JAKARTA URGENT FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECT (JUFMP) … · 2016. 7. 12. · Table 5-2 Estimated Affected Structures and Persons at Project Sites ... B3 Waste Limbah Bahan Berbahaya dan

JAKARTA URGENT FLOOD

MITIGATION PROJECT (JUFMP)

CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY

OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ASSESSMENT

SEPTEMBER 2011

Government of the Republic of Indonesia

Ministry of Public Works

Directorate General of Water Resources

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

wb406484

Typewritten Text

E2658 v12

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents 1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Safeguards Policies Triggered .................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Approach for Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ..................................................... 3

1.5 Significant Environmental and Social Impacts .......................................................................... 5

1.6 Proposed Environmental and Social Impact Management ......................................................... 6

1.7 Consultations ......................................................................................................................... 11

1.8 Project Communication .......................................................................................................... 12

1.9 Reputational Risks ................................................................................................................. 13

2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 14

2.1 Project Development Objective .............................................................................................. 14

2.2 Summary of Project Component ............................................................................................. 15

2.3 Project Sites ........................................................................................................................... 15

2.4 Sequencing of Works ............................................................................................................. 17

2.5 Volume of Works ................................................................................................................... 17

2.6 Disposal Sites......................................................................................................................... 18

2.6.1 Ancol confined disposal facility (CDF) ........................................................................... 19

2.6.2 Bantar Gebang landfill facility ........................................................................................ 19

2.6.3 PPLi hazardous waste landfill ......................................................................................... 20

3 Environmental and Social Legal Requirements and Project Institutional and Implementation

Arrangements ........................................................................................................................................ 20

3.1 Government of Indonesia Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................. 20

3.2 Government of Indonesia Land Acquisition ............................................................................ 21

3.3 The World Bank‟s Triggered Environmental Safeguards Policies and Compliance

Requirements..................................................................................................................................... 22

3.4 The World Bank‟s Triggered Social Safeguards Policies and Compliance Requirements. ....... 23

3.5 Package of Environment and Social Safeguards Documents. .................................................. 23

3.5.1 Environmental safeguards documents ............................................................................. 23

3.5.2 Social safeguards documents .......................................................................................... 27

3.5.3 Preparation and disclosure of safeguards documents ....................................................... 27

3.6 Institutional Arrangements ..................................................................................................... 29

3.6.1 Institutional Arrangements (Phase 1 and Phase 2) ........................................................... 29

3.6.2 Institutional Arrangements (Disposal sites) ..................................................................... 32

ii

3.7 Implementation Arrangements (Environmental Safeguards) ................................................... 33

3.7.1 For the Phase 1 and Phase 2 works ................................................................................. 33

3.7.2 For the disposal sites (Ancol CDF, Bantar Gebang and PPLi) ......................................... 33

3.8 Implementation Arrangements (Social Safeguards)................................................................. 36

4 Relevant Environment and Social Baseline Data ............................................................................ 37

4.1 Sediment Quality in JUFMP Sites .......................................................................................... 37

4.1.1 ERM 2008 ...................................................................................................................... 38

4.1.2 DHV 2008 ...................................................................................................................... 38

4.1.3 AMDAL for Phase 2 activities, sampling and analysis 2010 ........................................... 38

4.1.4 Results and interpretation ............................................................................................... 39

4.2 Sediment Quality in Ancol ..................................................................................................... 40

4.3 Water Quality in JUFMP Sites ............................................................................................... 41

4.4 Ancol Sea Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 42

4.5 Ancol Marine Biota ................................................................................................................ 45

4.5.1 Plankton ......................................................................................................................... 45

4.5.2 Benthos .......................................................................................................................... 45

4.6 Social Economic Baseline ...................................................................................................... 46

4.6.1 Population ...................................................................................................................... 46

4.6.2 Social-economic Characteristics of the Population .......................................................... 46

5 Summary of Potential Significant Environmental and Social Impacts ............................................. 48

5.1 Environmental Impacts associated with the JUFMP project activities ..................................... 48

5.1.1 Significant traffic disruption. .......................................................................................... 48

5.1.2 Reduced air quality and foul odors. ................................................................................. 49

5.1.3 Change of water discharge rate ....................................................................................... 49

5.1.4 Change of surface water quality. ..................................................................................... 49

5.1.5 Change of sea water quality ............................................................................................ 49

5.1.6 Increase of solid waste .................................................................................................... 50

5.1.7 Impact on Biota .............................................................................................................. 50

5.1.8 Impact on Public health and environmental sanitation ..................................................... 50

5.2 JUFMP Project Impacts on Ancol CDF .................................................................................. 50

5.3 Offsite Impacts from Ancol CDF ............................................................................................ 52

5.4 JUFMP Project Impacts on Bantar Gebang and PPLi facility .................................................. 52

5.5 Social Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 52

iii

5.5.1 PAPs Sites ...................................................................................................................... 52

5.5.2 Non-PAPs sites............................................................................................................... 54

5.5.3 Potential non-resettlement related social impacts. ........................................................... 55

5.5.4 Evictions during the period of JUFMP Project Preparation. ............................................. 55

6 Analysis of Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 57

6.1 The “do nothing” option ......................................................................................................... 57

6.2 Overall Alternative Analysis .................................................................................................. 57

6.3 Specific Alternative Analyses ................................................................................................. 58

6.3.1 Catchment wide vs. local flood management................................................................... 58

6.3.2 Engineering vs. non-engineering approach ...................................................................... 58

6.3.3 Choice of dredging sites ................................................................................................. 59

6.3.4 Dredging technology: Mechanical vs. Hydraulic ............................................................. 59

6.3.5 Solid Waste Separation ................................................................................................... 59

6.3.6 Transport options: Land based (dump truck) vs. hydraulic .............................................. 60

7 Environmental Management Plans ................................................................................................. 60

7.1 Overall Environmental Management and Monitoring Plans .................................................... 60

7.2 Traffic Management Plans...................................................................................................... 61

8 Resettlement Planning ................................................................................................................... 61

8.1 Approach for Social Impact Management ............................................................................... 61

8.2 Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) ................................................................................... 62

8.3 Resettlement Plans (RPs) ....................................................................................................... 65

8.3.1 Census Updates and Finalization of RPs ......................................................................... 66

8.3.2 Database for PAPs .......................................................................................................... 66

8.3.3 Funding for RPF and RPs ............................................................................................... 66

9 Consultations ................................................................................................................................. 67

9.1 Consultations during AMDAL ............................................................................................... 67

9.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) ........................................................................................... 71

9.3 Consultations on the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) .................................................. 72

9.4 Consultations during the preparation of Resettlement Plans (RPs) .......................................... 73

10 Grievance Redress System (GRS) .............................................................................................. 74

11 Project Communications ............................................................................................................ 75

12 Reputational Risks ..................................................................................................................... 78

iv

List of Tables Table 2-1 Description of Floodways, Canals and Retention Basins under Project ................................... 16

Table 2-2 Sequencing of Project Construction Works ............................................................................ 17

Table 2-3 Description of Floodways, Canals and Retention Basins under the Project ............................. 18

Table 3-1 Summary of due Diligence Process for Disposal Sites ............................................................ 26

Table 3-2 Summary of Environmental and Social Documents and Disclosure Status .............................. 28

Table 3-3 Summary of Processes and Conditions Governing Disposal of Project Material ..................... 35

Table 4-1 ERM 2008 data considering relevant soil use screening levels (in mg/kg) .............................. 39

Table 4-2 Phase 2 AMDAL data (2010) considering relevant soil use screening levels (in mg/kg) ......... 40

Table 4-3 Result of Marine Sediment Quality Measurement (by TCLP, USEPA) around the Study Area 41

Table 4-4 Water Quality Analysis Results: Cengkareng Drain ............................................................... 42

Table 4-5 Result of Seawater Quality Measurement in the Study Area ................................................... 43

Table 4-6 Result of Seawater Monitoring in the 2005-2008 period in the Ancol Marine Waters ............. 44

Table 4-7 Populations of Areas where Project‟s Floodways, Canals and Retention Basins are Located ... 47

Table 5-1 Summary of Activities Causing Impact and Direct Impact...................................................... 48

Table 5-2 Estimated Affected Structures and Persons at Project Sites ..................................................... 53

Table 9-1 Issues raised with respect to the Phase 1 AMDAL and Ancol CDF consultation ..................... 68

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Summary of the Disposal Arrangements ............................................................................... 19

Figure 3-1 AMDAL Process .................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 3-2 Illustration of Project Implementation Arrangements (excluding disposal arrangements) ....... 29

Figure 4-1 Air Quality, Noise and Seawater Sampling Site .................................................................... 45

Figure 11-1 Communications between agencies ..................................................................................... 78

List of Annexes

Annex 1: Project Map

Annex 2: Tentative Plan for the Preparation of Phase 2 related EIAs and RPs

Annex 3: Case Studies – Eviction in Kemiri, Tambora VI and Tambora VIII Sites

Annex 4: List of Key Reference Documents in the Project Files

v

ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATION

AMDAL Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan – Process of environmental impact assessments

ANDAL Analisis Dampak Lingkungan – environmental impact assessment/statement

B3 Waste Limbah Bahan Berbahaya dan Beracun - Hazardous and Toxic Waste

BAPEDAL Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan - Environmental Impact Management Agency

BAPPENAS Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional – National Development Planning Board

BAPPEDA Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah – Provincial Development Planning Board

BBWSCC Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai Ciliwung-Cisadane – Regional Office of Ciliwung-Cisadane

River Basin

BPLHD Badan Pengendalian Lingkungan Hidup Daerah – Local Level of Environmental

Management Agency (including Provincial and Municipal Level)

CDF Confined Disposal Facility

DGCK Directorate General for Human Settlements (Dirjen Cipta Karya – MoPW)

DGWR Directorate General for Water Resources (Dirjen Sumberdaya Air– MoPW)

DKI Jakarta or DKI Daerah Khusus Istimewa Jakarta (Provincial government of DKI Jakarta)

EA Environmental Assessment

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIA/SIA Consultant Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, a consultant hired by PMU

EMP Environmental Management Plan

ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework

ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan

ESWG Environmental and Social Working Group

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GRS Grievance Redress System

GoI Government of Indonesia

JABODETABEK Jakarta-Bogor-Depok-Tangerang-Bekasi – Metropolitan DKI Jakarta

JEDI Jakarta Emergency Dredging Initiative

JSC Joint Steering Committee

JUFMP Jakarta Urgent Flood Mitigation Project

KA-ANDAL Kerangka Acuan – ANDAL - Term of Agreement of EIA

Kelurahan /Kecamatan Urban Village/Sub-district

MENLH Menteri Lingkungan Hidup – MoE

MoE Ministry of Environment

MoF Ministry of Finance

MoPW Ministry of Public Works

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

OP Operational Policy

P2T Panitia Pengadaan Tanah - Land Acquisition Committee

PAP Project Affected Person

PI Public Involvement

PIP Project Implementation Plan

PIU Project Implementation Unit

PMU Project Management Unit

POSKO Pos Komando - Site Office which also functions as, amongst others, public information

vi

center and site-based complaint handling unit

PP Peraturan Pemerintahan – Government Regulation

PPA EIA/SIA consultant hired by PMU to prepare AMDAL and RP

PPC Project Preparation Consultants

PT PJA Pembangunan Jaya Ancol Ltd. (Ancol Authorities)

PPLi Prasadha Pamunah Limbah Industri – A licensed of secure landfill operator

PU-MoPW Ministry of Public Works - Departemen Pekerjaan Umum

RP Resettlement Plan

RKL Rencana Pengelolaan Lingkungan – Environmental Management Plan

RPF Resettlement Policy Framework

RPL Rencana Pemantauan Lingkungan – Environmental Monitoring Plan

SC Supervision Consultant

SIA Social Impact Assessment

TMP Traffic Management Plan

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

WASAP Indonesia Water and Sanitation Program Trust Fund

WBC West Banjir Canal

WJEMP Western Java Environmental Management Project

1

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Description of Project

1. The Jakarta Urgent Flood Mitigation Project (JUFMP or “the project”) aims to contribute to the

improvement of the operations and maintenance of a priority part of the flood management system in the

city of Jakarta, through:

Dredging sections of selected key floodways, canals and retention basins to improve their flow

capacities, and disposing the dredge material in proper facilities;

Rehabilitating and constructing embankment in sections of, and repairing or replacing mechanical

equipment in, the same selected key floodways, canals and retention basins to sustain and

improve their operations;

Establishing institutional coordination between the three responsible agencies to encourage

coordinated development, and operations and maintenance (O&M) of Jakarta's flood management

system; and

Strengthening the capability of the responsible agencies to improve the operations, maintenance

and management of Jakarta's flood management system.

2. Eleven critical floodways and canals, as well as four retention basins (waduks) were identified to

be included in the scope of the project works. These were identified by the Government of Indonesia

(GoI) as in priority need of rehabilitation and improvement in flow capacities to alleviate severe seasonal

flooding. These floodways, canals and retention basins are located in areas where nearly 1.8 million

people live1 (out of a total core city population of about 11 million). A project map is provided in Annex

1.

3. This dredging activity is expected to result in the removal of about 3.4 million m3 of sediment

material and 95,000 m3

of solid waste. Non-hazardous sediment material is planned to be disposed at an

ongoing sea reclamation project in a confined disposal facility (CDF) known as Ancol CDF, located off

the north coast of Jakarta in the Jakarta Bay. Removed solid waste will be transported to the existing

Bantar Gebang landfill in Bekasi, the main solid waste landfill serving Jakarta. Sampling tests at project

sites indicate that the JUFMP dredge material is non-hazardous. However, pre-dredging testing will still

be conducted during implementation and in the very unlikely event that hazardous sediment waste

material is found, it will be disposed off at the existing secure landfill in Bogor owned by PT. Prasadha

Pamunah Limbah Industri (PPLi), which is licensed to manage hazardous waste material. Both Bogor

and Bekasi lie just outside Jakarta city, within the Jakarta metropolitan area.

1.2 Purpose and Content of this Consolidated Summary

4. The purpose of this report is to provide the summary of the environmental and social safeguards

issues and arrangements of the JUFMP. This document also serves to provide both a consolidated picture

as well as a summary of the environmental and social safeguards impact assessments and mitigation

design for the JUFMP project as a whole. The JUFMP project includes works that come under the

1 See Table 4-7 in section 4.

2

responsibility of different agencies. At the same time, the project will also utilize disposal areas and

facilities that are being constructed and/or operated by entities independent of the project implementation

agencies. As such, the JUFMP project environmental and social safeguards designs and provisions as a

whole consist of a set of different environmental and social impact assessments and mitigation plans

underpinned by various key studies, reports and reviews processes. Each of these assessments and plans

has been developed by different responsible agencies, approved for the different works or disposal sites,

and at different times throughout the JUFMP project preparation period. These environmental and social

safeguards designs and provisions have been assessed during the JUFMP project preparation.

5. It provides a summary of the safeguards requirements and policies2 applicable to the project.

This document describes the principles and approaches for environmental and social impact assessments

conducted during project preparation, including the preparation timing and disclosure of applicable

documents that together make up the full safeguards instrument of the project. Further, the related due

diligence, assessments, consultations and communications conducted during project preparation are

discussed, including brief descriptions of key findings and conclusions of relevant reports and studies.

The potential environmental and social impacts from the project, and mitigation measures adopted, are

summarized. Finally, this report describes the various arrangements put in place to monitor and supervise

the environmental and social impact mitigation plans related to project works and disposal activities, as

well as to manage residual risks during implementation. A list of documents comprising the project

safeguards instruments, and a list of other key reference documents is provided in Annex 4.

1.3 Safeguards Policies Triggered

6. The project is expected to yield positive environmental and social outcomes. Alleviating flooding

will reduce the environmental impact and public health issues caused by overflowing and stagnant flood

waters and reduce disruptions to communities in project areas – particularly to the predominantly poor

communities living in flood-prone areas. Solid waste and sediments in the drains, if not removed, would

be flushed uncontrolled into the estuary and bay area. Over the longer term, the flood information

management system that is being introduced by the project would provide DKI Jakarta the information

based planning tool needed to sustainably manage the network well beyond the life of the project and to

continue to reduce the incidence of flooding in the area. However, adverse environmental impacts are

also likely during the project implementation, e.g., from the sediment material and solid waste that would

be generated, if they are not handled, stored, sorted, transported and disposed of properly. These impacts

include potentially significant traffic disruption, reduction in air quality due to dust and foul odor

emissions, increased noise levels, reduction in surface water and sea water quality, etc. Involuntary

resettlement has also been identified as required in several project sites. Apart from Indonesian

environmental and social safeguards requirements, the JUFMP project triggers the World Bank‟s

Environmental Assessment Operational Policy (OP4.01), and as per this policy‟s requirements is assigned

an EA category of A. The project also triggers the World Bank‟s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP

4.12).

2 Including Indonesian and World Bank policies requirements.

3

1.4 Approach for Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

Project Sequencing

7. Project funded construction works have been structured into two sequenced phases – Phase 1 and

Phase 2. A sequenced implementation design has been adopted as a key implementation risk management

mechanism for the project. Phase 1 works (proposed 4 sites / 3 works contracts) are expected to

commence during the first year of project implementation. Phase 2 works (proposed 11 sites / 5

contracts) are expected to follow subsequently. This sequencing will help avoid the PMU/PIUs and their

supervision consultant from being overburdened during the first year when detailed actual implementation

processes, procedures and routines are operationalized. The sequencing will also allow time for DKI

Jakarta to complete the necessary resettlement instruments and supporting arrangements ahead of works

in sites involving involuntary resettlement3, including the establishment of a project Grievance Redress

System (GRS) and the appointment of a Panel of Experts.

Project Linked Sites

8. Technical assessments have identified 10 canals/waduks sections that are hydraulically and/or

directly connected with the canals/waduks sections under JUFMP. The government currently has no

specific plans for rehabilitation works in these sections. However, any such activities in these sections

will be expected to impact the operations of the canals/waduks sections under JUFMP. Due to this

reason, these 10 sections have been designated as project linked sites. Two of these project linked sites

are linked to Phase 1 work sites, while the remaining eight are linked to Phase 2 work sites. In the event

that the government carries out any works activities related to floods management (e.g., dredging and/or

canal rehabilitation) in these 10 sections during the JUFMP project period, the RPF (and all associated

provisions) will apply to such sites.

Assessment and Disclosure Approaches

9. The environmental and social safeguards requirements for Phase 1 works and for project material

disposal arrangements have been appraised. Phase 1 works are expected to be ready for implementation

soon after the project is effective (provided also that certain other agreed upon operational conditions are

met). The project is set in a dynamic and fluid environment. Jakarta‟s flood management infrastructure

is in a poor condition due to severe under implementation of operations and maintenance and inadequate

local drainage management. These are apt to suffer further unpredictable damages from flood events

(especially during the annual flooding season) and the continuous surrounding heavy urban activities.

Hence, design changes in response to continuously changing conditions should be expected during

implementation, requiring associated revisions to the safeguards documents. Given the sequencing of

project implementation, the various Phase 2 works are only expected to begin from around 12 to 18

months after project approval. The quality of implementation and the environmental and social outcomes

related to Phase 2 works may only be assured through a similar sequencing of the preparation, disclosure

and implementation of their environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and (if needed) resettlement plans

(RPs). For this reason and in line with the sequenced two-phase implementation approach, the EIAs and

RPs for Phase 2 activities will be done during project implementation and will be reviewed by the Bank

prior to finalization and public disclosure. Until the Bank is satisfied and provides the 'no objection' to

the final EIAs and RPs for the site, no works will commence at the site.

3 Phase 1 sites do not involve involuntary resettlement.

4

10. All applicable environmental safeguards documents related to Phase 1 works (including those

related to the Ancol CDF, currently under construction) will be disclosed prior to project appraisal. In line

with the sequenced two-phase implementation approach, an Environmental and Social Management

Framework (ESMF) and a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) will cover the environmental and social

management requirements of Phase 2 works, and will guide the preparation, finalization and

implementation of Phase 2 related EIAs and RPs. The ESMF and RPF will be disclosed prior to

appraisal. Phase 2 EIAs and RPs will be completed during project implementation (prior to any related

works commencing) and subject to World Bank review and no-objection prior to disclosure and

implementation. Table 3-2 of this report provides a summary of the project‟s environmental and social

safeguards documents and their disclosure status.

Safeguards Assessments for JUFMP Works

11. The environmental impact assessment process in Indonesia (referred to as the AMDAL) has also

followed and is aligned with the JUFMP Phase 1 and Phase 2 works packaging structure. An AMDAL

package consists of the (i) ANDAL, which is synonymous to the Environmental Impacts Assessment in

the World Bank‟s Environmental Policy OP 4.01, (i) RKL, which is the Environment Management Plan,

and (iii) RPL, which is the Environment Monitoring Plan. The AMDAL for Phase 1 works has been

prepared by the Project Management Unit (PMU). This AMDAL was consulted upon, reviewed and

approved in March 2010 by the provincial level environmental agency (known as the BPLHD) as

required by national and sub-national regulations of Indonesia. The World Bank has also reviewed the

AMDAL and has provided extensive comments resulting in the PMU preparing a JUFMP Phase 1

Supplementary Report. This supplementary report includes further recommendations which will also be

applicable to the project. This ensured that the AMDAL and supplementary report for Phase 1,

combined, complied with the World Bank environmental safeguards policy requirements. The PMU has

also prepared the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) which has been reviewed

by the World Bank. The ESMF will guide and manage the process for preparing the environmental

safeguards documents required for the Phase 2 works.

12. Preliminary social assessment study has been carried out in 2008 (SA Study). In addition, social

impact assessments were also carried out in 2009 – 2010 as part of the AMDAL processes. In addition to

standard AMDAL consultation processes, specific Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were also carried out

in each project site to obtain deeper information on the environmental and social impacts of the project

and to obtain support from the communities. Both resettlement-related and non-resettlement related

potential social impacts were identified in these assessments and processes. DKI Jakarta has prepared the

project Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) to clarify the principles, procedures and organizational

arrangements to be applied to the preparation of RPs for Phase 2 sites that involve involuntary

resettlement. The RPF has been reviewed and found satisfactory by the World Bank.

Safeguards Assessments for Ancol CDF

13. Non-hazardous sediment material from JUFMP will be disposed at the Ancol CDF. Construction

of the boundary walls for the confined disposal facility (Ancol CDF) is ongoing at the time of project

preparation. The confined facility is currently expected to be completed at the end of calendar year 2011.

The first AMDAL for the Ancol reclamation works prepared by PT. PJA, was approved by BPLHD in

5

February 2006 where 12 million m3 of sand and 400,000 m

3 of laterite were proposed as the fill material.

This was prior to the proposal for the JUFMP project. The AMDAL was subsequently updated to provide

for non-hazardous JUFMP dredge material to be utilized as part fill material for the Ancol CDF, reducing

sand requirements to 8.6 million m3. The updated AMDAL was reviewed and approved by BPLHD in

March 2009. It is worthy to note that the Ancol reclamation project was planned to be implemented

irrespective and independent of whether JUFMP proceeds or not. The primary objective of PT. PJA as a

concessionaire as stated in the AMDAL is not to receive JUFMP disposal material but to reclaim about

119 hectares of land in Jakarta Bay for future commercial residential developments (as is typical of this

area of Jakarta Bay since 1964). This notwithstanding, Ancol CDF is an integral part of JUFMP. The

World Bank has reviewed the Ancol AMDAL documents4. To address gaps found in the Ancol AMDAL

documents, the PMU has prepared an Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report. This

supplementary report contains the additional measures which will also be applicable to the project. This

ensured that the AMDAL and supplementary report for Ancol CDF, combined, complied with the World

Bank environmental safeguards policy requirements with regards to the disposal of JUFMP material.

Safeguards Assessments for Bantar Gebang and PPLi

14. Solid waste material from JUFMP will be transported to the Bantar Gebang sanitary landfill,

while hazardous sediment material (if any are found) is planned for disposal at the PPLi secure landfill in

Bogor. Both these landfills already exist and are operating under national environmental permits and

under the supervision of the respective jurisdictional BPLHD‟s. Assessments have been carried out

(including site visits by the World Bank) to ascertain that these facilities have adequate financial,

technical and physical capacity to receive the type of waste material from the project and also that these

facilities had the required and valid environmental permits.

1.5 Significant Environmental and Social Impacts

Environmental Impacts from JUFMP Works

15. As discussed in para. 6, the project is expected to generate positive environmental and social

outcomes, by alleviating flooding caused by overflowing and stagnant flood waters. The project

implementation, however, would also have potential negative impacts. These were identified in the

AMDALs5 and summarized in this Section (Section 1.6 summarizes the associated mitigation measures).

These impacts mainly stem from the dredging and embankment works, the significant quantities of

dredge material and solid waste that would be generated, and how these dredge materials would be

handled, temporarily stored, stockpiled, sorted, transported, and finally disposed in urban areas that are

densely populated and that are surrounded by surface and sea water. Potential significant environmental

impacts from these works include: (i) traffic disruption due to equipment mobilization and the transport of

dredge material and solid wastes to their respective disposal sites, (ii) spillage of material along

transportation routes, (iii) foul odors and reduced air quality from ongoing works, (iv) increased noise

levels and vibration from ongoing works, and (v) reduction in surface water quality in canals and related

estuaries during ongoing works. Hazardous material (if any are found) also poses potential environmental

and health hazards if these are improperly handled.

4 The review included assessment of a proposed design change of the northern boundary (dyke) of the CDF in March 2011, for which the

recommendations of the World Bank review of the proposal was acknowledged and adopted prior to the approval of the change by BPLHD. 5 The completed AMDALs for the Phase 1 works, as well as draft AMDALs for Phase 2 sites.

6

Environmental Impacts from Ancol CDF Works

16. At the Ancol CDF, the AMDAL identified the key potential environmental impacts on site from

the construction and reclamation activities, including: (i) changes in longshore current patterns, (ii)

increased sedimentation around the CDF, (iii) degradation of sea water quality from filling and

reclamation activities, and (iv) disturbance to the sea biota. There is also the potential for adverse off site

impact at the source locations and transport route of sand (8.6 million m3) and laterite (400,000 m

3)

required for the construction of the CDF (although the use of JUFMP dredge material to part replace sand

material requirement – thus reducing sand requirement from 12 million m3 to 8.6 million m

3 - is in itself a

measure to reduce potential off site impacts).

Environmental Impacts from Bantar Gebang and PPLi Operations

17. The potential environmental impacts from the project to the operations of the existing Bantar

Gebang sanitary landfill and the PPLi secure landfill are expected to be small. The estimated 95,000 m3

of total solid waste generated from the project over its expected 4 year duration will make up an

insignificant percentage of normal loads being received at Bantar Gebang6. Hazardous material is not

expected from JUFMP (confirmed by sampling tests) and even if some are found, the amounts are well

within the capacity and handling norms of the PPLi secure landfill.

Social Impacts from JUFMP Works

18. The potential social impacts from the project were identified through the SA Study, AMDAL

related consultations, and the FGD and other consultations carried out as part of the preparation of the

RPF and preliminary RPs. The potential impacts include resettlement-related impacts and non-

resettlement related impacts. The studies and consultations conducted during the earlier part of project

preparation indicated that involuntary resettlement would be required at seven sites, affecting over 2,500

structures and more than 6,500 persons. However, efforts to minimize social impact7 over the last few

months have reduced these numbers. At present, six of the 15 project sites are identified to include

involuntary resettlement, affecting about 1,109 structures and 5,228 persons. Non-resettlement related

impacts include “perception and concerns” of communities should they need to resettle without proper

consultations and compensations. Communities were concerned that during construction their living

environment will be disturbed and damaged by the improper management of works operations and

handling of dredged materials, which could lead to inconvenience due to damage on local roads, dusts,

bad odors, spilled dredged materials, increased traffic congestion and noise from the equipments and

trucks. Another potential issue is the concerns of the impacted communities for not being able to

participate during construction as workers/labors and lack of communications between them and the

contractors and project management. Construction at project sites will also temporarily affect about 19

operators / owners of canal crossing boats.

1.6 Proposed Environmental and Social Impact Management

19. The project will be implemented through the appropriate existing institutions in line with the

government institutional structure for floods management. There are three Project Implementing Units

(PIUs) at both central and local government levels: (i) the Directorate General for Water Resources

6 Normal daily load is currently between 5,000 – 6,000 tons per day, or about 20,000 to 24,000 m

3 per day.

7 Based, amongst others, on adapting engineering designs and works methodology to minimize impact.

7

(DGWR), (ii) the Directorate General for Human Settlements (DGCK), and (iii) the local government of

Jakarta (DKI Jakarta). Each will be responsible for carrying out the dredging and rehabilitation works in

the selected key floodways, canals and retention basins that come under their respective institutional and

legal responsibilities. In line with its responsibility mandate for social issues in the Jakarta

municipalities8, DKI Jakarta will be responsible for all project social safeguards arrangements. A Project

Management Unit (PMU) has been established by DGWR to oversee and coordinate the overall

preparation and implementation of the project by the three PIUs. The PMU will also implement and

manage common activities, including (i) the overall construction supervision consultancy i.e., the

Supervision Consultant (SC), (ii) the appointment of the Panel of Experts (POE), and (iii) the Floods

Management Information Systems (FMIS), and (iv) support to DKI Jakarta related to involuntary

resettlement and the project‟s grievance redress system. The three JUFMP dredge material disposal

locations are operated by separate entities independent of the JUFMP. Ancol CDF is operated by the

concessionaire and operator of the reclamation project, PT. Pembangunan Jaya Ancol (PT. PJA). The

Bantar Gebang landfill is managed by the Sanitary Agency of DKI Jakarta through a private operator,

while PPLi secure landfill is a private commercial provider (i.e. PT. PPLi) of hazardous waste disposal

services.

Environmental Impact Management for JUFMP Works

20. For JUFMP works, the respective AMDAL as well as the JUFMP Phase 1 Supplementary Report

requirements will be incorporated into the works bidding documents and contracts. This ensures that the

works contractors will have primary responsibility for the implementation of the required environmental

safeguards measures. Contractors are required to have specific staff with responsibility for environmental

and social management. Bidders are required as part of their bid to submit preliminary contractor‟s

Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP), including a preliminary Traffic Management Plan

(TMP). These will be developed into detailed plans by the winning contractor. Since the majority of

potential effects relate to interactions with the local communities, a minimum number of contract required

meetings with the community has also been included in the contracts. The inclusion of environmental

and social provisions in the biddings documents also ensures that these provisions will be adequately

priced in the contracts. These costs are being built into the unit costs for dredging and transport.

Environmental and social costs built into the contract unit costs include, but are not limited to, workplace

sanitation, safety, traffic management, vehicle emissions control, spillage prevention, noise management,

and consultations with the community.

21. The quality of the sediment materials in the selected drains and canals has been extensively tested

over time. The results of the tests are consistent in so far as they all confirmed that the sediment material

is non-hazardous waste (per the standards stipulated in GoI Regulations on hazardous material and

hazardous waste management9). Hence, hazardous material (referred to as B3 waste in the GoI

Regulations) is not expected to be found during implementation. Nevertheless, to ensure that no

hazardous material from JUFMP are disposed of in the Ancol CDF10

, a strict regime has been developed

8 Jakarta is officially designated a province with special status as the capital of Indonesia i.e., DKI Jakarta ( or „Special Capital City District of

Jakarta‟). Administratively, DKI Jakarta is divided into five municipalities (i.e, North Jakarta, South Jakarta, West Jakarta, East Jakarta and

Central Jakarta municipalities) and one regency (i.e., Kepulauan Seribu, a group of small islands located on the Java Sea). 9 Government Regulations no. 85/1999 on Hazardous and Toxic Waste Management.

10 This requirement is also a stipulation of the Ancol CDF AMDAL.

8

and adopted requiring pre-testing of sediment in sections immediately prior to dredging. In the highly

unlikely event that the pre-dredge testing reveals the presence of B3 waste and material, the location will

be marked off. Subject to the approval of the Minister of Environment (as required by Indonesian

regulations) this material is expected to be dredged and transported only to the PPLi secure landfill

facility.

22. For JUFMP works, the primary responsibility for implementing the environmental measures

detailed in the AMDALs and the JUFMP Phase 1 Supplementary Report lies with the civil works and

dredging contractors. The requirements are embedded as contractual obligations of the contractors. The

project Supervision Consultant (SC) will be responsible for the day-to-day supervision of the contractors

(including adherence to required environmental measures). The SC will in turn report directly to the

PMU. The PMU will hold both the SC and the contractors accountable for ensuring compliance with the

required environmental measures. The Terms of Reference of the SC requires that the consultant team

includes environmental expertise with the capacity in supervising activities that addresses environmental

impacts. Also, given that the selected drains and canals lie in the province of Jakarta and run across sub-

provincial jurisdictional city boundaries, the local environmental agencies (the BPLHDs) at both the

Provincial level (i.e. the office that reviewed and approved all the AMDALs) and the municipal level

BPHLD (i.e. Walikota level) will also be undertaking their mandated routine direct monitoring of works.

The World Bank will carry out regular supervision of the project implementation, primarily through the

PMU. The PMU will also retain a Panel of Experts11

, who will monitor and evaluate the preparation and

implementation of the project safeguards instruments (including the EMPs, RPF, RPs, and the project

grievance redress system) and advise the PMU on any actions to be taken to improve compliance.

Environmental Impact Management for Ancol CDF Works, and the Bantar Gebang and PPLi

Operations

23. For Ancol CDF works, the AMDAL requirements have been incorporated by PT. PJA into the

contracts of the Ancol CDF contractors. Hydrodynamic simulations done as part of the AMDAL process

for Ancol CDF indicated that the construction of the facility will likely lead to only slight changes to the

pattern of longshore current around the facility location. To mitigate against the other identified impacts,

the AMDAL for Ancol CDF requires that that the deposited material in the reclaimed area be confined on

all sides by the construction of an outside wall along the entire length of the perimeter of the reclamation

concession area (approx 119 ha). The perimeter walls are designed so as to retain only the solids from the

fill material (which will include about 3.4 million m3 of dredged material from the JUFMP project) while

allowing the discharge of cleaner/filtered water from the confined area via weir. The design of the facility

has been reviewed and assessed as satisfactory during project preparation. This notwithstanding, to

ensure that JUFMP dredge material is not disposed at Ancol CDF before the facility is ready, the World

Bank‟s „no objection‟ to any given JUFMP dredging contract will only be given once the World Bank is

satisfied with the adequacy of the confined facility and has received satisfactory evidence of PT. PJA„s

compliance with the requirements of the AMDAL for Ancol CDF, including all approved updates to the

AMDAL. The AMDAL for Ancol CDF also requires transport vehicles to be washed down after

unloading the dredge material in the Ancol CDF site in order to further prevent unacceptable transfer of

dredge material onto the local roads. The Ancol CDF AMDAL process has also reviewed the potential

11

The specialists are expected to comprise an environmental expert, an engineer experienced in dredging and dredge disposal, and an urban

resettlement expert.

9

off-site impact at the source locations and transport route of sand (8.6 million m3) and laterite (400,000

m3) required in addition to JUFMP dredge material for the construction of the CDF. The AMDAL

stipulates the specific source location of the sand – a marine source in the Banten area off the west coast

of West Java – which has been reviewed to already possess the approved environmental permit consistent

with Indonesian laws and regulations on mining and quarry. The AMDAL also requires the laterite

(required at the final stages of the reclamation process) be sources approved by the DKI BPLHD

(Provincial Level).

24. For Ancol CDF works, the immediate responsibility for implementing the environmental

measures detailed in the Ancol CDF AMDAL lies with PT. PJA‟s contractors. The requirements are

embedded as contractual obligations of the contractors. PT. PJA through its Property Development Unit

is supervising all aspects (including environment) of the contracts. Additionally, PT. PJA has recruited a

consulting firm that carries out quarterly compliance monitoring of the ongoing construction works. PT.

PJA, in compliance with the AMDAL requirements, is preparing and submitting to the DKI BPLHD

quarterly implementation reports of the RKL and RPL. These reports contain measures and actions taken

by PT. PJA to implement the measures contained in their approved RKL and RPL. These reports will

also include the implementation of the additional measures contained in the Ancol Updated RKL/RPL

Supplementary Report.

25. The primary responsibility for supervision and oversight monitoring of the works at the Ancol

CDF will be with the BPLHD agencies at the Provincial and Municipal Levels. PT. PJA has also agreed

for the JUFMP project Supervision Consultant (SC) to carry out supervision and oversight monitoring of

the Ancol CDF works (including activities at off-site locations) during the life of the JUFMP project.

BPLHD has already started monitoring the ongoing construction works at Ancol CDF and has recorded

and reported its findings and issued its instructions to PT. PJA to undertake any required corrective

measures. On their November 2010 site inspection, the DKI BPLHD invited the World Bank to

undertake a joint monitoring inspection of the works and the World Bank participated in the process with

the DKI BPLHD. The provincial BPLHD has indicated that it will continue to invite the World Bank to

its routine monitoring inspections of the works at the Ancol CDF. PT. PJA‟s quarterly implementation

reports of the RKL and RPL will also be shared with the World Bank. The World Bank has appraised the

technical and financial capacity of the provincial BPLHD to satisfactorily undertake their mandated

monitoring responsibility. While there is no direct legal agreement between the World Bank and PT.

PJA, the JUFMP legal agreements will include requirements for DKI Jakarta to exercise its rights (as a

shareholder of PT. PJA) to cause PT. PJA to implement the requirements (including mitigation measures)

of the AMDAL for Ancol CDF and the Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report.

26. The primary responsibility for supervision and oversight monitoring of the ongoing operations of

the existing Bantar Gebang and PPLi facilities lies with the respective city and provincial BPLHD. The

project supervision consultant (SC) will also supervise and carry out oversight monitoring of project

related activities at Bantar Gebang and PPLi.

Social Impact Management

27. The project seeks to avoid or minimized (if avoidance is not possible) both resettlement and non-

resettlement related social impacts. This is done through limiting works to priority sections, careful

10

selection of dredging approaches and equipment technology, and detailed engineering designs (DEDs)

geared towards minimizing impact. As explained in Section 1.5, significant efforts over the project

preparation period have reduced the expected number of project affected structures from an initial

estimate of over 2,513 to the current 1,109 structures. These efforts will continue during project

implementation. The sequencing of works will also allow sufficient time to prepare, consult and

implement RPs, as well as provide for the establishment of a project grievance redress system and the

appointment of a panel of experts ahead of major resettlement implementation.

28. A Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) has been developed by DKI Jakarta that addresses the

entitlements of Project Affected Persons (PAPs), the rationale for compensation for lost assets at

replacement cost, specific measures to address vulnerable groups, and assistance for livelihood

restoration. The RPF will guide the preparation of Resettlement Plans (RPs) in project sites where

involuntary resettlements are required (including project linked sites). Given a checkered history of

evictions practices in Jakarta, the RPF with key principle for equitable social safeguards practices

represents a transformatory progress in DKI Jakarta‟s approach to handling involuntary resettlement.

However, DKI Jakarta has strong concerns that its policies should not risk being seen as against public

interests by inadvertently reward illegal behavior but simultaneously fail to protect affected people who

are at risk of losing their home and livelihoods. For this reason, the RPF makes a distinction between

squatter landlords and encroachers and other PAPs12

. The RPF clarifies that assistance provided to

squatter landlords and encroachers would be determined in the RP on a case by case negotiated and

mutually agreed basis, without any predetermined limiting criteria. This arrangement in the RPF serves

to balance the DKI Jakarta‟s stated concern on the one hand, and the conformance to the World Bank‟s

Involuntary Resettlement policy (by not excluding any particular category of affected people from

assistance and/or compensation) on the other hand.

29. All project sites will be screened for PAPs and an RP prepared in accordance with the RPF where

PAPs cannot be avoided. The RPs will identify affected people and lay out the framework for

compensating and restoring the livelihoods of entitled households with a clear and agreed timeline

between the PAPs and DKI Jakarta. All RPs will be reviewed by the World Bank13

. The RP will require

the World Bank‟s „no objection‟, be publicly disclosed and implemented (except any elements related to

post-resettlement activities) prior to any works commencing at the associated site. DKI Jakarta will

establish a project Grievance Redress System (GRS) that will function, amongst others, to receive and

address / resolve resettlement-related complaints.

30. The implementation of the resettlement-related activities is the responsibility of the DKI Jakarta,

particularly its Environmental and Social Working Group (ESWG), Project Management and Quality

Assurance Working Group, and the Monitoring and Reporting Working Group. At the operational level,

particularly in preparing and implementing the RPs, the ESWG will be teamed up with the staff of the

relevant municipalities (resettlement team). The Supervision Consultant (SC) will monitor, supervise and

12

Encroachers are property owners who have extended their property beyond its legal limits into adjacent state or government land, but who will

not necessarily have their source of livelihoods adversely affected nor have to relocate as a result of the repossession of the state or government

land, and squatter landlords are those have built structures on state or government land for the expressed purpose of profiting from rents, but who

may not rely on these rents to sustain a reasonable livelihood. 13 The World Bank review of RPs will focus on ensuring that the RPs have been prepared in accordance with all the provisions of the RPF

(including satisfactory position taken in the RP regarding squatter landlords and encroachers is adequate to support the restoration of livelihoods

and standard of living) and the adequacy of implementation arrangements, e.g., implementation plans and budget.

11

advice the ESWG in preparing and implementing the RPs. Budgets for preparing and implementing the

RPs (except for the consultant) will be borne by DKI Jakarta. This would include operational costs for

the ESWG and the resettlement team, compensation for assets, resettlement assistance and rehabilitation

supports. This SC will also be responsible to ensure that DKI Jakarta implement the RPs consistently and

in line with the RPF, and to support DKI Jakarta in establishing and managing the project Grievance

Redress System (GRS). The SC will monitor project linked sites and areas adjacent to project sites and

report any relevant activities - especially those that could involve resettlement.

31. The transformatory nature of the project approach to handling resettlement as embodied in the

RPF also poses significant implementation challenges. While DKI Jakarta has committed to the RPF and

associated RPs, their implementation (especially in the initial period) will inevitably have to contend with

inconsistent and previously established practices, procedures, and regulations. In order to minimize this

potential implementation bottleneck, DKI Jakarta is currently engaged in an intensive consultation and

dissemination exercise specifically with the four relevant Jakarta municipalities who will carry out the

day-to-day implementation of the RPF and RPs. These efforts are aimed to strengthening the

understanding and support from these municipalities towards the completion and implementation of the

RPF and RPs.

1.7 Consultations

32. The consultative process for the project has been widespread over the period of project

preparation (mainly 2009 – 2011) and has occurred at multiple levels depending on the target

stakeholders and issues being discussed. During project preparation, most of the consultations were

related to the AMDAL process14

(for both JUFMP and Ancol CDF), and the preparation of the RPF and

preliminary RPs. Broader consultations between DKI Jakarta, government agencies, academia, civil

society, and other stakeholders on issues ranging from technical, engineering, environment, social,

planning and implementation arrangements have also been conducted and are expected to continue.

During project implementation, interactions with the local communities at and near the project sites are

mandated with a minimum number of contract required periodic meetings with the community included

in the works contracts. The project site offices (POSKOs) to be maintained at each project site will

amongst others serve as public information centers. These site offices will also serve as an easily

accessible venue to receive feedbacks (including complaints) about the project from the local community

as well as to carry out consultation as required.

33. The various public consultations carried out during the project preparation covered issues related

to the project objectives and scope / components, institutional and implementation arrangements, project

timetables, environmental impacts and mitigation plans, social impacts (including resettlement), other

community concerns, and plans for ongoing community consultations and involvement. Details of the

AMDAL related consultations are recorded in each approved AMDAL. In addition to AMDAL

mandated consultations, a series of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were also carried out covering all

kelurahans („urban village‟ administrative areas within the municipalities) in which the project sites are

located. The purposes of the FGDs were to (i) update communities on the status of the project, and (ii)

14

Public consultations (at least two rounds) of the project proposal are mandatory in the AMDAL process, and these form key pre-requisites for

compliance with both Indonesian and World Bank requirements.

12

obtain community feedback and aspirations. Participants comprised representatives from the kelurahan

offices, Board of Trustees of the kelurahans, Community Guidance Officers (Babinsa), Head of the

Family Welfare Program (PKK), community leaders, heads of community neighborhoods (RT and RW),

and representatives of the communities of the project sites. Overall, there was broad support for the

project from the potentially affected people and their communities given the project aim to alleviate

seasonal flooding which causes them tremendous hardship and significant economic losses. But

communities also expressed various concerns, mainly related to potential construction related impacts and

nuisance (e.g., noise, odor, traffic congestions, spillages, etc.), as well as potential involuntary

resettlement impacts.

34. The community consultations, in particular the FGDs, were instrumental to help DKI Jakarta

prepare the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). A series of workshops and dialogues were also

carried out to inform the preparation of the RPF. In particular, two internal consultations and an external

consultation were carried out to disseminate and obtain support and feedback from government and other

stakeholders for the draft RPF. The internal consultations involved participants from DKI Jakarta

province level to the lowest level (representatives of the mayors from all four DKI municipalities,

relevant DKI agencies and bureaus, and sub-local governments down to the level of Kecamatan /

Kelurahan). The external consultations were attended by DKI Jakarta representatives as well as NGOs,

university representative and technical experts. The internal consultations are now being followed up

with intensive consultation and dissemination exercise specifically with the four relevant Jakarta

municipalities who will carry out the day-to-day implementation of the RPF and RPs.

35. DKI Jakarta has also carried out consultations during the preparation of initial draft RPs for the

Phase 2 sites which have been identified to have PAPs15

. These initial socialization activities were done

with the local levels of government / community leaders (mainly kelurahan, RT / RW) with this in turn

being done either by group meetings at the kelurahan offices or by multiple small meetings moving from

RT / RW to RT / RW. More intensive consultations with PAPs are planned after cut-off dates are

announced, among others to confirm the lists of the PAPs and the affected assets, to discuss and agree on

compensation and assistance options, dismantling and relocation schedules, etc., as part of the RP

preparation. Consultations with the PAPs are expected to be done either in groups or plenary, depending

on the specific situation in each site.

1.8 Project Communication

36. During the project preparation period, the consultation processes related to the environmental and

social safeguards of the project (to date, over a three year period of 2009-2011) have been one of the key

avenues for information dissemination of the details of the project to the public and other stakeholders.

Consultations have included the dissemination of the latest project design, scope and status, and have

broadly garnered positive support for the project and its floods mitigation aims. DKI Jakarta has also

publicly positioned JUFMP as a key piece of its near term floods mitigation strategy. Given the

overwhelming effect of recent and worsening flood incidences on city life, the local media has generally

picked up these dissemination efforts. Consequently, public awareness of the JUFMP project (both at the

community level as well as the city level) has increased over the period of project preparation. Media

15

Phase 1 sites do not involve involuntary resettlement, while some Phase 2 sites will involve involuntary resettlement.

13

monitoring and audits carried out for the period of January 2010 to January 2011 pointed to sustained and

increasing media exposure of the project16

, mainly through online news portals, community blogs and the

print media. The tone of media discussions on floods mitigation efforts have also evolved towards the

positive over the audit period. The periodic Joint Steering Committee meetings have been instrumental in

providing the platform for inter-agency communications and information sharing of the latest

developments and status of the project. Within DKI Jakarta, the opportunity of the consultation processes

related to the social safeguards of the project has been utilized to communicate details of the project to the

lowest level of local government.

37. During project implementation, communication through the platform of environmental, social and

contractors‟ consultations will continue. At the community level, the public information center (located

in the POSKO) at each JUFMP project site will play a critical role, where project information (including

the latest implementation status) will be available and easily accessible to the public, in particular

communities within or close to project sites. The Joint Steering Committee meetings are expected to

continue. DKI Jakarta has also assigned its Bureau for Infrastructure Development (Biro Prasarkot) with

the specific task of coordinating and communicating the project across the relevant DKI Jakarta and other

government agencies. Apart from the project communications efforts of the Government and

implementing agencies, the World Bank is preparing a project website on which the latest project

information can be made available during implementation.

1.9 Reputational Risks

38. The JUFMP project preparation has undergone a fairly comprehensive and exhaustive

environmental and social assessment process. This notwithstanding, there are three key areas of activities

that are not directly in the responsibility of the project implementation entities that may pose a risk to the

reputation of the JUFMP and/or the World Bank during the implementation. The first relates to non-

project activities that may occur in or close to project sites. The second concerns the activities within the

Ancol CDF. The third concerns the long term reclamation activities in north Jakarta. Various measures

will be undertaken during implementation to mitigate, reduce or otherwise manage these risks to

acceptable levels. It should be noted that these measures will not completely remove these risks.

39. Given the highly dense urban setting, the occurrence of projects and other activities unrelated to

the JUFMP project within or in close proximity to some JUFMP sites is likely unavoidable. These

activities may have different objectives, standards and processes, but may be wrongly associated to

JUFMP in the minds of the public and other stakeholders. This may lead to wrong expectations of the

public on these activities, or the wrong attribution of any poor environmental and social management

measures to the JUFMP project. Various actions will be undertaken to mitigate and reduce these risks,

including the posting of project signage, temporary fencing where feasible, and the maintenance of a

public information center (located in the POSKO) at each project site to disseminate project information

and to serve as an immediate venue for the clarification of any misunderstanding that may arise. The

Supervision Consultant (SC) will also monitor areas adjacent to JUFMP sites (and project linked sites) as

a means to provide advance notice to the PIU, PMU and the World Bank to allow for coordination and

actions to prevent any communications misunderstanding and inadvertent wrong associations to JUFMP.

16

Averaging over 10 media articles per month over the period.

14

40. The JUFMP will contribute a portion of the fill material required for the reclamation at Ancol

CDF. The reclamation at the Ancol CDF is both part of a separate larger reclamation plan in Ancol that is

outside the control of the JUFMP project implementing agencies and an integral part of JUFMP.

Nevertheless, the public and other stakeholders may directly associate any problems (e.g., environmental,

social, financial, commercial, etc.) that may arise at Ancol CDF with JUFMP. Given the JUFMP interests

in the proper and successful implementation of the Ancol CDF activities, arrangements have been made

for the Supervision Consultant (SC) to have access to Ancol CDF for the purposes of monitoring and

supervision (including of the source locations for the sand and laterite fill material). During project

implementation, the World Bank will also work with BPLHD to conduct joint supervision and site

inspections of the Ancol CDF. These monitoring and supervision activities will allow for actions to be

formulated and taken to address any implementation shortcomings, and is expected to reduce the potential

reputational risk to the JUFMP and/or the World Bank. The project design will include provisions to

limit the World Bank‟s liability with respect to activities at Ancol CDF.

41. The Ancol CDF reclamation activity itself is a specific and relatively small reclamation set within

a larger and ongoing long term reclamation process in the Ancol area of north Jakarta that started in the

early 1960‟s. While the JUFMP project is clearly unrelated to reclamation activities other than Ancol

CDF specifically, the possibility exists that it may still be wrongly associated by the public and other

stakeholders as being responsible over other reclamation projects e.g., those that have occurred in the past

or potentially may occur in the future . The project documents and information dissemination efforts will

aim to emphasize and make clear that the extent of JUFMP‟s linkage in this regard is confined to the

Ancol CDF.

2 Project Description

2.1 Project Development Objective

42. The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to contribute to the improvement of the operations

and maintenance of a priority part of the flood management system in Jakarta. The PDO will be achieved

through:

Dredging sections of selected key floodways, canals and retention basins to improve their

flow capacities, and disposing the dredge material in proper facilities;

Rehabilitating and constructing embankment in sections of, and repairing or replacing

mechanical equipment in, the same selected key floodways, canals and retention basins to

sustain and improve their operations;

Establishing institutional coordination between the three responsible agencies to encourage

coordinated development, and operations and maintenance (O&M) of Jakarta's flood

management system, and

Strengthening the capability of the responsible agencies to improve the operations,

maintenance and management of Jakarta's flood management system.

15

2.2 Summary of Project Component 43. The overall project cost is estimated at US$ 190.4 million, of which counterpart funding portion

is US$ 38.9 million. The Project consists of two components which are summarized as followed:

Component 1. Dredging and rehabilitation of selected key floodways, canals and retention basins. This

component will support the dredging and rehabilitation of 11 floodways / canals and four retention basins

which have been identified as priority sections of the Jakarta flood management system in need of urgent

rehabilitation and improvement in flow capacities. The 11 floodways / canals are estimated to have a

total length of 67.5 km, while the four retention basins estimated to cover a total area of 65.1 hectares (see

summary details in Table 2-1 below). About 42.2 km of embankments are expected to be rehabilitated

or constructed within these floodways, canals and retention basins. Where necessary, mechanical

equipment (pumps, gates, etc) will be replaced or repaired.

Component 2. Technical assistance for project management, social safeguards, and capacity building.

This component will support contracts management, engineering design reviews, construction supervision

engineers for the dredging and rehabilitation works and technical assistance. Technical assistance

includes support to improve institutional coordination for operations and maintenance of Jakarta‟s flood

management system as well as the establishment of a Floods Management Information System (FMIS).

Provision has been made for the cost of implementing required Resettlement Plans (RPs), as well as the

establishment and operations of a project Grievance Redress System and a Panel of Experts.

2.3 Project Sites 44. Fifteen priority floodways, canals and retention basins were identified to be included in the scope of the project works (see Table 2-1 for detailed descriptions and Project Map in Annex 1 for locations).

These were identified by the Government as in priority need of rehabilitation and improvement in flow

capacities.

16

Table 2-1 Description of Floodways, Canals and Retention Basins under Project

Contract

Works

Package

Location Description of Drains (Estimated)

Length (m) Width (m) Area (m2 or

ha.)

1

(DKI)

Ciliwung-Gunung Sahari Floodway 5,100 21.50 ~ 45.90 171,870 m2

Waduk Melati (Kali Gresik & Cideng Hulu) (2,004) (1,260) 4.90 ha.

2a

(DGWR)

Cengkareng Floodway (including sea side) 7,840 (540) 38.00 ~ 87.00 490,000 m2

2b

(DGWR)

Lower Sunter Floodway Note 1 9,980 20.20 ~ 47.40 338,320 m2

3

(DGCK)

Cideng Thamrin Drain (Round Road drain) 3,840 (1,960) 10.00 ~ 19.00 55,680 m2

4

(DKI)

Sentiong-Sunter Drain (including Ancol Canal) 5,950 (400) 16.10 ~ 31.20 161,240 m2

Waduk Sunter Utara (Outlet drain) (570) 33.00 ha.

Waduk Sunter Selatan 19.20 ha.

Waduk Sunter Timur III 8.00 ha.

5

(DGCK)

Tanjungan Drain 600 9.20 ~ 26.00 10,560 m2

Lower Angke Drain 4,050 31.00 ~ 51.00 166,050 m2

6

(DGWR)

West Banjir Canal (sea side) 3,060 (590) 33.00 ~ 141.00 266,220 m2

Upper Sunter Floodway Note 1 5,150 15.00 ~ 36.00 131,320 m2

7

(DKI)

Grogol – Sekretaris Drain 2,970 21.00 ~ 51.00 106,920 m2

Pakin – Kali Besar – Jelakeng Drain 4,910 13.00 ~ 31.00 108,020 m2

Krukut Cideng Drain Note 2 3,250 15.00 ~ 29.00 71,500 m2

Krukut Lama Drain Note 2 3,490 7.00 ~ 29.00 62,820 m2

67,514 2,140,520 m2

65 ha. Note 1 For contracting purposes, the Sunter Floodways has been divided into two sub-packages – Upper Sunter

Floodway and Lower Sunter Floodway. Note 2 For contracting purposes, the Krukut Drain has been divided into two sub-packages – Krukut Cideng Drain and

Krukut Lama Drain

45. Linked sites. Ten sites were identified as project linked sites17

. These linked sites are:

(i) Kali Item, Kalibaru and Sunter Kemayoran (linked to the Sentiong Sunter Drain);

(ii) Ancol Kp. Bandan and Ancol Long Storage (linked to the Ciliwung-Gunung Sahari Floodway);

(iii) Canal along Jalan Kayu Putih Timur (linked to the Upper Sunter River Drain); and

(iv) Ciliwung-Kota, the canal along Jalan Tubagus Angke, PHB Bandengan Utara, and Waduk Pluit

(linked to the Pakin – Kali Besar – Jelakeng Drain).

17 Per OP 4.12, the criteria for identifying linked sites are: (1) directly and significantly related to JUFMP; (2) necessary to achieve JUFMP

objectives; and (3) contemporaneous to JUFMP. Study on defining the linked sites was done during the preparation of the Resettlement Policy

Framework (RPF) and linked sites were mainly defined as hydraulically linked in the context of the first linkage criteria as specified in OP 4.12,

but do not fulfill all the three criteria altogether.

17

46. The above-mentioned ten linked sites were identified as hydraulically and directly connected with

the canals/waduks under JUFMP. DKI Jakarta currently has no specific plans for rehabilitation works at

these linked sites. However, in the event that linked activities are carried out in these sites, the RPF (and

all associated provisions) will apply to such sites.

2.4 Sequencing of Works

47. The construction works funded by the project are proposed to be carried out in two sequenced

phases (see Table 2-2). A sequenced implementation design has been adopted as a key implementation

risk management mechanism for the project. Phase 1 works (proposed 4 sites / 3 works contracts) are

expected to commence during the first year of the project. Phase 2 works (proposed 11 sites / 5 contracts)

are expected to follow subsequently. This sequencing will avoid the PMU/PIUs and their supervision

consultant from being overburdened during the first year when detailed actual implementation processes,

procedures and routines are operationalized. The sequencing will also allow time for DKI Jakarta to

complete the necessary resettlement instruments and supporting arrangements for Phase 2 sites18

,

including the establishment of a project grievance redress system and the appointment of a panel of

experts. Two project linked sites i.e., Ancol Kp. Bandan and Ancol Long Storage are linked to Phase 1

work sites19

, and the remaining are linked to Phase 2 work sites.

Table 2-2 Sequencing of Project Construction Works Sequencing Contract Package and Implementation Responsibility

Phase 1 1 (DKI - Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta) 2a (DGWR - Directorate General of Water Resource) 2b (DGWR)

Phase 2 3 (DGCK – Directorate General of Human Settlement) 4 (DKI) 5 (DGCK)

6 (DGWR) 7 (DKI)

2.5 Volume of Works

48. Surveys of the selected key floodways, canals and retention basins carried out during project

preparation estimated the total volume of material to be dredged to be about 3.4 million m3 (of which

about 95,000 m3 are estimated to be solid waste). About 42.2 km of embankments are expected to be

rehabilitated or constructed within these floodways, canals and retention basins. Details are provided in

Table 2-3.

18

Phase 1 sites do not involve involuntary resettlement. 19 Rapid assessments carried out during project preparation indicated that no involuntary resettlement is expected in the event that linked

activities are carried out at these two sites.

18

Table 2-3 Description of Floodways, Canals and Retention Basins under the Project Package Location Dredging Estimates Embankment

Works (m) Dredging

Depth (m)

Volume Dredge

Material (m3)

Volume of

Solid

Waste (m3)

1 (DKI)

Ciliwung-Gunung Sahari Floodway

1.90 ~ 2.70 156,970 3,140 4,832

Waduk Melati (Kali Gresik & Cideng Hulu)

2.20 ~ 3.10 99,490 1,250 1,905

2a (DGWR)

Cengkareng Floodway (including sea side)

1.50 ~ 3.50 1,225,500 22,510 4,600

2b (DGWR)

Lower Sunter Floodway Note 1 1.60 ~ 2.30 399,250 19,970 1,800

3 (DGCK)

Cideng Thamrin Drain (Round Road drain)

0.60 ~ 2.30 33,230 810 2,570

4 (DKI)

Sentiong-Sunter Drain (including

Ancol Canal)

0.50 ~ 2.10 140,150 7,010 3,865

Waduk Sunter Utara (Outlet drain)

1.30 ~ 2.10 413,400 10,340 5,000

Waduk Sunter Selatan 1.00 ~ 2.10 48,200 1,210 3,057

Waduk Sunter Timur III 0.70 ~ 3.30 51,000 1,280 305

5 (DGCK)

Tanjungan Drain 1.10 ~ 1.90 11,500 290 1,092

Lower Angke Drain 2.00 ~ 3.60 248,000 6,200 821

6 (DGWR)

West Banjir Canal (sea side) 1.70 ~ 2.50 350,080 8,760 1,190

Upper Sunter Floodway Note 1 1.80 ~ 3.40 82,000 4,100 1,850

7 (DKI)

Grogol – Sekretaris Drain 0.70 ~ 2.30 40,500 1,020 2,391

Pakin – Kali Besar – Jelakeng Drain

0.60 ~ 1.60 100,000 5,000 2,882

Krukut Cideng Drain Note 2 0.70 ~ 0.80 28,700 1,440 1,658

Krukut Lama Drain Note 2 0.50 ~ 0.80 14,900 750 2,400

3,441,870 95,080 42,218 Note 1 For contracting purposes, the Sunter Floodways has been divided into two sub-packages – Upper Sunter Floodway

and Lower Sunter Floodway. Note 2 For contracting purposes, the Krukut Drain has been divided into two sub-packages – Krukut Cideng Drain and

Krukut Lama Drain

2.6 Disposal Sites

49. The disposal sites are not financed by the project, however, they are considered an integral part of

the project. The approximately 3.4 million m3 of sediment material

20 and the approximately 95,000 m

3 of

solid waste that will be removed from the floodways, canals and retention basins that are being dredged

by this project will be disposed of in the following manner (see Figure 2-1 for an illustration of the

disposal arrangements).

Non Hazardous Sediment Material – will be transported and disposed of at the Ancol Sea

Reclamation Works, known as the Ancol CDF.

Hazardous Sediment Material (if any are found) – will be disposed of at the PPLi Hazardous

Waste Facility in Bogor, West Java21

.

Solid Waste – will be transported and disposed of at City of Jakarta‟s landfill in Bekasi, West

Java, known as the Bantar Gebang Landfill.

20

All sections of the project floodways, canals and retention basins will be tested for the presence of hazardous material (known as B3 material)

prior to dredging. 21 Note that specific proposed method to treat/dispose of any hazardous waste will follow national regulations on hazardous waste treatment

and disposal and subject to the approval of the Ministry of Environment (MoE).

19

Figure 2-1 Summary of the Disposal Arrangements

2.6.1 Ancol confined disposal facility (CDF)

50. Non-hazardous dredge material will be disposed of at the Ancol Confined Disposal Facility

(CDF) and utilized as material for land reclamation purposes. The Ancol CDF is a specific reclamation

area set within a larger and ongoing long term reclamation effort in the Ancol area of north Jakarta that

started in the early 1960‟s. The JUFMP does not finance nor is it related to the Ancol reclamation

effort22

. Instead, the Project is working cooperatively and in a mutually beneficial manner with the

developer of the Ancol CDF (i.e., PT. PJA) to demonstrate safe disposal and utilization of dredge

material.

2.6.2 Bantar Gebang landfill facility

51. The Bantar Gebang Landfill facility which has been operating since 1989 is the largest landfill in

Indonesia, in terms of volume of solid waste received and disposed of. It is located just outside the city

limits of Jakarta, in the City of Bekasi and is owned by the provincial Government of DKI Jakarta. It is

managed by the Sanitary Agency of the DKI Jakarta (Dinas Kebersihan) through a private operator.

22

In relative terms, the project dredge material will contribute only a very small percentage of the total overall Ancol reclamation.

Construct and Operate

Operate (outsourced)

Operate

Dis

po

se H

aza

rdo

us

Ma

teri

al (

if a

ny)

Dis

po

se S

olid

Wa

ste

Ma

teri

al

Dis

po

se N

on

-

ha

zard

ou

s

Ma

teri

al

Sup

ervi

se (

thro

ug

h

pro

vin

cia

l

envi

ron

men

tal a

gen

cy

Sup

ervi

se (

thro

ug

h

pro

vin

cia

l

envi

ron

men

tal a

gen

cy

Sup

ervi

se (

thro

ug

h

pro

vin

cia

l

envi

ron

men

tal a

gen

cy

DKI

Sanitary Agency

Project Supervision Consultancy

ALL Project Works Contracts

7 contracts / 15 sites

Ancol Confined

Disposal Facility

Bantar Gebang

Landfill Facility

PT. Pembangunan Jaya

Ancol (PT. PJA)

PPLi Secure Landfill

Facility

Prasadha Pamunah Limbah

Industri (PPLi)

Jakarta Provincial

Environmental Agency

(BPLHD)

West Java Provincial

Environmental Agency

20

2.6.3 PPLi hazardous waste landfill

52. Extensive testing of the sediment in the project floodways, canals and retention basins as part of

the Environmental Assessment of this project, and in surrounding drainage systems as well, have not

shown the presence of any hazardous dredged material. In the unlikely event that any hazardous dredged

material is found23

, an existing hazardous waste landfill, known as the PPLi secure landfill, located in

Bogor, West Java, has been identified to serve as the disposal site for these hazardous dredged materials.

PPLi landfill is a private entity licensed to provide disposal and treatment services for hazardous waste

and has been operating since 1994.

3 Environmental and Social Legal Requirements and Project

Institutional and Implementation Arrangements

3.1 Government of Indonesia Environmental Impact Assessment

53. Indonesia has a plethora of national and sub-national environmental laws and regulations that

govern the environmental planning process for works of this kind. The overarching regulation for the

AMDAL process24

in Indonesia for any activity or project with potential significant environmental

impacts is the Environmental Management Act No 23/1997, and specifically Article 15 on the

environmental impact assessment requirements. A new environmental management and protection law,

Act No. 32 of 2009, was issued on 2009 and substitutes Act No. 23/1997. Government Regulation (PP)

No: 27/1999 provides detailed guidelines of the AMDAL system. Furthermore, the Ministry of

Environment (MoE) Decree No. 11/2006 lists specific activities that require AMDAL and the MoE

Decree No.8/2006 provides guidelines for AMDAL preparation.

54. With regard to the dredging work, the MoE Decree No. 11/2006 specifies that any maintenance

dredging activity in the metropolitan city will require an AMDAL if the dredge volume exceeds 500,000

m3. This requirement is also in line with the regional law (i.e. Governor of Jakarta Decree No 2863/2001

on type and list of specific business and activities in Jakarta that require AMDAL), which states that any

dredging with volume more than 50,000 m3 must have an AMDAL approved by the provincial level of

environmental agency (i.e. BPLHD) of DKI Jakarta25

.

55. Other key relevant national and regional legislations considered when preparing the AMDAL are:

MoE Decree No. 2/2000: Guidance on the evaluation of the AMDAL document.

MoE Decree No.40/2000: Guidance on the working procedure of the AMDAL commission.

MoE Decree No.42/2000: Guidance on the formation of evaluation team and technical team

members for the AMDAL.

Head of Bapedal (Environmental Impact Management Agency) Decree No. 8/2000: Guidance on

public participation and information disclosure during the AMDAL.

23

During project implementation, sediments in each work site section will be tested again before dredging works is authorized – see Chapter 3. 24

Under the Indonesian System – an ANDAL is synonymous to the Environmental Impacts Assessment in the World Bank‟s Environmental

Policy OP 4.01, RKL is the Environment Management Plan and RPL is the Environment Monitoring Plan. The ANDAL, RKL and RPL are

collectively known as the AMDAL. 25

The regional law being stricter than the national MoE Decree No. 11/2006.

21

Governor of Jakarta Decree No 76/2001: Operative guidance on public involvement and

information disclosure during the AMDAL.

56. Figure 3-1 presents the AMDAL process. This is a fairly robust process which involves public

consultation and solicitation of feedbacks from the public and technical experts, and several levels of

review prior to the final environmental clearance26

.

Figure 3-1 AMDAL Process

Review of ANDAL, RKL/RPLDocument

Screening and Initial Meetingwith Government

Decision on EnvironmentalClearance

Determination of ANDAL StudyScope

Information Disclosure

Solicitation ofComments/Information

ANDAL StudyImplementation

Preparation of ANDAL, RKL/RPL Documents (by

Proponent)

SocioeconomicSurvey



Review or Solicitationof Comments/Information

Scoping

ANDAL

Study

ANDAL

Review

AMDAL

Clearance

STEPS AMDALPROCESS

PUBLICINVOLVEMENT

PROCESS

RESPONSIBLEPARTIES

Proponent

EnvironmentalAgency

3.2 Government of Indonesia Land Acquisition

57. The Government of Indonesia has several main laws and regulations pertaining to land rights and

acquisition for development activities in the public interests. The major important law that assures and

26

The ANDAL review in Figure 3-1 is conducted by an AMDAL Commission formed by BPLHD. The AMDAL Commission consists of

representatives from BPLHD (2-3 persons), university experts (or known as Technical Team, 5-7 persons from different areas expertise),

representatives from sub-district (Kecamatan) and neighborhood (Kelurahan), and representatives from NGOs.

22

regulates land rights is the Basic Agrarian Law No. 5 of 1960. Other relevant national regulations

pertaining to land and land acquisition are:

Law No. 20 of 1961 on the Revocation of Land Rights;

Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 on Land Registration;

Presidential Regulation No. 36 of 2005 on Land Provision for Development Activities in the

Public Interest;

Presidential Regulation No. 65 of 2006, which revises the Presidential Regulation No. 36/2005;

and,

Implementation Guidelines No. 3 of 2007 for Presidential Regulations No. 36/2005 and No. 65

of 2006, issued by the National Land Agency.

Another regulation relevant to the project is Law No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources, which intends to

protect water resources to maintain their functions.

58. Presidential Regulation No. 36/2005 and No. 65/2007 regulate the procedures and processes of

land acquisition (and assets attached to the land) for development activities that are in the public interests.

These include development activities under the responsibility of the local government, such as roads/toll

roads/railways/sanitation/water distribution; retention basins/dams; ports/airports/train station/terminals;

public health facility; telecommunication and post; sport facilities; government buildings; police and

security facility; solid wastes disposal facility; protection of natural habitat; and power generation,

transmission and distribution of electricity. These regulations also stipulate the entitlements and

procedures and criteria for compensation, appraisal for compensation, and consultations and negotiations,

as well as complaints and dispute settlements and land revocation. These regulations categorize the

procedures and process for land acquisition for more than 1 hectare, and for less than one hectare. The

Implementation Guideline No. 3 of 2007 for Presidential Regulations No. 36/2005 and No. 65 of 2006,

outlines in more detail the procedures, processes and criteria for land acquisition as stipulated in the two

Presidential Regulations. The three mentioned regulations do not explicitly regulate assistance and do not

cover income restoration. They stipulate that the compensation level for land should be made based on the

assessment of an independent land appraisal team formed in accordance with the regulations.

59. DKI Jakarta also has regulations that regulate compensation of assets, i.e., Implementation

Guidelines for the Assessment of Compensation for Buildings, which are issued regularly by the DKI

Jakarta Agency for Housing and Government Buildings. This regulation is used as a basis for determining

compensation levels for assets (buildings and ancillary assets attached to the buildings). In addition, DKI

Jakarta has a Local Regulation No. 8 of 2007 pertaining to Public Order, which has been used as a basis

for repossessing public land that have been used without permits from DKI Jakarta government or other

land/public space that have been used for the purposes that are not in line with DKI Jakarta‟s land use

plans.

3.3 The World Bank’s Triggered Environmental Safeguards Policies and

Compliance Requirements. 60. The project is expected to yield positive environmental outcomes for the following reasons: (i)

alleviating seasonal flooding in the densely populated area of Jakarta will reduce the environmental

impact and public health issues caused by overflowing and stagnant flood waters, (ii) removal of solid

23

waste and sediments from the selected drains would also prevent these materials from being flushed

uncontrolled into the estuary and bay area and out into the open sea, and (iii) over the longer term the

flood information management system that is being introduced by the project would provide the

Government of DKI Jakarta, (i.e. DKI Jakarta) with the information based planning tool they need to

sustainably manage the network well beyond the life of the project to continue to reduce the incidence of

flooding in the area.

61. Notwithstanding, significant negative environmental impacts are likely from the dredging and

embankment works and the significant quantities of sediment material and solid waste that would be

generated and how these dredged materials would be handled, temporarily stored, stockpiled, sorted,

transported and finally disposed in urban areas that are densely populated and surrounded by surface and

sea water would be managed. These impacts include potentially significant traffic disruption, reduction in

air quality due to dust and foul odor emissions, increased noise levels, reduction in surface water and sea

water quality, etc. (see Chapter 5 for a more detailed description of significant environmental impacts

from the project).

62. The project will potentially have significant adverse impacts that may be sensitive and diverse

and may thus affect areas that are widespread. Thus the project triggers the World Bank‟s Environmental

Assessment Operational Policy (OP4.01) and as per this policy‟s requirements is assigned an EA category

of A. The policy will apply to all project sites. In addition, all three disposal sites, namely the Ancol CDF,

the Bantar Gebang Landfill and the PPLi facility are considered integral parts of the project.

3.4 The World Bank’s Triggered Social Safeguards Policies and Compliance

Requirements. 63. The project is expected to have significant positive social impacts. In particular, the reduction of

floods events will reduce the disruptions in communities in project areas. Beneficiaries will be

predominantly poor communities living in flood-prone areas within the project scope. However,

involuntary resettlement is currently identified as required in six project sites (see Chapter 5 for a more

detailed description of potential significant adverse social impacts from the project). For this reason, the

project triggers the World Bank‟s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12). The policy will apply in all

projects sites (including linked sites).

3.5 Package of Environment and Social Safeguards Documents.

3.5.1 Environmental safeguards documents

64. A comprehensive Environmental Assessment has been undertaken of the JUFMP in a process and

manner that are aligned with the packaging and sequencing of the works as stated in Table 3-1 below. For

Phase 1 works, the original AMDAL (i.e., ANDAL, RKL and RPL) was prepared by the PMU in 2009 to

meet Government of Indonesia environmental requirements and was reviewed and approved by the

Provincial BPLHD in March 2010 (following the AMDAL process outlined in Figure 3-1). During

project preparation, the World Bank also reviewed the Phase 1 AMDAL for compliance with its own

Environmental Assessment OP4.01 and found that there were gaps in the documents. Hence the PMU

24

prepared and have adopted a JUFMP Phase 1 Supplementary Report (including recommendations of

additional measures) to address the identified gaps with World Bank OP4.01 requirements.

65. The Phase 2 works have been identified and notwithstanding that they will be implemented in

subsequent years after the Phase 1 works, the PMU has completed the full AMDAL and the first draft of

these reports is currently being reviewed by BPLHD. The Phase 2 works are not being appraised by the

World Bank during project preparation but instead will be appraised during project implementation.

Therefore, the PMU has prepared the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) to

cover the environmental and social management requirements of Phase 2 works.

66. The AMDAL for the Ancol Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) requires that any material that is

deposited for reclamation purposes to be confined on all sides to prevent the deposited material from

coming into contact with the open sea and thereby risks being washed away and contaminating the sea.

Therefore, the engineering design for the Ancol site is for a confined facility. The AMDAL for the Ancol

CDF was first prepared by PT. PJA, the concessionaire for the reclamation site in 2006. The design of the

facility was subsequently changed when DKI Jakarta requested that the JUFMP dredge sediment material

be deposited at the Ancol CDF, leading to an AMDAL revision carried out in December 2008. This

updated AMDAL for the Ancol CDF was then submitted for review and approval to the Provincial

BPLHD who approved it in March 2009.

67. During project preparation, the World Bank also reviewed the updated Ancol CDF RKL and

RPL27

. The review found a requirement for additional measures to further strengthen these documents

and to meet the World Bank‟s own requirements. These additional measures are recorded in the Ancol

Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report prepared by the PMU are (i) to review the permits and sources

of sand and to record the potential off-site impacts associated with extracting 8.6 million m3 of sand, (ii)

strengthening day to day environmental supervision and monitoring of the construction and filling of the

Ancol CDF by allowing the use of the project Supervision Consultant access at the Ancol CDF and

inclusion of detailed traffic management plans. PT. PJA has agreed with these additional requirements in

the Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report. Therefore, as per the Indonesian AMDAL

requirements, PT. PJA will include these additional measures in their next quarterly RKL and RPL

progress report, which is due in April 2011. Note that JUFMP dredging works will not start until a final

satisfactory review has been carried out of the constructed Ancol CDF facility‟s enclosing dykes (see

Section 3.7.2).

68. The other disposal sites, i.e., the Bantar Gebang Landfill for solid waste and PPLi for hazardous

waste are existing facilities that are already operating under environmental permits. As part of its due

diligence review the World Bank visited these two facilities:

PPLi Landfill (for hazardous waste disposal, if any). A site visit was carried out by the World

Bank team on October 19, 2010. PPLi a licensed hazardous waste management facility that has

been in operation since 1994 is partly (5%) owned by the Government of Indonesia through

Ministry of State Owned Enterprises while the rest of 95% is owned by Dowa Eco System Co.

Ltd., Japan. PPLi is the first facility in Indonesia that provides a complete range of hazardous

27 The review included a further subsequent update related to the assessment of a proposed change in design change of the northern boundary

(dyke) of the CDF in March 2011, for which the recommendations of the World Bank review of the proposal was acknowledged and adopted

prior to the approval of the change by BPLHD.

25

waste management services (payable tipping fee applied) including transportation, treatment

processes, and disposal in a secure and modern landfill compliant with international waste

management standards including those of the EU, and US-EPA. Situated at the Cileungsi sub-

district, Bogor, the company owns 50 ha landfill that has a total capacity of over 3 million tons (at

the time of WB team visit, only 2 ha. has been used). A double composite liner, constructed of

bentonite clay and high-density polyethylene (HDPE), lines the landfill's base, which prevents

any leachate from contaminating the surrounding environment. New waste is covered with soil or

a synthetic material on a daily basis. Once an area of the landfill fills to capacity, it is capped with

clay and a HDPE liner to prevent water from seeping into the closed landfill cell. Based on rapid

site assessment, it was confirmed that the PPLi facility meets the national and sub-national

regulation and more importantly that it still has enough capacity to receive hazardous waste (if

any are found during project implementation). The Project has allocated funds to ensure that in

the unlikely event that the hazardous sediment waste is found and BPLHD decides that the waste

has to be disposed of at the PPLi facility, funds are available for this purpose.

Bantar Gebang Landfill (for Solid Waste Disposal). Bantar Gebang disposal site is located

within vicinity of the satellite City of Bekasi, approximately 35km east of Jakarta. The landfill

which is owned by the Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta has been in operation since 1989

and it covers an area of 110.3 hectares. The site exclusively receives domestic solid waste from

DKI Jakarta which is approximately 5,000t/day, of the total of 6,000 ton solid wastes generated

per day in DKI Jakarta. For each ton of garbage, the DKI pays Rp. 100 000 tipping fee to the site

operator (based on Dec 2010 site visit). The facility was designed to handle 19 million m3 of

waste and since its opening, approximately 10 million m3 of waste had been disposed of at

Banter Gebang. The site is managed by a private company, i.e. a joint venture of PT Godang Tua

Jaya and PT Navigat Organic Energy Indonesia () under the supervision of the DKI Jakarta

Provincial Sanitary Agency (Dinas Kebersihan DKI Jakarta). Within two years of its 15 yrs

contract (contract ends 2023), the site operator has added few new facilities, these include (i)

Garbage-methane power generation plant (design for 23 megawatt), (ii) Composting facility

(capacity of 500 ton garbage per day; and (iii) new sanitary landfills. With regards this Project,

the PMU and WB have both visited the site and confirm that landfill has the capacity to receive

95 000 m3 of solid wastes to be removed from drains, canals and waduks during the Project

implementation and that the site has a valid operating permit (West Java Governor Number

593.82/SK/282.P/AGK/DA/86 dated on 25 January 1986 jo. 593.82/ SK.116.P /AGK/DA/26-

1987) and is in compliance with local regulations. Implementation of environmental management

and monitoring is carried out by the site operator and reported regularly on a quarterly basis to

BPLHD Jakarta and BPLHD Bekasi.

69. The environmental due diligence carried out for the project disposal sites are summarized in

Table 3-1.

26

Table 3-1 Summary of due Diligence Process for Disposal Sites

Name of

Project

Disposal

Sites

Category

of Project

waste to be

disposed of

at this

facility

Operating

Status

during

Project

Preparation

Project

Environmental

Requirements

Summary of World Bank (WB) Due Diligence

Actions

Ancol CDF Site (119 ha)

Non Hazardous (non B3) dredge material

At time of project preparation, Ancol CDF engineering

designs were being finalized and facility is being constructed, with completion target date of

December 2011.

Updated ANDAL, RKL and RPL approved in March 2009

(BPLHD) Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report

Reviewing the AMDALs (including hiring

independent consultant to carry out review)

Reviewing the CDF design (and subsequent design

changes)

Conducting (with the Provincial BPLHD) joint

environmental supervision missions of ongoing works (last joint visit: November 2010).

Continued site visit during project preparation to

review the ongoing construction of the CDF.

Reviewing the supplemental EA.

Reviewing and assessing the sediment quality of JUFMP location.

Reviewing and assessing offsite impacts from sourcing of material for the CDF (i.e., sand and red clay)

WB held various technical discussions with PT. PJA, DKI and other stakeholders on all aspects of

the design and construction of the Ancol CDF.

The owners of the Ancol CDF, PT. PJA have agreed for the project Supervision Consultant

(SC), to also supervise and monitor the implementation of the EMP in Ancol. This is included in the SC‟s TOR.

Bantar Gebang Landfill

Solid Waste removed from project

sites

Existing facility, in operations since 1989

Facilities construction based on West Java Governor Decree No:

593.82/SK/282.P/AGK/DA/86 dated on 25 January 1986 jo. 593.82/SK.116.P /AGK/DA/26-198728.

Visited the landfill to review operations and

environmental permits and assess capacity / adequacy.

The SC will also supervise and monitor for

compliance for these projects activities at the Banter Gebang facility.

PPLi

Hazardous,

B3, dredged sediment material (if any are found).

Existing

facility, in operations since 1994

AMDAL

approved in July 1993 (Head of Environmental Impact Management Agency Kep-36/BAPEDAL/07/1993)29

Visited the facility to review operations and

environmental permits and assess capacity / adequacy.

The SC will also supervise and monitor for compliance of these projects activities at the PPLi facility. This is included in the SC‟s TOR.

28

Then because of the requirement of the first Indonesia AMDAL regulation, i.e. Government Regulation No: 29 of 1986 regarding

Environmental Impact Assessment. The Sanitary Agency of DKI carried out an AMDAL Study and the AMDAL was approved in 1989. 29

http://www.menlh.go.id/i/art/pdf_1067455998.pdf

27

3.5.2 Social safeguards documents

70. In order to address this safeguard policy issue and to ensure that implementation of project

activities will be carried out in a socially sustainable manner, DKI Jakarta has prepared a Resettlement

Policy Framework (RPF). The policy framework addresses the entitlements of Project Affected Persons

(PAPs) who are occupants of state or government land as well as entitlements of PAPs affected by the

acquisition of privately owned land, the rationale for compensation for lost assets at replacement cost,

specific measures to address vulnerable groups, and assistance for livelihood restoration. The RPF will

guide the preparation of Resettlement Plans (RPs) in project sites where involuntary resettlements are

required (including linked sites). Chapter 8 provides a more detailed discussion of the project approach to

resettlement and resettlement planning, including social impact management and key aspects of the RPF

and RP processes, procedures and implementation.

3.5.3 Preparation and disclosure of safeguards documents

71. In compliance with Indonesia‟s and the World Bank‟s requirements, the environmental and social

safeguards documents for the respective works and sites were / will be disclosed. Given the sequencing

of project implementation into two phases, i.e. Phase 1 and Phase 2, it is expected that the various Phase 2

works will commence later - around 12 to 18 months after project approval (see Section 2.4 for a

description of sequencing as a key implementation risk management mechanism). The project is set in a

dynamic and fluid environment. Jakarta‟s flood management infrastructure is in a poor condition due to

severe under implementation of operations and maintenance and inadequate local drainage management.

These are apt to suffer further unpredictable damages from flood events (especially during the annual

flooding season)30

and the continuous surrounding heavy urban activities. Hence, design changes in

response to continuously changing conditions should be expected during implementation, requiring

associated revisions to the safeguards documents. Consequently, the quality of implementation and the

environmental and social outcomes related to Phase 2 works may only be assured through a similar

sequencing of their EIAs and RPs preparation, disclosure and implementation. The applicable

environmental safeguards documents related to Phase 1 works will be disclosed prior to project

appraisal31

. The ESMF and RPF for the project will be disclosed prior to appraisal. The ESMF and RFP

will cover the environmental and social management requirements of Phase 2 works, and will guide the

preparation, finalization and implementation of Phase 2 related EIAs and RPs. Phase 2 EIAs and RPs

will be completed during project implementation (prior to any related works commencing) and subject to

World Bank review and „no-objection‟ prior to disclosure and implementation. No works will commence

at any site until the World Bank has provided the 'no objection' to the final EIAs and RPs for the site. The

ESMF and RPF, as well as the EIA and RP of the relevant site, will also be made available at the project

site offices (POSKOs) to be set up at each project site prior to construction works.

72. Table 3-2 summarizes the disclosure status of the project environmental and social safeguards package of documents. A tentative plan for the preparation of Phase 2 related EIAs and RPs (linked to

the planned timing of Phase 2 works) is provided in Annex 2.

30 In general, the annual rainy season occur from November to April. Flood incidences are perennial occurrences and flood events have been

increasing in severity (and hence more damaging) during the past decade. 31

Phase 1 activities do not involve any involuntary resettlement.

28

Table 3-2 Summary of Environmental and Social Documents and Disclosure Status Item Document Approval /

Review

Language

Documents

Available

in locally

Public

Disclosure

Date

Method/Venue for Disclosure

Project

Consolidated Summary of

Environmental Impact Assessment

World Bank review:

(June 2011) Draft

Bahasa Indonesia & English

29 Jul 2011

MoPW: (i) MoPW website.

World Bank: (i) Public Information Center (PIC) in Jakarta, Indonesia, (ii) The Info Shop, 1818 H Street N.W., Washington DC 20043. (iii) World Bank website

Environmental

and Social Management Framework (ESMF)1

World Bank

review: (Jan 2011) Draft (June 2011) Draft

English Bahasa Indonesia & English

26 Jan 2011 29 Jul 2011

MoPW:

(i) MoPW website.

World Bank: (i) Public Information Center (PIC) in Jakarta, Indonesia, (ii) The Info Shop, 1818 H Street N.W., Washington DC 20043. (iii) World Bank website

Resettlement

Policy Framework (RPF)2

World Bank

review: (May 2011) Final


7 Jul 2011

DKI:

(i) DKI website (ii) Project-site Kelurahan offices


World Bank: (i) PIC in Jakarta, Indonesia, (ii) The Info Shop, Washington DC. (iii) World Bank website

Phase 1 Works

AMDAL3 BPLHD approval: (March 2010) Final


30 Mar 2010

BPLHD: Printed copies available at the BPLHD offices of DKI Jakarta, Nyi Ageng Serang Building, 10th floor, Jalan Rasuna Said, Kuningan, Jakarta

World Bank review:

(Jan 2011) Final

Bahasa

Indonesia & English

26 Jan 2011



JUFMP Phase 1 Supplementary Report

World Bank review: (Jan 2011)

Draft (June 2011) Draft

English


26 Jan 2011

29 Jul 2011


World Bank:

(i) PIC in Jakarta, Indonesia, (ii) The Info Shop, Washington DC. (iii) World Bank website

Ancol CDF

Revised AMDAL4

BPLHD approval: (March 2009) Final


30 Mar 2010

BPLHD: Printed copies available at the BPLHD offices of DKI Jakarta

World Bank review: (Jan 2011) Final


26 Jan 2011



Ancol Updated

RKL/RPL Supplementary

World Bank

review (June 2011)

Bahasa Indonesia

29 Jul 2011

MoPW:

(i) MoPW website.

World Bank:

29

Report Draft & English

(i) PIC in Jakarta, Indonesia, (ii) The Info Shop, Washington DC. (iii) World Bank website

1 The AMDAL for Phase 2 works, and any other required environmental safeguards documents, will be disclosed in a manner similar to Phase

1. 2 Resettlement Plans (RPs) where needed at Phase 2 sites, will be disclosed in a similar manner as the RPF.

3 AMDAL is a set of document that consists of ANDAL (Environmental Impact Statement) and RKL/RPL (Environmental Management and

Monitoring Plans)

4 Under the Indonesian system, all revisions to the AMDAL are carried out through an updated RKL/RPL document, approved by BPLHD.

3.6 Institutional Arrangements

73. Out of the overall project institutional and implementation arrangements, the World Bank and the

Government of Indonesia have carved out a more streamlined arrangement specifically for the

environmental management of the project during implementation. These are described below.

3.6.1 Institutional Arrangements (Phase 1 and Phase 2)

74. The overall institutional arrangements for the project are summarized in Figure 3-2 as follows:

Figure 3-2 Illustration of Project Implementation Arrangements (excluding disposal arrangements)

75. Joint Steering Committee. A high level advisory committee, the Joint Steering Committee

(JSC) was formed early in project preparation to oversee the preparation and implementation for the

project and to provide coordination and advisory support at the policy level. To date, the JSC has been

30

effective in this role. The JSC is led by Bappenas32

and comprises representatives from Ministry of

Finance, MoPW, and DKI Jakarta. The JSC will continue to provide high level oversight during the

implementation of the project.

76. Project Implementation Units (PIUs) and Project Management Unit (PMU). There are three

Project Implementing Units (PIUs) at both central and local government levels, under DGWR, DGCK

and DKI Jakarta. The main role of each PIU is to carry out the dredging and rehabilitation works in the

selected key floodways, canals and retention basins that come under their respective responsibility. The

Project requires close coordination among these three implementing agencies. DGWR will play the role

of the overall project Executing Agency. A PMU has been established by DGWR for the purposes of

preparing and overseeing the implementation of the project. The PMU comprises three staff from

DGWR, three from DGCK, three from DKI Jakarta and one from MoPW‟s Office of Planning and

Overseas Cooperation. The PMU is supported by a secretariat of five staff from DGWR. During project

implementation, the PMU will oversee and coordinate the overall implementation of the project by the

three PIUs. The PMU will also implement support activities that are common across the project. These

include (i) the overall construction supervisions consultancy, (ii) the Panel of Experts, (iii) the Floods

Management Information Systems (FMIS) and (iv) support to DKI-Jakarta related to involuntary

resettlement and the project‟s grievance redress system.

i. Supervision Consultant (SC). This is the key consultancy contract that will be instrumental in

supporting the PMU‟s overall management, oversight and monitoring of the project. Where

there are assessed weaknesses in capacity, particularly in the areas of the supervision of project

environmental plans, the implementation of Resettlement Plans (RPs) and the project Grievance

Redress System (GRS), the SC has been tasked to provide the necessary expertise to support

the PMU during project implementation. The scope of this technical assistance services include

(i) supervising the implementation of the various dredging and construction works contracts

under the project including at all disposal sites (ii) supervising the implementation of the

Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (RKL/RPL) by the works contractors, (iii)

supporting the PMU and DKI in the implementation of Resettlement Plans (RPs), and (iv)

developing and implementing the grievance / complaint handling mechanism of the project

with DKI. A summary of the detailed scope of activities of the SC is provided in the box

below.

32

The National Development Planning Board (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional)

31

Box: Key Scope of Activities of the Supervision Consultants

Supervision of Construction Works 1.1 Review / check final contracts with contractors.

1.2 Review / check Detailed Engineering Designs and drawings, method statements, specifications, and activity schedules, carry out additional survey and investigation as required, as well as conduct any revisions deemed necessary and to obtain their approval by the PMU

1.3 Test all sections of each project site for hazardous material prior to dredging works. 1.4 Supervise the implementation of the works, including (but not limited to):

Dredging (including the separation of solid waste from dredge material, and their

transportation and disposal at approved landfill and Ancol CDF respectively), embankment and rehabilitation of canals, pumps, rack repairs and maintenance.

Provide assistance to the PMU for processing of payment requests made by the contractors as

required.

Maintain site records and prepare detailed monthly progress reports.

Prepare work as executed drawings and records, and operation manuals and hand over the

completed works to the PMU.

Prepare a Practical Completion and Outstanding Defects Report for each construction contract

supervised.

Prepare a Final Completion and Handover Report for each construction contract supervised.

1.5 Supervise and monitor the construction activities at the Ancol CDF site during project implementation, and at all its offsite locations such as the source locations for the sand and the laterite soils.

1.6 Provide PMU with technical assistance as needed from time to time. This may include the provision of support and advice to the PMU regarding implementation of Project works, particularly on the technical, overall planning and procurement aspects of the Project.

Environmental Management

1.7 Monitor (including preparation of quarterly RKL/RPL implementation report) and supervise the environmental protection measures undertaken to mitigate environmental impairment due to construction and disposal activities, consistent with

The Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (RKL/RPL) of each work site including

all disposal sites.

The Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) of the Project.

Resettlement Plans (RPs) 1.8 Supervise and support the implementation of Resettlement Plans (RPs), consistent with

The Resettlement Plan (RP) of each site where involuntary resettlement in required, including

RPs for linked activities, if any.

The Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) of the Project.

1.9 Provide technical and administration assistance in land acquisition and resettlement process Project Grievance Redress System (GRS) / Complaint Handling Mechanism

1.10 Develop and operate the project Grievance Redress System (GRS), which will include but will not be limited to administering complaints from Project Affected Persons (PAPs) in a systematic way on a day to day basis;

1.11 Update complaints on the website, informing those who complain on the status of their complaint as well as providing feedback or follow up actions;

1.12 Assist DKI in providing acceptable follow-up actions on complaints, ensuring that decisions are

made based on transparent, fair, independent, and accountable processes through Grievance Redress or Complaint Handling Advisory;

1.13 Provide recommendations to DKI Jakarta authorities on status of complaints, from the on-site unit through the provincial level processes.

Others 1.14 Monitor and report on any non-project activities at the project sites, and activities in project linked

sites and sites adjacent to the project. 1.15 Design, develop, and operate a web-based project communications and reporting system.

ii. Panel of Experts. A Panel of Experts (POE) consisting of three independent, internationally

recognized specialists will be mobilized to provide advice on all aspects of the project. It is

32

expected that the POE will be mobilized at the start of project implementation33

and fully

operating especially before the Phase 2 period begins. The specialists are expected to comprise

an environmental expert, an engineer experienced in dredging and dredge disposal, and an

urban resettlement expert. The POE‟s main responsibilities will include monitoring and

evaluating the preparation and implementation of various safeguards instruments (RPF, RPs,

EMPs and the grievance redress procedures) and advising the PMU on actions to be taken to

improve compliance. If required, the POE may be enlarged on a temporary or permanent basis

by the addition of specialists to provide expertise for specific, unplanned or critical issues or

needs, which may arise during project implementation. These additional experts, if any, may

be mobilized with terms of reference agreed among the PMU, the Bank, and the three initial

experts that will comprise of the POE. The POE will convene at regular intervals to review the

status of work in progress. However, special extraordinary meetings may also be called to

review particular critical stages of technical, environmental, and social activities. All POE

reports will be submitted to the PMU and through the PMU to the World Bank.

iii. Floods Management Information Systems (FMIS). The FMIS, when established as a

Government-owned and managed system, is expected to become an instrumental monitoring

and assessment tool for the Government with respect to floods management in Jakarta. As the

project is implemented, the works, changes, and upgrades to the floods management system

will be input into the FMIS. The FMIS will thereafter simulate and analyze the levels of

success of JUFMP structural works and to determine levels of achievement in flood mitigation.

This will provide the capability to analyze and document reductions in estimated annual costs.

iv. Support for DKI Jakarta. During the project preparation, the PMU has provided support by

hiring an environmental and social impact assessment consultant to initiate delineation of

PAPs, to carry out census and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), and to assist DKI Jakarta in

RPF consultation. During the project implementation stage, the PMU (through its SC) will

support the DKI in the establishment of field site office (POSKO) as part of the project‟s

Grievance Redress System (GRS), and providing technical support for the POSKO.

77. DKI Jakarta. Since DKI Jakarta is the institution responsible for social issues in the Jakarta

municipal area, it will be responsible for all social safeguards aspects of the project including project

related involuntary resettlement activities and the project grievance redress mechanisms34.

The

implementation of the social plans under JUFMP will be carried out by the appropriate agencies of DKI

Jakarta.

3.6.2 Institutional Arrangements (Disposal sites)

78. Due to the way the project has been structured and the legal arrangements entered into by each

party, the institutional and implementation arrangements for environmental management and supervision

are different for the project sites (i.e. the activities in Phase 1 and Phase 2) and for the Ancol CDF.

79. The overall institutional arrangements for the project disposal sites have been summarized in

Section 2.6 (see especially Figure 2-1).

33 Soon after the project loan agreement becomes effective. 34

The project grievance redress system in available for all project related complaints, including those related to involuntary resettlement.

33

80. PT. Pembangunan Jaya Ancol (PJA). PT. PJA is the developer and owner of the Ancol CDF.

It is responsible for building and operating the CDF in compliance with, inter alia, all Indonesia

environmental requirements. The Ancol CDF site is the fourth reclamation effort / phase for PT. PJA

within the context of the overall long term reclamation effort in the Ancol area of north Jakarta that

started in the early 1960‟s (see Section 2.6 for further details). PT. PJA has obtained approval of their

AMDAL and update RKL and RPL for the Ancol CDF from the provincial environmental agency

(BPLHD).

81. Bantar Gebang landfill facility and PPLi hazardous waste landfill. The institutional

arrangements for these facilities have been described in Section 2.6.

82. BPLHD. The Provincial of DKI Jakarta Environment Management Agency (DKI BPLHD) is the

provincial environment agency of DKI Jakarta with the responsibility of approving and enforcing the

AMDAL for all city wide (Jakarta) projects. Also, the Agency is responsible for monitoring the

implementation of the associated management plans. In implementation of AMDAL, the DKI BPLHD is

also supported by the city level (Municipal-Walikota). DKI BPLHD has already approved the AMDALs

for Phase 1 of this project and for the Ancol CDF.

3.7 Implementation Arrangements (Environmental Safeguards)

3.7.1 For the Phase 1 and Phase 2 works

83. During project implementation (i.e. during construction/dredging) for the project sites, the

primary responsibility for implementation of the RKL and RPLs as well as any additional environmental

and social impacts management provided in the supplementary reports discussed in Section 3.5.1 will be

that of the civil works and dredging contractors. The requirements of the RKLs and RPLs will be included

as part of the civil works and dredging contracts to ensure they are fully funded and that they can be

legally enforced. The civil works and dredging contractors would then be supervised for compliance

implementation of the measures in the RKLs and RPLs by the Supervision Consultant. The Supervision

Consultant will in turn report directly to the PMU. The PMU will hold both the Supervision Consultant

and the Civil Works/Dredging Contractors accountable for ensuring compliance with the approved RKL

and RPL requirements.

84. The World Bank will work through the PMU to undertake its own supervision for compliance

with its own environmental safeguards requirements which are also contained in the RKLs and RPLs. The

provincial level of environment agency BPLHD and the city level environmental agency, depending on

which part of city of Jakarta the works are located in, will also do compliance monitoring of the works for

compliance with national and sub national requirements.

3.7.2 For the disposal sites (Ancol CDF, Bantar Gebang and PPLi)

85. Ancol CDF. With regards the use by the project of the Ancol CDF as a dredge material

disposal site, the arrangements are slightly different due to the fact that the World Bank will not have a

direct legal relationship with PT. PJA. The Ancol CDF already has its own separate and stand alone RKL

and RPL approved by the provincial level environmental agency of DKI Jakarta (DKI BPLHD). These

comply with the national and sub-national requirements and the Ancol CDF‟s contractors are bound to

34

implement the Ancol CDF RKL and RPL under already stringent national laws and requirements. These

environmental requirements have been incorporated into the contracts of their civil works contractors who

at the time of the preparation of this project have started construction of the perimeter walls of the CDF.

PT. PJA through their Property Development Unit is supervising all aspects (including environment) of

the contracts. Additionally, PT. PJA have recruited a consulting firm that does quarterly compliance

monitoring of the ongoing construction works. PT. PJA, in compliance with the Indonesian AMDAL

requirements, is preparing and submitting to the DKI BPLHD quarterly implementation reports of the

RKL and RPL35

. These reports contain measures and actions taken by PT. PJA to implement the measures

contained in their approved RKL and RPL. These reports will also include the implementation of the

additional measures contained in the Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report. The quarterly

implementation reports will also be shared with the World Bank.

86. DKI BPLHD has already started monitoring the ongoing construction works at Ancol CDF and

will continue to do so throughout the Ancol CDF project period. During project preparation (at the

invitation of DKI BPLHD) the World Bank carried out joint supervision of ongoing works at the Ancol

CDF at that time36

. The World Bank will continue to work with the DKI BPLHD to do joint supervision

and site inspections of the Ancol CDF when the reclamation works is being filled with sediment material

from the project sites (works in Phase 1 and Phase 2). Any non-compliance issues that the World Bank

wishes to raise will thus be channeled to PT. PJA through the DKI BPLHD. The World Bank has carried

out a rapid assessment of the technical and financial capacity37

of the DKI BPLHD to adequately carry

out their responsibility for oversight monitoring of the Ancol CDF and is satisfied that the DKI BPLHD

has adequate technical and financial capacity and legal authority to enforce the RKL and RPL for the

Ancol CDF.

87. The following key provisions will be put in place in order to manage, monitor and supervise the

disposal of JUFMP dredge material at the Ancol CDF:

the World Bank‟s „no objection‟ to any given JUFMP dredging contract will only be given once

the World Bank is satisfied with the adequacy of the confined facility and has received

satisfactory evidence of PT. PJA„s compliance with the requirements of the AMDAL for Ancol

CDF, including all approved updates to the AMDAL;

DKI BPLHD will continue to include the Supervision Consultant (SC) and World Bank in its

ongoing supervision and monitoring (including site inspections) of the Ancol AMDAL and Ancol

Updated RKL and RPL, and share related supervision and monitoring reports with the SC and the

World Bank.

PT. PJA will allow the SC access to the Ancol CDF and all it offsite locations (including source

locations for the sand and laterite fill material) for the purposes of carrying out supervision of the

approved RKL and RPLs, the Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report, PT PJA‟s

quarterly RKL and RPL Progress reports and any other tasks related to the disposal of JUFMP

dredge material at Ancol CDF as specified in the terms of reference of the SC.

35

As of the end October 2010, PT. PJA had submitted all but one of the updated RKLs and RPLs to the provincial BPLHD. 36

The joint supervision with DKI BPLHD team took place on November 5, 2010. 37 The assessment includes a review of DKI BPLHD‟s organizational arrangements, staffing complements and qualifications, procedure for

document reviews and site inspections, as well as a review of the adequacy of its budget (which has increased steadily over the past five

years).

35

DKI Jakarta will exercise its rights as a shareholder to cause PT. PJA to implement the

requirements (including mitigation measures) stated in the AMDAL for Ancol CDF and Ancol

Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report.

88. Key implementation arrangements, including the processes and conditions governing the disposal

of project material at Ancol CDF, Bantar Gebang landfill facility and PPLi hazardous waste landfill, are

summarized in Table 3-3 below.

Table 3-3 Summary of Processes and Conditions Governing Disposal of Project Material Name of

Project

disposal

site

Category of Project

waste to be disposed

of at this facility

(and expected

volumes)

Process and conditions for disposal

Ancol CDF

Site, 119ha

Non Hazardous (non

B3) dredge material

(estimated total 3.4m3 over project period)

Prior to the signing of any dredging contracts, clearance

(including World Bank „no-objection‟) required. Clearance will

be given subject to confirmation that the Ancol CDF site has been constructed with adequate capacity to receive the dredge material

and in compliance with (i) the DKI BPHLD approved AMDAL,

and (ii) the approved Detailed Engineering Drawings.

Prior to dredging of any works section, samples will be obtained

and tested by Supervision Consultant for hazardous material.

Contractors are required to obtain Supervision Consultant‟s

(SC‟s) approval prior to dredging any works section. Clearance

will be given subject to confirmation from sample test on non-

presence of hazardous material.

Contractors responsible for transporting dredge material (after

separating solid waste – see below) to disposal site (transport plans to meet minimum traffic management plan requirements

and subject to Supervision Consultant (SC) approval).

Handover of material to PT. PJA for disposal at Ancol CDF

governed by cooperation agreement between DKI Jakarta and

PJA.

SC will supervise and monitor activities at Ancol CDF

Bantar

Gebang

Landfill

Solid Waste removed

from project sites

(estimated 95,000 m3

over project period)

Contractors responsible for separating solid wastes from dredge

material, subject to minimum size. (separation methodology

subject to Supervision Consultant approval)

Contractors responsible for transporting and disposing material at

disposal site (transport plans to meet minimum traffic

management plan requirements and subject to Supervision Consultant approval).

Handover of material to Bantar Gebang governed by disposal

procedure prevailing for all solid waste tipping at landfill –

necessary tipping fees to be paid by contractor.

SC will supervise and monitor project related activities at Bantar

Gebang Landfill.

36

PPLi Hazardous, B3,

dredged sediment

material (no B3

material expected as

indicated by sample

testing during project

preparation – site identification is

precautionary in

nature).

In the event that any section tested prior to dredging indicates the

presence of hazardous material, the Supervision Consultant will

not allow dredging to proceed and will inform relevant PIU and

PMU.

Subject to the approval of the provincial BPLHD, this material

will be dredged and transported to PPLi for safe disposal.

Dredging and transportation methods will be developed on a case-by-case basis according to specific requirements and subject

to MoE, PMU and World Bank prior approval.

SC will supervise and monitor disposal of JUFMP B3 material (if

any are found) at PPLi facility.

3.8 Implementation Arrangements (Social Safeguards)

89. Within the PIU of DKI Jakarta (PIU-DKI) there will be several working groups38

(Pokjas): (i)

Environmental and Social Working Group (ESWG), (ii) Project Management and Quality Assurance

Working Group, (iii) Monitoring and Reporting Working Group, and (iv) other Pokjas as necessary to

cover all activities required for JUFMP implementation. The ESWG will be responsible for the

preparation of RPs and ensure that they are implemented. The Project Management and Quality

Assurance Working Group will be responsible for reviewing the RPs and ensuring consistency with the

RPF. The Monitoring and Reporting Working Group will prepare the monthly reports on the status of

preparation and implementation of RPs to the Governor.

90. The respective mayor39

will coordinate the preparation and implementation of the RPs in his/her

respective area. Camats (heads of kecamatan) and lurahs (heads of villages) will be the main spearheads

of the preparation and implementation of the RPs on the ground. DKI Jakarta‟s Land Acquisition Team

(P2T) will carry out the operational tasks as set out in the approved RPs.

91. Although the Environmental and Social Working Group (ESWG) was formally established in late

2008, it has so far not been very active – in part due to the uncertainties presented by the fact that the

institutional arrangements and roles and responsibilities of the PIU working groups are confirmed in the

RPF, which until recently was itself under preparation. The preparations of the RPF and preliminary RPs

thus far have been supported by project preparation consultants retained by the PMU. Given the

finalization of the RPF (in May 2011), the ESWG and other PIU-DKI working groups are expected to

become active in taking over the day-to-day implementation of the social safeguards activities of the

project. Throughout the project implementation period, the Supervision Consultant will provide technical

support to the ESWG and the Project Management and Quality Assurance Working Group in carrying out

activities related to the preparation of RPs, resettlement management, quality assurance, etc. This

38

The Pokjas and their membership are established through Governor‟s Decree. The Governor Decree No. 1255/2008 (issued on September 5,

2008) on the establishment of PIU DKI Jakarta showed that there were three Working Groups (WGs) under it, i.e. WG for environment, WG for

Social Impact, and WG for Planning. On November 13, 2008, DKI Jakarta issued another Governor Decree (No. 1626/2008) for the

establishment of the Environmental and Social Working Group (ESWG) with clearer tasks related to environmental and social aspects of the

project. It was also meant to expedite the preparation of the RPF. DKI Jakarta is now drafting a new Decree on the re-establishment of PIU,

which will include the WGs mentioned in the paragraph above, which among others has the task to implement RPF and RPs 39

Administratively, DKI Jakarta is subdivided into five municipalities each of which is headed by a mayor (walikota)

37

Supervision Consultant will also be responsible to set up and manage the project Grievance Redress

System (GRS)40

.

92. Chapter 8 provides a more detailed discussion of the project approach to resettlement and

resettlement planning, further details of RPF and RP processes, procedures and implementation.

4 Relevant Environment and Social Baseline Data 93. The AMDALs for the project sites and for the Ancol CDF presented and analyzed extensive

baseline data on numerous relevant physical parameters in these areas of influence which included the

following:

Sediment Quality

Surface Water Quality

Biological Nutrients

Air temperature

Solar Radiation

Wind and Speed Direction

Air Quality

Noise levels

Topography

Soil geology

Flora and Fauna

Bathymetry

Socio-economic

94. The quantitative and qualitative impacts are determined from how and in what manner the

project‟s activities change the baseline conditions. Therefore, the summary of the extensive baseline data

presented here below is limited to the data that is most relevant to the project‟s most significant impacts

which are associated with the management and disposal of the dredged material. As the project‟s

significant impacts are related to pollution of the receiving bodies of the dredge material, the data

presented here below is limited therefore to the pollutant loads of the sediment material ( i.e. both soil and

water quality components of the sediment material).

4.1 Sediment Quality in JUFMP Sites

95. As project preparation evolved, three independent baseline studies of the quality of the sediment

material in the drains and canals in Jakarta were carried out at different time horizons assessing various

aspects including the adequacy of sampling and testing methodologies used, the test results, and the

adequacy of Indonesian requirements against various other international standards. The reviews were as

follows:

40

See description of the tasks and scope of the Supervision Consultant in section 3.6.1.

38

4.1.1 ERM41

2008

96. The ERM 2008 sediment quality study represents the first comprehensive and detailed primary

sediment quality study for Jakarta‟s drains and waduks, and supported much of the initial planning for the

JUFMP project including the Ancol Updated RKL / RPL and the JUFMP Phase 1 AMDAL. Sampling

covered all the Project sites (i.e. 15 sites) plus three others that were originally in the long list of potential

JUFMP projects but have subsequently been removed. The total number of analyzed composite samples

was 36 obtained from 180 sampling stations plus duplicate samples for quality assurance and quality

control. Collected samples were sent to an international accredited laboratory (i.e. ALS Bogor, Indonesia)

for physical and chemical analyses. Chemical parameters analyses were based on international best

practices technical guideline for dredged material characterization (London Convention 197242

; OSPAR

2004), covering heavy metals, total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAH), organo-chlorine pesticide (OCP), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and total organic matter

(TOM). In addition, toxicity characteristics leaching procedures (TCLP) based on USEPA SW 84643

was

also performed to determine the toxicity characteristic of the sediment. These results are summarized in

Table 4-1.

4.1.2 DHV 2008

97. In 2008 DKI Jakarta in association with DHV (with Dutch government donor funding undertook

some pilot dredging in Kali Mati, a minor drain within Jakarta (not part of the project). As part of this

study, a total of eight composite samples from nine sampling stations was sent out to an international

accredited laboratory (i.e. ALS Bogor) and were analyzed for all tests required under Indonesian

regulation for B3 (hazardous) waste identification, i.e. (i) physical test and screening (i.e. flammable,

corrosive, explosive, infectious (only for medical wastes), reactive) (ii) chemical test (total content

analyses and TCLP for both inorganic and organic pollutants); and (iii) biological test (Lethal dose 50 -

LD50). In addition, a composite sample from Kali Mati was also sent abroad to an international

accredited laboratory in the Netherlands (i.e. Eurofins) for the purpose of cross-check.

4.1.3 AMDAL for Phase 2 activities, sampling and analysis 2010

98. In 2010 a further set of primary sediment quality studies in proposed Phase 2 works was

undertaken as part of preparation of AMDALs for these Phase 2 works. The areas sampled also included

the three sites now excluded from the project. Composite samples (9 sub-samples each composite – 3

rows about 100-200m apart, three samples across each row) were collected considering both the location

of the ERM sampling and the current (as at time of sampling) physical limits of each sub-project area.

Analysis was by an accredited laboratory using local standard methodologies, concentrating on (i)

physical characteristics, (ii) total metals, (iii) TCLP metals and (iv) TCLP organics. Thus sediment

quality studies specific to Jakarta‟s drains and waduks were undertaken in 2008 and 2010 involving more

than 350 sub-samples compiled into a total of 70 samples for total content analyses (both metals and

organics) and leaching test using the USEPA Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP). These

results are summarized in Table 4-2.

41

The World Bank in 2008 commissioned ERM to carry out these tests. 42

http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D17020/1-DredgedMaterial.pdf 43

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/chap7.pdf

http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D17020/1-DredgedMaterial.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/chap7.pdf

39

4.1.4 Results and interpretation

99. The results and interpretation from all three studies were similar and are discussed in terms of:

TCLP testing. This is the definitive chemical test in Indonesia and elsewhere to establish whether

waste material is deemed hazardous or otherwise in terms of whether the extract contains levels

of organics and metals above specified “Regulatory Limit”. All samples from the three studies

met the standards.

TCLP organics. Again all samples from the three studies met Indonesian standards

Total metal analysis showed almost all samples met international “soil quality” screening levels

for almost all metals. Results are presented and discussed in more detail below.

Acute toxicity testing (conducted on the DHV samples) demonstrated that in terms of lethal dose

50 (LD50) the dredged sediment had a low toxicity, lower than the acute toxicity of table salt

(NaCl).

Table 4-1 ERM 2008 data considering relevant soil use screening levels (in mg/kg) Parameter Max Min US EPA

PRGs, R9,

Industrial

US EPA

PRGs, R9,

Residential

Dutch

Intervention

Values (DIV)

Korea (SEPA) NODGDMa

Screening

level

No§ Screening

level

No§ Intervention

level

No§ Screening

Level

No§ Screening

Level

No§

Arsenic (As) 23 2 55 0 50 0 70 0

Barium (Ba) 246 9 67000 0 5400 0 625 0

Cadmium (Cd) 14 4 450 0 37 0 12 1 30 0 10 2

Copper (Cu) 1080 6 41000 0 3100 0 190 2 500 1 270 1

Chromium

(Cr)

1260 27 450 1 210 3 380 1 370 1

Mercury (Hg) 3.17 0.02 310 0 23 0 10 0 40 0 1 3

Nickel (Ni) 161 6 20000 0 1600 0 210 0 400 0 52 4

Lead (Pb) 268 0 800 0 400 0 530 0 1000 0 220 2

Zinc (Zn) 701 38 100000 0 23000 0 720 0 2000 0 410 16

a Australian-New Zealand interim sediment screening levels for National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material (NODGDM).

§ Number of samples exceeding the standard

100. These reviews concluded that the sampling and testing methodologies meet international

standards and test results show that the samples lay within international standards, except the following:

Arsenic levels in all samples exceed the screening level standards for one EPA standards used to

screen pollutants in environmental media44

, although all samples comply with other international

screening levels of arsenic45

. Further assessments revealed that the US EPA standards is an

unsuitable comparator as it is derived based on health risks specifically of inorganic arsenic,

while the sample tests and the other international screening levels for arsenic were based on total arsenic levels. Comparisons with an earlier Jakarta Bay-wide sediment study also indicates that

the sample tests indicate arsenic levels occur naturally throughout the area and do not have

anthropogenic origins.

Forty percent of samples exceeded the interim Australian and New Zealand sediment screening

levels for zinc for ocean disposal, although all samples were below other soil screening levels for

zinc. This risk is mitigated by the disposal of the project dredge material in a confined disposal

facility, i.e. the Ancol CDF.

44

US EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) levels used to estimate contaminant concentrations in environmental media (soil, air

and water) that the EPA considers protective of humans (including sensitive groups), over a lifetime. 45

Soil Standard in South Korea stipulated in the Soil Environment Preservation Act (SEPA), DIV (Dutch Intervention Values), and Australia-

New Zealand National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material standards

40

About 2% of samples exceeds the screening level for one or two (but not all) of the international

standards for either one of chromium, cadmium or copper. This risk will be mitigated by the

introduction of a protocol for testing canal and drain sections prior to dredging of that section as an added precaution

46.

Table 4-2 Phase 2 AMDAL data (2010) considering relevant soil use screening levels (in mg/kg) Parameter Max Min US EPA PRGs,

R9, Industrial

US EPA

PRGs, R9,

Residential

Dutch

Intervention

Values (DIV)

Korea (SEPA) NODGDMa

Screening level

No§ Screening level

No§ Intervention level

No§ Screening level

No§ Screening Level

No§

Arsenic (As) 11.32 0.84 55 0 50 0 70 0

Silver (Ag) 0 0 5100 0 390 0 15 0 3.7 0

Boron (B) 3.68 0 100000 0 16000 0

Barium (Ba) 68.3 2.14 67000 0 5400 0 625 0

Cadmium (Cd) 10.04 0 450 0 37 0 12 0 30 0 10 2

Copper (Cu) 78.31 1.75 41000 0 3100 0 190 0 500 0 270 0

Chromium (Cr) 64.21 0.03 450 0 210 0 380 0 370 0

Mercury (Hg) 0 0 310 0 23 0 10 0 40 0 1 0

Nickel (Ni) 16.5 0 20000 0 1600 0 210 0 400 0 52 0

Lead (Pb) 96.35 1.2 800 0 400 0 530 0 1000 0 220 0

Selenium (Se) 0 0 5100 0 390 0 100 0

Zinc (Zn) 262.13 40.23 100000 0 23000 0 720 0 2000 0 410 0

a Australian-New Zealand interim sediment screening levels for National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material (NODGDM).

§ Number of samples exceeding the standard

101. The review of sediment quality assessments also considered the health risks posed by the arsenic

levels in the sediment. Results of acute toxicity level identified the sediment material as relatively

harmless (i.e. very high amount of sediment required to be ingested to produce a lethal dose).

Assessments of likely exposure pathways of construction workers to the sediment during the project as

well as likely exposure due to the future usage of the disposal site also concluded that the health risks are

low, particularly given the requirement in the AMDAL for Ancol CDF for the capping of the disposed

material with sand and clay.

4.2 Sediment Quality in Ancol

102. The result of the marine sediment quality measurement around the study area which was conducted by a national accredited laboratory, i.e. PT. Unilab Perdana is shown in Table 4-3. The Table

shows that the heavy metal content in the marine waters sediment around the Ancol study area is low and

still far below the TCLP Regulatory Limit of Government Regulation No. 19 Year 1999 jo. 85 Year 1999.

46

Such tests have not been previously practiced in Jakarta and a successful implementation of this protocol could serve to improve dredge

material management in the future. An outline of the protocol can be found in the “JEDI Sediment Quality Consolidated Report”

41

Table 4-3 Result of Marine Sediment Quality Measurement (by TCLP, USEPA) around the Study

Area

No. Parameter Unit Quality

Standard *)

Measurement

Result

1. Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 1.0 < 0.005

2. Total chromium (Cr) mg/L 5.0 < 0.05

3. Copper (Cu) mg/L 10.0 < 0.003

4. Iron (Fe) mg/L - < 0.001

5. Lead (Pb) mg/L 5.0 < 0.001

6. Manganese (Mn) mg/L - < 0.001

7. Mercury (Hg) mg/L 0.2 < 0.001

8. Nickel (Ni) mg/L - < 0.001

9. Zinc (Zn) mg/L 50.0 0.07 - < 0.008 Source: PT. Unilab Perdana (2004)

103. Sediment quality at eastern wall of Ancol CDF. Part of the eastern wall of the CDF was started

early in the construction phase to form part of a construction access/staging area for the construction of

the CDF as a whole. Given that this relatively small part of the eastern wall was constructed with

sediment material before the area was confined and given that this material will not be removed but will

form part of the permanent works, the World Bank requested that the material be tested. Core samples

were taken from the wall and tested and the results confirm that no hazardous substances are contained in

this material. The test results show consistency with the sediment quality test results from the Phase 1

AMDAL, and confirm the absence of hazardous (B3) material.

4.3 Water Quality in JUFMP Sites

104. Summarized here below in Table 4-4 are the water quality data for one of the drains, Cengkareng,

in the Phase 1 activities. Table 4-4 shows that, which is typical of the other drains in Phase 1 works as

well (not presented here) shows measurements of a number of parameters i.e. Chemical Oxygen Demand

(COD), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), oil and grease, detergent and organic substances at certain

sampling locations exceeded the standards prescribed by DKI Jakarta Governor Decree No. 582 of 1995.

105. Measurements of pH in all sampling locations showed values within the standards. This indicated

normal acidity levels. Microbiological analysis showed compliance with the standards by the 1995

Decree. The COD standard set by the 1995 Decree is 30 mg/L. The laboratory results showed that the

value in almost all sampling locations exceeded or was equal to the standard, except at the SCA47

1

Cengkareng Drain). The BOD values were still within the specified standards of 20 mg/L in almost all

sampling locations except at Waduk Melati and SSA-3 (Sentiong-Sunter River)48

. The analytical results

of organic matter contents indicated that the permanganates value was higher than the standard of 25

mg/L in almost all sampling locations. The high organic content may be caused by the accumulation of

domestic waste or other activities around the sampling location. The TSS (Total Suspended Solid) is one

of the water quality indicators associated with the physical appearance and turbidity. The suspended

material has adverse effects on water quality because it reduces the penetration of sunlight into the water

47

SCA are the locations along the drain or canal where the test samples were collected. 48

Data from Waduk Melati and SSA-3 (Sentiong-Sunter River) are not presented here but the highest BOD values at these locations of the drains

are 59mg/l at Waduk Melati and the highest value is 23mg/l.

42

body, increases water turbidity that limits organisms‟ growth. Turbidity is closely related to the

concentrations of suspended materials in the water. Suspended materials in the water are typically

composed of silt, clay and mud as natural inorganic materials or in the form of organic material floating

in the water as natural sources and waste resulted from human activities such as industrial activities,

agriculture, or household activities. The TSS analysis results in all sampling sites showed compliance

with the specified standards.

Table 4-4 Water Quality Analysis Results: Cengkareng Drain No PARAMETERS UNITS Standard *) SCA 1 SCA 2 SCA 3

A. Physical

1 Temperature (in situ) **) 0C Normal 30.6 30.0 28.2

2 Total Dissolved Solid (TDS) mg/L 200 90 107 179

3 Total Suspended Solid (TSS) **) mg/L 200 56 23 30

4 Conductivity (EC) µmhos/cm 1000 187 223 371

B. Chemical

1 Mercury (Hg) mg/L 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

2 Arsenic (As) mg/L 0.050 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

3 Boron (B) mg/L 1.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

4 Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 0.010 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003

5 Cobalt (Co) mg/L 0.020 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02

6 Chromium VI (Cr 6+) mg/L 0.050 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

7 Manganese (Mn) **) mg/L 1.0 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02

8 Sodium (Na) % 50.0 49.3 49.5 50.2

9 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (in situ) mg/L 3.0 3.8 3.4 2.8

10 pH (in situ) **) - 6.0-8.5 7.51 7.67 7.75

11 Selenium (Se) mg/L 0.050 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002

12 Zinc (Zn) mg/L 1.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01

13 Nickel (Ni) mg/L 0.10 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02

14 Sulphate (SO4) **) mg/L 100 18.8 19.2 27.2

15 Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) me/L 1.25-2.50 0.53 0.51 2.44

16 Copper (Cu) **) mg/L 0.10 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02

17 Lead (Pb) mg/L 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

18 Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) - 10.0-18.0 0.8 0.9 1.1

19 Oil and Grease mg/L None < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2

20 Detergent (MBAS) mg/L 0.50 0.10 0.06 0.07

21 Phosphate (PO4-P) **) mg/L 0.50 0.06 1.23 0.29

22 Permanganates (KMnO4) **) mg/L 25.0 13.4 14.9 17.3

23 BOD5 mg/L 20 8 9 11

24 COD **) mg/L 30 28 30 36

C. MICROBIOLOGY

1 e. coli No./100ml 4,000 70 4,600 1,500

2 Total Coliform No./100ml 20,000 2,400 11,000 1,500

Note of PT. UNILAB PERDANA analytical result: *) = DKI Jakarta Governor Decree No. 582 of 1995 concerning

Usage and Water Quality Standards for River/ Water Body and Wastewater in DKI Jakarta; **) = Parameter accredited

by KAN No. LP-195-IDN; < = less than; Sample collected on 12 November 2009.

4.4 Ancol Sea Water Quality

106. Based on Table 4-5, overall the marine waters in the study area are currently in reasonably good

condition. Nearly all of the measured physical, chemical and microbiological parameters are still below

the quality standard and in line with Decree of the Minister of Environment No. Kep-51/MENLH/2004

for Marine Biota designation.

43

Table 4-5 Result of Seawater Quality Measurement in the Study Area

No. Parameter Unit

Quality

Standard

*)

Measurement Result **)

AL-1 AL-2 AL-3 AL-4 AL-5 AL-6

A. PHYSICAL

1. Brightness (in

situ) Meter > 6 m 3.0 0.20 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0

2. Smell (in situ) - Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural

3. Turbidity NTU < 5 m 4 4 4 3 2 3

4. Suspended solids

(TSS) mg/L 20 12 16 8 8 6 8

5. Temperature (in

situ) oC

Natural

+3oC

32 32.9 32.0 31.8 31.7 31.8

6. Oil Film (in situ) - Nil Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative

7. Garbage (in situ) - Nil Negative Positive Positive Negative Negative Negative

B. CHEMICAL

1. pH (in situ) - 7 - 8.5 8.2 8.2 8.4 7.9 8.0 7.9

2. Salinity 0/00 Coral:34 32.0 33.1 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.2

3. Dissolved

oxidants (OD) in

situ

mg/L > 5 5.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.3

4. BOD mg/L 20 4.2 4.9 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.5

5. Total ammonia

(NH3-N) mg/L 0.3 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.05

6. Phosphate (PO4-

P) mg/L 0.015 0.02 0.02 0.02 < 0.0.1 < 0.0.1 < 0.0.1

7. Nitrate (NO3-N) mg/L 0.008 < 0.008 < 0.008 < 0.008 < 0.008 < 0.008 < 0.008

8. Cyanide (CN) mg/L 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

9. Sulfide (N2S) mg/L 0.01 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002

10. Phenol mg/L 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

11. Surfactant anion

(MBAS) mg/L 1.0 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.19

12. Oil & Grease mg/L 1.0 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2

13. Mercury (Hg) mg/L 0.001 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

14. Chromium VI

(Cr6+

) mg/L 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

15. Arsenic (As) mg/L 0.012 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002

16. Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 0.001 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

17. Copper (Cu) mg/L 0.008 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

18. Lead (Pb) mg/L 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

19. Zinc (Zn) mg/L 0.05 0.0326 0.0331 0.0329 0.0334 0.0330 0.0331

20. Nickel (Ni) mg/L 0.05 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002

C. MICRO-BIOLOGY

1. Coliform (total) MPN/

100ml Nil 0 0 0 0 0 0

2. Pathogenic

bacteria

Cell/

100ml Nil 0 0 0 0 0 0

Note: *) = Kep-51/MENLH/2004 (Marine Biota)

**) = Laboratory of PT. Unilab Perdana (August 2005)

AL1 = Project Site Western Coastline

AL2 = Project Site Central Coastline

AL3 = Project Site Eastern Coastline

AL4 = Western Coastline (+ 1000 M from the Coastline)

AL5 = Central Coastline (+ 1000 M from the Coastline)

AL6 = Eastern Coastline (+ 1000 M from the Coastline)

107. The parameters that exceed the quality standard include solid waste material at the AL-2 location

(project site Central coastline) and AL-3location (project site Eastern coastline) sites and phosphate at the

AL-1, AL-2 and AL-3 sites (Western, Central and Eastern coastlines respectively) which are found to be

slightly above the quality standard. The solid waste that is found in small quantity at the observation site

44

was generally generated by visitors who occasionally throw out garbage from their food and drinks into

the water. The phosphate may be generated by laundry that uses soap/ detergent. The result of the

seawater quality monitoring in the 2007-2008 period in the Eastern West Ancol water territory is shown

in Table 4-6 below.

Table 4-6 Result of Seawater Monitoring in the 2005-2008 period in the Ancol Marine Waters Parameter Year AL1 AL2 AL3 AL4 AL5 AL6

Turbidity (NTU) Aug 2005 4 4 4 3 2 3

Aug 2007 13 16 13 14 16 13

Apr-08 14 11 10 9 8 8

TSS (mg/L) Aug 2005 12 16 8 8 6 8

Aug 2007 7 5 5 5 6 4

Apr-08 14 10 9 12 8 10

pH Aug 2005 8,2 8,2 8,4 7,9 8 7,9

Aug 2007 7,6 7,49 7,7 7,53 7,53 7,62

Apr-08 7,9 7,92 7,93 7,99 7,93 7,97

108. Based on routine monitoring result in general it is evident that the current turbidity value of the

waters around the project site has exceeded the available quality standard (Decree of the Minister of

Environment No. Kep-51/MENLH/2004 (Marine Biota Quality Standard)). In the Ancol area, the fish

death phenomenon has occurred several times due to the red algae (red tide) blooming at certain times.

This is attributed to nutrient accumulation especially in the dry season. e

109. On the other hand, the result of seawater quality monitoring around the project site which was

conducted by the DKI BPLHD in the 2003-2004 period reveals the following:

Temperature ranging from 28.82 to 30.09oC.

Salinity ranging from 29.00 o/oo to 30.09

o/oo.

Brightness ranging from 1.5 meter to 3.0 meter.

Phenol ranging from < 0.001 mg/L to < 0.002 mg/L.

Oil and Grease ranging from < 0.2 to < 0.3.

Dissolved oxygen ranging from 3.5 mg/L to 4.5 mg/L.

Detergent ranging from 0.21 to 0.32 mg/L.

BOD ranging from 6.8 to 25.0 mg/L.

COD ranging from 33.7 to 46.3 mg/L.

Mercury ranging from undetected to < 0.005 mg/L.

Cadmium ranging from undetected to < 0.0005 mg/L.

Lead ranging from < 0.003 to < 0.005 mg/L.

110. In general, the result of DKI BPLHD monitoring for the 2003-2004 period indicates that the

seawater quality around the project site is still good.

111. The Air Quality, Noise and Seawater sampling sites are shown on Figure 4.3.

45

Figure 4-1 Air Quality, Noise and Seawater Sampling Site

4.5 Ancol Marine Biota

4.5.1 Plankton

112. Plankton constitutes a microorganism group drifting in the water bodies and unable to move

against the water current. Plankton is categorized into 2 groups, namely phytoplankton and

zooplankton. Phytoplankton has a role in the waters as the primary producer for water ecosystem due

to its major role as food (nutrient) provider for consumers (zooplankton, fish, etc.). Phytoplankton

found in the study area consisted of 44 types from 4 classes, namely Cyanophyta, Chrysophyta,

Chlorophyta and Pyrophyta with the diversity index rate between 3.4 and 3.8. The rate of diversity

index rate of phytoplankton in the study area was ranging from 0.82 to 0.90 indicating that it was

spread quite evenly and there was no type which was highly dominant. This is in line with the result of

examination of sea water quality in the study area which also indicated good condition. The

composition of zooplankton types in the study area waters consisted of 4 classes, namely Arthropoda,

Protozoa, Annelida and Protochordata. The diversity rate of Zooplankton types ranged between 3.0 and

3.3 with the rate of diversity index ranged between 0.90 and 0.94, indicating that it was spread quite

evenly and there was no type which was highly dominant.

4.5.2 Benthos

113. Benthos comprises all organisms living on or in the seabed. The role of benthos in the waters is

highly significant, among other things as decomposer of organic substances existing on or in the waters

and as biological indicator in the event of decrease in the quality of water ecosystem. Based on the

46

observation of benthos around the study area, there are two types of benthos, namely Annelida and

Mollusca. The diversity of benthos in the study area was classified as low up to moderate, with the

diversity index rate between 1.60 and 2.10, while the diversity index rate ranged between 0.70 and 0.85

(uneven and quite even spread).

4.6 Social Economic Baseline

4.6.1 Population

114. The Bank‟s task team conducted rapid (preliminary) social assessment in 2008 through field

visits, observations and unstructured interviews with selected community members along and nearby the

project sites. A more structured social assessment including potential social impacts was then undertaken

by the environmental and social impact assessment consultant teams hired by the PMU during 2009-2010

as part of the preparation of the AMDALs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 sites and RPs, respectively. The rapid

social assessment study and AMDAL for Phase 1 sites were done in the situation where Detailed

Engineering Designs (DEDs) were not yet prepared, and AMDAL of Phase 2 sites were carried out in

parallel with the DEDs preparation. In any case, social impact assessment for all sites were carried out

without confirmed project boundaries on the ground, and therefore the delineations of the impact areas of

each project site were based on the best possible professional assessment of the consultant team.

115. Administratively, the project sites are located in 57 kelurahans (urban villages) as part of 19

kecamatans (subdistricts) in four municipalities, i.e. North Jakarta, East Jakarta, Central Jakarta, and West

Jakarta. About 1.8 million people (Table 4-7) are living in these 57 kelurahans. Average density is 166

persons per Ha. Poor slum areas are mostly located in along West Banjir Canal, Pakin-Kali Besar-

Jelakeng, Upper-Sunter, and Krukut-Cideng. The population in linked sites is estimated at about 173,000.

4.6.2 Social-economic Characteristics of the Population

116. During the AMDAL process, socio-economic survey was carried out using a random sampling

method, as many as 487 peoples living in the administrative areas in which the 15 project sites are located

were interviewed. Not all responded to all of the 29 questions, and some information was not available.

However, the reports provide useful information on the social-economic characteristics of the people in

the areas where the project sites are located. Around 86% of the interviewees said that the project would

overcome flood and the rest believed that the project would create a clean environment. Around 62% of

the respondents have lived in the area for more than 10 years and more than 57% families consisted of 3-5

members. About 35% of families claimed that they are originally from DKI Jakarta, almost 90% of the

interviewees hold DKI Jakarta identity cards, while 2.3% hold DKI Jakarta seasonal identity cards. More

than 17% were renters and around 77% own their houses that they are occupying. About 80% of the

interviewees claimed that they do not have other houses. About 20% of the interviewees admitted that

they are living on government land. Further, slightly more than 70% of the structures are permanent. Only

about 12% of the interviewees work in formal sectors such as government employees and private sectors‟

employees. The remaining was working in primary sectors, labors, drivers, traders, etc. Some of them

have side jobs. About 73% of the interviewees claimed that their families earned less than US$330 per

month or about US$11 per day, or slightly more than US$2 per capita. About 11.5% earned less than

US$56 per family per month, which is far below the minimum regional wage for DKI Jakarta (2010), i.e.

USD130 per month.

47

Table 4-7 Populations of Areas where Project’s Floodways, Canals and Retention Basins are

Located Package Location Administrative Areas

Number

of Kecamatan

Number of

Kelurahan

Area

Population

Density

(person/Ha)

1

(DKI)

Ciliwung-Gunung Sahari Floodway 2 6 156,663 100

Waduk Melati (Kali Gresik & Cideng Hulu) 1 2 39,650 201

2a

(DGWR)

Cengkareng Floodway (including sea side) 4 7 251,312 91

2b

(DGWR)

Lower Sunter Floodway Note 1

2 6 230,742 204

3

(DGCK)

Cideng Thamrin Drain (Round Road drain) 3 6 92,668 190

4

(DKI)

Sentiong-Sunter Drain (including Ancol Canal) 4 9 277,610 192

Waduk Sunter Utara (Outlet drain) 1 2 78,383 282

Waduk Sunter Selatan 1 2 119,283 108

Waduk Sunter Timur III 1 2 70,696 305

5

(DGCK)

Tanjungan Drain 2 2 64,842 90

Lower Angke Drain 3 5 184,345 140

6

(DGWR)

West Banjir Canal (sea side) 1 2 65,027 390

Upper Sunter Floodway Note 1

1 4 130,630 215

7

(DKI)

Grogol – Sekretaris Drain 2 6 160,174 125

Pakin – Kali Besar – Jelakeng Drain 3 8 153,709 476

Krukut Cideng Drain Note 2

2 5 80,470 201

Krukut Lama Drain Note 2

Total 2,156,202 166

Total without overlapping kelurahans 1,794,096

Linked

Sites

Sentiong-Sunter Drain: Kali Item, Sunter

Kemayoran

1 3 21,445 184

Linked

Sites

Ciliwung-Gunung Sahari : Ancol Kp.

Bandan, Ancol Long Storage

1 1 17,378 46

Linked

Sites

Upper Sunter : Canal Along Jalan Kayu Putih

Timur

1 1 No data No data

Linked

Sites

Pakin-Kali Besar-Jelakeng : Anak K.

Ciliwung Utara, Jalan Tubagus Angke, PHB

Bandengan Utara, Waduk Pluit

2 8 134,381 89

Total 173,204 98 Note 1 For contracting purposes, the Sunter Floodways has been divided into two sub-packages – Upper Sunter Floodway and Lower

Sunter Floodway. Note 2 For contracting purposes, the Krukut Drain has been divided into two sub-packages – Krukut Cideng Drain and Krukut Lama

Drain

117. About 73 % of respondents admitted that they had experienced flooding in the area in the last 5

years; 16% claimed that they experience flooding each year. About 57% of the interviewees said that

flood water went into their houses. Furthermore, 41% of the interviewees claimed that the height of water

inside the house is about 20-50 cm; 50% said that water subsided more than 24 hours. Interestingly, about

68% of the respondents did not move out during the flooding. Only 6.2% of the interviewees claimed that

family members got sick after the flooding. About 53% of the interviewees claimed that they have water

supply from the PDAM (DKI Jakarta-owned water company), and 41% bought water from gallon and

vendors. Only 0.8% of interviewees admitted that they dispose their garbage to canals/waduks, but most

interviewees (64%) claimed that disposed their wastes into the garbage carts. Only 2.5% respondents said

that they did waste separation prior to disposing their garbage. It is interesting to note that almost 74% of

the interviewees claimed that the persons in charge of waste collection did not regularly collected the

garbage.

48

5 Summary of Potential Significant Environmental and Social

Impacts

5.1 Environmental Impacts associated with the JUFMP project activities

118. The project is expected to yield positive environmental outcomes, as discussed in Section 3.3.

The project implementation however, would also have potential negative impacts. With respect to the

assessment of these impacts, the AMDALs of Phase 1 (and Phase 2) has focused on (i) the dredging

activities and the impacts these would cause in the drains and canals, and (ii) the impacts associated with

removing, temporarily stockpiling, transporting to the entry points of the final disposal sites and any other

type of handling of the removed sediment material. For these impacts, the issues are briefly outlined in

Table 5-1 and discussed in subsequent subsections.

Table 5-1 Summary of Activities Causing Impact and Direct Impact

Location

Activities Causing

Impacts

Direct Impacts

Canals and Drains Dredging – removal of sediment

and solid waste from polluted canals and drains.

Operating Dredging Plant in

relatively confined and densely populated areas.

Handling, Placing and Transporting

Dredged Material to Final Disposal Sites.

Significant Noise pollution.

Significant Vibration Impacts.

Reduction in Air Quality from emissions of dust particles and foul odors.

Pollution of land and surface water receptors from leached material/pollutants from dredged material.

Public Health concerns associated with water and air

borne diseases.

Disruption of Traffic flows and patterns in already

congested and densely populated areas.

Increased Direct discharge immediately following

dredging into the estuary/North Jakarta bay from canals and drains due to increased flows and discharge rate increasing pollution of the bay area.

Improper sanitation management of Construction Camps.

Final Disposal Sites (Specifically with regards Ancol CDF)

Handling and Placing of Large Quantities of Dredged Material at final Disposal Sites.

Poor Air Quality from emissions of dust particles and foul odors affecting nearby communities.

Pollution of water and land receptors from leached

dredged material.

Public Health concerns affecting nearby communities

Changes in tidal and current patterns.

Sedimentation.

Disturbance of Sea Biota.

Degradation of Sea Water Quality

5.1.1 Significant traffic disruption.

119. The impacts on traffic are related to street closure due to mobilization of heavy equipment and

transport of dredged materials (solid waste and sediment). Furthermore, equipment mobilization can

cause disruption to road surface due to spillage and negligence. Serious traffic disruption resulting from

increased heavy construction vehicles and large trucks transporting sediment and solid waste material to

and from disposal sites, resulting in longer travel times for road users in already heavily congested roads

in highly densely populated areas, resulting in increased ambient noise levels affecting public facilities

like schools and places of worship, emission of exhaust pollutant gases and dust particles of including

Carbon monoxide (CO) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) resulting in reduced air quality. For instance, the

49

AMDAL for activities in the first year predicts that dredging activities at these sites will increase vehicle

rotation per hour, for 360 days, by 2-8 trucks per hour. To mitigate as much as possible against traffic

disruptions, appropriate Traffic Management Plans (TMPs) will be prepared and implemented, as

discussed in Section 7.2.

5.1.2 Reduced air quality and foul odors.

120. The impacts on air quality are due to equipment mobilization and operations of machineries and

heavy equipment, and the land transport using trucks from dredging locations to the Ancol CDF and other

disposal sites. Dredging and separating bulk refuse materials in Phase 1 sites are predicted to reduce air

quality and to increase odor level. Without proper management, the dredging materials may make the

environment surrounding the project locations unhygienic and cause stench. As the dredging locations are

mostly in densely populated areas (residential, trading, etc), the impacts on air quality and odor require

particular attention. The impact is of high intensity, affecting a large number of people and other

environmental components. However, the impacts are of short duration (during the dredging and

separating of bulk material) and there will only be limited impacts that are cumulative in nature.

121. Disruptions from noise levels are due to equipment mobilization and operations of machineries

and heavy equipment, and the land transport using trucks from dredging locations to the Ancol CDF and

other disposal sites. Dredging activities (dredging, sorting and stockpiling) are to be carried out during

day time, while transportation to the disposal sites will be done at night so as not to worsen the traffic

congestion but this would exacerbate the effects of the increased in noise levels. Existing measured

ambient noise levels during the day at the project levels already exceed acceptable standards and the

dredging works will likely increase these levels further causing higher noise intensity in the project areas.

The JUFMP contractors‟ Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) will include provisions for

consultations with the community to inform the community of works plans and discuss ways to minimize

unavoidable impacts, such as the temporary impact from the reduction in air quality and construction

noise.

5.1.3 Change of water discharge rate

122. The impacts on water discharge rate are due to dredging activities that will increase the capacities

of floodways/drainage canals and waduks, which consequently increase the discharge rate and reduce the

risk of flooding – a positive impact. In the post-project period, maintenance dredging will maintain the

holding capacities of floodways/drainage canals and waduks in order to continue reducing flood risk.

5.1.4 Change of surface water quality.

123. The impacts on water quality are due to dredging activities that will increase TSS content and

consequently may disturb water biota. However, dredging will impact water discharge rate of the dredged

floodways/drainage canals and waduks. The anticipated dredging volume of about 3.4 m3 will cause a

minimum of about 50% increase in each of the water bodies‟ capacity, which will consequently increase

water flows by about 50%. Therefore, the risk of flooding will be reduced. This will be a high-intensity

and long-term positive impact, and these positive impacts will not be limited to each project area.

5.1.5 Change of sea water quality

124. Changes to sea water quality are considered as a derivative impact of the change of water quality

upstream during dredging activities. Due to the nature of dredging activities, the surface water quality at

50

each location will be impacted in the form of TSS increase. Baseline TSS concentrations indicated

achievements of prescribed standard and the dredging activities may increase the TSS concentrations.

This could affect a large number of people and other environmental components. While this is

unavoidable, the impact is expected to occur at low intensity with a distribution limited to each project

location and is temporary and reversible.

5.1.6 Increase of solid waste

125. Potential impacts on solid waste are due to the dredging and transport of dredged materials which

may cause sediment and solid waste spills around the project locations. This could consequently impact

public health and lead to negative public perceptions of the dredging activities. Dredging and separating

bulk refuse materials in Phase 1 are predicted to increase solid waste. Without proper management, the

dredging materials may make the environment surrounding the project locations unhygienic and cause

stench. As the dredging locations are mostly in densely populated areas (residential, trading, etc), the

impacts on solid waste require particular attention. The impact is of high intensity, affecting a large

number of people and other environmental components. However, the impacts are of short duration

(during the dredging and separating of bulk material) and there will only be limited impacts that are

cumulative in nature. Mitigation actions include consultations with the community and the proper

transport of solid waste to disposal sites, adhering to the approved contractor‟s TMP.

5.1.7 Impact on Biota

126. Terrestrial Biota. Impacts on terrestrial vegetation may occur during land clearing prior to the

commencement of the dredging activities (to allow for workers and heavy equipment mobilization).

Based on the environmental baseline study, the tree species found in the project sites include banana,

mango, banyan, etc. No endemic or IUCN protected species was found. Once the dredging is completed

the areas will be rehabilitated.

127. Aquatic Biota. Impacts to aquatic biota include the removal of benthic biota and disturbance to

fish communities. However, the environmental baseline studies indicated that this impact is unlikely to

be significant. The existing condition of rivers and drains was already polluted. The only macro-benthic

organism found in the sites belonged to the Gastropod class (e.g. snails) which is known to survive in

polluted ecosystem. Meanwhile, the most dominant fish found in the sites was the suckermouth catfish

that can survive in conditions with almost no dissolved oxygen.

5.1.8 Impact on Public health and environmental sanitation

128. Impact on public health and environmental sanitation are due to dredging activities and transport

of dredged materials to the disposal sites. The impacts that will occur temporarily during the physical

work include the possibility of worsening the air quality (due to an increase of dust and odor) in

residential area within radius of ± 100m or dredging activities and along the transportation corridor.

Mitigation actions have been discussed in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 above.

5.2 JUFMP Project Impacts on Ancol CDF

129. Impacts associated with the disposal of the non hazardous sediment material once it enters the

gate at the Ancol CDF and how that is managed from this entry point to how it is finally disposed of in a

process which involves the final placing, compaction and capping of this material within the perimeters of

51

the 119 ha Ancol CDF is the subject of a separate standalone AMDAL (ANDAL/RKL/RPL) for Ancol

CDF prepared by PT. PJA the owner concessionaire of the Ancol CDF. The main impacts addressed in

the AMDAL for the Ancol CDF, which are all inter-related, are:

Changes in tidal and current patterns - The AMDAL estimates that the construction and operation

of the Ancol CDF will likely lead to only slight changes to the pattern of longshore current

around the project location. The result of hydrodynamic simulation conducted indicates that the

filing/reclamation of project area will not significantly change the pattern of the current. In

general, the dominant pattern of the current around the project location remains the same, namely

from Westward-Northwestward to Eastward-Northeastward. However, the velocity of the current

will decrease from 1.52 m/second to 1.45 m/second. In the eastern reclaimed island, the velocity

of the current slightly increases, while in the northwestern side, the current reduces speed. The

result of the hydrodynamic simulation of West Ancol Reclamation Plan conducted as part of the

AMDAL indicates the following; (i) There is no significant change in the pattern and velocity of

current before and after the reclamation. The current near the reclamation location slows down by

+ 5cm/second (insignificant). (ii) The sediment distribution modeling during the reclamation

indicates an increase of sediment content by 33 mg/L (insignificant) and (iii) The bathymetry

change modeling shows that the depth of water only changes a few centimeters (insignificant).

Sedimentation - Reclamation activity will lead to sedimentation as a result of disturbed natural

balance, particularly that related to the change in the pattern of longshore current. Meanwhile, the

construction of sea dike/breakwater will function as barriers of sea waves and minimize potential

abrasion and sedimentation in project area and its surroundings. The result of simulation of the

pattern of current after the reclamation activity indicates an increase in the current velocity in the

eastern reclaimed land. This means that abrasion potentially will occur in that location.

Meanwhile, sedimentation will occur in the northwest reclaimed island as the current in the

aforementioned location weakens. The impacts of abrasion and sedimentation will further affect

sea water quality and marine biota.

Degradation of Sea Water Quality - Filling/reclamation activity using sand, dredged sediment and

laterite will increase the turbidity and TSS in the surrounding water, potentially by up to 5 times

if compared to the pre-project (i.e. Ancol CDF) condition. There are also additional concerns that

the activities of the approximately 400 project construction workers will produce sewage that

may not be adequately managed and contained. At the end, these conditions will also affect the

life of marine biota, environmental esthetics, environmental sanitation and public perception of

the project. Disturbance of Sea Biota - Reduction in water quality due to increased sedimentation,

filling the reclamation area with sand and dredged sediment and construction camp solid waste

and sewage will potentially have a significant impact on marine biota. The anticipated impacts on

marine biota (plankton, benthos & nekton) constitute both direct and indirect impacts. The filling

activity will not only directly lead to the smothering of the marine biota habitat in the reclaimed

area, but also indirectly increase the turbidity and TSS in the water territory so as to hamper the

penetration of sunlight into the water and obstruct the photosynthesis process of phytoplankton

and reduce the content of dissolved oxygen in the water territory which will affect benthos and

nekton life.

52

5.3 Offsite Impacts from Ancol CDF

130. In addition to the 3.4 million m3 of dredged sediment material from this project, the construction

of the perimeter walls and the filling of Ancol CDF will require about 8.6 million m3 of sand. According

to the approved RKL and RPL, this sand is to be obtained from a marine source, in the Banten Area of the

coast from North Jakarta. This location where the sand will be obtained from already has an approved

Environmental Permit49

. The engineering design shows that the sediment material would form the bottom

most layer of the filled area, which will then be overlaid by the sand layer which will in turn be capped

with laterite soil material. The volume of laterite material required is estimated at 400,000m3 to be

obtained from land based sources near Bekasi, West Java that is also operating under environmental

permits.50

Thus, in order to manage reputational risk due to offsite impacts, it was agreed with the PT.

PJA that the JUFMP Supervision Consultant will involve in supervision and monitoring of the activities

at these offsite locations (for the sourcing of the sand and the laterite).

5.4 JUFMP Project Impacts on Bantar Gebang and PPLi facility

131. Impacts associated with the disposal of solid waste material in Bantar Gebang Landfill and

hazardous B3 sediment material (if any are found) in the PPLi facility are not the subject of any recent

AMDALs, as these sites are currently in existence and have been in use for many years and are deemed to

be operating under environmental permits. Notwithstanding this, the project impacts at these facilities

may include potentially and incrementally; leachate generation, uncontrolled methane generation and

emission, increased traffic volumes and congestion, generation of foul odors and further reduction in air

quality.

5.5 Social Impacts

5.5.1 PAPs Sites

132. The project is expected to yield positive social outcomes, as discussed in Section 3.4. The project

implementation however, would also have potential negative social impacts. Potential social impacts can

be categorized into resettlement-related (hereafter called PAPs sites) and non-resettlement related issues

(hereafter called non-PAPs sites). Preliminary census surveys were carried out at the project sites between

April and October 201051

. Since the detailed boundaries of the project work area had not yet been

finalized at the time, the preliminary census and consultations considered the likely potential impacted

areas. From the preliminary surveys, seven sites were identified to have potential resettlement that is

related to activities of dredging and/or embankment works52

. Initial data compilation from these

preliminary census surveys recorded 2,513 units of potential affected structures (as per January 2011),

which were occupied by 2,369 families, or 6,507 persons.

49

According to the approved RKL and RPL, the environment permits for the Banten marine area to provide sand are (i) Serang Regency Number

666/750/LKH dated April 13, 2005 issued to PT Gora Gahana and (ii) The Mining and Energy Central Amdal Commission Number

5038/0115/SJ.T/199 dated December 5, 1994 issued to PT SAC Nusantara. The permit allows the company to exploit about 10 million m3 of sand

from the area of 1,056 ha in the position of 5o 54‟ 47‟2‟‟ – 5

o 56‟ 12.2‟‟ South and 106

o 11‟ 39.9‟‟ – 106

o 17‟ 36.3‟‟ East

50 The Environmental Permits for the source of laterite soil will be reviewed by the Supervision Consultant.

51 A further census was also carried out between November 2010 and January 2011 at an additional site (Sentiong-Sunter drains) after a design

revision resulted in the identification of PAPs. 52

Sentiong-Sunter Drain, Waduk North Sunter, West Banjir Canal, Upper Sunter Floodway, Pakin-Kali Besar-Jelakeng Drain, Lower Angke

Drain, and Krukut-Cideng.

53

133. About 53% of families in the initially identified seven PAPs sites have lived there for more than

10 years, 66% held Jakarta identity cards, and 45% were living on non-permanent structures. About 82%

of the families work in informal sectors (labors, drivers, farmers, farmers/fishermen, traders/small

businesses and other jobs). About 13% families have built their structures on their own land, while the

remaining are occupying government land. About 82% own their structures and 8.5% are renters.

Information on the number of squatter landlords (both occupying and absentee), and encroachers are not

yet available. These categories will be reconfirmed during the update of the survey census. Geographical

distribution of affected structures and persons are concentrated in four of the seven sites, i.e., Upper

Sunter and West Banjir Canal (WBC), Kali Pakin-Kali Besar-Jelakeng and Krukut Cideng, representing

2,253 structures or almost 90% of the total affected structures involving close to 88% of PAPs. The

mostly densely populated sites are Krukut-Cideng and Pakin-Kali Besar-Jelakeng, while WBC and Upper

Sunter are the two sites that have largest numbers of impacted structures and PAPs. Both consist of 1,360

structures or 54% of the total affected structures involving 3,828 PAPs or almost 52% or the total PAPs.

134. Minimization of impacts. Significant efforts have been made to minimize the number of PAPs,

initially through careful selection of the scope of the project – balancing between selecting priority

sections of canals and waduks for flood mitigation impact and minimizing the potential PAPs. Following

the initial census surveys, further efforts have been made through an iterative process to adopt

engineering designs and selection of works methodology to minimize impact. Based on the latest detailed

engineering designs (DEDs) and field verification53

in April 2011, it is now estimated that six54

out of the

15 project sites will involve involuntary resettlement, and the number of affected structures have been

reduced from 2,513 units (occupied by 6,507 persons) to 1,109 units (occupied by 5,228 persons) – as

summarized in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2 Estimated Affected Structures and Persons at Project Sites Package Location Area

Population

Estimated

affected

structures

(May 2011)

Estimated

affected

persons

(May 2011)

1

(DKI)

Ciliwung-Gunung Sahari

Floodway

156,663 - -

Waduk Melati (Kali Gresik &

Cideng Hulu)

39,650 - -

2a

(DGWR)

Cengkareng Floodway (including

sea side)

251,312 - -

2b

(DGWR)

Lower Sunter Floodway Note 1

230,742 - -

3

(DGCK)

Cideng Thamrin Drain (Round

Road drain)

92,668 - -

4

(DKI)

Sentiong-Sunter Drain (including

Ancol Canal)

277,610 104 547

Waduk Sunter Utara (Outlet

drain)

78,383 42 165

Waduk Sunter Selatan 119,283 - -

Waduk Sunter Timur III 70,696 - -

5

(DGCK)

Tanjungan Drain 64,842 - -

Lower Angke Drain 184,345 - -

6

(DGWR)

West Banjir Canal (sea side) 65,027 593 2,838

Upper Sunter Floodway Note 1

130,630 63 368

53

Carried out by the project preparation consultants hired by the PMU. 54

By avoiding involuntary resettlement at the Lower Angke Drain site (see footnote 52 for initial list).

54

7

(DKI)

Grogol – Sekretaris Drain 160,174 - -

Pakin – Kali Besar – Jelakeng

Drain

153,709 127 481

Krukut Cideng Drain Note 2

80,470 180 829

Krukut Lama Drain Note 2

Total 2,156,202 1,109 5,228

Total without overlapping

kelurahans

1,794,096

135. Project linked sites. As discussed in Section 2.3, project linked sites were identified based on

hydraulic and direct physical linkages to JUFMP sites. DKI Jakarta currently has no specific plans for

rehabilitation works at these linked sites. However, DKI Jakarta will apply the requirements of OP 4.12

in the event that linked activities are carried out in the linked sites55

. Since there are no specific plans for

the linked sites, it is not possible to determine the number of affected persons at this time. Based on a

rapid survey carried out in 200956

, a rough estimate of the structures that could be affected is 8,150 (90%

of which is in a single linked site i.e., Waduk Pluit). This should be considered a hypothetical maximum

– the number of affected structures would be smaller once impact minimization consideration is taken

into account in designs, and especially if Waduk Pluit is not included.

136. Maintenance works. It is understood that DKI Jakarta has done and will continue to have

maintenance activities in the project linked sites, i.e., clean up garbage on the water bodies and fixing

some parts of the embankments as necessary. So far, DKI Jakarta has always avoided damage or the need

to relocate structures during the maintenance activities by using appropriate equipments and avoiding

areas where structures are present. For example, it was reported that in 2010 that two linked sites, i.e.,

Tubagus Angke and Anak K. Ciliwung Utara, were maintenance dredged with backhoe and manual

equipment in selected sections to avoid any impacts on overhanging structures.

5.5.2 Non-PAPs sites

137. Currently, nine out of the 15 project sites are designated non-PAP sites - as summarized in Table

5-2. However, at four sites, i.e. Cengkareng drain, Lower Sunter floodway, Ciliwung-Gunung Sahari

floodway, and Grogol-Sekretaris drain, there would be impacts on the operators and owners of 19

crossing boats during the construction. Potential social impacts of dredging and embankment

rehabilitation at the project sites would mostly occur during construction, such as disturbances during the

mobilization of heavy equipments and transportation of the sludge materials to the disposal sites

(including solid wastes); noise; odor; heavy traffic, and traffic accident; damage to local roads; potential

temporary loss of income for boat scavengers who pick garbage from canals, and for operators and

owners of crossing boats57

. As the impact would be temporary on a relatively small number of boat

operators/owners in each of the above-mentioned canals, DKI Jakarta will carry out intensive

consultations with them to find practical solutions during construction so that they will be able to the

extent possible continue their activities. Prior to the start of construction, DKI Jakarta will carry out

55

Linked activities as defined by the criteria for identifying linked sites in OP 4.12. 56

Two linked sites, i.e. Canal along Kayu Putih Timur and North Ciliwung were not covered in these surveys. 57 Boat operators are not expected to require resettlement. Dredging contractors will enter into discussions to arrive at mutually agreeable

arrangements for the dredging schedule to avoid as much as possible disturbance to the operators‟ activities. Opportunities for employment at

the dredging works will also be discussed.

55

verification field survey, to reconfirm that the non-PAPs sites remain free from PAPs within the

subproject impact areas.

5.5.3 Potential non-resettlement related social impacts. 138. Potential social impacts that are not related to resettlement were identified during the AMDALs

consultations and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) - see Chapter 9 for details of consultations. One of

the main issue that arose during the consultations relates to the “perception and concerns” of communities

on the project impacts. Communities were worried if the project required them to relocate, and if so, they

were anxious to be properly compensated. This was perhaps because most of them are poor squatters, and

DKI Jakarta has in the past relocated or evicted squatters without compensation or only with a small

amount of social grants (see box at the end of this chapter for a discussion of recent eviction practices in

Jakarta). Communities were also worried that they may not be properly consulted, well-informed prior to

construction, and cannot communicate their complaints, aspirations and suggestions during construction

to the project management and contractors. Communities expected that the project will employ them

during construction, to participate in the garbage selection activities to obtain wastes that have economic

value. In almost all project sites, the AMDALs studies indicated that constructions would only be able to

provide small number of jobs compared to the number of the potentially available workforce in the

community. For instance, in the waduks of North Sunter, East Sunter III, and South Sunter, it was

estimated that the project would provide 294 low-paying jobs (labor) for 12 months, which is about 6.5%

of the workforce58

. For Upper Sunter, it was estimated that the project would only increase the total

available employment opportunities by 0.024%. The study anticipated that contractors would bring

skilled workers from outside the area that will operate high-technology dredging equipment. Further,

communities were concerned that during construction their living environment will be disturbed and

damaged by the improper management of temporary disposal and transportation of dredged materials,

causing inconvenience due to damaged local roads, dusts, bad odors, dredged materials spillages,

increased traffic congestion, and noise from the equipments and trucks.

5.5.4 Evictions during the period of JUFMP Project Preparation. 139. During project preparation, at least five major evictions had taken place in areas adjacent to the

JUFMP project sites, i.e. Taman BMW, Kemiri, Tambora VI and VIII, and Priok, for several reasons that

were apparently not related to the project. Taman BMW was a potential candidate for the project‟s

disposal site but was not chosen due to technical considerations. Eviction in Taman BMW took place in

2008 due to DKI Jakarta‟s plan to build a sport stadium. The Priok eviction, located about 1 km north-

west of the mouth of Lower Sunter Floodway, was related to the relocation of a cemetery that was

believed to have cultural and spiritual value. The Kemiri, Tambora VI and Tambora VIII locations are

adjacent to the project sites. The evictions took place for traders conducting activities along the inspection

road shoulder of Cengkareng drain nearby the Kemiri market, and along the shoulders of Tambora VI and

VIII roads (associated with project‟s Pakin-Kali Besar-Jelakeng site). Evictions in these sites have been

long planned by the Municipality of West Jakarta. Evictions were carried out after a lengthy consultation

processes between the traders and the West Jakarta Municipal Government on the options of relocation

sites, but unfortunately, failed to reach agreement on relocation. The forced eviction outside Kemiri

58

The report did not provide clear information whether the total workforce used in the analysis consisted only of fully unemployed workforce, or

included partially unemployed workforce.

56

market of informal traders who were doing businesses along the roads on the side of the riverbanks

(initial plan was in 2007, actual eviction took place in December 2008) was due to traffic congestions and

complains by tenants of the formal Kemiri market against the informal traders along the shoulder of the

inspection road that were more easily accessible by customer. The eviction at Tambora VI (initial plan

was in September 2007, actual eviction in December 2008) took place to enforce public order control for

illegal businesses, and restore the function of the riverbanks and road shoulder to their original conditions.

The eviction at Tambora VIII in February 2009 occurred after the annual permits for traders expired and

for reducing traffic congestion.

140. Considering the proximity of the Kemiri, Tambora VI and Tambora VIII locations to JUFMP

sites, the West Jakarta Municipality (with support from the Bank) undertook Tracer Studies59

to assess

impacts of the evictions and potential linkages to the JUFMP. The Bank‟s team made field visits and

discussed the possible remedial actions with the West Jakarta Municipality for the returned evictees. They

claimed that they had offered alternative relocation sites prior to eviction and the offers are still valid after

the eviction (when the tracer studies were carried out), but traders/vendors did not want to move to the

offered sites. Based on documentary evidence and interviews carried out at these sites after the evictions,

the studies confirmed that these eviction processes had started significantly before the commencement of

the JUFMP discussions with the Government, and the reasons for eviction were unconnected to JUFMP.

Annex 3 presents the more detailed summary of the tracer studies.

Box: Evictions in Jakarta

Historical development of evictions Eviction has been a long-standing policy and practice of DKI Jakarta government in repossessing government land mainly for the development of projects in the public interests. The implementation of evictions has evolved over time with the trend that illegal occupiers are getting better treated with more humane approaches. During the New Order (Suharto) Era, evictions had been implemented in more violent ways, whereby consultations with the illegal occupiers were not done, and no compensation was provided. Even

during the tenure of the former Jakarta Governor, heavy extortion and violent methods were prevalent. Today, instructions to evict are given on the grounds of public order by employing Local Government Regulation no. 8 of 2007. Evictions are requested by various actors, e.g. the Railway Corporation for clearing railroads, the Public Works Office for protecting roads and waterways, Governors or Mayor‟s office seeking public order, public parks/spaces, greenings, better traffic management, or simply responding to community complaints. The Province approves an eviction and the Municipality is responsible for implementation, employing the Public Safety Office (Trantib) to carry out such public orders. Evolution of eviction practices

Recent evictions have involved some degree of consultations, better warnings (at least three notifications prior to the date of the eviction), the promotion of self-dismantlement of structures (to salvage reusable components), some amount of compensation, and in some cases, resettlement packages. The packages offer a range of options depending on the location and characteristics of the community, e.g.: (i) subsidized relocation to a selection of formalized markets that include 6 months free rent for traders; (ii) „social grant‟ (uang kerohiman) packages that cover resettlement costs, or transportation costs to return to home villages, or compensation for structures (ranging in between US$50-110); and in some cases, (iii) low cost subsidized

public housing, as well as in some exceptional cases, (iv) skills training. If evictions were planned at locations that were previously cleared, forced evictions were conducted without any compensation. Concerns on evictions relate to the management and protection of the cleared sites from reoccupation, and DKI Jakarta has no data base system that can track those already compensated who may have moved to other public land.

59

The tracer studies reports i.e., “Tracer Study at Tambora VI and Tambora VIII” and “Case Study Eviction Cengkareng Drain Inspection Road”

are available in project files.

57

6 Analysis of Alternatives

6.1 The “do nothing” option

141. At a strategic level, the “do nothing” option is to allow flooding and its adverse effects to

continue and to worsen. Clearly this is not acceptable. Specifically in relation to the proposed JUFMP

project, the “do nothing” alternative essentially means worsening the situation of clogged drainage

channels and socio-economic effects of frequent flooding. This is not a situation favored by the GoI, DKI

and by the affected communities. Additionally, the sediment in the waterways would continue to get

flushed in an uncontrolled manner to Jakarta Bay.

6.2 Overall Alternative Analysis

142. In both AMDALs for the Phase 1 and for the Ancol CDF works, the analysis of alternatives

focused on alternatives for mitigation or other impact management approaches. For example, with respect

to the Phase 1 AMDAL, various mechanical dredging options and methodologies to reduce impacts

associated with these types of activities were considered and with respect to the Ancol CDF AMDAL,

various options for fill material and their sources were considered and evaluated. Whereas, with respect to

the broader strategic options for disposal of the dredged sediment material, the World Bank, DKI Jakarta

and PMU teams considered multiple options and alternatives based on sediment test results, past

experiences, technical and financial reasons and opportunistic project development works, as part of the

decision making process that led to the selection of the Ancol CDF as the final disposal site for non

hazardous material. For instance, during past dredging operations, excavated material was usually

dumped on any vacant land owned by DKI (Jakarta Provincial Government). In some cases sediments are

placed on embankments and not otherwise disposed of, which results in sludge returning to waterways.

The JUFMP provides the first opportunity for DKI Jakarta and the Government of Indonesia (GOI) to

coordinate and dispose dredged materials in a defined and managed disposal area, and to introduce best-

practice management principles. GOI assessed several disposal sites and management alternatives.

Initially DKI proposed several land based sites that were available, scattered throughout the city:

Taman BMW – large site with many informal communities that were evicted60

; very visible along

the toll road

Under Toll Road (Pluit Karang) – located on the toll interchange, very visible and poses

concerns about the aesthetic and odor aspects if utilized as a disposal site; many informal

communities with fisheries and banana plantations

Kamal Muara – very small location with nearby industry and housing (open lot)

Kapuk Muara – already converted into a housing development

Pluit – small location; next to fisheries

Rorotan – being utilized as a temporary solid waste disposal area along the river and near

industrial activities

Cakung – next to Rorotan (above); a small lot next to industrial areas

60

For reasons unrelated to the project – see box at the end of Chapter 5.

58

143. The World Bank inspected and assessed the suitability of each proposed disposal site. These

proposed sites were rejected due to their minimal disposal capacity, resettlement issues, aesthetic and

odor issues, and supervision difficulties. Three sea-based disposal locations were also considered at

Muara Kali Adem (MKA), Marunda, and Ancol. The MKA is located next to the West Banjir Canal but

the access road to the site is very limited and frequent traffic congestion is observed. Marunda which is

located at the edge of East Jakarta was not selected because the spatial plan of the area. The site at Ancol

was strategically chosen for its accelerated preparedness, size and capacity (capable of receiving almost

three times the dredged materials of the Project, or approximately 12 million m3), and central location

along the coast of Jakarta Bay. It is also important to note that the Ancol site also had the advantage that it

was already an approved ongoing reclamation project. The utilization of the Ancol site is considered a

„win-win‟ scenario. The other two sea-based locations considered would have had to be constructed, at

considerable costs and with the effect of displacing more near-shore area with additional environmental

impacts. At the same time, the utilization of non-hazardous dredge material for the Ancol site

reclamation will reduce the negative impact from use of other material (sand) to be sourced from quarries.

144. Developing the Ancol area is part of DKI‟s greater spatial planning and the DKI BPLHD has

approved the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA, or AMDAL). The site provides ease of access

from the river mouths of the city. Plans for developing sea-based disposal facilities at MKA and Marunda

were deemed unnecessary due to the large capacity inherent at Ancol. The Government also stated that

the proposed disposal locations at MKA and Marunda potentially conflict with spatial plans on

reclamation that would require review.

6.3 Specific Alternative Analyses

6.3.1 Catchment wide vs. local flood management

145. For the purposes of this subsection major flood management refers to very major activity such as

construction of new major diversions to reduce flooding in the urban area from middle and upper

catchment rainfall. Local flood management refers to actions that can be undertaken at the local level to

enhance efficient delivery of local rainfall to local channels / drains and thence to the sea. While there

may be debate on the relative priorities, there is common agreement that the two options are not mutually

exclusive - both are required as part of an integrated package. JUFMP is based on the lower part of the

catchment. While focusing mostly on local flood management, JUFMP project activities will increase the

ability of already established but underperforming floodways to more effectively transfer upper

catchment-derived floods to the sea.

6.3.2 Engineering vs. non-engineering approach

146. Engineering-works for the purposes of this subsection are defined as normal engineering

construction and operation projects such as improving flow carrying capacity of drains, pumps, barriers /

sea walls. The non-engineering approach by contrast addresses such aspects as changing people‟s

behavior (e.g., preventing deposition of solid waste into the waterways) and land use planning and

implementation to move people away from flood-prone areas. JUFMP‟s focus is on the engineering

approach that will yield immediate benefits. However, this would support the much broader non-

engineering approach and opportunities are being undertaken through JUFMP to highlight the broader

59

issues. For example, management of solid waste at and immediately around the dredging sites will

demonstrate the benefits of appropriate solid waste management, thereby setting practical examples of

what can be achieved.

6.3.3 Choice of dredging sites

147. JUFMP hydraulic simulation studies have recommended the rehabilitation of the city‟s floods

management system to its original design capacity and a routine maintenance system as the most

beneficial first step for flood mitigation in Jakarta. The sections of the Jakarta flood management system

included in the project have been identified by the Government as in priority need of urgent rehabilitation

and improvement in flow capacities. Prioritization was made based on previous studies under the

Western Java Environmental Management Project61

(WJEMP) and various earlier studies on flood control

and flood mitigation in Jakarta area. The Project scoping also took into account the inclusion of all

responsible institutions as a means to encourage and establish the required long term sustained routine

maintenance system. The Project is expected to have important beneficial demonstration effects in terms

of institutional coordination, dredging technology and methods, disposal of dredge material, and sound

environmental and equitable resettlement practices. As such, the technical, environmental and social

complexities of works were also taken into account in project scoping and implementation sequencing in

order to increase the likelihood of success.

6.3.4 Dredging technology: Mechanical vs. Hydraulic

148. Dredging technologies can be broadly grouped as the back-hoe / clam shell type and the suction

dredging (with or without cutter heads). Suction dredging was not pursued as it is incompatible with the

significant amount of solid waste in the sediment of the waterways. Pontoon-based back-hoes are the

preferred technology as the majority of construction activity can be restricted to the waterway itself,

rather than having to disturb a wide strip along the length of the waterway being dredged.

6.3.5 Solid Waste Separation

149. Separation of the solid wastes from the dredged sediment was considered in terms of the amount

of material to be separated, use of mechanical or manual sorting and the location of any sorting. Only

large sized waste item from the dredged sediment will be sorted and removed. Examination of previous

filling of other areas with dredged sediment determined that this is adequate and the disposal methods and

post-filling land use would not be constrained. Sorting at the dredging sites themselves is preferred as it

limits the potential congestion at the Ancol CDF, offers the potential for temporary local employment and

integrates with other activities to keep the dredging sites and immediate surroundings “clean and tidy”

during dredging.

150. Mechanical separation was tested but would need to be located at the Ancol site. The nature of

the material, need for supplementary water and operational difficulties demonstrated no advantage for

mechanical separation. Thus the proposed method of manual separation of only large sized items (and

possibly optional separation of smaller items that can be recycled) at the dredging sites has been adopted.

Jakarta‟s only currently operational general landfill at Bantar Gebang offers the only reasonable and

secure disposal site for solid waste material.

61

World Bank-financed Western Java Environmental Management Project (Project ID P040528), which closed June 30, 2006.

60

6.3.6 Transport options: Land based (dump truck) vs. hydraulic

151. Transport considered three main options – hydraulic (pumping), barge and truck, integrating these

with dredging technologies and with the chosen disposal site. Pumping was considered inappropriate

since the amount of solid waste would likely cause blockages. This would significantly affect any

dredging program. Barge transport would not be feasible in most locations because of the bridges and

bottlenecks over the drains preventing access to the sea; however, this may be a contractor-preferred

method for the lower portions of the larger waterways. Truck transport is therefore the only alternative for

the majority of sites and hence is chosen, with the assumption that it will be used everywhere representing

a potential worst case situation with regard to traffic effects.

7 Environmental Management Plans

7.1 Overall Environmental Management and Monitoring Plans

152. The Environmental Management Plan (RKL) and the Environmental Monitoring Plan (RPL)

under the Indonesian AMDAL (EIA) system, together constitute the Environmental Management Plan

(EMP) requirement under the World Bank Environmental Assessment OP4.01 Annex C. The RKL and

RPL for the Phase 1 project sites and for the Ancol CDF have been approved as part of the AMDAL

approval process (see Section 3.5). Under the Indonesia AMDAL system, quarterly implementation

reports of the RKL and RPL for both the Project sites (i.e. Phase 1 and Phase 2 works) and the Ancol

CDF will be have to be prepared and submitted to the provincial BPLHD during the construction period.

These reports form the basis for oversight monitoring of the works by the DKI BPLHD. They also offer a

tangible opportunity to report back to the DKI BPLHD on any changes in the project scope and details

since the AMDAL was reviewed and approved and also on compliance during construction with the

implementation of the approved mitigation and monitoring measures in the works.

153. Under this project, the Phase 1 and Phase 2 RKLs and RPLs including additional environmental

and social impact management provided in the supplementary reports discussed in Section 3.5.1 will be

incorporated into the dredging and civil works bidding documents to ensure that all potential contractors

are able to price for them62

and that the plans become part of the suite of legally binding civil works

contract documents63

. The RKLs and RPLs and the other contract documents such as the detailed design

engineering drawings, technical specifications for works, etc., together contain all the required elements

such as the corresponding mitigation measures for each of the identified impacts for each stage of the

works, the responsibilities for implementing and for monitoring these, the monitoring indicators, and the

costs for ensuring these are all implemented. Meanwhile, the responsibility for pre-dredge sediment

testing (as part of the projects overall testing protocol for determining hazardous material and thereby

ensuring that only non-hazardous material is transported and disposed of at the Ancol CDF) has been

included in the Terms of Reference of the SC.

154. Once project construction works start, the quarterly implementation reports for the associated

RKLs and RPLs will be prepared by the dredging and works contractors jointly with the SC. These will

be reviewed and cleared by the PMU and the World Bank prior to submission to BPLHD. The

preparation and submission of quarterly implementation reports for the RKL and RPL of Ancol CDF are

62 The overall estimated project budget for the implementation of these environmental measures is about US$1.9 million. 63

Note the similar arrangements for Ancol CDF where PT. PJA has incorporated the RKL and RPL requirements for Ancol CFD into their

construction contracts – see Chapter 3, Section 3.7.2.

61

ongoing (see Chapter 3, Section 3.7.2 for a description of the arrangements for Ancol CDF, including

their preparation, review and submission).

7.2 Traffic Management Plans

155. The dredging and construction contractors are also required to prepare and implement Traffic

Management Plans (TMPs), which are subject to the approval and supervision of the SC64

. Detailed

contract specific TMPs is to be prepared by each contractor for their specific operating fleet. These

contract specific TMPs, will be guided by the overall project level Generic Traffic Management Plan

(GTMP) that has been prepared by the PMU during project preparation. The GTMP have been developed

for the JUFMP Phase 1 sites taking into account the following65

:

The project-required truck movement of dredged material from dredging sites to the Ancol (for

the disposal of dredge material), the PPLi disposal sites (for the disposal of hazardous material if

any are found), and to Bantar Gebang (for the disposal of solid waste).

The identified possible routes and road networks (with GPS system attached).

The standard city regulations associated with:

o Transport truck movement around the city including route designation and restricted

hours of operation.

o Certification addressing emissions and safety of the vehicles.

o Traffic management / safety / signage etc. at loading / unloading areas.

The requirement for approval of the detailed implementation TMPs.

The concerns expressed during current project community consultation related to “community

disturbance” (an all encompassing term), “site access and congestion” and preventing “spillage of

material” along transport routes and at loading points.

The need for on-going community consultation and ANDAL, RKL and RPL requirements.

156. A separate detailed Ancol site TMP is being developed for the immediate area of the Ancol CDF

site by PT. PJA and will be linked and coordinated into the specific Phase 1 site TMPs. The unloading of

sediment material and solid waste all occur within the disposal sites. The Ancol updated RKL / RPL

specifically requires vehicle washing of every truck before leaving the disposal site to prevent dirt being

deposited onto public roads. Calculations indicate no traffic congestion on public roads associated with

the Phase 1 truck movements. Moreover, it is noted that Ancol has experience of traffic management from

other projects, including having a detailed system of “holding” trucks away from areas where congestion

might be occurring under abnormal conditions.

8 Resettlement Planning

8.1 Approach for Social Impact Management

157. The key project social safeguards instruments consist of (i) a Resettlement Policy Framework

(RPF), and (ii) specific Resettlement Plans (RPs) for each project site where Project Affected Persons

(PAPs) are found. The rationale of this approach, including a sequenced approach for implementation

64

During bidding, bidders are required to prepare preliminary Traffic Management Plans as a part of their technical proposal. Final Traffic

Management Plans are prepared by the winning contractors prior to the start of work. 65 These criteria are included in the JUFMP Phase 1 Supplementary Report, which in turn is included in the works bidding documents.

62

risk management, adaptation to a constantly changing urban setting, and the timing of the disclosure of

various social safeguards documents have been discussed earlier (see sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3).

158. The key principles adopted by the project for social impact management were as follows:

First, both resettlement and non-resettlement related social impacts are avoided or minimized (if

avoidance is not possible). This is done through limiting works to priority sections, careful

selection of dredging approaches and equipment technology, and detailed engineering designs

(DEDs) geared towards minimizing impact. The potential social impact of the project, including a

discussion of the efforts to minimize impact, is described in Section 5.5.

Second, the project will be implemented in two phases (see Section 2.4). It is designed to proceed

first with construction in the sites that have no potential PAPs (refer to Table 4-7). The

sequencing of works is a key implementation risk management mechanism for the project.

Amongst others, it will allow DKI Jakarta sufficient time to prepare the RPs for the PAPs sites

(particularly to have sufficient and meaningful consultations).

Third, as a result of project phasing, a RPF has been developed by DKI Jakarta in close

discussion with the Bank project task team since mid 2008. It will guide DKI Jakarta, particularly

its RP team under the Environmental and Social Working Group (ESWG) of PIU DKI Jakarta in

preparing the RPs. The institutional arrangements for the implementation of social safeguards

requirements of the project, including arrangements and responsibilities for monitoring, have

been described in Section 3.8.

Fourth, the project carried out significant public consultations - during AMDALs preparations

through standard consultations (twice for each AMDAL, prior to the finalization of the TOR and

the AMDAL study itself), and through FGDs in all project sites. These consultations have been

reported to be effective in increasing the communities‟ awareness of the project, and in capturing

the concerns, aspirations and expectations of the communities for the pre, during, and post-

construction stages. Chapter 9 provides a description of the consultations that have taken place

during the project preparation period.

Fifth, relevant concerns, aspirations and expectations of the communities identified during the

AMDALs consultations and FGDs that should be addressed during construction have been

included in the bidding documents of the civil works (later to become contracts for the winning

contractors). In addition, the TOR of the SC includes assignments to ensure that activities

addressing these issues to be carried out by contractors are well monitored and supervised.

Lastly, in order to avoid uncertainty and unfair treatment of the PAPs that could lead to social

unrest and conflicts between the PAPs and DKI Jakarta, the project will activate the project GRS

facilities and services, and continuously carry out meaningful consultations with the

communities, especially with the PAPs during RPs preparation and during construction. Chapter

10 provides a summary description of the project‟s GRS.

8.2 Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF)

159. DKI Jakarta has prepared the RPF for this project in close coordination with the Bank‟s task

team. The RPF seeks to address the gaps between the current legal framework on land acquisition and

resettlement of Indonesia and compliance with OP 4.12. The purpose of the RPF is to clarify principles,

63

procedures and organizational arrangements to be applied to the preparation of the RPs. In particular, the

policy framework (a) confirms that it applies for the project sites as well as linked sites; (b) identifies the

likely categories of PAPs; (c) outlines the process of development of RPs including preparation, review,

approval, and disclosure; (d) addresses the entitlements of PAPs who are occupants of state or

government land as well as entitlements of PAPs affected by the acquisition of privately owned land; (e)

specifies the rationale for compensation for lost assets at replacement cost, specific measures to address

vulnerable groups, and assistance for livelihood restoration; (f) specifies the organizational arrangements

for the implementation of the RPF and RPs; (g) outlines the grievance mechanisms; and (h) monitoring

and evaluation for RPs. The full RPF document is available in the project files.

160. Key principles. The RPF applies the following key principles:

Principle 1: minimization of resettlement. Involuntary resettlement should be avoided where

feasible, or minimized, exploring all viable alternative project designs66

;

Principle 2: assistance to displaced persons. If resettlement is unavoidable, persons displaced by

a JUFMP subproject should be supported in their efforts to gain access to adequate habitation. If

the relocation affects their income sources and/or their livelihoods, displaced persons should be

offered support for a transition period, based on a reasonable estimate of the time likely to be

needed to restore their livelihood and standards of living;

Principle 3: consultations on resettlement options and forms of support. Resettlement options

and support will be designed in consultation with the displaced persons. The consultations should

involve a two-way transfer of information between JUFMP staff and the displaced persons;

Principle 4: legal resettlement sites. Occupants of state or government land who are displaced by

JUFMP should be provided with opportunities to resettle at locations that can be legally occupied.

Principle 5: public facilities and community infrastructure. In cases of group relocation, public

facilities and community infrastructure affected by the Project will be rebuilt at the resettlement

sites.

Principle 6: transparent and accountable. Information on the budget to finance the

implementation of this RPF will be announced.

161. Internal consultation. Apart from external consultations described in Section 8.1 above, internal

discussions, consultation and information dissemination within DKI Jakarta have also been conducted.

These have proven extremely important and relevant. In particular, it was noted during the preparation of

the RPF (and initial preparation of RPs) that the approach on handling resettlement - particularly for

squatters - introduced in the RPF is quite new for DKI Jakarta officials at all levels. Discussions between

the Bank and DKI Jakarta to come to a shared understanding, awareness and agreement on the principles

and procedures to address resettlement as specified in the RPF required significant efforts over an

approximate three year period. Continuous socialization of the RPF amongst DKI, including to the lower

levels officials of the province down to kelurahans (including the various land acquisition teams - P2T)

are being and will be carried out (see further details in Chapter 9). Capacity building programs (such as

awareness training, learning-by-doing training/coaching, etc) for all stakeholders involved in resettlement

are very critical for the success of the project to consistently implement the RPF and RPs.

66

For example, a change of methodology / technology allowing for dredging around some structures have avoided the necessity of involuntary

resettlement in two locations – Waduk Sunter Selatan and Tanjungan Drains.

64

Communication and coordination between DKI Jakarta and central agencies that could support the

resettlement-related activities need to be strengthened.

162. Categories of PAPs. The two general categories of PAPs are (i) persons affected by the

repossession of state or government lands, and (ii) persons affected by the acquisitions of privately owned

land. Both general categories are provided for in the RPF. However, it has been determined that the

JUFMP activities will mainly require state or government owned land, and only a small portion of project

areas are likely to be on privately owned land. The categories of entitlement for persons affected by the

repossession of state or government lands are:

Persons who own and occupy dwellings and other structures built on state or government land

without any recognizable legal rights or claim to the land they occupy;

Renters of dwellings and other structures built on state or government land without any

recognizable legal rights or claim to the land they occupy;

“Encroachers”, i.e., persons who aggrandize or extend their personal holdings (privately owned

land and assets on the land) by encroaching adjacent state or government land;

“Squatter Landlords”, i.e., persons who derive illegal rents from structures built on state or

government land, but do not occupy such structures.

163. Categories of entitlement. Various resettlement entitlements have been provided for in the RPF.

These include, amongst others, compensation for loss of assets, assistance for relocation, and assistance

for rehabilitation. Specific compensation options will be determined through consultations with the PAPs

and will be specified in the RPs.

164. Distinctions between categories of PAPs. Given the previous history of evictions practices (see

the discussions in sections 5.5.3 and 5.5.4), the adoption of the RPF represents a step change and

transformatory progress in DKI Jakarta‟s approach to handling involuntary resettlement. Over the course

of the preparation of the RPF and its related discussions, DKI Jakarta has come to adopt and accept the

key principles of the RPF as described above, which are key to equitable social safeguards practices.

However, it is noted that DKI Jakarta has strong concerns that any social safeguards policies and practices

it adopts should not inadvertently result in rewarding illegal behavior and at the same time not protect

vulnerable people who are at risk of losing their home and livelihoods. In particular, DKI Jakarta has

reservations to compensate (i) encroachers who are property owners who have extended their property

beyond its legal limits into adjacent state or government land, and who will not necessarily have their

source of livelihoods adversely affected nor have to relocate as a result of the repossession of the state or

government land, and (ii) squatter landlords, who have built structures on state or government land for the

expressed purpose of profiting from rents, but who do not rely on these rents to sustain a reasonable

livelihood.

165. Squatter landlords and encroachers. The RPF makes a distinction between squatter landlords and

encroachers and other categories of PAPs, reflecting DKI Jakarta‟s concerns described in the foregoing

paragraph. However, the RPF does not absolutely exclude benefits to these two categories – the RPF

clarifies that they would provided with assistance in the forms determined in the RP on a case by case

negotiated and mutually agreed basis, without any predetermined limiting criteria. The RPF provisions

for squatter landlords and encroachers reflect a balance between the various concerns of stakeholders. It

65

reflects the concerns of DKI Jakarta that persons who purposely aggrandize or extend their personal

holdings into adjacent state or government lands, or who utilize public lands as a source of enrichment by

building structures on these lands and using them to derive rents (often exploiting poor and vulnerable

persons), should not be further enriched from public funds, but balances this concern by providing the

avenue for individual consultations and assistance that are mutually agreeable and acceptable. It also

serves to highlight the aim to protect public interests and signals the spirit of the Bank‟s policy on

involuntary resettlement to protect vulnerable people at risk of losing their homes or livelihoods, but

balances this with conformance to the policy by not excluding any particular categories of affected people

from assistance and/or compensation.

166. The distinction between squatter landlords and encroachers and other categories of PAPs in the

RPF nevertheless represents an implementation risk. Under the RPF, (a) each RP is required to list all

PAPs, and would have to show the solution for each PAP, including any squatter landlords and

encroachers that may exist at the project site, and (b) each RP is required to go through a consultation

process and as a result the information about and fairness of the solutions will be public knowledge. Each

RP will require the World Bank‟s review and no-objection, and the World Bank can and will review the

process to arrive at individual assistance to PAPs, including to squatter landlords and encroachers where

these categories exist.

8.3 Resettlement Plans (RPs)

167. All project sites will be screened for PAPs67

. Works under the project is sequenced to allow for

activities at sites without PAPs to proceed first. Efforts have been made, and are continuing to be made,

to minimize the number of PAPs (see Section 5.5). Where PAPs are identified and cannot be avoided, an

RP will be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the RPF. The RPs will identify affected people

and lay out the framework for compensating and restoring the livelihoods of entitled households with a

clear and agreed timeline between the PAPs and DKI Jakarta. All RPs must be approved by the Bank,

publicly disclosed and must be implemented (except elements in the RPs related to post-resettlement

activities) prior to any works commencing at the associated site.

168. Preliminary RPs. Preliminary censuses were carried out in parallel with the preparation of the

RPF and the DEDs at the seven sites initially identified as PAP sites (see Section 5.5.1). As the first stage

in the preparation of site specific RPs, or prior to entering the subproject site to carry out the census

survey, initial socialization of the project was done with the local levels of government / community

leaders (mainly kelurahan, RT / RW) either68

by group meetings at the kelurahan offices or by multiple

small meetings moving from one RT / RW to other RT / RW. With the agreement of local leaders and

communities, preliminary census surveys69

were carried out of the individuals / households that may,

depending on proxy of the subproject impact areas (at that time DEDs were simultaneously being

67 Note that non-PAP sites were screened (including Phase 1 sites) in 2010. A repeat/update screening exercise is expected to be done around

October 2011 to reconfirm the status of these sites. 68

After consulting the local government and taking into account the local situation. 69

Census survey obtained information on social-economic characteristics, impacted assets, perception and aspiration of PAPs. Records on each

PAP include photographs of the individual, affected assets, and photocopy of ID card. The affected asset was numbered and associated with the

individual owners.

66

prepared), need to be resettled. In total, 2,369 persons were interviewed in these seven sites. Based on

these preliminary censuses, preliminary drafts RPs have been prepared70

.

8.3.1 Census Updates and Finalization of RPs

169. The preliminary census and consultations, while they provide valuable and necessary data, also

provided feedback on expectations and concerns. The relevant concerns, aspirations and expectations of

the communities that should be addressed during construction will be included in the bidding documents

and works contracts. With the finalization and disclosure of the RPF, DKI Jakarta will proceed with the

further development and preparation of the preliminary RPs in the currently identified PAP sites71

. A

draft guide of RP preparation processes and steps have been prepared72

. The RPs will be completed73

,

subjected to World Bank review and no-objection, disclosed and implemented prior to the

commencement of the associated (Phase 2) works.

8.3.2 Database for PAPs

170. DKI Jakarta intends to develop a database for PAPs, which will be gradually expanded to cover

PAPs beyond the JUFMP. The information in the database will be used as a reference by DKI Jakarta in

the case that in the future it has to resettle people from sites of other projects, to avoid giving

compensation to the same individuals. DKI Jakarta expected that the project could facilitate and assist the

establishment of the database.

8.3.3 Funding for RPF and RPs

171. The RPF and the stipulations set forth in this document will be funded jointly by DKI Jakarta and

the project (managed by PMU):

DKI Jakarta will provide funding from their budget for financing the: (a) the Project

Implementation Unit (PIU)74

, (b) the resettlement compensation, resettlement assistance and

rehabilitation support, (c) establishing and placing the project GRS, and (d) the mobile-

Government system and website hosting location. Budget for resettlement compensation,

assistance, and rehabilitation support will be allocated in relevant provincial agencies. For

instance, budget for compensation for structures and for building rental apartments will be

provided under the Housing Agency; budget for rehabilitation support would be allocated by

Social Agency, Trade and Cooperative Agency, etc., depending on the type activities.

70

Preparation of these census and preliminary RPs were supported by consultants retained by the PMU to assist DKI Jakarta. 71

Which have been reduced from seven to six sites after further efforts to adopt engineering designs and selection of works methodology to

minimize impact (see section 5.5.1 for details). 72 This is expected to be updated during implementation to take into account lessons learned. 73

This will be expected to require update censuses, announcements of cut-off dates, and full consultations with PAPs including on options for

compensations, assistance and rehabilitation of livelihoods, timelines for implementation, etc. Consultations with civil society organizations are

also planned. 74

Including the working groups described in Section 3.8.

67

The Project will finance the independent consultant who will carry out the external monitoring

and evaluation, supervision consultants who will oversee the implementation of this RPF,

consultants and experts who will manage the project GRS.

172. The overall estimated budget for the implementation of project RPs is about US$2.8 million.

DKI Jakarta‟s financial capacity has been assessed to determine that it has the adequate financial

resources to fund the RPs implementation. Trust funds grants (as and if available) will be used to

complement the funding of the above activities.

9 Consultations

173. Overall, the project has been prepared adopting a process of meaningful and participatory

consultations with potentially affected people, groups and other stakeholders. The process for

consultations is also an integral part of the project‟s communications, which is discussed in more detail in

Chapter 10. The consultative process for this project has been exhaustive and widespread and has

occurred at multiple levels depending on the target stakeholder group and on the issues being discussed.

The discussion here will focus on the consultative process with respect to the AMDAL documents, the

RPF and the RPs, and with the potentially affected communities in all the project sites.

9.1 Consultations during AMDAL

174. The project consultations occurred over a two year time horizon mostly in 2009 and 2010. They

took the form of public meetings and were recorded as annexes in the respective AMDAL documents

approved by the DKI BPLHD. Public consultations during AMDAL preparation for Phase 1 project sites

were done before the completion of the DEDs. Focus Group Discussions were done for all project sites in

parallel with the preparation of DEDs and AMDAL for Phase 2 sites, as well as in initial preparation of

RPs for the PAPs sites. Interviews with samples of community members (up to 10% of households) were

undertaken to complement the information on the environmental and social baseline, community

aspirations and concerns on project implementation obtained in the consultations during the AMDAL

preparation. The main aspirations, issues and concerns raised by the participants across all project sites

obtained through consultations and interviews during AMDALs preparations were: (a) the support and

recognition that the outcome of the project will reduce floods but there will be short to medium term

disturbances during construction; (b) recognition that flow capacity of canals have been reduced due to

sedimentation, improper garbage disposal, and encroachment and buildings on water bodies and

surroundings; (c) the wish to have more details about the project, including the time table; (d) the wish

that construction must be done properly, including handling of spillage of dredged materials during

transportation, noise, dusts; (e) compensation types and levels that will be given if resettlement takes

place; (f) opportunities for local employment and businesses; (g) the wish for having meaningful

consultations, particularly during construction; and (h) the willingness to participate in solid waste

management activities.

175. With respect to the Ancol CDF, consultations started in 2005/2006 when the first AMDAL for

Ancol CDF was prepared. The first Ancol CDF AMDAL was approved in 2006 for reclamation using

mainly sand as fill material and as it pre-dated JUFMP, it did not consider the JUFMP project at all. The

68

public consultation in 2005 included several meetings to consider the draft AMDAL with minutes of the

meeting highlighting issues raised, including those with social / community implications. The Updated

RKL/RPL of Ancol CDF was based on the same general arrangement and principles as in the earlier

AMDAL, but the update was done specifically to allow for the use of JUFMP dredged material as fill

material and to increase the channel width between existing shoreline and the fill area from approximately

80m to approximately 200m. An additional public consultation process was held during the update

process as per the statutory requirements of Government Regulation (PP) No: 27/199975

.

176. Table 9-1 summarizes the key issues that arose during the AMDALs consultations processes and

the action taken to address these issues.

Table 9-1 Issues raised with respect to the Phase 1 AMDAL and Ancol CDF consultation Issues raised and

Discussed

(Thematically)

Summary of responses of those

consulted

Summary of Action Taken by Project to

address these concerns

Phase 1 AMDAL Consultation

Project Objectives,

Components,

Institutional and

arrangements.

Generally supportive feedback for

flood mitigation activities.

Project design to continue to maximize

opportunities for flood alleviation through

selection of key drains and waduks.

Information about

the sub-project

areas

Providing history of area (general

information)

Resettlement and people moving

back in

Floods also occur from tidal

intrusion

Suggesting engineering requirements

Provided useful technical information

for project design.

Methods instituted for ensuring resettled

areas remain free

Scope of project remains emergency

dredging and tidal factors will be

considered in design

Accounted for by design engineers if

appropriate

Information on the

Project

Timetables, boundaries, methods of

construction, future consultation, etc.

FGDs in more than 60 villages undertaken

and continued consultations to be

conducted throughout.

Resettlement

issues Will I be resettled

When will I know if am to be

resettled

When will resettlement occur

What compensation / entitlements

will I get

Entitlements should be at market

values

If resettlement occurs, other people

not move back in

Proper compensation does not

always occur

After census no more property

transfer for speculators

One case of traders insisted that their

All points associated with resettlement

are addressed in the Resettlement Policy

Framework (RPF) and considerations to

the issues raised were integrated – people were made aware of the

development of livelihoods

compensation in the RPF

On speculators, it was suggested that

boundaries are fixed as soon as possible

Census questions are not enforced on

people in order to avoid conflict

75

See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the Indonesian environmental legislation.

69

legal representatives must be present

for census

A few said happy to move, most

willing to move with appropriate

compensation

Some prefer to make their own arrangement for resettlement,

including housing

Concerns about

effects Biggest concern is with spillage of

material from trucks

Minimize disturbances and noise

Don‟t leave dredged materials

behind on the dredging site

RKL/RPL is embedded in the contract

and enforces no spillage of trucks,

reducing noise and odor concerns, and

ensuring proper management and

cleanliness of site

Implementation

arrangements Community is confused about where

complaints should be filed and

addressed.

Site-based POSKO will provide venue to

encourage community involvement,

participation, and integration of

concerns.

Additional project information, dissemination (e.g. brochures) will be

provided.

Wish for ongoing

consultation and

involvement

Common expression from the

communities that they would like to

continually be involved through

consultation processes during project

implementation as well

Site-based POSKO will provide venue to

encourage community involvement,

participation, and integration of

concerns.

Ancol CDF Consultation

Project Objectives,

Components,

Institutional and arrangements.

Generally supportive (per Updated

Ancol RKL/RPL 2009) as it is part of

the JUFMP flood mitigation.

PT. PJA is ready to cooperate with the

JUFMP to ensure that the construction and

operation of confined disposal facility fulfills requirement that is applied in

JUFMP project.

Information about

the project

Timetables, boundaries, methods of

construction, future consultation, etc

Positive impact of the Ancol CDF

project to community.

Assigning Public Relations Division to

liaise between PT. PJA and the

community / agencies. Through

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

program, two junior high schools (SMP)

at Kelurahan Pademangan Barat and

Kelurahan Ancol were constructed. PT.

PJA and local kelurahan started and

continues to support the “Ancol Loves

the Environment” program.

Disseminating plan to community /

public agencies.

Establishing communication forum and

coordination with other activities /

agencies in the area.

Monitoring measures included reporting

on frequency of communication forum

meetings.

Social issue

beyond the

resettlement

General, all respondents expected

that the implementation of project

work could absorb manpower and

open up business opportunities for the residents of Kelurahan Ancol

PT. PJA has been in cooperation with

the local community that keeps them

informed with any labor recruitment that

prioritizing the local workers.

Fishing grounds at the vicinity of Ancol

70

and that the potential negative

impacts would be managed well by

PT. Pembangunan Jaya Ancol, Tbk.

About 15% of respondents

interviewed during the AMDAL

process did not approve of the

project because of negative impacts they might suffer, such as the

disturbance to the areas where they

looked for fish, prawn and crabs.

CDF area has been assessed to be not

feasible as the water is continuously

received pollutant from the urban

drainages of Jakarta city.

Concerns about

effects AMDAL Commission at the DKI

BPLHD expressed their biggest

concern if the sediment is found to

be hazardous waste (B3 waste).

Pollution of sea water.

Disturbances and noise.

Spillage of mud (from JUFMP

trucks) at the surrounding Ancol area and road damage.

Offsite impact (if the JUFMP

dredged material is not enough to fill

all the CDF space, where is the other

filling material source?).

The PMU has developed set of testing

procedure to prevent B3 waste entering

Ancol CDF.

Updated RKL/RPL requires PT. PJA to

construct confined disposal facility, to be

completed before disposal from the

Project begins.

RKL/RPL is embedded in the contract and enforces no spillage of trucks,

reducing noise and odor concerns, and

ensuring proper management and

cleanliness of site.

PT. PJA is required (as per the

Memorandum of Agreement with DKI

Jakarta) to provide car wash before the

JUFMP trucks leave Ancol CDF.

Contractor is also required to deposit

some amount of cash that will be used if

road damage due to its vehicle is nor

repaired by the contractor.

PT. PJA will ensure that the source of

filling material other than the dredged

material is to be from legitimate source

that has an environmental permit (e.g.

AMDAL).

Implementation

arrangements Coordination with JUFMP (who

doing what and responsibility).

Implementation schedule (when the

dike is ready).

PT. PJA has been actively participating

in any discussion related to JUFMP

preparation.

PT. PJA will ensure, and the World

Bank will confirm, that the disposal

facilities are properly confined prior to disposal of dredged material.

Wish for ongoing

consultation and

involvement

Common expression as for Phase 1

AMDAL, in which the communities

expects there are employment and

business opportunities.

Assigning Public Relations Division to

liaise continuously between PT. PJA and

the community / agencies.

Establishing communication forum and

coordination with other activities /

agencies in the area.

Monitoring measures included reporting

on frequency of communication forum

meetings.

71

9.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

177. In addition to public consultations carried out during the AMDALs preparation, the project has

also conducted FGDs in 57 kelurahans (i.e. urban village) in four municipalities during June – September

2010 where the project sites are located. These further informed the preparation of the RPF and

preliminary RPs. Each FGD was led and guided by a consultant team retained by the PMU. The purposes

of the meetings were to (i) update communities on the current status of the project, particularly for Phase

1 sites where AMDAL-related consultations were completed prior to the of end 2009 and where there

have been some changes to project scope and timing since then as DEDs became available, and (ii)

continue to obtain feedback from the communities and their aspirations. Participants comprised of

representatives from the kelurahan offices, Board of Trustees of the kelurahans, Community Guidance

Officers (Babinsa), Head of Family Welfare Program (PKK), community leaders, Heads of community

neighborhoods (RT and RW), and representatives of the communities of the project sites. A total of 1,051

participants attended the various meetings (each meeting was attended by between 11-28 participants).

Women participation across kelurahans ranged from 0 – 71% of the total participants. Information

obtained from the FGDs in the PAPs sites, located in 31 out of these 57 kelurahans, were also taken into

account in the preparation of preliminary RPs. The FGD meetings in these PAPs sites kelurahans were

attended by 599 participants76

.

178. The FGDs revealed that communities had several key concerns, i.e., that: (i) should they need to

be resettled, they will be given improper compensations and provided relocation sites far from their

employment; (ii) they cannot access job opportunities during construction; (iii) they will not have

communication with the project and contractor; (iv) they will not be provided with accessible and nearby

facilities to lodge any complaint; (v) they are not well-informed in advance of the project, prior the

commencement of and during construction; and (vi) the construction would disturb their livelihoods.

Further, communities were concerned (i) about the potential poor management of the dredged materials in

the temporary sites located in their neighborhoods; (ii) of transportation for the dredged materials that

would lead to increasing traffic congestion, odor and damage to local roads; and, (iii) about the dredging

methodology that could damage plants and structures. Communities would like to (i) participate in the

monitoring of construction activities, and solid waste management particularly in sorting garbage that

have economic value prior to the transportation of the garbage to the final disposal site; (ii) have good

communications with project management and contractors; and, (iii) have the Posko as close as possible

in their neighborhood that will function as on-site complaint handling centers as well as a place to meet

and coordinate with the project management and contractors.

179. The FGD report77

for each sub-project site will be made available with the AMDAL reports to the

construction contractors and the Supervision Consultant. The bidding document for civil works specifies

activities to address most of the above-mentioned communities‟ concerns and suggestions as part of the

construction activities. Meaningful public consultations will be continued throughout project

implementation (including during the preparation of the final RPs) to ensure that the above concerns are

addressed properly.

76 It should be noted also that the FGD activities included „before‟ and „after‟ questionnaire surveys of the participants, which clearly

demonstrated increased awareness and understanding of the project due to the FGD discussions. 77

FGD Report for each site is available in the project files.

72

9.3 Consultations on the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF)

180. A series of workshops and dialogues were carried out with provincial and municipality

government officials specifically to support the preparation of the RPF. These guided the preparation of

the RPF. Two consultation sessions were carried out on the draft RPF, and were followed by a further

consultation aimed to strengthen the capacity of relevant agencies and municipality local governments in

implementing the RPF. A summary of these consultations are as follows:

An „internal‟ consultation - comprising 126 participants, ranging from central government

(Ministry of Public Works), and DKI Jakarta to the lowest level (representatives of the

mayors from all four DKI municipalities, relevant DKI agencies and bureaus, and sub-local

governments down to the level of kecamatan/kelurahan). The objective of this consultation

was to disseminate and get support from wider DKI Jakarta officials for the draft RPF. Some

participants conveyed their concerns or suggestions on the following main issues: (a) there is

a need to socialize and consult the RPF to the wider public; (b) implementation of the RPF

particularly with the current available legal basis that does not allow to compensate the PAPs

who occupy the government land; (c) mechanisms to define the compensation level for illegal

occupiers and financial accountability for the expenses for such compensation; (d)

confirmation that the DKI Jakarta does not provide rent-to-own public housing but only rental

public housing; (e) budget for compensation should be available in timely manner; (f)

dissemination and disclosure of the RPF may create expectation and would lead to increased

encroachers; (g) readiness of DKI Jakarta to implement the RPF because development in the

field is quite dynamic and fast; (h) applicability of the RPF for PAPs who had been evicted

and compensated prior to the project preparation given that DKI Jakarta does not have a data

base for evictees, compensation provided to them under JUFMP would lead to audit

problems; (i) compensation should be given directly to the PAPs to avoid potential distrust;

and (j) should there be complaints, the site-based complaint handling unit - based in the

project site offices (POSKO) - will have to follow-up them properly and timely.

An „external„ consultation – comprising 77 participants, including 26 participants from NGOs

active on various issues in Jakarta, representatives from various Indonesian universities and

technical experts. The summary of the questions, concerns and inputs from the participants of

the meeting were as follows: (i) appreciation of the new thinking of DKI Jakarta on handling

resettlement with the RPF which is in line with the expectation of the NGOs; however, there

was a concern on its implementation process (including the time that is needed to complete

the process) on the ground, and its potential to trigger the appearance of “middlemen” acting

as brokers who would affect the resettlement process; (ii) DKI Jakarta to dredge canals

without resettlement if possible, if not then minimize resettlement78

; (iii) DKI Jakarta is

expected to work with the community and/or NGOs who have experienced or are currently

working with resettling squatters; (iv) RPF needs to be socialized more widely and down to

the project affected persons (PAPs) using a better approach and not a one-way dissemination;

(v) complaint handling mechanisms need to be clear and the RPF should also include the Law

No. 2/2005 pertaining the rights of people on social, economic and cultural life. On other

aspects not related to RPF, participants were concerned on why DKI Jakarta has to borrow

for this project while it cannot spend its own budget in timely manner; and warning that the

78

This is already one of the principles specified in the RPF.

73

project needs to ensure that the Ancol CDF adheres to its AMDAL requirements (as NGOs

are filing a class action on the reclamation of the sea along North Jakarta). Participants also

stated that flood management should also be accompanied by the improvement of the

drainage system and solid waste (not only through dredging), and transportation of sludge

should be in the evening to avoid traffic.

A third consultation was carried out in February 10, 2011 and attended by 60 representatives

from all four DKI municipalities, sub-local governments (kecamatans) where the project sites

are located, relevant DKI agencies and bureaus, the Ancol authority, head of PMU, PIU of

Cipta Karya. The main purpose of this consultation was to get the same understanding among

stakeholder officials in DKI on the RPF, and discuss the plan to proceed with the preparation

of the Resettlement Plans (RPs). Discussion on the RP included understanding and

implementation of the principles, eligibility and entitlements, the organizational arrangements

of the preparation and implementation of the RP on the ground, as well as the approach in

defining the value of the assets and availability of rental public housing/apartments. Funding

needs for preparing RPs was also discussed. The discussion also raised the issue on the needs

to set up a site-based complaint handling unit - based in the project site offices (POSKOs) -

and to have operational guidelines to implement the RPF and to prepare RPs on the ground.

The progress of the RP consultants on the census survey, the need to update and verify the

information prior to the cut-off date, and that need to decide quickly on the cut-off date were

also discussed.

181. DKI Jakarta, led by the Office of the Assistant for Development and Environment, had

incorporated relevant suggestions from the participants during the first two consultations in the RPF.

Concerns from participants in the first consultation meetings were followed up in the third consultation

through a more detailed explanation by the PIU DKI Jakarta and officials from DKI‟s Assistant for

Development and Environment. During the third consultation, some of the principles and policies of RPF

were reiterated to confirm the new DKI Jakarta‟s approach to handling resettlement and how it would be

adopted in the preparation of the RPs.

9.4 Consultations during the preparation of Resettlement Plans (RPs)

182. The FGDs were carried out in parallel with the initial preparation of the RPs, and therefore

information obtained from the discussions was used to improve the design of the census survey including

questionnaires and field survey approach. The consultation process to prepare the preliminary RPs has

been discussed in section 8.3.

183. As further development of site specific RPs progresses, DKI Jakarta now carrying out

consultations of the RPF and preliminary RPs at the various municipalities where PAP sites are located

i.e., West Jakarta, East Jakarta, North Jakarta and Central Jakarta. These consultations are aimed at

strengthening the support of the municipalities towards the completion and implementation of the RPs79

.

79

To date, consultations have been completed in West and East Jakarta in April 2011. Consultations with North and Central Jakarta are planned

for May and June 2011.

74

184. DKI Jakarta is planning to start carrying out consultations with the PAPs after the cut-off dates

are announced, among others to confirm the lists of the PAPs and affected assets, discuss and agree on

compensation options, dismantling and relocation schedules, etc., as part of the RP preparation.

Consultations with the PAPs will be done either in groups or plenary, depending on the specific situation

in each site, led by a DKI Jakarta RP team and assisted by the consultant team.

10 Grievance Redress System (GRS) 185. DKI Jakarta will establish an integrated project Grievance Redress System (GRS) to ensure that

complainants are provided a space to file complaints and convey their aspirations related to the project in

a politically and psychologically free-speaking environment that ensures voices are heard, recorded and

responded in a satisfactory, objective and timely manner agreed by complainant and DKI Jakarta. The

details of the project GRS are included in the project RPF. It is expected that the project GRS will be set

up at the start of project implementation and fully operating especially before the Phase 2 period begins.

186. The project GRS will apply for all complaints that are associated with the project (not only social-

related issues, but also environmental, technical issues and others). The project GRS will follow the

following key principles:

Complainants can file complaints at no costs, through different alternative media, addressed to

complaint handling units set up at different levels and/or to a contact addresses and website dedicated specially for complaint handling for JUFMP;

Complainants will be given an accessible, non-threatening, equal, and fair treatment for

complaint follow-up and for dispute resolution, regardless of origins, religion, citizenship status,

social and economic background;

Complaints or disputes will be preferably resolved at the earliest time at the sub-project site. Only

in the case that follow-up on complaints and disputes are unresolved at the lower level, the cases

will be brought to the attention of the higher levels of the government structure;

Follow-up on complaints and resolution of any disputes will be made based on agreements

reached among all involved parties through a well-informed consultation processes with facilitation by a competent, trustworthy and credible team;

The complaint handling system will maintain the objectivity, transparency, and fairness principles

by having an Independent Advisory Team who will be available to assist the complainants at all

complaint-handling units;

Complaints and disputes, as well as follow-up actions and resolutions will be recorded in real

time through a web-based system and disclosed to the public;

Socialization, dissemination, and disclosure of the complaint handling system/procedures as well

as of the complaints and follow-up actions and dispute resolution will be done continuously at the

sub-project site, municipality and provincial levels.

187. A site-based Complaint Handling Unit is to be located on each site to manage and process

complaints. This unit will be based in the project site offices (POSKOs). It is expected that the closer

and easier the instruments for filing complaints, the more likely complaints could be solved on site in a

relatively short time period. Socialization on the availability of the complaint services of the project to the

communities, especially the PAPs, is the key to reduce potential social unrest and disappointment. There

will be similar complaint handling units at the municipality and provincial levels, to receive and respond

75

to complaints that cannot be solved at the POSKO level. The RPF socialization has included socialization

of the project GRS.

188. The project GRS includes database and information systems management that will monitor and

disseminate information on any complaints. The information generated by the project GRS will provide

the ability to track common issues in project implementation. The system will use a real-time flow of

information of complaints and follow-up. An Advisory Team will be set up as an alternative body to

provide services to complainants and to DKI Jakarta to come to agreed solutions or follow-up to

complaints. The Supervision Consultant (SC) team is tasked with assisting DKI Jakarta in setting up the

project GRS system, including the development of the Standard Operating Procedures, and supporting

DKI Jakarta to manage the system during the project implementation period.

189. It should be noted that there are existing and well established complaints handling systems in

DKI Jakarta, operating through various channels. In most cases80

, persons or communities who felt

disturbed, being treated unfairly or are unhappy about any project can file a complaint to the head of RT

(neighborhood level) who will then put forward it to the head of RW (hamlet level). If the complaint

cannot be solved at the RT/RW level, the heads of RT and RW will take the case to the kelurahan level

(where the case is handled by the Section of Governance Affairs and Public Order). The case will be

officially registered at the kelurahan level. The parties in disputes (e.g. citizen, communities, contractor

or other government institutions), the kelurahan council and staff will discuss and try to resolve the case.

If no resolution is agreed at the kelurahan level, the case is sent to the higher kecamatan level (sub sub-

district level), and finally to the kotamadya level (municipal level) if still unresolved at kecamatan level.

190. Complaints or feedbacks are also routinely submitted via SMS or call center, media (e.g.

newspaper, radio) and the Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta official web-portals (i.e.

www.jakarta.go.id and www.beritajakarta.com). Complaints or feedbacks received via these channels are

forwarded by DKI Jakarta from the provincial level to the associated relevant offices (i.e., the kelurahan,

kecamatan or dinas). These complaints and feedback will first be verified on the ground, and followed-up

if confirmed to be resolved at the lowest possible institutional level.

11 Project Communications 191. Flood incidences are perennial occurrences in Jakarta and have been increasing in severity during

the past decade. Disastrous floods in January 1996, February 2002, and February 2007 were especially

devastating. The 2007 event inundated 235 km2 (about 36%) of the city

81, by up to seven meters in some

areas. The 2007 floods affected more than 2.6 million people and forced 340,000 people to flee their

homes. Over 70 people died and outbreaks of disease affected over 200,000 people. The estimated

financial and economic losses from the 2007 floods amounted to US$900 million82

. In 2008, a flood

event closed the airport toll road, cancelling over 1,000 flights and causing severe disruption for the city.

Floods in 2009 also occurred at high intensity and have continued into 2010. Inundations continue to

occur under any sustained rainfall condition.

80 Information from site discussions with communities. 81 Flood extent map, DKI Jakarta (Dinas-PU) 82 Estimated by Bappenas (the National Development Planning Agency)

http://www.beritajakarta.com/

76

External communications

192. Throughout the project preparation period, the consultation processes related to the environmental

and social safeguards of the project (to date, over a three year period of 2009-2011) have been one of the

key avenue for information dissemination of the details of the project (these are described in Chapter 9) to

the public, particularly to communities and in locations close to the project area. All the safeguards

related consultation processes (and in particular consultations in project areas related to social safeguards)

have included the dissemination of the latest project design, scope and status. It should be noted that

consultation processes have generally recorded positive support for the project and its floods mitigation

aims.

193. These safeguards related consultations have been coupled with information dissemination by DKI

Jakarta through various channels83

positioning JUFMP as a key piece of its near term strategy to mitigate

floods in Jakarta. Given the background of recent events, floods have become both an urgent and topical

issue in the city. Thus, DKI‟s dissemination efforts have generally been picked up by the local media.

Consequently, public awareness of the JUFMP project (both at the community level as well as the city

level) has increased over the period of project preparation.

194. Media monitoring and audits carried out for the period of January 2010 to January 2011 pointed

to sustained and increasing media exposure of the project84

, mainly through online news portals,

community blogs and the print media, and to a lesser extent through electronic broadcast media and

government and NGO websites. It should be noted that these media exposures highlighted not only the

project‟s plans and design to reduce the incidences of floods in Jakarta, but a majority of them discussed

and reported on the more complex issues of environmental and social safeguards challenges faced during

project preparation. The tone of media discussions on floods mitigation efforts in Jakarta runs the gamut

of negative to neutral to positive, but significantly, this tone has evolved more and more towards the

positive over the audit period.

195. External communications efforts are expected to continue during project implementation. Social

safeguards related consultations will continue throughout the preparation and implementation of site-

specific RPs. At the community level, the public information center based in the project site offices (POSKO) which will be maintained at each JUFMP project site will play a critical role, where project

information (including the latest implementation status) will be available and easily accessible to the

public. Although as a whole external communications of DKI Jakarta will need improvements, the

JUFMP has already provided momentum on coordinating the dissemination of DKI Jakarta‟s flood mitigation plans that has been heavily covered by media. These efforts will continue into project

implementation. The overall estimated budget for specific project communications is about US$155,000.

Note this does not include DKI Jakarta‟s general communications department budget. This department has been the channel for DKI Jakarta communications including on floods and JUFMP issues. Annual

budget for this department (DKI‟s Diskominfo) is over US$500m (FY11). On its own part, the World

Bank is preparing a project website on which the latest project information can be made available during implementation.

83 Including prominent pronouncements from the Governor of DKI 84 Averaging over 10 media articles per month spread out over the period

77

Internal communications

196. Inter-agency communications. The periodic Joint Steering Committee meetings (see section

3.6.1) have been instrumental in providing the platform for inter-agency communications and information

sharing of the latest developments and status of the project. This is the only venue where all government

agency stakeholders are represented simultaneously.

197. Internal DKI Jakarta communications. As the local government with the mandate for city

development, management and administration, DKI Jakarta is naturally seen by the public as the main

agency responsible for floods management in the city85

. DKI Jakarta has made use of the opportunity of

the consultation processes related to the social safeguards of the project as a key avenue for information

dissemination of other details of the project (these are described in Chapter 9 – see especially Section 9.3)

within DKI Jakarta to the lowest level (representatives of the mayors from all four DKI municipalities,

relevant DKI agencies and bureaus, and sub-local governments down to the level of sub-district and

kelurahan). The socialization across DKI offices at provincial government level has mainly been in the

form of workshops, “mentoring” approach / transfer knowledge method which is considered the most

appropriate approach for DKI officials at the sub-district and kelurahan level.

198. Internal communications efforts are expected to continue during project implementation. The

Joint Steering Committee platform will remain, as the committee will continue to meet periodically

during project implementation to provide high level oversight. DKI Jakarta has also assigned its Bureau

for Infrastructure Development (Biro Prasarkot) with the task of coordinating and communicating the

project across the relevant DKI Jakarta and other government agencies. The Biro Prasarkot will also

form the communications bridge between the project institutional establishment and the DKI Jakarta

institutional establishment – see Figure 11-1. Biro Prasarkot‟s activities are directly reviewed by DKI

Jakarta‟s Assistant for Development and Environmental Affairs, who in turn reports to the Governor of

DKI. The Assistant is also a member of the Joint Steering Committee. This setup will allow for

coordination vertically through the DKI Jakarta chain of command as well as across all agencies and also

connects the project institutional structure to the required coordination and communication to implement

a sustainable flood mitigation program.

85 This is further confirmed by the media audits described above. Amongst the findings of these audits, the majority of media reports linked

DKI Jakarta as the institution most closely associated with the floods.

78

Figure 11-1 Communications between agencies

12 Reputational Risks 199. This section summarizes two key areas related to the project‟s environment and social

management issues that may pose a risk to the reputation of the JUFMP and/or the World Bank during the

implementation of the project, and describes the measures intended to be taken to manage and minimize

these risks86

. It should be noted that the measures taken by the project to address these reputational risks

will not completely remove these risks. But they do present a tangible way of reducing them or otherwise

managing them to acceptable levels.

200. As described in the earlier chapters this report, project preparation has undergone a fairly

comprehensive and exhaustive environmental and social assessment process. This was aimed first at

improving the sustainability of the project activities and outcomes, and second at ensuring compliance

with the Government of Indonesia‟s requirements and the World Bank‟s own Environmental and Social

Safeguards Policies. Notwithstanding all these actions, plans and implementation and institutional

arrangements, environmental and social safeguards specific risks that can be associated with this project

remain. These will be monitored, managed and minimized throughout project implementation. However,

there are three key areas of activities that are not directly in the implementation responsibility of the

project implementation entities that may nevertheless pose a risk to the reputation of the JUFMP and/or

the World Bank during the implementation. These are discussed below.

86

This section does not summarize the Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) for the project as a whole. The ORAF [which forms

part of the Project Appraisal Document (PAD)] presents the broader risk assessment framework for the project.

79

Risks associated with non-project activities in or close to project sites

201. The JUFMP project activities are taking place in very densely populated urban areas of Jakarta.

The project has a clearly defined objective, scope and boundaries. Nevertheless, in the highly dense

urban setting, it is very likely that development projects and other activities that are not related to the

project will occur within or in close proximity to some project sites during the project implementation

period87

. Examples of these activities may include dredging and other works in canals that are not linked

to the project, or greening activities which could involve hard and soft landscaping.

202. These non-project activities may have different standards and processes for due diligence for the

works and for social benefits to potentially affected people compared to those applicable to the project.

There is a risk that close physical proximity of any given non-JUFMP activities may be wrongly

associated to JUFMP by the public and other stakeholders. On the one hand, this may lead to the wrong

expectations of the application of project-specific environmental and social safeguards measures,

including project-specific entitlements and benefits to affected people. On the other hand, any potentially

poor environmental and social management measures being carried out in these non-project related

activities may be wrongly attributed to JUFMP and/or the World Bank.

203. Various actions will be undertaken to mitigate and reduce these risks:

Effective communications will be put in place. In particular, a public information center based in

the project site offices (POSKO) will be maintained at each project site. These will serve as a

primary means to disseminate detailed project information to the local community;

Signs (in Bahasa Indonesia) will be posted in appropriate locations at project sites detailing the

project boundaries, project-related activities and contact information;

Where feasible, temporary fencing and other methods will be put in place to delineate project

boundaries;

The site-based Complaint Handling Unit in the POSKO will serve as a front line of the project

grievance redress system88

, providing an on-site avenue for the public to lodge complaints, and if

possible for any misunderstandings and/or grievances to be addressed quickly and locally;

The SC is also tasked with regular monitoring of project linked sites as well as sites adjacent to

JUFMP sites, and reporting any relevant signs of activities. These would provide prior / advance notice to the PIU, PMU and the World Bank to allow for coordination and actions to prevent any

communications misunderstanding and inadvertent wrong associations to JUFMP.

Risks associated with activities at the Ancol CDF site

204. As the main dredge material disposal site, the Ancol CDF is an integral part of the JUFMP

project. The responsibility for building and operating the Ancol CDF site lies with PT. PJA, which is not

a JUFMP project implementation entity. Not all Ancol CDF activities are directly connected to the

JUFMP. For example, while JUFMP works is expected to contribute about 3.4 million m3 of fill material

for the Ancol CDF, a further approximately 8.6 million m3 of fill material and about 400,000 m

3 of

87

It should be noted especially that DKI Jakarta‟s mandates and priorities include the following: (i) expand its overall infrastructure development

plans that may require the utilization of government and/or the acquisition of private land, (ii) enforce its land use plans consistently, which

consequently could lead to the resettlement of informal occupiers of government land (including riverbanks) and those who do not have building

permit, and (iii) expand Jakarta‟s green space from the current 9% to achieve the minimum standards of 20% of its total administrative area. 88

The Supervision Consultant is tasked with developing, operating and administering the on-site complaint-handling unit (i.e., the Posko) in each

works site. The provision of the Posko facilities (e.g., portable office space) is included into the contractors‟ works contract.

80

laterite material will be obtained from non-JUFMP sources (see Section 5.3). Nevertheless, the public

and other stakeholders may directly associate any problems that may arise at Ancol CDF with the

JUFMP. Consequently, arrangements have been made for the Supervision Consultant to have access to

the Ancol CDF and all it offsite locations (including source locations for the sand and laterite fill

material) for the purposes of monitoring and supervision – see section 3.7.2 for a description of the

institutional arrangements for the Ancol CDF site. During project implementation, the World Bank will

also work with DKI BPLHD to conduct joint supervision and site inspections of the Ancol CDF. These

monitoring and supervision activities will allow for actions to be formulated and taken to address any

implementation shortcomings, and is expected to reduce the potential reputational risk to the PIU, PMU

and/or the World Bank.

205. A specific consideration is the potential for adverse offsite impact at the non-JUFMP sources of

fill material (sand and laterite), since any such impact would occur outside the confines of the Ancol CDF

itself. With respect to the sand, the impacts associated with sea mining for sand could be disturbance of

biota (particularly benthic organism) due to scouring of the sea floor, deterioration in water quality at

these locations and disturbance of other marine species that may be present. With regards the land based

sourcing of laterite soils, the impacts may be associated with removal of top soil vegetation, erosion and

sediment transportation and deposition downstream, water logging in abandoned and unrehabilitated

quarry areas leading to breeding ground for mosquito‟s and other disease vectors, and slope stability

safety concerns if sources are in hilly or high relief terrain. The risk is that if these impacts are severe

enough, they may be associated with the project (when on the other hand, the JUFMP project itself has

reduced the potential offsite impact by contributing the otherwise low value 3.4 million m3 of non-

hazardous dredge material thus significantly reducing the amount of sand material otherwise needed for

the filling of the Ancol CDF). The AMDAL process for the Ancol CDF includes consideration of

potential offsite impact and the AMDAL documents confirm the location of sand source which already

has the associated approved environmental permit (see Section 5.3). The laterite material required is

stipulated to be obtained from land based sources near Bekasi, West Java that is also operating under

environmental permits. The SC will play a key role to help mitigate risks against improper sourcing of

fill material. The SC will review and confirm that fill material suppliers have the necessary approvals. In

particular, the laterite material will only be utilized much later - at the time of the final capping of the

Ancol CDF reclamation. The SC will ascertain at that time that the laterite source has the appropriate

environmental permit. The SC will also monitor the sand and laterite mining locations that would supply

the Ancol CDF, and develop a mechanism to verify these materials are actually coming from these

locations. The project will work closely with the DKI BPLHD to address any issues that arise.

Risks associated with the larger reclamation activities in Jakarta

206. As noted in Section 2.6.1, the Ancol CDF site is a specific and relatively small reclamation area

set within a larger and ongoing long term reclamation process in the Ancol area of north Jakarta that

started in the early 1960‟s. PT. PJA has carried out some of these reclamation activities in the past

(Ancol CDF the fourth phase PT. PJA reclamation effort in the Ancol area). Besides contributing dredge

material to the specific Ancol CDF reclamation, the JUFMP does not finance nor is it related to any other

reclamation efforts in the Ancol area. Apart from contributing to reducing the need for sand material as

described in the foregoing paragraph, JUFMP in cooperation with PT. PJA is also introducing improved

81

environmental practices for the handling and disposal of dredge material for reclamation (e.g., through the

use of a confined disposal facility) and has put in place appropriate monitoring and supervision

arrangements for the Ancol CDF. There is a risk that JUFMP may be wrongly associated by the public

and other stakeholders as being responsible over other reclamation projects e.g., those that have occurred

in the past or potentially may occur in the future89

. The project documents and information dissemination

efforts will aim to emphasize and make clear that the extent of JUFMP‟s linkage in this regard is confined

to the Ancol CDF.

89

It is expected that any future projects will be subjected to their own AMDAL processes.

82

Annex 1

Project MAP

83

Annex 2

Tentative Plan for the Preparation of Phase 2 related EIAs and RPs

Description

Planned

Works

Commen-

cement

Expected

EIA

Disclosure

Resettlement Plan (RP)

Expected Cut-off Date

Expected

RP

Disclosure

Package 1 (Ciliwing-Gunung

Sahari Drain, Waduk Melati) Apr 2012

Jan 2011

(actual)

NA NA

Package 2a (Cengkareng

Floodway) Apr 2012

Jan 2011

(actual)

NA NA

Package 2b (Lower Sunter

Floodway) Apr 2012

Jan 2011

(actual)

NA NA

Package 3 (Cideng Thamrin Drain) Apr 2012 Jan 2012 NA NA

Package 4 (Sentiong-Sunter Drain,

Waduk Sunter Utara, Waduk

Sunter Selatan, Waduk Sunter

Timur III)

Dec 2012 Jul 2012 Sentiong-Sunter: Aug 2011

Waduk Sunter Utara: Mar 2012

Jul 2012

Package 5 (Tanjungan Drain,

Lower Angke Drain) Oct 2012 Jun 2012 NA NA

Package 6 (West Banjir Canal,

Upper Sunter Floodway) Apr 2013 Nov 2012 Jul 2012

Nov 2012

Package 7 (Grogol – Sekretaris

Drain, Pakin – Kali Besar –

Jelakeng Drain, Krukut Cideng

Drain, Krukut Lama Drain)

Dec 2012 Jul 2012 Mar 2012 Jul 2012

Note: Dates of the preparation of safeguards instruments are subject to change, to align with any changes in planned construction timing.

84

Annex 3

Case Studies

Eviction in Kemiri, Tambora VI and Tambora VIII Sites.

1. Kemiri, Tambora VI and Tambora VIII are two locations adjacent to JUFMP sites. The evictions

took place for traders conducting activities along the road shoulder in front of Cengkareng drain nearby

the Kemiri market, and along the shoulders of Tambora VI and VIII roads (associated with Pakin-Kali

Besar-Jelakeng site). Evictions in these sites have been long requested by the Municipality of West

Jakarta. Kemiri market forced eviction (initial plan was in 2007, eviction in December 2008) was due to

traffic congestions and unhealthy competition among customers in the “formal” Kemiri market and

informal traders who were doing businesses along the roads on the side of the riverbanks. The eviction at

Tambora VI (initial plan was in September 2007, eviction in December 2008) took place to enforce public

order control for illegal businesses, and restore the function of the riverbanks and road shoulder to their

original conditions. The eviction at Tambora VIII in February 2009 occurred after the annual permits for

traders were expired and for reducing traffic congestion.

2. Process and impacts of the eviction nearby the Kemiri Market. Before the eviction, there were a

total of 250 structures including 80 street vendor stalls occupying the road shoulders / riverbanks in and

along the inspection road for Cengkareng drain. Some had apparently occupied the riverbanks. These

illegal structures and trading activities had developed from 25 structures in 2000, and become the

competitors of the traders of the Kemiri Market located across from the evicted site. Since then, the West

Jakarta Municipality has persuaded the traders to move out from the site to four alternative markets (with

six months free rents), but the number of them had been growing through time. Traffic conditions along

this road had been worsened, and traders of the Kemiri market had increasingly complained that they

were losing customers who preferred to go to the informal market. Unmanaged solid waste entered the

drainage system. Preparation for eviction started in 2007, and more than three notifications letters were

issued during the process. After the consultative processes with the traders reached a deadlock situation,

the eviction was finally undertaken in December 2008 by the Public Safety Officers (Satpol PP) and was

assisted by the police. No compensation was provided. In many cases, vendors participated in dismantling

their structures to salvage building materials. About two months after eviction, activities in front of the

Kemiri Market returned to the pre-eviction conditions. Most of the evictees (about 80%) have returned to

the site and gradually has become an informal market, selling goods without tents and stands. New

vendors also join the evicted vendors. The activities were of similar nature as those before eviction but

there has been increasing variety of goods sold in the informal market. This market was also open at

night, as without tents trading activities cannot take place during the hottest part of the day. Despite this

development, interviewed traders claimed that their income have been significantly declined after

eviction.

3. Process and impacts of the evictions at Tambora VI and Tambora VIII roads. These sites,

situated on the road shoulders/ riverbanks of Jelakeng canal, started to develop in 1974 when six people

from Banten (Formerly in West Java province, now is belonged to Banten province) established wood-

85

packing businesses. Since then, more traders have come to these sites including those from other parts of

West Java and Central Java. Until the eviction in December 2008 and February 2009, there were 125

wood packing and steel traders, chicken butchers, food stall, phone credits vendors, etc. in these two sites.

Most traders, particularly those who occupied Tambora VIII, had permits that were expired in February

2009. Some traders also lived in the stalls. The West Jakarta Municipality has notified the traders since

2007 to move out from the sites for the purpose to return the function of the riverbanks, roads and

rearrange the land use as mandated in the spatial development plan. Interviews with some of the evicted

traders met in the sites revealed that prior to eviction they had been offered to relocate to two markets, of

which they refused because these markets are not suitable for selling woods and steels, even though they

are located in a relatively close distance to these sites. They were not given any compensation, and

consultations were considered very limited. Field visits during post-eviction showed that around 35% of

the traders continued doing businesses at Tambora VI road, but across their original sites. Turnover or

income from business was significantly declined immediately after the eviction. Some interviewees

claimed that turnovers dropped to 20% because of the loss of customers and not enough space to do

businesses in the new site across the original site. Since then, more traders returned, although they built

temporary tents/shacks to protect their merchandizes. Their businesses have been directed towards made-

to-order sales due to limited space. New traders also joined the evicted traders in the new sites.

86

Annex 4

List of Key Reference Documents in the Project Files

Project Environmental and Social Safeguards Package of Documents

1. Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), June 2011

2. Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF), December 2010

3. Environmental Impact Assessment, Management Plan and Monitoring Plan (together referred to

as the AMDAL) for the Dredging of Floodways/Drainage Canals and Waduks Phase 1 JUFMP,

February / March 2010

4. JUFMP Phase 1 Environmental and Social Management Supplementary Report, June 2011

5. Updated Environment Management Plan (RKL) and Environment Monitoring Plan (RPL) for the

Development of West Ancol Eastern Side of ± 119 ha, March 2009

6. Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report, June 2011

Other Key Reference Documents

7. JEDI / JUFMP Sediment Quality Consolidated Report, August 2010

8. Preliminary Assessment of Sediment Quality (ERM), October 2008

9. Pilot Dredging Project: Technical Note on Evaluation of the sediment and water sampling result

(DHV), May 2008

10. Metals and Trace Organic Compounds in Sediments and Waters of Jakarta Bay and the Pulau

Seribu Complex, Indonesia, March 2000

11. Mission Report: JEDI Environmental Assessment (USACE), October 2008

12. Tracer Study at Tambora VI and Tambora VIII (for evictions in December 2008 and February

2009)

13. Case Study Eviction Cengkareng Drain Inspection Road

14. JEDI / JUFMP Community Consultation Consolidated Report, August 2010

15. Laporan Kegiatan Konsultasi Publik Kerangka Kebijakan Permukiman Kembali (KPPK)

[Resettlement Policy Framework Public Consultations Report], December 2010.

16. Cooperation Agreement between DKI Jakarta and PT PJA on sludge disposal from the results of

the dredging of rivers, retention basins and channels on the waters of the eastern part of West

Ancol with an area of +/- 120 Ha (approximately one hundred twenty hectares) located in

Kelurahan Ancol, Kecamatan Pademangan, North Jakarta, December 2010