

An environmental impact assessment process will establish the baseline conditions of air quality parameters such as dust, particulates and noise. The impact of the ancillary developments will then be assessed in comparison with the air quality for the existing conditions and forecast conditions with and without the proposed ancillary project. The environmental assessment would include measures to be incorporated in the design to minimize adverse air quality effects, including control of air pollution during construction.

79

Table 10.2: Impacts on Biological-Biodiversity, Ecology and Nature Conservation and Associated Mitigations.

Issues/Impacts Mitigation

Impact on aquatic ecology

The proposed ancillary projects would have to be designed and developed in a manner that would avoid a potential long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands.

Impact on Farmland

This potential impact triggers issues of resettlement and payment of compensation for losses. An entitlement matrix would have to be prepared in a resettlement action plan to identify all affected persons, identification of type and quantum of loss and determination eligibility for compensation payment within the resettlement policy framework and resettlement action plan in accordance with Sierra Leone’s Land Act and World Bank OP. 4.12.

Table 10.3: Impacts on the Socio-cultural and Socio-economic Environment Issues/Impacts

Mitigation

Social impacts The necessary safeguards particularly OP 4.1 would be put in place to address and mitigate these impoverishment risks. Further a detailed site or location specific environmental and social assessment should be undertaken in order to address the relevant social issues comprehensively. For the purposes of the detailed environmental assessment in order to mitigate the potential negative social impacts, the following information should be provided.

• Estimate of the numbers of individual and families as well as the characteristics of the households to be displaced (e.g. minorities, income levels, renter or owner tenure, elderly, large families)

• Impact on the neighbourhoods and housing to which relocation is likely to take place.

• Indication of ability to provide adequate relocation housing for the types of families to be displaced. Include a description of special relocation advisory services to be provided, if any, for the elderly, handicapped, or illiterate regarding interpretation of benefits or other assistance available.

As part of the social impact mitigation measures, resources which have socioeconomic significance to the indigenes should be protected. The proposed SLWCP would be planned in a manner to avoid significant disruption by such means as rerouting or changes in land use patterns to minimize the effect of the project. The environmental assessment should reflect the result of any

80

consultation with local official or with relocation other social agencies or community groups regarding the social impacts of the proposed WPBCP. A comprehensive public consultation would be undertaken. This would include details of public meetings, public hearing, press releases, and notifications/consultation with the stakeholders, to carry out together with a statement that this will satisfy all applicable coordination and regulatory requirements. Importantly, there should be an assessment of community and socioeconomic impacts to draw on the conclusions of other aspects of the EIA, summarise the impacts on people and address potential cumulative impacts including those on specific social groups and communities. Cross reference will be made as necessary to other sections of the EIA for detailed evaluation of particular issues, such as the transport assessment of changes in linkages, severance, air quality and noise impact on residential areas.

Loss of Land -Avoidance through resting/rerouting of any impact on inhabited dwellings or structures used for commercial activities or other businesses. -Cash compensation of developments or crops affected by project land requirements. -Land replacement if taken by project is significant enough to affected users’ livelihood. -Monitoring of how affected people restore their livelihood after being compensated. -See Resettlement Framework Policy for further details.

Induced socio-economic Impacts

As part of the measures to mitigating induced social impacts, a more thorough analysis of the induced effect of the SLWCP at the specific targeted protected areas is needed in an environmental impact statement. The existence of the potential induced socioeconomic impact necessitates that the environmental assessment describes such factors as shifts in patterns of population movement and growth, public services demands and change in business and economic activity to the extent influenced by the SLWCP.

Impact on infrastructure

The cumulative impacts of the proposed SLWCP and the ancillary developments could be potentially significant. Any ancillary development should be included in an Environmental Impact Statement so as to adequately identify the positive or adverse impacts for the adoption of appropriate enhancement measures for positive impacts and mitigation measures for the adverse impacts. If the ancillary developments are not included in a detailed environmental assessment the full environmental impacts of the whole project would not be ascertained. This information will enable the potential indirect and cumulative impacts and impact interactions arising from the development to be considered as early as possible in the Environmental Assessment.

81

Table 10.4: Impact on Human use value

Issues/Impacts Mitigation

Loss of monuments/ Historical areas

Project targeted areas that are known to be of any interest from the cultural and archeological point of view care will be taken during SLWCP activities and civil works in order to preserve monuments and cultural properties of religious and archeological significance.

Health, safety and hygiene for construction of workers

Adequate health and safety practices should be put in place.

10.5 ESMF IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES

The project will be implemented at two levels: (i) the national level for overall project coordination, planning, monitoring and evaluation, as well as implementation of Component 1 in support of a strategic plan for wetland conservation; and, (ii) the conservation site level for implementation of Component 2 in support of conservation site planning and management.7

Implementation arrangements respond to existing capacity of Government structures at central, district and site levels, and will contribute to building management processes for long-term sustainability beyond the project’s lifespan. See Annex 9: Implementation Arrangements.

10.5.1 Implementation Responsibilities

The following table shows the proposed share of responsibilities and institutional

arrangement for the implementation of the Environmental Management Process.

Table 10.5: Environmental Management process – Implementation Responsibilities

.

Level Responsibilities

Rural communities -Participate at design and construction phases in the implementation of environmental mitigation measures, particularly those related to land occupation and compensation where needed. -Implement environmental mitigation measures during operation phase

District -Implement Environmental Baseline Assessments for rural sub-projects where possible -Monitor the actual implementation of environmental mitigation measures at operation phase.

Construction contractors -Implement environmental mitigation measures related with construction (construction waste management, site reclamation).

Consultants -Implement Environmental Baseline Assessment for ancillary 7 The Project Organizational Chart is presented in Appendix 1.

82

projects -Develop site specific EMPs where required (Schedule 2 sub-projects – Categories A and B) -Develop EIAs where required (Schedule 1 sub-projects) Supervise the implementation by construction contractors of environmental mitigation measures at construction phase (as part of technical supervision contract)

Region: MLCPE Finalize EBA forms based on the framework proposed in this EA. -Review EBAs (environmental Review) submitted by consultants and provide a quarterly report of Environmental Reviews. -Supervise the development by consultants of E1As where required review Terms of Reference, review draft E1As, participate in public consultation. -Supervise the development by consultants of Site-specific EMPs where required -Supervise the monitoring of construction environmental mitigations implemented by construction contractors. -Supervise the monitoring of operation environmental mitigations implemented by towns and /or operation contractors.

SLEPA --Review the draft EA -Review EIAs were so prescribed by Sierra Leone EIA guidelines. -Monitor the overall implementation of this EA -Supervise the implementation of this EA. -Provide annual environmental monitoring report for review by the MLCPE and SLEPA.

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security (MAFFS)

-Supervise the overall implementation of this EA -Provide an overall annual environmental monitoring report for review by MLCPE and the World bank.

World Bank -Review the draft EA -Review E1As for schedule 1 sub-projects -Monitor the overall implementation of this EA, including the review of annual environmental reports provided by SLEPA.

The institutions responsible for implementation of ESMP activities are described below:

Table 10.6: Institutions responsible for implementation of ESMP

Measures Areas of intervention

Structures Responsible Execution Control Supervision

Mitigation measures

Mitigation of negative impacts of construction and rehabilitation (environmental monitoring)

Firms MAFFS/ CSMCs ENRMO

Technical measures

Conducting Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA and ESMP)

Consultant ENRMO MAFFS

Elaboration of health and safety plan Firms CSMCs ENRMO

83

Measures Areas of intervention

Structures Responsible Execution Control Supervision

ESMP implementation assessment (permanent, at mid-term and final) Consultants ENRMO MAFFS

Training

Subprojects environmental and social assessment, Monitoring and enforcement of environmental measures

Consultants ENRMO

MAFFS

Awareness

Communication campaign and awareness before, during and after construction (HIV)

Local NGOs ENRMO

MAFFS

10.5.2 Project Institutional and Implementation Arrangements

As part of the institutional arrangements, the MAFFS will recruit an Environment and Natural Resources Management Officer (ENRMO) that will be responsible for following up safeguards issues during project implementation. The MAFFS will be responsible for (i) preparing TORs for the ESIA/EMP and RAP/ARAP if needed (ii) ensuring the contractors for minimal civil works comply with the recommendations of these studies and environmental and social management clauses (inserted into the contract) during construction phase. The Bank will provide guidance on the elaboration of the TORs and the Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be responsible for providing overall quality control through the review and clearance of the ESIAs and RAPs, and validating the Environmental Audit reports to be prepared at the completion of works by the contractors. SLEPA will also assist in enforcing compliance with Bank safeguards policies and monitor the implementation of the EMPs. The SLEPA will also support the CSMCs/CSMTs in coordinating safeguards activities. Specific capacity building on environmental management and environmental assessment will be provided to the CSMCs/CSMTs in addition to key staff of the MAFFS, and other implementing focal points. In accordance with World Bank guidelines, all EIAs/EMPs and RAPs/ARAPs will need to be reviewed and cleared by the Bank prior to the commencement of the civil works. Particular attention will be given to the development of the RAPs and their implementation given the relatively strong focus of the EPA on environmental rather than social and resettlement issues. Where necessary, other institutions like traditional authorities, MLCPE etc will be requested to support the monitoring of agreed action plans.

84

85

Figure 10.1: Project Organizational Chart

86

Institutional arrangements for implementation of ESMP Given the structure of the SLWCP above in Figure 10.1 (Source: PAD SLWCP), environment is not taken into account. Below are summarized the tasks assigned to different institutions in the screening process, monitoring and evaluation of mitigating measures implementation: Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency The Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (SLEPA) will review and approve the environmental classification of subprojects of category B1, conduct the review of the category B2 and C; and also approval EIAs. The SLEPA will monitor at national level implementation of environmental measures. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security (MAFFS) The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security, through its Forestry Division, will be the Executing Agency. Overall supervision of project implementation will fall under the responsibility of the Assistant Director of the Forestry Division, Head of the Conservation and Wildlife Management Unit, who will report directly to the Director of the Forestry Division on the status and progress of project implementation. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security (MAFFS) will recruit an Environmental and Natural Resources Management Officer (ENRMO). The ENRMO’s main task is to analyze screening document, participation in EIA review, monitoring activities of mitigation measures implementation and act as the interlocutor of the SLWCP. The MAFFS is accountable in the development of environmental and social guidelines to be included in tender documents; training in environmental and social assessment, monitoring and evaluation. The MAFFS will also disseminate the ESMF/EMP and any EIA. Taking into account environmental and social aspects in the ESMP and the effective monitoring of environmental and social performance indicators should be guaranteed to ensure that subprojects implemented under the SLWCP's objectives do not result in effects that could negate any benefits. To this end, it is appropriate to establish an efficient mechanism for the management of environmental and social aspects of the sub-projects to be executed. This device such as the institutional arrangements foreseen will cross from central to local level. The MAFFS Secretariat will provide staff to achieve the following objectives:

propose management rules and specific measures that are compatible with sustainable development while implementing the project

promote awareness by its personnel and the general public regarding environmental protection,

propose concrete means of applying the ESMP.

87

Key recommendations for SLWCP institutional strengthening to meet the needs of the ESMF are as presented in the summary of institutional responsibilities of the table 10.7 and are presented in the following table:

Table 10.7: Institutional arrangements for ESMP implementation

INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES Proposed actions Responsible Means and schedule Environmental and Natural Resources Management Officer’s Recruitment

MAAFS At the start of activities

Conservation Site Management Committees (CSMCs)

MAFFS At the start of activities

Thus, in terms of environmental and social requirements of SLWCP, it is essential to strengthen the staffs of MAFFS centrally by an environmental and natural resources specialist in charge of supervision / coordination of different activities related to environment and social issues. The ENRMO attached to the MAFFS will be responsible for the implementation of the ESMP in close collaboration with the SLEPA and Conservation Site Management Committees (CSMCs). The ENRMO will also will be responsible for the implementation of the environmental monitoring and the ESMP as illustrated in Figure 8.2 below. His/her responsibilities shall include:

Coordination, liaison with and monitoring of project related activities; Compilation and preparation of periodic environmental reports for submission to the

World Bank; Review of ESIA reports from consultants in collaboration with SLEPA and MAFFS; Facilitating the disclosure of ESIAs and RAPs/ARAPs in-country and with the World

Bank infoshop Data Management; and Sub-project inspections and monitoring

88

Figure 10.2: ESMP Implementation Arrangement

The MAFFS has the overall responsibility to ensure that the World Bank Safeguards Polices is complied with. In addition, the MAFFS is responsible for the final review and clearance of the ESMPs (or ESIAs); as well as for the review and approval of TORs for the ESIA and EMPs..

WB/SLEPA

MAFFS

CSMCs

CSMT

- Coordinate Project Team

MAFFS/ENRMO

MAFFS/ENRMO

- Provide Office Management

Office of Financial Management

- Review monitoring reports to ensure regulatory compliance

89

10.5.3 ESMP Implementation Schedule

Timetable for implementation and monitoring of SLWCP environmental activities will be as presented in table 10.8.

Table 10.8: Timetable for implementation and monitoring of environmental activities

Measures Proposed actions Implementation period in the project cycle

Mitigation measures View list of mitigation measures During subprojects implementation

Institutional measures

ENRMO’s Recruitment Establishment of CSMCs and CSMTs

Before subprojects implementation

Technical measures

Development of EIA for certain projects RAPs for projects that may cause displacement or restriction of access

After screening of specific activities at a site

Development health and safety plan After signing the contract by company

Development of environmental and social guidelines to be included in tender document

After approval of the ESMF and the recruitment of ENRMO

Training Training of ESMP implementing actors in environmental and social assessment

1st quarter First project year

Awareness awareness

During the implementation of activities and after identification of all sites where the SLWCP project will be implemented

Follow-up Action

Project Environmental Monitoring Close monitoring

During the implementation of the SLWCP

Supervision Every month

ESMP Evaluation At mid-term End of SLWCP

10.5.4 Estimated Budget

The budget needed for ESMP /SLWCP environmental and social management is the recapitulation of the following:

- Institutional development activities - Training program, awareness - Allowances for the preparation / implementation of sub-projects EIA / EMP/RAPs.

(The costs of implementing such plans measures are included in the budgets of sub-projects.)

- Annual assessments. The costs of environmental measures as well as training and awareness are summarized in tables 10.9 and 10.10 below.

90

Table 10.9: Estimated costs of technical measures

Activity Quantity Unit cost ($US)

Total cost ($US)

preparation / implementation of sub-projects EIA / EMP/RAPs

To be determined later

To be determined later

20,000

Supervision and permanent monitoring (to add in SLWCP M&E budget) During 2 years 15 000

ESMP Evaluation (mid-term, final) 2 5 000 10,000

TOTAL

35, 000

91

11.0 CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING 11.1 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

As mentioned above, capacities in the regions are usually low with regards to environment management. This is all the more true in the focus Districts: Port Loko, Tonkolili, and Western Rural area. SLEPA offices have very limited resources in terms of staff, means of transportation and physical equipment. Table 11.1: hereunder shows for every level involved the capacity building and training activities that are required under the SLWCP to warrant a smooth implementation of the different environmental components of the Project.

Table 11.1: Capacity Building and Training Level Capacity Building and Training Needed

Rural or Local communities -Training of the rural or local communities and site groups on Conservation area management and empowering them to participate in the management and monitoring of conservation sites.

SLEPA -General awareness on environmental issues. -Brief training session (half a day) on environmental management at operation phase (as part of the training on technical management of the new or rehabilitated / expanded system). -Training workshop on environmental Baseline Assessments. -Training workshop on Environmental Review and EMPs.

Provinces Training of Environment or natural Resources Desk on environmental Baseline Assessments for rural sub-projects (2 days sessions).

Consultants Training workshop on Environmental Baseline Assessments.

MAFFS Training workshop on environmental Baseline Assessments. -Training workshop on Environmental Review and EMPs.

Ministry of Lands, Country Planning and the Environment.

Training workshop on environmental Baseline Assessments. -Training workshop on Environmental Review.

NGOs Training workshop on EBA and Environmental Reviews

92

11.2 PROPOSED CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING BUDGET

Capacity building and training needs as briefly summarized in Table 11.1 identifies two categories of stakeholders. iii. Managers including SLEPA officials, Officials from the MAFFS, Ministry Marine

Resources and Fisheries, Ministry of Mines and Minerals, Ministry of Tourism, MLCPE and Local Government (Paramount Chiefs, Districts Officers) NGOs and

iv. Rural communities including village/town headmen, elders, Area Committees and

Town Committees members.

11.3 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (EMP)

The EMP shall be developed principally by the Implementing partners (MAFFS, SLEPA, NGOs, Local Government, Communities etc) in consultation with the target beneficiaries. The role and contribution of each stakeholder shall be clearly defined in the EMP. The EMP for Implementing Partners will include the following:-

Review of the biophysical characteristics of the planned sitting of the facilities (boreholes, wells, toilets)

Assessment of the potential environmental and social impact due to the construction, operation and maintenance of facilities

Proposal of appropriate mitigation measures Review the NEAP and other Environmental Legislative Framework to

accommodate WBS safeguard policies Assessment of the management capacity of SLEPA and Implementing partners to

implement the proposed mitigation measures and EMP and make appropriate recommendations

Propose a monitoring plan to ensure that the EMP is implemented

93

Training Programs shall be held on separate occasions at the proposed District Headquarter towns for each of the 2 categories.

Table 11.2:Estimated Budget for Capacity Building and Training Targeted Group Training Topic (s) Estimated Budget

The training program for Managers in category (i) shall be held in each of the proposed districts and shall consist of One (1) complete training module of 9 days for each of the 3 main Districts.

Environmental and Social Management Process Review of Environmental and Social Management Process Use of screening form and EBA guidelines Measurement of adverse impacts Management of Social Issue associated with subprojects Review and clear of the subprojects Public consultations on the EA process Monitoring subproject Performance Monitoring subproject mitigation Measures

Each complete module of 9 days will cost of USD 2,000. The total estimated cost is USD 18,000.

Environmental and Social Policies, Procedures and Guidelines Review and discussion of Sierra Leone’s environmental policies, procedures

and legislation Review and discussion of the Bank’s safeguard policies Review of Sierra Leone’s policies, laws and requirements in Land Tenure,

Land acquisition and property valuation Strategies for consultation, participation and social inclusion

Environmental and Social Policies, Procedures and Guidelines 3 days USD 2,000 =USD6000

Environmental Protection and Wetlands Conservation Natural Resource Management Conservation and sustainable use of resources Integration of wetlands conservation measures into projects Threat of human activities to wetlands and ecological resources Development activities likely to induce significant impacts upon wetland

resources.

Selected Topics on Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation 3 days USD 2000 =USD6000

Training for Rural Project Origins and Types of subprojects Training for Rural

94

Communities shall consist of one (1) complete module of 3 days in each of 8 proposed pilot Districts.

Awareness on the positive aspects of the project Training Program for Rural Communities

Negative Aspects of Project Impacts of forestry practices on the conservation of biodiversity Impact of different land uses on the maintenance of biodiversity Impacts of fishing practice on conservation of biodiversity Role of the rural communities towards sustainable environmental

management.

Communities shall consist of one (1) complete module of 3 days in each of the Districts in the conservation area. Each complete module shall cost USD 2000. The total estimated cost is USD 6,000.

TOTAL USD36,000

95

12.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING

12.1 MONITORING

There is the need for general guidelines for long-term environmental monitoring involving key stakeholder intuitions. Environmental monitoring of sub-projects will take place on a “spot check” basis at it would be impossible to monitor all sub-projects. These checks will aim at controlling the actual implementation of mitigation measures, at both construction and operation phases. Environmental monitoring needs to be mainstreamed in the overall Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system of the SLWCP.

The following indicators can be used for monitoring of the implementation of mitigation measures: Biophysical Indicators:

Water quality – chemical content, sediment load and bacterial counts, fish and other aquatic species diversity and abundance.

Soil and erosion, Vegetation changes, Wildlife changes.

Social Indicators;

Assess whether resettlement objectives have been met; specifically, whether livelihoods and living standards have been restored or enhanced;

Assess resettlement efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability, drawing lessons as a guide to future resettlement policy making and planning;

Ascertain whether the resettlement entitlements were appropriate to meeting the objectives, and whether objectives were suited to AP conditions.

Income of beneficiary people Presence of schools and clinics Nutritional status of children and food security situation Sanitation related diseases Water use and availability of safe drinking water. Efficiency of town/community management Number of local people trained in Wildlife Protection and Wetland

Conservation. 12.2 PROPOSED MONITORING PLAN

The proposed monitoring plan is intended to track the performance of the Environmental and Social Management Process outlined in the ESMF. The monitoring shall be done by Key SLEPA Personnel, other Implementing Partners, Independent NGOs, Local Government Authorities and other Community groups WCP Committees. Some of the pertinent parameters and verifiable indicators used to measure the SSEA process, mitigation plans and performance are given in section 12.1above. The monitoring plan is outlined in Table 12.1.

96

12.3 REPORTING

12.3.1 Environmental Baseline Assessments

Environmental Baseline Assessment will be prepared by Administrative Councils (District etc) (where possible) for rural sub-projects, or by those consultants hired to carry out technical design and construction supervision. All EBAs will be categorized (A, B, C) then submitted to the SLEPA for review.

12.3.2 Environmental Reviews

The MLCPE Regional Branches will provide a quarterly summary of Environmental Reviews.

12.3.3 Annual Reports

Regional SLEPA, WCP Authorities annual environmental monitoring reports and reviews, consistent with the draft sheet to be provided by SLEPA in consultation with MAFFS. The Ministry of Lands, Country Planning and the Environment will review the reports. The report contents will be the following. A summary of environmental Reviews (based on the quarterly summaries prepared by

the regional MLCPE); A summary of EIAs and site-specific EMPs developed during the year; A summary of environmental monitoring carried out on systems at both construction

and operation phases.

97

98

Table 12.1: Monitoring Plan. Potential Social and Environmental Negative Impacts

Mitigation Measure Monitoring Measures Phase/Stage Responsibility 11.1 COSTS

1. Community dependent on more sophisticated ancillary support facilities. 2.Construction material and waste disposal problems. 3. Where water points are constructed: (i) Water-borne and sanitation related diseases. (ii) High groundwater and surface water abstraction. (iii) Groundwater contamination during construction and improper sanitation. 4. WCP ancillary facilities may have to be paid for. 5.Land requirements 6. Social Exclusion

Fully implement this ESMF, use screening procedure (Sect.8. annex 3), addressing specific mitigation measures for all categories of sub projects.

Periodic monitoring and evaluation of verifiable indicators for all impacts identified in the subproject ESMF as per section 10. of this report.

On going throughout the life of the sub projects and projects and beyond thereby ensuring the institutional arrangements are sustainable Beyond the life of the project

1.SLEPA 2. Service Providers. 3. Independent NGOs. 4. Local Govt Authority. 5. Local Communities. 6.WCP/Conservation Site Management Teams (CSMTs)

Cost for Service providers to Assist Local Government Authorities and NEPB during Project Preparation included in Project Budget. Specifically, for monitoring, the Cost of service providers is USD 50,000 Training Budget Is USD 78,000 The Grand Total cost for Environmental and Social Management is : USD 128,000

99

13.0 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENT A number of government ministries are also involved in environmental management and protection activity by virtue of their responsibilities. The activities of these ministries are regulated by their various Acts and determined generally by their policies. At present, the following Ministries are in one way or another associated with management issues pertaining to the environment of Sierra Leone: Ministry of Lands Country Planning and the Environment Ministry of Transport and communications. Ministry of Mineral Resources. Ministry of Agriculture, forestry and food Security. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. Ministry of Tourism and Culture. Ministry of Works and Technical maintenance. Ministry of Energy and Power. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology

At times, jurisdictional rights of these Ministries overlap. Thus, attempts should be made to harmonize laws to simplify enforcement. 13.1 MINISTRY OF LANDS, COUNTRY PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT At present, the Ministry of Lands, Country Planning, and the Environment is charged with the responsibility of conserving and managing Sierra Leone’s natural environment. It is also responsible for addressing land acquisition and transfers, land ownership and use, national development in a planning capacity and to provide advisory services to the public on land matters and is also responsible for physical planning and management of the forestry resources. 13.2 MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATION (MTC) This Ministry is mandated to deal with issues related to transport on land, air and sea as well as local and international communications. Transport sector contributes to habitat fragmentation and loss as well as the introduction of pollutants into the environment. The GOSL has set up some structures to mitigate the effects of these factors. A transport sector policy is in place. The Sierra Leone Airports Authority (SLA) was set up as well as the Sierra Leone Maritime Administration (SLMA). The SLMA has among its mandates the following:

- Ensuring the elaboration of any International Maritime Conventions; - Determination and the prevention of marine source pollutions; and - Protection of the Marine Environment

13.3 MINISTRY OF MINERAL RESOURCES (MMR) This Ministry is charged with the responsibility to supervise mining operations in the country. It issues licenses for all mining operations, enforces laws and provisions contained in the

100

Mining Act and its amendments. It is responsible for enforcing provisions in the new mining act relating to the rehabilitation of mined out areas. The main institutional conflicts are; (1) the extent to which Ministry has jurisdiction over marine areas with respect to marine based mineral resources. Offshore dredging and its impact on marine resources and (2) the overlap of water quality monitoring with the interest of the Ministry of marine Resources. The MMR can also issue Mining and prospecting licences to investors who are interested in restricted area including Reserves. 13.4 MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FOOD SECURITY (MAFFS). This Ministry is mandated to develop agriculture and provide food security. The ministry is also charged with the overall responsibility of the management of the natural terrestrial ecosystem resources and food production. There are a number of important Divisions and several units. Research and support services are provided by institutions including National Agricultural Research Co-ordinating Council (NARC), Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR), Njala University and NGOs. The three Technical Divisions of the MAFFS are Agriculture, Livestock, and Forestry. The two service Divisions are Land and Water Development and Planning Evaluation, Monitoring and Statistics Division. Activities related to the MAFFS that are of concern to Environmental Management include, Clearing of vegetation including forests, slash and burn, use of fertilizers, logging, and livestock grazing. Guidelines exist for habitat management but are difficult to enforce under the various Acts. 13.5 MINISTRY OF FISHERIES AND MARINE RESOURCES This Ministry is responsible for the exploitation and management of our marine resources. The ministry has as its primary mandate the provision of cheap source of protein for the majority of Sierra Leoneans, thus contributing towards the improvement of National and food security. The MFMR is also responsible for the Monitoring Control and Surveillance of our territorial waters. There is a Fisheries and Marine Development and Management Act (1994) as well as regulation. A policy is in place. Embedded in the policy and strategy is the conservation and enhancement of environmental quality and sustainable management of rich biodiversity of wetlands, lakes, rivers, beaches, estuaries, bays, lagoons and inland waters. Fishing activities can lead to habitat fragmentation, over-exploitation of resources, and fuel oil pollutant introductions. Logging for firewood for processing is also of concern. 13.6 MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND CULTURE The responsibility to promote and develop the country’s tourism industry lies with this Ministry. It is also charged with the duty of protecting the country’s heritage: monuments, cultural and historical sites. Infrastructure development due to the expansion of tourism and debris associated with their activities are of concern to sound environmental management.

101

13.7 MINISTRY OF WORKS AND TECHNICAL MAINTENANCE The duty of road construction and maintenance as well as public buildings lies with this Ministry. It enhances the improvement of road networks by securing bilateral and multi-lateral agreements with donors for funding. Construction and maintenance activities can lead to habitat fragmentation and pollution problems. 13.8 MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND POWER The development of the energy sector is one of the functions of the Ministry. It is expected to develop the energy resources and enhance current production to meet the needs of the community as well as provide adequate facilities and maintenance of existing ones. The proposed WCP could provide opportunities for business and ecotourism, which would require the supply of adequate and regular energy supply to beneficiary communities and districts. The Ministry of Energy and Power would have to collaborate with other stakeholder institutions to integrate the potential energy demands of the project communities into its short to long-term development plans. 13.9 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

This Ministry is responsible for educational activities and the development of science and technology countrywide. Construction of Educational facilities nationwide has concerns that have to be addressed. 13.10 NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOS)

There are only a few non-governmental organization (NGOs) in Sierra Leone with interests in environmental and resource management. Some of these are interested in the natural conservation and monitoring of the country’s wildlife and natural habitats. Among the NGOs involved in environmental management are the Environmental Foundation for Africa (EFA), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), and Sierra Leone Conservation Society (CSSL). 13.11 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AT THE

LOCAL LEVEL At the local level, the environmental functions are carried out by provincial officers of the DOE of the MLCPFE through its Assistant Environmental Officers in the Northern, Southern, and Eastern provinces, and an officer for the Western Area. It is envisaged that these officers will be part of the area town planning committee set within town councils. At present, the main tasks of the Assistant Environmental Officers operating at provincial levels basically include monitoring of environmental programmes and projects, evaluation of environmental degradation and compilation of reports. At present town councils, including the Freetown City council (FCC) with statutory powers as a Local authority (LA) does not participate in any arrangement affecting environmental management in accordance with the

102

national environmental protection Act, 2000. However, as the Act is implemented these councils will start playing pivotal roles. The City and town councils however have environmental units/committees, which focus mainly on health and sanitation issues. NB Project design builds on the concept and institutional arrangements developed for the BCP. The project strategy is to utilize the institutional and project management arrangements already developed to ensure simplicity and effectiveness.

103

14.0 ANNEXES

14.1 ANNEX 1- REFERENCES

• The Republic of Sierra Leone Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, 2003

• Biodiversity Assessment and Identification of Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in Sierra Leone. BSAP. UNDP.

• Sierra Leone Wetlands Conservation Project, Project Appraisal Document (PAD) Nov., 2010

• SLWCP Project Information Document (PID) • National Environmental Protection Act • Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency Act 2008 • Biodiversity and Tropical Forest Assessment for Sierra Leone, USAID, July 2007 • Sierra Leone Wildlife Conservation Act 1972 • Republic of Sierra, National Commission for Environment and Forestry,

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Protected Area Management Project, July 2007

• Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures of Sierra Leone • Desk Review of Proposed Marine Protected Areas in Sierra Leone, 2010 • Sierra Leone Statistics, 2004 Population and Housing Census • Republic of Sierra Leone, 2004 Population and Housing Census, Analytical Report on

Housing Situation and Characteristics • Republic of Sierra Leone, 2004 Population and Housing Census, Analytical Report on

Poverty • Social Analysis Guidelines in Natural Resource Management, Incorporating Social

Dimensions into Bank-Supported Projects, The World Bank, 2005 • Sierra Leone Conservation and Wildlife Policy, 2010 • Sierra Leone, Forestry Policy, 2010 • Western Kenya Integrated Ecosystem Management Project, Environmental and Social

Management Framework (ESMF), Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, 2004. •

14.2 ANNEX 2-SUMMARY OF WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARD POLICIES

Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01). Outlines Bank policy and procedure for the environmental assessment of Bank lending operations. The Bank undertakes environmental screening of each proposed project to determine the appropriate extent and type of EA process. This environmental screening process will apply to all subprojects to be funded by SLWCP. Natural Habitats (OP 4.04). The conservation of natural habitats, like other measures that protect and enhance the environment, is essential for long-term sustainable development. The Bank does not support projects involving the significant conversion of natural habitats unless there are no feasible alternatives for the project and its sitting, and comprehensive analysis

104

demonstrates that overall benefits from the project substantially outweigh the environmental costs. If the environmental assessment indicates that a project would significantly convert or degrade natural habitats, the project includes mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank. Such mitigation measures include, as appropriate, minimizing habitat loss (e.g. strategic habitat retention and post development restoration) and establishing and maintaining an ecologically similar protected area. The Bank accepts other forms of mitigation measures only when they are technically justified. Should the sub-project-specific screening procedures indicate that natural habitats might be affected negatively by the proposed sub-project activities, such sub-projects will not be funded under the SLWCP. Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). This policy covers direct economic and social impacts that both result from Bank-assisted investment projects, and are caused by (a) the involuntary taking of land resulting in (i) relocation or loss of shelter; (ii) loss of assets or access to assets, or (iii) loss of income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected persons must move to another location; or (b) the involuntary restriction of access to legally designated wetlands and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons. This policy is triggered by the SLWCP and therefore the project proponents prepared a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and the required Process Framework for disclosure. Forests (OP 4.36). This policy applies to the following types of Bank-financed investment projects: (a) projects that have or may have impacts on the health and quality of forests; (b) projects that affect the rights and welfare of people and their level of dependence upon or interaction with forests; and (c) projects that aim to bring about changes in the management, protection, or utilization of natural forests or plantations, whether they are publicly, privately, or communally owned. The Bank does not finance projects that, in its opinion, would involve significant conversion or degradation of critical forest areas or related critical habitats. If a project involves the significant conversion or degradation of natural forests or related natural habitats that the Bank determines are not critical, and the Bank determines that there are no feasible alternatives to the project and its sitting, and comprehensive analysis demonstrates that overall benefits from the project substantially outweigh the environmental costs, the Bank may finance the project provided that it incorporates appropriate mitigation measures. Sub-projects that are likely to trigger this OP are not expected. If any are proposed, the policy will be appropriately applied. 14.3 ANNEX 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCREENING FORM

The Environmental and Social Screening Form to assist evaluating design proposals for civil works construction/rehabilitation, and any investments in conservation action plans for other development activities. The form is designed to place information in the hands of implementers and reviewers (i.e. local communities, and Environment Committees and environmental officers at the national, province and district levels) so that impacts and their

105

mitigation measures, if any are identified and/or requirements for further environmental analysis are determine. This form contains information to allow reviewers to characterize prevailing local bio-physical conditions and social environment with the aim of assessing potential impacts on it. It will also help identify potential socio-economic impacts requiring mitigation measures and/or resettlement and compensation. This form is a suggested format but may be expanded in response to locally identified needs. Location of proposed investments: County: Name of Village/Town/Area in which investment is to be made: Name of contact person for sub-project: Name of approving authority (i.e. National/Province/District Environment Committee): Name, job title, and contact details for the person who is responsible for filling out this form- Name: Job Title Location: Telephone number: Fax number: E-mail address: Date: Signature: 1. Description of sub-project/Conservation Action Plan. Providing information on the type and scale of the (sub-project area, flora and fauna, type and nature of proposed civil works, amount of construction related waste (solid, liquid and air generation), buried and or surface located pipes, etc.) including construction work areas and access roads, trees to be cut, and provide information on economic benefits, income generating activities, etc. (complete on a separate sheet or paper and attach). 2. The Natural Environment (a) Describe the land formation, topography, vegetation in/adjacent to the sub-project area (b) Estimate and indicate where vegetation might need to be cleared (c) Are there any environmentally sensitive areas or threatened species (specify below) that could be adversely affected by the sub-project?

(i) Intact natural forests Yes_____No____

(ii) Riverine forest Yes_____No____

106

(iii) Wetlands (lakes, rivers, seasonally inundated areas) Yes____No____ (iv) How far are the nearest wetlands (lakes, rivers, seasonally inundated areas)? ________km

(v) Habitats of endangered species for which protection is required under Sierra Leone law and/or international agreements Yes____No_____

(d) Protected areas: Does the sub-project area (or components of the project) occur within/adjacent to any conservation areas designated by government (wetland, national park, national reserve, world heritage site etc.)? Yes____NO____ If the project is outside of, but close to a conservation area? Is it likely to adversely affect the ecology within the conservation areas (e.g., interference with the migration routes of mammals or birds)? Yes____No___

(vi) Other noteworthy natural characteristic (describe)________ If “Yes”, to any of the above, tick the following boxes as appropriate: The Environmental and Social Management Plant (EMSP) included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. The Architectural and Engineering (technical drawings, included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. The proposes civil works contract included in this sub-project contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. 3. Rivers and Lakes Ecology Is there a possibility that, due to construction and operation of the project, any river and lake ecology will be adversely affected? Attention should be paid to water quality and quantity, the nature, productivity and use of aquatic habitats, and variations of these over time. Yes___ No___ If “Yes”, tick the following boxes as appropriate: The Environmental and Social Management Plan included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. The Architectural and Engineering (technical) drawings, included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.

107

The proposed civil works contract included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. 4. Geology and Soils Based upon visual inspection or available literature, are there areas of possible geologic or soil instability (erosion prone, landslide prone, subsidence-prone)? Yes ___No___ Based upon visual inspection or available literature, are there areas that have risks of large scale increase in soil salinity? Yes____ No____ If “Yes”, to any one of the above, tick the following boxes as appropriate: The Environmental and Social Management Plan included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. The Architectural and Engineering (technical) drawings, included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. The proposed civil works contract included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. 5. Landscape/aesthetics Is there a possibility that the sub-project will adversely affect the aesthetic attractiveness of the local landscape? Yes____ No____ If “Yes”, tick the following boxes as appropriate: The environmental and Social Management Plan included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately.

108

The Architectural and Engineering (technical) drawings, included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. The proposed civil works contract included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. 6. Historical, archaeological or cultural heritage site. Based on available sources, consultation with local authority, local knowledge and/or observations, could the sub-project alter any historical, archaeological or cultural heritage site or require excavation near same? Yes____ No____ If “Yes”, tick the following boxes as appropriate: The Environmental and Social Management Plan included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. The Architectural and Engineering (technical) drawings, included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. The proposed civil works contract included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. 7. Resettlement and/or Land Acquisition Will involuntary resettlement, land acquisition, or loss, denial or restricted of access to land and other economic resources be caused by the sub-project implementation? Yes___ No___ If “Yes” Involuntary Resettlement OP 4.12 is triggered. Please refer to PF for appropriate mitigation measures to be taken. 8. Loss of Crops, Fruit Tress and Household Infrastructure Will the project result in the permanent or temporary loss of crops, fruit trees and household infra-structure (such as granaries, outside toilets and kitchens, etc)? Yes____ No____

109

If “Yes”, tick the following boxes as appropriate: The Environmental and Social Management Plan included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. The Architectural and Engineering (technical) drawings, included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. The proposed civil works contract included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. 9. Noise pollution during Construction and Operations. Will the operating noise level exceed the allowable noise limits? Yes____ No____ If “Yes”, tick the following boxes as appropriate: The Environmental and Social Management Plan included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. The Architectural and Engineering (technical) drawings, included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately The proposed civil works contract included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. 10. Solid or Liquid Wastes. Will the sub-project generate hazardous solid or liquid wastes? Yes____ No____ If “Yes”, tick the following boxes as appropriate: The Environmental and Social Management Plan included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. The Architectural and Engineering (technical) drawings, included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately

110

The proposed civil works contract included in this sub-project application contains measures to suitably address these impacts adequately. 11. Public Consultation Has adequate public consultation and participation been sought? Yes____ No____ If “Yes”, describe briefly the measures taken to this effect. CERTIFICATION We certify that we have thoroughly examined all the potential adverse effects of this sub-project application. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed sub-project as described in the application and appended design reports (e.g. ESMP, Process Framework requirements, completed screening form, proposed civil works contract, etc.), if any, will be adequate to avoid or minimize all adverse environmental and social impacts. Representative of the sub-project implementer/proponent (signature): ………………………………………… Service Provider (signature) …………………………………………. Date:…………………………………… FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Desk Appraisal by Environment Committee/Wetland Conservation Unit – possible decisions: The sub-project application can be considered for approval. [The application is complete, all significant environmental or social issues are resolved, and no further subproject planning is required.] A field appraisal is required. A field appraisal must be carried out if the sub-project:

111

Needs to acquire land, or an individual or community’s access to land or available resources is affected or changed, or any individual family is displaced; Encroaches onto an important natural habitat, restricts access to resources within that area, or may affect ecologically sensitive ecosystems (e.g. forest, rivers, streams, wetlands); Involves, or results in: a) diversion or use of surface waters; b) construction and/or rehabilitation of latrines, septic or sewage systems; c) production of waste (e.g. fuel waste, medical waste, etc); d) new or rebuilt drainage systems; or e) reservoirs or water points. The following issues need to be clarified at the sub-project site: …………………………………………………. …………………………………………………. …………………………………………………. …………………………………………………. A field appraisal report will be completed and added to the sub-project file. Name of Environmental Officer (print): …………………….. Signature: ……………………………………….. Date: ……………………………………………. 14.4 ANNEX 4-ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL APPRAISAL FORM

The Environmental and Social Screening Form is to be used during field appraisals if one is deemed necessary from the screening process. It is designed to assist evaluating design proposals for civil works construction/rehabilitation and any investments in or around proposed wetland areas or other development activities. The form is designed to place information in the hands of implementers and reviewers (i.e. the local communities, and Environment Committees and environmental officers at the national, county and district level), so that impacts and their mitigation measures, if any, are identified and/or requirements for further environmental analysis are determined. This form contains information to allow reviewers to characterize prevailing local bio-physical conditions and social environment with the aim of assessing potential impacts on it. It will also help identify potential socio-economic impacts requiring mitigation measures and/or resettlement and compensation. This form is a suggested format but may be expanded in response to locally identified needs.

112

Sub-project Application Number: ………….. Part 1: Identification 1. Sub-project name: 2. Location in/around Wetlands: 3. Reason for Field Appraisal: Summarize the issues from the ESMF checklist that determined the need for a Field Appraisal. 4. Date(s) of Field Appraisal: 5. Field Appraisal Officer and Address: 6. Service Provider Representative and Address: 7. Community Management Board Representative and Address: Part 2: Description of the Sub-project Application 8. Sub-project Application Details: Provide details that not adequately presented in the sub-project application. If needed to clarify sub-project application details, attach sketches of the subproject component(s) in relation to the forest, community and to existing facilities. Part 3: Environmental and Social Issues 9. Will the sub-project: Need to acquire land: Yes …… No ……. Affect an individual or the community’s access to land or available resources? Yes ……. No …….. Displace or result in the involuntary resettlement of an individual or family? Yes …….. No …….. If “Yes”, tick one of the following boxes: The provisions of the Process Framework have been complied with in the subproject application/design. No further action required. The actions proposed in compliance with the Process Framework included in the subproject application must be improved before the application can be considered further.

113

The provisions of the Process Framework have not been complied with. These provisions must be complied with and approved before the application can be considered further 10. Will the project Encroach onto an important natural habitat? Yes …… No ……. Negatively affect ecological sensitive ecosystems? Yes …… No ……. If “Yes”, tick one of the following boxes: The Environmental and Social Management Plan included the sub-project application is adequate. No further action required. The ESMP included in the sub-project application must be improved before the application can be considered further. An ESMP must be prepared and approved before the application can be considered further. 11. Will this project involve or result in:

• Diversion or use of surface waters? • Construction and/or rehabilitation of latrines, septic or sewage systems? • Production of waste (e.g. slaughterhouse waste, medical waste, etc.)? • New or rebuilt irrigation or drainage systems? • Felling of trees? • Adversely effects endangered species?

If “Yes”, tick one of the following boxes: The application describes suitable measures for managing the potential adverse environmental effects of these activities. No further action required. The application does not describes suitable measures for managing the potential adverse environmental effects of these activities. An Environmental and Social Management Plan must be prepared and approved before the application is considered further. 12. Are there any other environmental or social issues that have not been adequately addressed? If “Yes”, summarize them and tick one of the following boxes:

114

Before it is considered further, the application needs to be amended to include suitable measures for addressing these environmental or social issues. An Environmental and Social Management Plan needs to be prepared and approved before the application is considered further. Part 4: Field Appraisal Decision The sub-project application can be considered for approval. [Based on a site visit and consultations with all important interested and affected parties, the field appraisal determined that the proposed sub-project application adequately addresses environmental and/or social issues as required by the WCPs ESMF and meets the requirements of all relevant Environment and Forest Act in Sierra Leone, the requirements of the EPA, the FDA and the World Bank Safeguard Policies.] Further subproject preparation work is required before the application can be considered further. The field appraisal has identified environmental and/or social issues that have been adequately addressed. The following work needs to be undertaken before further consideration of the application: All required documentation such as an amended application, ESMP, process framework requirement, screening forms, draft civil works contracts, etc., will be added to the sub-project application package before it is considered further. Name of Province Environmental Officer (print): …………… Signature: ……………………… Date: ……………………….

115

14.5 ANNEX 5-INDICATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MITIGATION MEASURES CHECKLIST

This list should be updated with reference to the local and evolving context in Sierra Leone. Land Degradation Water Bio-diversity, Natural

Habitats and Wetlands People

Planning Soil Erosion (i) Training of Subsistence and Cash Crop Farmers and Pastoralists on soil conservation methods. (ii) Rehabilitate anti-erosion infrastructure such as, micro-basins, micro dams, hill side terracing, soil bunds etc. (iii) Construct new anti-erosion infrastructure as listed in (ii) above (iv) Introduce crop rotation management, use of fertilizers, tree planting and soil drainage (v) control bush burning and fires (vi) Protection of roadsides by planting of vegetation (vii) Protection of outlet of drainage canals and culverts to avoid gully forming downstreams of the canal or culvert. (viii) Prepare an effective and sustainable maintenance plan.

i) Promote potable water and sanitation sub-projects. ii) Promote environmental health measures and public health education. iii) Improve management of household and solid waste, including and solid waste, including infrastructure for collection and treatment of liquid waste and waste water. iv) Review, update and enforce pollution control legislation. v) Strengthen enforcement capacity. vi) Develop and implement rural water supply and sanitation policy. vii) Locate sub-projects at far/safe distance from water points and sources. viii) Increase public awareness.

i) Consider alternative siting of sub-projects. ii) Reduce biomass use through alternative energy sources and construction materials (cooking stoves, photo-voltaic). iii) Strengthen natural resource management capacities. iv) Develop alternatives to slash and burning clearing. v) Promote agro-forestry. Vi) Wetlands management and small irrigation development. vii) Protect sensitive ecosystems such as sensitive areas of the forests and wetlands. viii) Enforce existing laws. ix) Locate trails so that hunting, mining, other encroachment is minimized; co-ordinate patrols. x) Training of communities of sustainable uses of resource. xi) Promote awareness of species of trees, plants and

i) Discourage involuntary settlement allowed due to land acquisition, denial or restriction of access to economic resources such as trees, buildings etc., used by members of communities. ii) Provide social services: Primary education Primary health care Water supply Micro-finance Feeder roads Soil conservation and natural resources management. Ensure these services are equitably distributed throughout the districts and that access is open to all ethnic groups irrespective of status. iii) Ensure social inclusion of all vulnerable groups, including war affected people (IDPs, returnees, orphans, the elderly etc.) at all levels of decision-making and implementation. iv) Provide employment opportunities during

116

animals that must be protected. xii) Excluded ecosystems that provided and important habitat for protected species. xiii) Establish buffer zones around protected parks and wetlands

contracting of civil works etc.

Construction • Construction to occur in dry season. Protect soil surfaces during construction

• Employ unskilled labor from local districts and semi-skilled labor first from local districts when available

• Source goods and services from local districts firs, when available.

• Control and daily cleaning at construction sites.

• Provide adequate waste disposal services. Proper disposal of chemicals and other hazardous materials

• Dust control by water, appropriate design and siting, restrict construction to certain times

• Appropriate and suitable storage of building materials on site.

• Siting of latrines at safe distances from wells and other water points and using closed systems for sewage drainage.

• Restrict construction to certain hours • Minimize loss of natural vegetation

during construction; alternative sites; various special measures for sensitive species

• Restoration of vegetation; cleanup construction sites.

• Safety designs (signage)

117

• Ensure availability of clean potable water for use in latrines, canteens and for drinking.

• Use appropriate building materials. No asbestos etc.

Day-to-Day operations

i) Use facilities/infrastructure as designed and as intended. ii) Employ trained staff to man and secure facilities; proved training as needed iii) Log and report any damages done and repairs needed. iv) Perform periodic monitoring of all aspects as contained in the sub-project Environmental and Social Monitoring Plan.

Maintenance i) Prepare and adopt suitable maintenance plan. ii) Maintain appropriate budget necessary to implement maintenance plan iii) Implement maintenance plan in two stages: for activities requiring day-to-day maintenance such as repairs to damages done, regular inspections etc and longer/period term maintenance. iv) Have suitably trained staff to carry out maintenance and access to materials/goods/equipment.

118

14.6 ANNEX 6-SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL/REGIONAL TREATIES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION

Convention/Treaty Adoption Date Ratification Date Objectives Implementation

Programs/Projects 1. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

June 1994 December 12, 1994 1. Promote Conservation of Biological Diversity 2. Sustainable use of its components 3. Fair and equitable sharing arising out of the utilization of genetic resources

1. Development of National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan (NBSAP).

2. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity

January 2000 2003 1. To contribute to ensuring an adequate of protection in the field of living modified Organisms resulting from modern biotechnology

1.National Biosafety Framework Project launched in 2002. 2. Establishment of Biosafety Clearing house.

3. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

June 1994 September 25, 1995 1. To combat desertification and mitigate the effect of drought in countries experiencing serious droughts and or desertification

1.Development of National Action program (NAP) 2. Development of Medium Size Projects (MSP) to combat land degradation.

4.The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

May 1992 April 1996 1.To achieve stabilization of green house gas Concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climatic system

1.Initial Communications to fulfill the Country’s Obligations to the UNFCCC

5.Kyoto Protocol December 1997 10th November 2006 1.To strengthen the commitment of developed country Parties with a view to reduce their overall emissions

1.National Capacity Self Assessment

6.The Vienna Convention on Protection of Ozone Layer and Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

September 1987 April 1993 1.Protect human Health and the environment against adverse effects resulting from modifications of the ozone layer form anthropogenic emissions of substances proved scientifically to have high ozone depleting potential

1. Phasing out of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) by 2010 2. Capacity building of Institutions dealing with ODS

7. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal

March 1989 April 1993 1. To reduce trans- boundary movements of hazardous and other wastes to a minimum consistent to their environmentally sound management 2. To treat hazardous wastes and other wastes 3. To minimize the generation of hazardous wastes

119

8. Protocol on liability and compensation on damages resulting from transboundary movements of hazardous waste and their disposal

December 1999 1.To provide for a comprehensive regime for liability and for adequate and prompt compensation for damages resulting from the trans-boundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal including illegal traffic of those wastes

9. Bamako Convention on the ban of the import into Africa and the control of trans- boundary movements of hazardous wastes within Africa (Bamako convention)

January 1991 April 1993 1. To protect by strict control the human health of African population against adverse effects which may result from hazardous waste by reducing their generation to a minimum in terms of quantity and or hazard potential 2. To adopt precautionary measures ensure proper disposal of hazardous waste and to prevent dumping of hazardous wastes in Africa.

10. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

September 9, 2003 1. To strengthen National Capacity and to enhance knowledge and understanding amongst decision makers, managers, industry and the public at large on POPs 2. To develop a National implementation Plan (NIP) to manage the elimination of POPs.

1. Enabling activities to facilitate early action on the implementation of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in Sierra Leone.

12. Abidjan Convention And Protocol on Management And Protection Of Coastal and Marine Environment In The Sub-Region

June 7, 2005 1.For the Cooperation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of west African region

1. Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem to Combat Living and Fisheries Marine Depletion

13. Ramsar Convention On Wetlands

June 7, 2005 1. To manage wetland systems so that the human uses of these areas are undertaken in such a way as to retain their natural capital for future generation. 2. To encourage and support countries to develop and implement national policy and legislative frameworks, education and awareness raising programs, as well as inventory, research and training projects.

120

14.7 ANNEX 7-MINUTES OF CONSULTATIONS

MINUTES OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION EVENTS WITH STAKEHOLDERS FOR THE SIERRA LEONE WETLANDS CONSERVATION PROJECT (SLWCP)

FROM 15TH TO 23RD NOVEMBER 2010, SIERRA LEONE.

1.0 Introduction The SLWCP recognizes the need to address social and environmental priorities in order to achieve wetlands conservation objectives. Communities in villages adjacent to the wetlands conservation and coastal sites are poor, and they lack income-generating opportunities. While local communities recognize the importance of supporting conservation objectives, they may need to pursue sustainable alternative livelihoods in order to partly compensate for losses as may be incurred due to the possible restriction of access to resources. The proposed project, therefore, aims to actively engage communities and traditional authorities in preparing and implementing conservation management plans, as well as in evaluating the overall impact of the project activities. In view of the foregoing, series of consultations were held with communities, community representatives, traditional authorities, Local Government and NGO members and relevant other stakeholder institutions from 14th-23rd November 2010 to discuss the preparation, social and environmental safeguards of the Sierra Leone Wetlands Conservation Project. The field team comprising Mr. Dyson T. Jumpah (World Bank Environment and Social Safeguards Consultant), Sheikh Mohammed Mansaray (Focal Person for Sierra Leone Wetland Areas, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security) and John Osman Conteh (Ranger, MAFFS) visited the communities and villages surrounding Mamunta-Mayawso Complex and Sierra Leone River Estuary and consulted with relevant stakeholder institutions and wetland resources conservation professionals in Sierra Leone. At each of the consultation fora, broad presentations were given by members of the Consultation Team on:

5. Overview of the Sierra Leone Wetlands Conservation Project by Sheikh Mohammed Mansaray.

6. Socio-economic activities in the selected wetland corridors by Community Elders and Leaders, District Agricultural and Forestry Officers

7. Environmental issues and World Bank safeguard policy (s) by Dyson Jumpah- World bank.

8. Proposed recommended mitigation measures of negative social and environmental impacts by Participants.

2.0 Issues Discussed Specific issues discussed in order to understand the socio-economic background of the communities near the wetlands and solicit their inputs for integration into the project design covered the areas below: 2.1 Mamunta-Mayosso Complex

• Socio-cultural background of groups of persons living adjacent to the Mamunta-Mayoso wetlands and conservation areas

Manunta-Mayawso complex is in the Tonkolili District under the Northern Province. There are eleven (11) chiefdoms, Eighty (80) sections and One thousand three hundred and ninety eight localities in the District. The number of households in the Tonkolili Districts is 52,861 with a household population of 346,456. This household population is made up of 161,347 males and 185,109 females representing and sex ratio of 87.2 and an average household size of 6.6. The 11 chiefdoms in the district are: (i)

121

Kholifa Rowalla, (ii) Kholifa Mabang, (iii)Yoni, (iv) Malal Mara,(v)Gbonkolenken (vi) Tane, (vii) Kafe simira, (viii) Sambaya (ix)Khalansogia (x)Konike Barina and (xi) Konike Sanda. The population of the various chiefdoms and the numbers of males and females are as indicated in the table below. Some of the key villages or communities near the conservation area that participated in the consultation are the Mayosso line, Makabre line, Makoni, Makaba and Robinke. The main economic activities in the area are farming (rice, cassava, potatoe, groundnut, cola-nut, coffee,pepper, vegetables, okro), fishing, palm oil productionweaving of raphia palm, rattan (NTP) and beekeeping. The main tribe is Temne and Muslims and Christians are the main religious groups. The main land owners are the Kamara, Bangura and Conteh families.The Kamara and Bangura Families are entitled to the Paramount Chieftaincy. The Na Yenki Family are Women Chiefs. About 40 people comprising the elders, youth and women from the Mayosso section participated in the consultation exercise. Members from the Mamunta section who tookpart in the consultion were bout 78 in number.

• Customary and traditional rites related to wetlands and natural resources The special customary rites performed by the people in the Ronietta, lake Robela,lake Dakrifie and swarms in the area. Fishing is strictly regulated through traditional bye-laws. There are the closed (raining season-June to October) and the opened (dry season-November to May) fishing seasons. During the raining season fishing is not allowed since it is their traditional belief that this is the spooning period for the fishes. On an agreed date among the chiefs, elders, traditional and spiritual leaders, and all the community members, customary ceremonies are performed to invoke the ancestral spirits and by such rites the lift the ban on fishing. The lifting of the ban only permits the community members to undertake fishing in the rivers only on that day. In course of the fishing disturbance of crocodiles are prohibited. It is a taboo to interfere with such creatures in the wetlands. The fishing activity ceases after that date until another year in order to allow the fishes to multiply again. The fishing customary rite is the same as the main fishing festival of the people in the area. It provides an opportunity for descendants from the area to travel home and several hundreds of people assemble catch fish. A major limitation of the people associated with the fish festival is that bumper fish harvest made are consumed within a short period since there are no fish preservation facilities such refrigeration or other cold storage that could enable the fishes to be stored and consumed over a reasonably long period such as a month or more. The only means of preservation is smoking using firewood, salting and sun drying. The Mayosso section own a swamp which is called Fotaneh (i.e. a resting place). Farming activities in this particular swampy area yields bumper harvest which lasts most of the year. However, as part of the communities own commitment towards conservation activities, farming in the Fotaneh area has stoped and the area is mainly used as a resting place. During the war the Fonateh area provided a place of refuge of some civil war victims. Coupled with the seemingly abandonment of the proposed conservation project, these civil war victims have since began to undertake farming activities in the Fotaneh area. The communities have stressed their preparedness to relinquish the place and partner government to manage the place provided Government is ready to revisit the proposed conservation project. The community disclosed that there is also a small forest area called Limanin Forest, which has small pockets of Water Lake with various fish species. It serves as a sacred place for the Mayosso community and a source early or first fish in readiness for the commencement of the farming/fishing season. The community requested that they would like to be allowed to continue to have access to this Limanin forest in the period of the proposed conservation project. There is also a place called Tekboma Forest, which is considered a place of refuge and a haven for games. If a game being pursued by a hunter runs into the Tekboma Forest (a demarcated area) the game must no longer be pursued and set free. The Tekboma forest is therefore considered as a resting place for animals and sacred groove. The Tekboma forest is also a place for performing special rites to their ancestors.

122

It is the expectation of the people that before the conservation project takes off, provision is made to allow the community chiefs and elders to perform the necessary customary rites. The demands and requirements for these rites will be spelt out at the appropriate time as part of the project implementation agreement between the community and government.

• Equity and gender issues regarding access to natural resources, utilisation and sharing of benefits from natural resources

- Community members, irrespective age, gender, status or ethnic group have equal access to available natural resources such fish and other ecosystem goods and resources. Particularly, after the fishing customary rites are performed to open the fishing season, all groups of persons are granted unrestricted and equal access to fish. However, in terms on land ownership, women are not allowed to have long-term access and ownership of land with the belief that when the woman gets married she then becomes a member of the husbands family and it is feared that the husband, who is not a member of the family would assume ownership of the land.

- Women are not allowed to take part in customary rites that are performed in the Ronetta swamp.

• Land acquisition issues and /or restriction of access to natural resources Ownership of land and natural resources belongs to the community and particular

families. Generally the resources are held in trust for the people by the Paramount Chief Land. Users of the resources are the community members as their means of livelihood. The community people wanted to know what mechanisms are being put in place to enable them continue to depend on their tree crops in the conservation areas when restrictions are imposed. The team explained that a resettlement policy framework is being prepared to ensure that resettlement action plans are prepared to cover specific areas where there will be loss of livelihood or restriction of access to natural and economic resources so the appropriate compensation and other impacts mitigation measures are put in place.

Government’s failure to fulfil her promise regarding the handing over of land by the

Kholifa and Mabang Chiefdoms to government for use as a wildlife sanctuary was discussed. The Mayosso section elders acknowledged that Mumunta did make a request for a resettlement at Mabobo, which is owned by the Mayosso section. Mayosso elders indicated their willingness to resettle the Manuta people at Mabobo but will not be able to give them land for farming because the Mayosso section itself do not have enough land for farming. Further, the Mayosso section disclosed their preparedness to discuss how to handle the resettlement of the Mamunta Section comprehensively with other chiefs, landowners and relevant stakeholders.

The Mamunta section community members revealed that over 80% of their land size

of about 12km squared has demarcated to be used for the conservation project. The actual area of land being cultivated within the demarcated area to be lost is yet to be determined. They mentioned that to get alternative farm lands elsewhere would be difficult and such lands must be leased under special arrangements, which will require the support of the project.

The community elders said if there is a need for relocation under the project,

alternative land could be arranged for but must be accompanied with support from government and other relevant stakeholders. Other alternative land areas that could be

123

used for farming will require mechanised farming so relocating farmers to such areas hinges on the guarantee of support for agricultural machinery, equipments and farming inputs. Other specific points highlighted to facilitate relocation of farmers to alternative lands are:

- Support to the vulnerable such as the elderly and women - Compensations and royalty payment to alternative land owners - Agreements and proper modalities for determining royalties(e.g. a bushel of rice for a piece of land planted with a bushel of rice) and compensations

• Sustainable alternative livelihood options and community-based activities that the local

populations might be interested to pursue - Relocation to alternative lands to undertake mechanized agriculture through support

with tractors, equipments and agricultural inputs. - Development of cooperatives and micro-finance schemes for women couple with

intensive education and sensitization - Gardening and cottage industries development • Important roles of the traditional authorities

The traditional leaders, chiefs and elders play important role in the control and management of natural resources through regulations as to how fishing practices are done and in a manner to avoid causing body injuries and oozing of blood into the wetlands during fishing. Regulations are in place to deter carrying fire into the forest.

• Social Issues of concern - Lack of schools, healthcare centres and adequate medical services, water and

sanitation facilities - Employment creation through skills training and carrier development - Soap and gari making facilities for the women - Supply of seeds for vegetable growing

Community Elders and members from the Mumunta section raised some specific issues of concern covering the following areas:

- Understanding of the project concept and the release of their land: worries about the alleged release of the land for the conservation project on behalf of the community by the Paramount Chief without adequately seeking the consent of the Mumunta community was expressed. The community members disclosed that their earlier understanding was that the land was being released for a zoo project. It was later that they were informed that the purpose of the Mamunta land take was to conserve the wildlife in the area. They also had the suspicion that investigations were being done scientist to undertake mining in the area since they believe that there mineral resources in the area.

- Encroachment of the sanctuary by Fulani Herdsmen is a major concern of the Mamunta community people.

- Since the recommendation to acquire the Mamunta land for conservation project in 1980, they have not received any benefit despite being restricted over these years to fully benefit from the natural resources in the conservation area.

- Women are not allowed to participate in certain customary rites. The community would want these practices to be respected and maintained under the conservation project.

• Environmental Concerns - Slush and Burn Agriculture

124

- Fuel Wood, Charcoal The most common and frequently utilised energy sources are fuel wood and charcoal and the bulk of this come from the exploitation of preferred species from lowland rain forests and mangrove swamp forests. The 2004 Population census indicates that over 85 percent of Sierra Leone population is dependent on the use of fuel wood and charcoal for domestic heating and cooking. • Owners of the natural resources

The Mayosso, Mamanor, Mamunta, Mafumba, Makoni sections are the main resource owners. The key land owner families for the Mamanor section are the Koroma and Kamara families, whilst the Kargbo family is the main land owner in the Makoni village, which is under the Mayosso section. The Mayosso Section land owner families are the Kamara, Bangura and Conteh Families.

• The roles, needs and interests of each natural resource user group, ethnic and tribal groups and user and other economic activity groups

• Likely trends in future natural resource management and use (ie in the absence of any interventions)

• The distinct natural resource use patterns and trends of the poor and vulnerable groups in the area

• Incentives and mechanisms needed to encourage participation in the co-management of the natural resources

The community expects that: - The project should enter into an agreement with the community on the clear terms and

conditions for the implementation and management of the conservation of the project taking cognizance of their needs at the local level and anticipated benefits;

- The involvement of the community people in the project implement and management will best help safeguard and project the conservation areas.

- Provision of a voluntary services scheme under the project. - The women are concerned that the living standard of their community is very low.

The women therefore expect support to the community in terms of food security, health care service, prompt payment of compensations and benefits to the community in terms of community infrastructure.

• Traditional and customary forms of participation in the project area. Exclusion of certain

groups in the project area • Interaction among local leaders, village chiefs, officials and the poor and marginalized groups

in the project area

• Mechanisms to be set up in the project to disseminate information to channel any grievances of the community members

Use of natural resources and the ecosystem goods by the community members is not a source of grievance among the community members. The resources are seen as assets to all community members and every is entitled to user rights. Movement of various community members within the natural resource areas are not restricted. However, there is a system of dispute resolution by the section chiefs and community elders in instances where there are unavoidable grievances.

• Constraints and opportunities for participation in the project activities The community members identified the following as constraints for their participation in the project:

- There is the need of a binding agreement between all stakeholders. Lack of it will be a major constraint to the conservation project

- Loss of farmlands and farming rights; - Delayed or non-payment of compensations for loss of means of livelihoods and

assets;

125

- Lack of sustainable alternatives to resource user rights and activities such as raffia, rattan, bamboo, palm collection;

- Loss of animal protein; - Displacement of elders of their farming rites etc

Opportunities the communities identified to be derived from the conservation project are: - Scholarship schemes for their school going children, especially project affected

persons and their children; School for Mamunta section community; - Bridge to connect the Magbas and the Mamunta sections - Medical and health support for the aged and most vulnerable such as women and

children; - Employment for the youth in the management of conservation areas as rangers, tour

guides etc; Eco-tourism development, springing up of hotels and guest houses; - Equitable distribution of employment benefits among the communities in the

conservation areas; - Skills training in areas such as carpentry, masonry, plumbing, soap making, technical

jobs etc; - Co-management and protection of conservation areas and natural resources with the

communities - Support for vegetable farming by women groups (i.e. Tamaraneh, which means let us

help each other schemes, sorbeh, which means let us all farm) - Alternative land for farming and support for the preparation of new farmlands and

provision of farming machinery, equipments, implements and inputs; - Priority educational support for the youth and children. • The short and long term risks that different stakeholder groups are likely to face because of

the project intervention The community Elder disclosed that agreement on this proposed conservation intervention project was reached as far back as 1980 but nothing has been done by the Government notwithstanding the patience of the land owners and affected communities. The Community Elder stressed that they are not able to pre-empt any short-term or long-term risks but they will continue to exercise their usual patience and respect the terms of the agreement and still consider it valid. The community members will however continue to depend on the resources of the ecosystem in the project area to realise their livelihood anticipating that the conservation project will takeoff. The community elder disclosed that the proposed conservation project was conceived at the time when they were young but they are now in the twilight of their life and could not perceive the thinking of the upcoming generation, whether they will continue to cooperate with Government if the project implementation delays further. The elder however assured that the community leaders and chiefs will continue to support the project. • The threats to the success of the proposed project intervention.

- The position of the community leaders is that as long as every party to the project agreement fulfils what is expected of each party under the project, no threat to the success of the project is anticipated.

- The land in the conservation areas are not being sold to Government for the project. The community therefore do not expect that in future some group of persons will claim ownership of the land contrary to the agreement under which the land will be released to the government for the project. Any variation or claim to the ownership of the land to the disadvantage of the communities will be a major threat to the project.

- Encroachment by the Fulani herdsmen for cattle grazing is a threat to the conservation project.

- Wildfire by the Fulanis is another threat to the conservation project.

126

2.2 Sierra Leone River Estuary

• Socio-cultural background of groups of persons living adjacent to the Sierra Leone River Estuary

The Sierra River Estuary borders both Port Loko District and part of the Western urban and Western rural districts. The targeted areas within the conservation area under the WCP are Aberdeen Creek-Tagrin-Bunce River-Islands of Tasso-Mount of the Rokel River. There are ten (10) chiefdoms and five Wards in the districts in the targeted areas in the Sierra Leone River Estuary. The are about 95, 650 households in the selected districts with a household population of 622,826. This household population is made up of 294,962 males and 327,864 females. The Port Loko District has a sex ratio of 88.2 and an average household size of 6.9 whilst those of the Western Area rural are 94.8 and 5.6 respectively. The 10 chiefdoms in the districts are: (i) Bkm, (ii) Buya Romende, (iii)Dibia, (iv) Kafu Bullan,(v)Koya Western(vi) Lokomasama, (vii) Maforki, (viii) Masimera (ix)S/Magbolontor and (x) TMS. Koya, Mountain, Waterloo, York Rural and Central 2 are the five wards. The population of the various chiefdoms and Wards and the numbers of males and females are as indicated in the table xxxx. The population is very much cosmopolitan with diverse socioeconomic activities ranging from all works of life. However, the main activities that preoccupy the coastal dwellers are fishing, boat building, making of handicrafts, wildlife hunting, forest resources exploitation, oyster farming, sea transportation, sand wining, salt processing, commercial port operations and shipping. Old Wharf Some of the key tribes undertaking various economic activities at the Old Wharf are the Temnes, Fullas, Limbas, Shabomas, Lokos and Creos. It is estimated that there about 4900 persons leaving in the Old Wharf area with about 1000 households. Other villages in the island settlements of the estuary are Makasha, Malal, Mabnya, Royof, Tidokom, Komrabai, Bakerbana. The people in these villages engage in wood cutting, charcoal production, farming, palm oil production etc. Waterloo, Johntop At Waterloo, there are different tribes such as the Temnes, Limbas, Mendes, and Susus. There about 900-1000 residents in the Johntop community. Their main economic activities are sand winning, fishing, wood cutting, oyster mining, cocoon collection and petty trading.

• Equity and gender issues regarding access to natural resources, utilisation and sharing of benefits from natural resources

- Women and children are not allowed to engage in fishing activity. The women have the responsibility for fish mongering and selling.

- Fishing is done all year round as the main means of livelihood as well as sand wining. • Sustainable alternative livelihood options and community-based activities that the local

populations might be interested to pursue - Poultry keeping - Support to undertake improved farming - Tree planting and aforestation - Ecotourism - Development of cooperatives and micro-finance schemes for women couple with

intensive education and sensitization - Gardening and cottage industries development • Social Issues of concern - Lack of support to acquire fishing equipments;

127

- Inadequate housing - Lack of primary and JSS schools, healthcare facilities, community centres, water and

sanitation facilities(toilets) - Support to send children to school - Employment creation through skills training and carrier development • Environmental Concerns

- Mangroove over-exploitation Mangroves are exploited on a minor scale although in some areas they were replaced by rice fields. The major threats the mangrove vegetation is facing presently are the use of mangrove as fuel wood and the clearing and reclaiming of mangrove mudflats for settlement developments. The uncontrolled and unchecked cutting down of mangroves as fuel wood and for development works along the rokel, bunce rivers and the Aberdeen creek respectively has become ecological concerns as the potential for habitat destruction of spawning and nursery areas are growing.

- Over-exploitation of the inshore fish stocks The inshore fish stocks are exploited mainly by artisanal fishing fleet. The use of illegal fishing nets (Mina and Channel nets) and destructive fishing methods such as explosives and poisons has devastated the spawning stocks of most pelagic species. The use of small mesh size fishing nets to targets both spawners and juveniles of estuarine demersal fish species.

- Exploitation of marine mammals The indiscriminate destruction of coastal habitats has affected most marine mammals and most commonly affected is the West African Manatee.

- Poor Environmental Sanitation and Water Pollution Environmental sanitation along the beaches and within the communities is very poor. Solid wastes are indiscriminately dumped along the beaches thereby contributing to the pollution, contamination and siltation of the wetlands.

2.3 General Comments and Responses

• What is to be done under this project on awareness creation, and establishment of byelaws on bushfire control and management? There is the need for incorporation of local expert knowledge (LEK) in project design and implementation. There is the need for the design of a communication strategy.

o Awareness creation is cardinal to the success of the project especially at the communities, chiefdoms and the targeted districts. Local people would be involved in the planning and implementation of the project, and the primary dialogue would be through this process of engagement, which will be supported by NGOs. Use of media, such as local radio will also be considered as a way of disseminating information on project activities, and highlighting the efforts of participating communities.

• How is the project going to collaborate with the communities and districts on the issue of logging, farming, and mining in the conservation areas?

o Logging and Mining won’t be allowed in the conservation areas. Within community lands and forest reserves, the issues may be more numerous, and sometimes outside the scope of the project, but the project can still assist in identifying the issues with local communities, ensuring they are referred to the appropriate authorities, and then monitored by the project.

• How would the project address conflict management in resource use among various stakeholders? Can the project offer capacity building on conflict resolution for organisations in the project implementation area?

128

o Conflict management is part of the functions of the CREMA governance structures. If conflicts arise that cannot be readily solved at the local level, the project will advise and if appropriate help provide resources (including specific training) or involve higher parties to bring the conflict to resolutions, as discussed in the RPF.

• How does the issue of involuntary settlement arise in the context of this project? Land acquisitions are an important issue in local development? How would affected farmers who may lose their land be dealt with under this project?

o Communities may make decisions that may impact the access of individuals to resources, and these issues will be dealt with through participation in decision-making, benefit-sharing and conflict resolution, as described in the RPF.

• Sacred groves can be important for wildlife management. Will they be incorporated

into the project? o Sacred groves can certainly be integrated under CREMA plans, and also

microwatershed planning. It is however important to note that activities will be community led, so communities have to have the interest in managing the groves themselves.

• Trees should be introduced that have economic value that would provide direct economic benefits to the communities instead of growing trees that would otherwise force farmers into forfeiting their farm lands for the establishment of reserves.

o Conservation Project activities will be led by communities. Therefore the project will try to find and use those methods which provide the best rewards and incentives to participants, whilst achieving environmental goals.

• Project will depend on the commitment of Districts and local community members. o District Officers, sections and community members will be directly engaged

by the project. Moreover, Community Members and their various communities would be encouraged to constantly organize durbars to serve as platforms for deliberations of issues affecting them.

• It is necessary to embark more on vigorous sensitization exercises about some bad human activities such as bushfires which could destroy the prime goal of the project within a single day. Also need to curb the activities of Fulani Herdsmen. Others then pointed out that Fulani don’t act in isolation, but are often invited by the Paramount Chiefs – a local solution should be found in discussion with all parties.

o The issue of Fulani herdsmen is beyond the direct scope of the project to address, but the project can help through organizing communities to resolve internal conflicts and to discuss and report external issues. The response of the appropriate authorities may then be monitored by the project.

• The need to provide impartial mechanisms for the resolution of conflicts among members. This is because of the possibility of occurrence of conflict of interest among members in the same community. For instance, the situation where some members may agree on a particular decision while others may oppose it. This situation in the view of participants could bring about misunderstanding among members which may eventually lead into disunity among them and might thwart the efforts to effectively implement, manage and achieve the main objectives of the project.

o The project will help to strengthen community structures that should deal with disputes within and between communities. More formal conflict resolution training and support can be provided where this is insufficient, as discussed in the RPF.

129

• The need to ensure strict enforcement of existing environmental laws and by-laws to deal with problems from wood cutting, logging, deforestation and even unregulated activities of encroachers.

o Communities can play a role in addressing them, by reporting offences and by talking directly to the encroachers themselves. Project activities can help communities to organize for this better.

2.4 Conclusion Overall there was a high level of support for the project and its objectives, with valuable suggestions provided for its improvement, but without any serious criticism of the project approach or the measures proposed for mitigation of social and environmental impacts.

Participation list

MDA / NGO consultation Ministry / Department / Agency (MDAs) & NGOs

# participants Remarks

District Forestry Officers 4 District Agriculture Officers 1 Wildlife Division 5 Fisheries Division 3 MAFFS 5 Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources

3

Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (SLEPA)

2

Conservation Society of Sierra Leone 1 Sierra Leone Information Systems (SLIS) 2 Statistics Sierra Leone 3 AFCOD 3 Concern Worldwide-Community NGO 1 Sub-total 35 Community consultation District # Participants Remarks Tonkolili District 118 Mayosso,Makabre, Makoni, Makaba,

Robinke, Mabobo, Mamanor, Mamunta, Mafumba community elders, youth, women and representatives

Western Rural District 64 Old Wharf, Waterloo Johntop elders, youth, women and community representatives

Sub-total 182

#

Consultation LIST

Name Institution/District/Community E-MAIL/PHONE NO. 1. Mr Mansaray Ag. Director of Forestry 2. Kate Garnet Project Coordinator 3. Sheikh M. Mansaray Focal Point for Wetlands 4. A. F. Conteh Deputy Director of Forestry

130

# Name Institution/District/Community E-MAIL/PHONE NO. 5. Sesseh MAFFS-Wildlife 6. John Osman MAFFS-Wildlife 7. Joseph Bangura MAFFS-Wildlife 8. Dr S.K. Sankoh, National Coordinator, West Africa

Regional Fisheries Project (WARFP)

9. Mr I brahim Turray Research Scientist, Institutional Support for Fisheries Management in SL

10. Victor Kargbo Assistant Research Scientist, Institutional Support for Fisheries Management in SL

11. Mr Lahai Samba Keita Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (SLEPA)

12. Mrs Hadijatou Jallow Mrs Hadijatou Jallow ( Executive Chairperson, SLEPA)

13. Alpha I. Turray Sierra Leone Information Systems (SLIS)

14. Valentine Wilson Sierra Leone Information Systems (SLIS)

15. Mr Sowa Sheikh Conservation Society of Sierra Leone

16. Mr Mamodu Koroma AFCOD mmtkoroma@yahoo.co.uk, 076609161

17. Abdul James Sankoh Marine Engineer, Manager of Boat Yard

076428440

18. Sheika B. Koroma Fisheries Site Manager, Konakridee 078316276 19. Mohammed D Mansaray District Forest Officer, Tonkolili

District 076988233

20. Mr Bassie Kargbo Tonkolili District, Game Ranger 21. Mohamend Y Conteh Forest Guard, Tonkolili 088584339 22. John Sesay Concern Worldwide, Community

Development NGO 076763134

23. 24. Pa Hassan Kamara Community Elder, Mayosso 25. Hassan Bangura Community Youth Leader,

Mayosso

26. James Kamara Town Headman, Mayosso 27. Amadu Kamara Community Elder, Mayosso 28. Martha Conteh Women Group Leader, Mayosso 29. Moses Kamara Youth Representative,Mayosso 30. Pa James Conteh Town Elder, Mayosso 31. Pa Abdulai Kamara Town Elder, Mayosso 32. Pa Amadu Kamara Town Elder, Mayosso 33. Mr David Bangura Family Head, Mayosso 34. Joseph M. Kamara Elder, Mayosso 35. Davidson Kamara Principal, JSS 36 Mr Alfred Sablah Rtd Civil Servant 37. Ya Maima Kamara Family Head 38. Ya Sallay Kamara Family Head

131

# Name Institution/District/Community E-MAIL/PHONE NO. 39 Iye Kamara 40. John Kamara Teacher 41. Richard Conteh Rtd Conservation Activist 42. Alfred Bangura 43. Pa Kapri Kumah Chief, Mamunta 44. Pa Seidu Kamara Mafumba Elder 45. Pa Foday Kargbo Mabobo Elder 46 Mamadu Kargbo Mabobo Youth Activist 47. Hassan Kargbo Mabobo 48. Osman Kargbo Mabobo 49. Abu Kargbo Mabobo 50. Sulley Kamara Mafumba 51 Sulleyman Koroma Mabobo 52 Saidu Kargbo Mabobo 53 Mohamend Tholley Mafumba Youth Leader 54 Sulleyman Tholley Mafumba Youth Leader 55 Sulley Kargbo Mamunta 56 Amidu Kamara Mafumba 57 Amadu Koroma Mamanor 58 Amadu Sessay Mamanor 59 Alpha Kamara Mamanor 60 Pa Abdulai Turray Mamanor 61 Abu Kanu Mamanor 62 Karimu Gbla Mamanor 63 David Conteh Mamanor 64 Andrew A Kamara Elite, Mamunta akamarakolifa@yahoo.c

o.uk, 076680228

65 Pa Kabin Koroma Mamunta Elder 66 Pa Alhadji Umaru Kalokoh Mamunta 67 Abu A. Kamara Master Fisherman, Old Wharf 088769938 68 Mohamed Sessay Boat Builder, Old Wharf 088139240 69 Alosius Kargbo 70 Mustapha Bangura Harbour Master, Old Wharf 077945703 71 Pa Morlai Sankoh Village Head, Rokel Town,

Waterloo 077483494

72 Alhadji Abass Kanu Chief Imam 73 Mohamend Kanu Elder 74 Mohamed B. Bangura Habour Master 077269184 75 Sheka Sessay Master Fisherman 76 Alimamy Kamara Youth Chairman 077608402 77 Ya Hawah Koromoma Madam Chair 78 Bukari Lasana Committee Member 79 Mohamed Mansaray Youth Activist 80 Mad Ramatu Kamara Dep Chair Woman 81 Mamusu Kargbo Women Leader 82 Ya Isatu Sessay Imam’s Wife

132

14.8 ANNEX 8-FIELD VISITS PHOTO GALLERY

Community Consultation at Mayosso

Reclamation and destruction of mangrove at Old Wharf

Fishing business at Old Wharf

Sand Wining at Waterloo, Johtop

133

14.9 ANNEX 9: IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

SIERRA LEONE: Wetlands Conservation Project 1. Project institutional and implementation arrangements 1.1 Project administration mechanisms

1. The project will be implemented at two levels: (i) the national level for overall project coordination, planning, monitoring and evaluation, as well as implementation of Component 1 in support of a strategic plan for wetland conservation; and, (ii) the conservation site level for implementation of Component 2 in support of conservation site planning and management.8

Implementation arrangements respond to existing capacity of Government structures at central, district and site levels, and will contribute to building management processes for long-term sustainability beyond the project’s lifespan.

National Level 2. Project Oversight at the National Level. A National Steering Committee (NSC) was established under the BCP, and is chaired by the Director of Forestry. Membership of the NSC includes: (i) the Forestry Division’s Assistant Director of Conservation and Wildlife Management Unit; (ii) the Project Manager; (iii) representatives of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development; (iv) the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Local Government and Rural Development; (v) the Ministry of Lands, Country Planning and Environment; (vi) the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources; (vii) the Ministry of Mineral Resources; (viii) the Ministry of Tourism and Cultural Affairs; (ix) the Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency/Board; (x) representative of local NGOs; and (xi) a community representative from each conservation site. Representatives of other ministries, departments and agencies may be invited to participate on an ad hoc basis as needs arise (e.g. Ministry of Energy and Power; Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children Affairs; Ministry of Information; Sierra Leone Roads Authority; Sierra Leone Agricultural Research Institute; and Njala University). 3. Under the WCP, the NSC will continue to provide strategic and advisory guidance and assistance in resolving inter-sectoral challenges to project implementation. Functions of the NSC will include: (i) providing conceptual and strategic guidance to the Project Management Team on project design, implementation and coordination of project activities; (ii) ensuring overall conformity with Government policies and strategies; (iii) reviewing project progress and performance; (iv) resolving implementation issues; and (v) assisting the Project Management Team in obtaining Government and Development Partners support as appropriate. Duties and responsibilities may be further elaborated in the Project Implementation Manual. The NSC will convene at least twice yearly and will participate in regular field visits in order to enable them to make informed decisions on project-related matters.9

8 The Project Organizational Chart is presented in Appendix 1. 9 These trips will take place at least once a year for the NSC members to familiarize themselves with the project context and activities in the conservation sites and may include visits to other sites representing best-practice conservation management.

134

4. Project Management at the National Level. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security, through its Forestry Division, will be the Executing Agency. Overall supervision of project implementation will fall under the responsibility of the Assistant Director of the Forestry Division, Head of the Conservation and Wildlife Management Unit, who will report directly to the Director of the Forestry Division on the status and progress of project implementation. 5. Under the BCP, the Forestry Division established a Project Management Team (PMT), responsible for the day-to-day management, coordination, supervision and monitoring of project activities at all levels. The PMT will expand their scope of responsibilities to include management of the WCP as well. The PMT, based at Makeni, consists of a Project Manager, and specialist staff with skills in biodiversity conservation site planning and management, information technology and GIS, social and rural development, biodiversity survey and monitoring, policy and regulatory aspects of conservation, and communications and outreach. Skills specific to wetlands management may be added to the PMT as needed. These specialists are consultants – both international and national (some full-time, and some only on a part-time, intermittent basis) – and financed by the the BCP and WCP Projects. In addition to the technical specialists, the PMT is supported by support personnel, including, inter alia, office manager/administrator, administrative assistant, drivers, office maintenance person, etc. The PMT support staff are also financed by the BCP and WCP Projects. The PMT is responsible for: (a) preparing, implementing and monitoring the annual work plans and budgets, as well as quarterly and mid-term project implementation reviews; (b) supervising and providing logistic, administrative and technical backstopping for the Conservation Site Management Teams and implementing partners; (c) liaising closely with implementing and development partners and other stakeholders; and (d) preparing and periodically circulating progress reports. Conservation Site Level 6. Conservation Site Management Committees (CSMCs) will be established at each project site, and will be chaired by the District Council Chairman with the Conservation Site Manager as member Secretary. Membership of each CSMC will include representatives of local communities, NGOs, and other stakeholders, such as mining or logging concessionaires, traditional leaders (e.g. Paramount Chiefs), and village committees. The overall purpose of the CSMCs is to provide guidance, advice and assistance in addressing inter-sectoral challenges to project implementation at each of the priority conservation sites. The CSMC will: (i) provide guidance to the Conservation Site Management Team in preparing, implementing, and monitoring site management plans; (ii) ensure that project activities are integrated into the District Development Plans; (iii) foster local stakeholder ownership and commitment; (iv) assist in raising support at the level of Local Councils; and,(v) facilitate the resolution of any obstacles to implementation. The CSMC will convene at least twice a year and its role will be further specified in the Project Implementation Manual. 7. In addition, Technical Coordination Meetings may be called on an ad hoc basis, with the objective of addressing site-specific technical and coordination issues. Meetings will be chaired by the District Forest Officer with the Conservation Site Manager as Secretary and will involve key personnel from relevant Government agencies and implementing partners involved in site activities, as well as representatives from local communities and the private sector.

135

8. Project Management at Conservation Site Level. Each site will have a Conservation Site Management Team (CSMT) composed of Forestry Division staff, including a Conservation Site manager, an office manager/administrator, two technical level staff and, at least six guards. With the support of the PMT, each CSMT will contribute to preparing and taking lead responsibility for implementing site management plans in collaboration with the CSMC. The project will explore opportunities for establishing partnerships with national and international academic institutions and civil society organizations to support field survey and monitoring, as well as recruitment and training of junior staff in the field of conservation management. Measures to address capacity constraints 9. As established under the BCP, the PMT will undertake a training needs assessment to identify weaknesses in implementation and M&E capacity and to strengthen institutional capacity of the Forestry Division, centralized staff, decentralized staff, and other relevant authorities and stakeholders. Based on the results of the assessment, relevant trainings, workshops, exposure visits and other capacity building activities will be organized and conducted throughout the duration of project implementation.