World Bank · Web view2012/11/16 · prepared under the Urban Governance and Development Program / Emerging Towns Project (UGDP/ETP) in order to accommodate environmental and social

OCTOBER 2012TDF / SWMTSC

OUTPUT-BASED AID FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN NEPALENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

E4062 v2

OBA NEPAL - DRAFT ESMF

CONTENTSList of abbreviations 5

1 Introduction 7

2 Project description 82.1 Project objectives 82.2 Project design 82.3 Project components 92.4 Participating municipalities 102.5 Proposed interventions under the OBA Project 10

3 Environmental and Social Risks of the Proposed OBA interventions 14

4 Framework for Managing Environmental and Social Risks Associated with the OBA Project 20

4.1 Introduction 204.2 Environmental and Social Categorization of OBA

Interventions 204.3 Environmental and social considerations in the

planning of OBA interventions 224.4 Environmental and Social Management Plan

(ESMP) 234.5 Environmental and social safeguards monitoring

and auditing 24

5 Institutional Capacity for Environmental and Social Safeguards Management 25

5.1 Institutions and key stakeholders 255.2 Roles and responsibilities 255.3 Assessment of institutional capacity to plan,

implement and monitor safeguard measures 275.4 National Legislation and Policies Relevant to the

OBA Interventions 29

3

4

6 Stakeholder Consultations and Communication 326.1 Stakeholder consultations 326.2 Communication 33

Annex 1: Key data for each Municipality in the Initial Pipeline and the Proposed OBA Interventions 35

Annex 2: Environmental and Social Framework Procedures 52

Annex 3: Screening Checklists 58

Annex 4: Potential Environmental Issues and Impacts in Solid Waste Management 65

Annex 5: Anticipated Environmental and Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures 73

Annex 6: GoN Acts and Guidelines relevant to the OBA Project 78

Annex 7: Template for an ESMP 88

Annex 8: ESMP Overview and Monitoring Template 91

Annex 9: Report on Stakeholder Consultations carried out to date 94


List of abbreviationsAP Affected peopleCBO Community Based OrganizationCDO Chief District OfficerEHS Environmental, Health, and SafetyEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEM Ethnic MinorityEMF Environmental Management FrameworkEPA Environmental Protection ActERP Environmental Protection RegulationESMF Environmental and Social Management FrameworkESMP Environmental and Social Management PlanFS Feasibility StudyGoN Government of NepalGPOBA Global Partnership for Output Based AidIPDP Indigenous Peoples Development PlanIEE Initial Environmental ExaminationIFC International Finance Corporation (World Bank Group)IFVA Independent Financial Verification AgentIP Indigenous PeoplesIPDP Indigenous Peoples Development PlanITVA Independent Technical Verification AgentLSGA Local Self Governance Act 1999M&E Monitoring and EvaluationMoEST Ministry of Environment, Science and TechnologyMoPPW Ministry of Physical Planning and Works MUD Ministry of Urban Development.NEIA National Environmental Impact AssessmentNGO Non Government OrganizationOBA Output Based AidPIMPPPUE

Project Implementation ManualPublic-Private Partnerships for the Urban Environment

SMF Social Management FrameworkSWM Solid Waste ManagementSWM-SIP Solid Waste Management Service Improvement PlanSWMTSC Solid Waste Management Technical Support CentreTDF Town Development FundTLO Tole Lane OrganizationUGDP/ETP Urban Governance and Development Program/Emerging

5

6

Towns ProjectVG Vulnerable GroupWB World Bank


1 IntroductionThis Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) document is prepared as an addendum to the existing Environmental Management Framework (EMF)1 prepared under the Urban Governance and Development Program / Emerging Towns Project (UGDP/ETP) in order to accommodate environmental and social risks specific to the OBA intervention on municipal waste management. Given that the waste management OBA pilot project is also open to non-UGDP/ETP municipalities, the addendum is prepared in such a way that it is a standalone document that can be applied by non-UGDP/ETP municipalities.

The ESMF defines the steps, processes, and procedures for screening, assessment, monitoring and management of social and environmental issues related to the OBA project. In addition, the ESMF analyses environmental and social policies and legal regime of Nepal and safeguard policies of the World Bank as well as institutional and capacity assessment for environmental and social management. The ESMF is intended to be used as a practical tool during planning, design, implementation, and monitoring in the OBA project.

In order to identify, mitigate and manage adverse environmental and social impacts that are likely to arise from the activities of the project during implementation, ESMF is required to ensure that environmental and social issues are dealt with in a proper and efficient manner meeting all the compliance requirements of Government of Nepal (GoN) environmental regulations and policies, and the World Bank’s environmental and social safeguard policies.

The ESMF will be followed during project implementation for ensuring environmental and social integration in planning, implementation, and monitoring of project supported activities.

1 Environmental Management Framework for Urban Governance and Development Program: Emerging Towns Project. Project Coordination Office. Department of Urban Development and Building Construction. Ministry of Physical Planning and Works Babarmahal, Nepal. July, 2011

7

8

2 Project descriptionThis Chapter present a brief summary of the OBA project with focus on environmental and social issues. A detailed project description is provided in the Operations Manual for the OBA project.

2.1 Project objectivesThe development objective of the OBA project is to improve access to high quality and financially sustainable solid waste management (SWM) services in participating municipalities in Nepal.

2.2 Project designThe OBA project is designed as a framework approach whereby all the key design principles (including eligibility criteria, institutional, financial, technical, fiduciary and safeguards) are agreed during project preparation and are subsequently applied during project implementation.

Basic environmental and social related eligibility criteria for participating in the project include:› Municipalities must already have access to a landfill that is operational, and is

considered environmentally acceptable within GoN’s environmental guidelines and standards;

› Municipalities must already have a basic functioning SWM system in place (collection and disposal) and an existing system for collecting solid waste charges from beneficiaries; and

› Municipalities must agree to prepare a SWM strategy and action plan, which must include a four year action plan to improve the quality and financial situation of SWM operations (hereinafter referred to as a Solid Waste Management Service Improvement Plan (SWM-SIP). The SWM-SIP must include an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) for all planned activities/interventions over the four year period. Activity with highly significant environmental and social risks, such as those requiring full


Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), is not-eligible for support under the OBA project.

The main central government counterparts for this pilot project are:

(i) The Town Development Fund (TDF) – a government-owned, semi autonomous municipal finance institution which will act as the Grant Fiduciary Agent; and

(ii) The Solid Waste Management Technical Support Centre (SWMTSC) within the Ministry of Urban Development (MUD). The SWMTSC is the lead technical agency for Nepal’s SWM sector and will assist in the technical aspects of the project.

2.3 Project componentsThe project has three components:

(i) A service delivery subsidy to support gradual improvements in cost recovery in tandem with service quality improvements over a four-year period;

(ii) Implementation support to municipalities during project implementation; and

(iii) Project management, monitoring and verification activities.

Component 1 – Service delivery subsidy

This component will finance service delivery subsidies for each Participating Municipality, over a four (4) year period, to cover the gap between the operating and maintenance costs of delivering identified SWM service improvements and the Beneficiary Revenues collected through SWM fees, provided that the said services meet verified minimum performance criteria on the technical scorecard. Subsidies will be paid to municipalities based on agreed multiples of verified beneficiary revenue collected provided that services meet pre-agreed minimum performance criteria.

Component 2 – Implementation support to municipalities

This component will finance critical technical assistance to participating municipalities to assist them in successfully implementing the project, including preparation of service improvement plans; preparation of manuals and training in landfill operations and management; improvement of billing and revenue collection systems for solid waste management services; monitoring and evaluation and performance management systems for solid waste management services; design and implementation of integrated solid waste management activities based on 3R (reduce, reuse and recycle) principles; design and implementation of information, education and communication campaigns; and design of appropriate contractual arrangements in cases where a municipality chooses to contract with the private sector, non-governmental organizations or community-based organizations.

9

10

Component 3 – Project management, monitoring, evaluation and communications

This component will finance project management costs; consulting services for monitoring and verification of outputs and performance, baseline and beneficiary assessments, studies and other M&E activities, and communication and dissemination activities

2.4 Participating municipalitiesSWMTSC has facilitated a self-selection process based on the eligibility criteria, and five municipalities have come forward to form the initial pipeline. The pipeline includes two small municipalities (Tansen and Dhankuta), one medium-size municipality (Lekhnath) and two sub-metropolitan cities (Pokhara and Lalitpur). All five municipalities have provided written confirmation of interest to participate and commitment to the project’s principles. Feasibility studies have been conducted in two of the municipalities (Tansen and Dhankuta). The analysis in the rest of the municipalities is at Pre-FS level.

The OBA project requires municipalities to:

(i) Prepare a SWM strategy and action plan, which must include a four year action plan to improve the quality and financial situation of SWM operations (hereinafter referred to as a Solid Waste Management Service Improvement Plan (SWM-SIP). The SWM-SIP must identify those service delivery improvements to be covered under the OBA project;

(ii) Establish a SWM Committee and a dedicated SWM Unit;(iii) Decide on the service delivery model –i.e. municipality’s own in-house

team, contracting with private sector/non-governmental organizations (NGOs)/ “Tole Lane Organizations”(TLOs), or a combination of these;

(iv) Implement service delivery improvements as per agreed plans;(v) Implement a designated SWM fee charged to all waste generators, and

collect the revenues; and(vi) Gradually increase the SWM fee charged as per agreed tariff profile

during the project period.

The OBA is a framework project and is not limited to the above-mentioned five municipalities. Other eligible municipalities may have the opportunity to join the project later as per the Project Operations Manual.

2.5 Proposed interventions under the OBA Project

Consistent with the OBA principle, the project allows municipalities the flexibility to make choices regarding the service delivery model and the combination of interventions required to achieve pre-agreed results in terms of improved quality of services and financial sustainability. Thus, the exact scope of interventions to be supported in each municipality is unknown at this stage. However, based on assessments and consultations carried during preparation of the OBA project,


municipalities have identified a menu of critical interventions that would be required to achieve the results.

Key data for each municipality in the initial pipeline and the proposed OBA interventions is presented in Annex 1. A summary is provided in Table 2.1 below.

The types of interventions identified include (i) purchase of additional equipment, including waste collection vehicles such as tractors, trailers and compactors; waste collection bins, and home compositing bins etc; (ii) improvement of information and recording systems for solid waste operations; (iii) improvement of billing, revenue collection systems; (iv) improvement of waste collection and landfill management practices; (v) capacity building of municipality staff involved solid waste management; (vi) improvement of existing transfer stations and compositing facilities; and (vii) procurement of private operators/NGOs for primary waste collection (where a municipality chooses so) in selected wards under a clear contractual framework in which the performance incentives of the project are transferred to the private operator.

The project interventions do not involve construction of landfills or other waste facilities that require acquisition of private land or resettlements.

Table 2.1 - OBA interventions and investments in Initial Pipeline municipalities

Municipality OBA intervention Minimum investment needs

Dhankuta Proposed service improvements under OBA intervention:› Actual delivery of the present formal service level in the

existing urban and peri-urban service areas› Increase in service area to cover some of the presently

un-serviced urban and peri-urban areas off the black top roads and possibly larger rural settlements close to the existing urban areas in Dhankuta and Hile

› Provision of a higher service level through:› Kerbside collection along streets where the

collection truck drives› Offer home composting bins to households with own

land (pilot)› Three bin household separation in organic,

inorganic and hazardous (pilot) and training households in waste separation

› Litter bins in market area

Procurement of:› 1 new tractor and trailer› 3,000 waste collection bins with lid › 100 bins for home composting

pilot› 300 bins for three bin households

collection pilot› 100 litter bins in market area › Capacity building at municipality

and TLOs

Tansen Proposed service improvements under OBA intervention:› Extending services into the non-serviced areas in wards

3, 9, 10, 11, 14 where households have stated interested and willingness to pay

› Piloting TLOs as customers in these areas to facilitate customer responsive service and high tariff collection ratio

› Increase coverage of the existing well- functioning blue bin system through purchase of 2-3,000 new bins

› Extend home composting pilot to reduce waste to landfill, but support with both training upon inception and monitoring during implementation

Procurement of:› 2,000 bins for kerbside collection› 200 bins for extension of the home

composting pilot› Capacity building at municipality

and TLOs

11

12

Municipality OBA intervention Minimum investment needs

Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City

Proposed service improvements under OBA intervention:› Clear contractual framework for private operators

combined with professional monitoring function in the municipality

› Higher level of door to door collection by private operators combined with waste minimization (waste segregation, composting and recycling) as well as awareness and training

› Gradual shift in municipal focus to ensuring efficient and environmentally acceptable transfer and disposal and monitoring of collection service providers

Procurement of:› 2-4 smaller waste collection

vehicles per year to gradually replace tricycles and rickshaws

› Waste segregation bins and home composting bins for households

› Improvements to existing transfer station(s) and bulk transport to landfill.

› Private operators/NGOs for primary waste collection in selected wards under a clear contractual framework in which the performance incentives of the OBA project are transferred to the private operator.

Pokhara Sub-Metropolitan City

Proposed service improvements under OBA intervention:› Build on experience from PPPUE and existing contracts

for PSP when extending service area to 4,650 new households in To Pame Sarankot VDC, Nemta VDC, Lamachow VDC and Kanseri Arba VDC and increasing service level from weekly/biweekly service in Wards 13, 14, 16 and 18.

› Establish composting and separate collection for 12 MT/day vegetable market waste as PSP on public land

› Extend existing pilot on home composting by distribution of 500 bins per year

› Pilot on source segregation supported by awareness building

› Purchase around 8 new vehicles

Procurement of:› 8 new waste collection vehicles

(compactors) gradually (e.g. 2 per year for 4 years) to supplement existing vehicles (which the municipality is also gradually replacing)


› Composting facility for market waste(on public land) under private sector management

› Private operators/NGOs for primary waste collection in selected wards under a clear contractual framework in which the performance incentives of the OBA project are transferred to the private operator.

Lekhnath Proposed service improvements under OBA intervention:› Developing a Solid Waste Management Plan› Contracting and monitoring a private operator› Waste collection services to 5,000 households, hotels

and restaurants in first year and gradually growing thereafter

› Work with TLOs on household level source segregation and home composting

› Segregation and sale of recyclables prior to landfill of residuals

Necessary procurement to deliver this service improvement:› Home composting bins› Bins for household separation› TA on managing Private Sector

Participation in waste management

The service level and key environmental and social issues for waste collection, street sweeping and disposal is described for each municipality in Annex 1. The following overall environmental concerns and challengers for participation in the OBA project have been identified:


› Tansen municipality: A new landfill has not yet been taken into operation. The proposed improvements in service provision under the OBA intervention require the new landfill becoming operational, which in turn will require an upgrade of the remaining 3 km of the access road;

› Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City: The existing landfill has only limited remaining capacity and the long term landfill situation is unclear. Clarification of the landfill situation should be a precondition to the OBA intervention; and

› Lekhnath municipality: Although no waste collection or disposal services have been in operation in the municipality before, the municipality will initiate waste collection services from the new budget year 2012/13. The municipality plans to develop a landfill and a recycling center at the preferred site and has in cooperation with SWMTSC and local bodies identified and prioritized three landfill sites. The municipality has forwarded request for Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) through the SWMTSC. The SWMTSC is ready to commence the IEE procedure for the landfill site and other facilities. However, it is likely that the new landfill will not be operational for 3-5 years. Identification of an environmentally acceptable short term solution to disposal of residual waste prior to a possible Lekhnath landfill being operational should be a precondition to the OBA intervention. The solution may involve negotiating access to Pokhara’s landfill located less than 10 km away and paying a tipping fee. As part of this negotiation, the two municipalities may consider a capacity swap arrangement in which Lekhnath is allowed to deposit residual waste at Pokhara landfill until the Lekhnath landfill becomes operational and Pokhara subsequently allowed access to Lekhnath landfill for a similar amount of waste.

13

14

3 Environmental and Social Risks of the Proposed OBA interventions

The OBA project is aimed at improving the overall SWM in participating municipalities and will contribute positively to each town's cleanliness and sanitation and will as such have positive environmental and social impacts.

Service improvements envisaged will typically include increased frequency of waste collection, expanding the service area to cover yet un-served areas, introduction of waste segregation and waste reduction initiatives including composting, provision of transport vehicles and other equipment, and improving landfill site management as well as improvement in collection and transportation practices.

Table 2.2 outlines the potential environmental and social risks related to the OBA intervention in the pipeline municipalities and potential standard mitigation measures have been identified. A brief description of the informal recycling system in Lalitpur including proposals for mechanisms to improve the livelihoods of informal waste collectors is provided in Annex 1.

Besides the environmental and social risks directly related to OBA supported activities (such as identified in Table 2.2), environmental and social issues related to the ‘linked2’ activities should also be screened and assessed as described in Chapter 4. The ‘linked’ activities should be subjected to the same environmental and social standard as that of the OBA supported activity.

2 ‘Linked’ activity is an activity on which feasibility or success or meeting the objective of the OBA supported activity is dependent.


Table 2.2 - Potential environmental and social risks related to the OBA interventions in Initial Pipeline municipalities

Municipality OBA intervention Potential risks Potential mitigation measures

Dhankuta Increase of the collection service area

Pest problems, bad odor and waste littering from storage of waste prior to collection.

Spillage from collection trucks during collection and transportation causing littering of waste in the streets and in the nature.

Provide sufficient number of proper bins/containers for storage of waste prior to collection and establish frequently and timely collection of the waste according to planned schedule.

Inform households and other users about the waste collection system and the collection scheme. Encourage households and other users to put waste out at designated times and locations

Avoid overfilling of open waste trucks during collection and cover the waste during transportation to the disposal facility to avoid windblown litter.

Health impacts on workers Provide workers with and require use of appropriate protective clothing, gloves and slip-resistant shoes, see requirements in Section 1.2 in the IFC EHS Guidelines for Waste Management Facilities3. Train the workers in correct lifting technique for loading of the collection truck with waste

Provide prompt medical attention for cuts and bruises

Increased waste amounts to the landfill with risk of increased adverse environmental and social impacts from landfill operation

Introduce source separation, material recycling and composting of the organic fraction. This will reduce the waste amounts to the landfill and will furthermore reduce the generation of landfill gas and highly contaminated leachate at the landfill site.

Introduce home composting

Vermin problems and bad odor during the composting process due to incorrect operation

Spreading of plastic, glass and other unwanted materials in gardens etc. by use of compost (caused by incorrect sorting of waste prior to composting)

Information and training of households in correct separation, operation and use of compost before start up of the home composting and monitoring and support during the operation. Monitoring of the system

Three bin household separation in organic, inorganic and hazardous waste

Incorrect handling, separation and storing of the waste in the households resulting in incorrect treatment/disposal of the separated waste fractions

Provide proper bins for storage of the separated fractions and information and training of households in correct waste separation. Monitoring of and follow-up on correct use of the system

Tansen Extending collection services into non-serviced areas

As described above for Dhankuta As described above for Dhankuta

3 A brief description of the IFC EHS guidelines is provided in Annex 8

15

16


Extending home composting pilot


Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City

Higher level of door to door collection by private operators combined with waste minimization (waste segregation, composting and recycling)

Loose of jobs for existing municipal waste collectors by introduction of private operators in an area

Request the private operators contractually to employ the municipal staff when private operation is introduced in an area previously serviced by the municipality

Loose of livelihood for waste pickers when waste segregation at source is gradually increased

Request the private operators to employ waste pickers4 as part of the collection system; or

Establish separate collection of the recyclable fraction by use of waste pickers. This might be combined with the establishment of a buy-back centre5 in the area. The buy-back centre may provide the waste pickers with proper collection equipment, personal protection clothing, gloves and shoes as well as cleaning and washing facilities, health and safety training and frequently health checks.

Incorrect handling, separation and storing of the waste in the households resulting in incorrect treatment/disposal of the separated waste fractions

As described above for Dhankuta

Vermin problems and bad odor during storage of organic materials and during the composting process due to incorrect operation

Spreading of plastic, glass and other unwanted materials in the environment by use of compost (caused by incorrect sorting of waste prior to composting)

As described above for Dhankuta

Gradual shift in municipal focus to ensuring efficient and environmentally acceptable transfer and disposal and monitoring of collection service providers (new improved transfer station(s) and bulk transport to landfill).6

Existing environmental and social unacceptable operation of the transfer stations (or rather informal sorting stations) continues in several years (littering, odor, sorting by waste pickers without any protective measures, unknown disposal of waste residuals, run-off of

Request the municipality to prepare a plan including a time schedule for improvement and establishment of the sorting/transfer facilities.

Immediate improvement of existing sorting and transfer stations › Provide workers with and

require use of appropriate protective clothing, gloves, dust

4 It was during interviews with the different stakeholders in the municipality revealed that not all waste pickers want to have a permanent appointment. They prefer to have the freedom to do waste picking themselves.5 A buy-back centre is a facility where individuals, waste pickers, street hawkers, small vendors etc. can deliver recyclable materials and get a payment in cash for the materials at the delivery.



leachate to surface water) masks/respirators and slip-resistant shoes, see requirements in Section 1.2 in the IFC EHS Guidelines for Waste Management Facilities

› Provide prompt medical attention for cuts and bruise

› Improve the markets and health conditions for the waste pickers by e.g. establishment of a buy-back centre with known and agreed prices at /close to the transfer stations. Provide the waste pickers with proper collection equipment, personal protection clothing, gloves and shoes as well as a rest room and cleaning and washing facilities, health and safety training and frequently health checks.

› Establish daily collection of residuals and ensure that the residuals are transported to disposal at the landfill

Close down of existing not properly located sorting / transfer stations and establish proper location, design and operation of new transfer stations meeting national environmental guidelines7.

Pokhara Sub-Metropolitan City

Extending collection service area - collection by private operators

As described above for Dhankuta As described above for Dhankuta. Include proper environmental and social including health and safety requirements in accordance with WG guidelines in contracts with private operators and monitor the compliance during the operation

6 Existing stations are not properly located from an environmental point of view (close to surface water bodies)7 Ref to NEIA Guidelines for SWM Project in the municipalities in Nepal, SWMRMC

17

18


Establish composting and separate collection for 12 MT/day vegetable market waste as PSP on public land8

Vermin problems and bad odor during storage of organic materials and during the composting process due to incorrect operation

Spreading of plastic, glass and other unwanted materials in the environment by use of compost (caused by incorrect sorting of waste prior to composting)

Include proper environmental and social including health and safety requirements in contracts with private operators and monitor the compliance during the operation

Frequently collection and information and training of market stand holders in correct separation and storage of the organic waste. Training of staff at the composting facility in correct operation.

Possible sieving of the compost at the composting facility to remove plastics and glass from the compost.

Pollution of groundwater by leachate from the composting facility

Cover the composting facility to protect against rain or establish a lined bottom, drain layer and leachate collection system at the composting facility and use the collected leachate in the composting process

Health impacts on workers at the composting facility

Provide workers with and require use of appropriate protective clothing, gloves, dust masks/respirators and slip-resistant shoes, see requirements in Section 1.2 in the IFC EHS Guidelines for Waste Management Facilities

Provide prompt medical attention for cuts and bruises

Extend existing pilot on home composting


Pilot on source segregation


Lekhnath Introduce waste collection services by private operators

As described above for Dhankuta As described above for Pokhara

Introduce household level source segregation and home composting


Segregation and sale of recyclables prior to landfilling of residuals

Dumping of residuals as the municipality currently does not have a landfill

Identification of an environmentally acceptable short term solution to disposal of residual waste until the sanitary landfill is established

Negotiate access to Pokhara landfill and pay a tipping fee

8 No resettlement problems or loss of land is foreseen at the actual location of the composting facility. IEE not required


The above environmental and social concerns are related to the operational interventions that will be implemented under Component 1 of the project, and as outlined in Chapter 2. As mention earlier, participating municipalities will make choices regarding what combination of interventions (‘inputs’) are required to achieving the minimum performance requirements agreed in the technical scorecard. As such the exact nature and scope of interventions is unknown at this stage.

Consequently, GoN (through the implementing partners – TDF and SWMTSC) and World Bank have agreed to an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) to be applied during project implementation to mitigate negative environmental and social impacts, and to enhance positive impacts in line with GoN and World Bank requirements. The assessment made during preparation of the ESMF indicates that most of the anticipated interventions have limited negative environmental impacts. In fact, all the interventions are expected to contribute to an improved urban environment in each municipality. The next chapter outlines the main elements of the agreed framework for managing environmental and social risks under the OBA project.

19

20

4 Framework for Managing Environmental and Social Risks Associated with the OBA Project

4.1 IntroductionThis chapter briefly outlines the process and steps which each participating municipality will follow in managing the potential environmental and social risks identified in the previous chapter.

Environmental and social assessments must be carried out by municipalities for each activity/intervention proposed in the SWM-SIP. For all interventions proposed, municipalities will assess the potential adverse environmental and social risks and impacts; develop mitigation measures, as well as environmental and social management plans. The objective is to ensure that all solid waste management activities/interventions proposed in the SWM-SIP are environmentally and socially sound, and are implemented in a manner that does not adversely affect the environment or the social wellbeing of the residents of the municipality or the surrounding areas in the short and long term. Below is an outline of the process and steps. A detailed step-by-step description is provided in Annex 2 and guidance on the type and nature of risks/impacts to be expected in standard SWM operations is provided in Annexes 4-5

4.2 Environmental and Social Categorization of OBA Interventions

To ascertain the impacts, the extent and type of environmental and social assessment required, a screening must be conducted by each municipality for each activity/intervention proposed under the SWM-SIP. A detailed screening checklist is provided in Annex 3. Based on the outcome from the responses in checklist, each activity will be classified into categories depending on legal requirements and the nature and magnitude of its potential environmental and social impacts.


The OBA project will be based on the UGDP: NETP categorization system as outlined below

For environmental impacts, the following categorization will be used:

Category I: Negative listing of activities/interventions (these are ineligible for funding). Activities in the category of ‘negative listing’ will be rejected at screening. Criteria for ‘negative listing’ related or linked to the OBA project are as follows: › Activities or interventions not included in the SWM-SIP of the municipality.› Activities requiring EIA › Activities using or depending for its resources from national parks and

protected areas or any critical aquatic and terrestrial habitat area.› Activities that are located in defined/ known high risk zone such as landslide

prone area, steep slopes, highly degraded land in hills, riverine area susceptible to annually flooding, and in areas causing large-scale soil erosion.

› Any activity that involves significant land clearance and excavation on slopes greater than 45 degree.

› Activities affecting a nationally or internationally renowned heritage site› Activities involving major environmental harm.› Activities that produce hazardous wastes

Category II: Activities or interventions requiring IEE based on Nepalese regulations.

Category III: Activities or interventions that do not require IEE according to Nepalese regulations but their implementation and operation still have some adverse environmental impacts.

Category IV: Activities to be recommended for approval without any environmental assessment.

For social impacts, the following categorization will be used:

With respect to Resettlement Planning Requirements9:

Category A: Significant impact, a full Resettlement Plan is required

Category B: Non significant impact, a short Resettlement Plan is required

Category C: No negative impacts, no resettlement report is required

With respect to Indigenous Peoples Development Plan:

Category A: An Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP) is required

9 OBA interventions do not involve construction of landfills or other waste facilities that require acquisition of private land or resettlements. Hence all activities ware expected to fall into category C with respect to resettlement planning requirements. Category A and B activities will not be eligible under the OBA project.

21

22

Category B: An activity-specific action favourable to indigenous peoples is required and addressed through specific provision in related plans such as a Resettlement Plan, or a general Social Action Plan

Category C: No IPDP or specific action required

It should be noted that OBA interventions do not involve construction of landfills or other waste facilities that require acquisition of private land or resettlements. Existing landfill sites have been subjected to environmental screening and limited Environmental Assessment called Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) under Nepal environmental legislation.

4.3 Environmental and social considerations in the planning of OBA interventions

National policies on infrastructure development in Nepal give ample emphasis on application of environmental and social considerations in all projects developed in the country. Thus, such considerations will be applied to the OBA project, and specifically to all interventions participating municipalities will propose in their respective SWM-SIPs.

The following environmental considerations and steps will be considered in the planning and preparation phase of SWM-SIP activities:› Step 1: Collection and assessment of preliminary information about

environmental and social issues of proposed activities/interventions› Step 2: Environmental and social screening and categorization› Step 3: Preparation of an Environmental and Social Management Plan

The checklist and categorization will be prepared by the head of the SWM unit/department of the municipality, approved by the Executive Officer in the municipality and endorsed by the TDF's Environmental and Social Safeguard Specialists.

Environment and social issues, if any arising in the planning stages and/or likely during implementation of a particular activity/intervention, shall be flagged and addressed immediately and appropriately. Based upon the categorisation, additional steps should be taken up as appropriate/if necessary shall be taken up before approval and commencement of implementation.

4.4 Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP)

4.4.1 Objectives of the ESMPThe OBA project requires participating municipalities to prepare specific ESMP and include the plan as an Annex to the SWM-SIP. The ESMP shall deal with all


on-going and planned new activities and improvements in the planning period of the SWM-SIP.

The basic objectives of the EMSP are to: › To ensure that all mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will

actually be carried out during SWM-SIP implementation › Recommend a plan of action and a means of testing the plan to meet existing

and projected environmental and social problems; › Establish the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in environmental

and social management aspects of the SWM-SIP; › Describe mitigation measures that shall be implemented to avoid or mitigate

adverse environmental and social impacts and maximizing the positive ones; › Ensure implementation of recommended actions aimed at environmental and

social management and its enhancement; and › Ensure that the environment and its surrounding areas are protected and

developed to meet the needs of the local people, other stakeholders and safeguard the interests of the common people)

4.4.2 What should be included in the ESMP

The ESMP addresses the main environmental and social issues arising due to implementation of the SWM-SIP and suggests a strategy and action-plan to mitigate the adverse impacts and enhance the beneficial impacts. It consists of a set of mitigation, monitoring, and institutional measures to be taken during implementation of the SWM-SIP to eliminate adverse environmental and social impacts, offset them, or reduce them to acceptable levels. The plan also includes the actions needed to implement these measures.

The ESMP must include the following action points:› Actions required contain/remediate past environmental damage and

assessment of costs and/or further investigations.› Actions required to achieve compliance with national and World Bank

environmental, health, safety and labour regulations and standards (occupational safety and health)

› Actions that might be required to mitigate any adverse socio-economic impacts

The ESMP should also include: › Cost for implementation of each of the proposed mitigation measures/actions,

as well as implementation responsibility delineation.› Monitoring schedule for all mitigation measures/actions, including monitoring

responsibility delineation.› Cost estimate for ESMP monitoring,

The ESMP will be followed throughout SWM-SIP implementation. A template for an ESMP is enclosed in Annex 7.

23

24

In addition, in order to provide a total presentation and overview of all main environmental and social impacts and mitigation measures for all activities in the SWM-SIP, an overview table will be prepared. The table shall include an implementation schedule, cost of implementation the mitigation measures and monitoring the measures (budget/resources), delineation of responsibility for implementation of measures and means of verification. A template for an overview monitoring table is presented in Annex 8.

4.4.3 Approval of the ESMPApproval of the ESMP will take place at the same time as SWM-SIP approval. In other words, SWM-SIP approval is subject to clearance of the necessary environmental and social screening and assessments. The SWM-SIP (with the ESMP as an Annex) will be signed by the Executive Officer (EO) and submitted to SWMTSC for their review and no-objection, and then endorsed by TDF on the recommendation of SWMTSC.

4.5 Environmental and social safeguards monitoring and auditing

While responsibility for environmental and social safeguards planning and management will lie with the participating municipalities, the process and outcomes will be monitored by TDF with the support of SWMTSC. The monitoring will focus on key issues agreed with the municipalities, TDF and the SWMTSC, as part of the ESMP.

Monitoring will be done on a quarterly basis and a status report on compliance/non- compliance with the mitigation measures should be submitted. The monitoring should include all relevant key activities in the ESMP and identify specific areas to be additionally investigated or reflected as action points in ESMP. Comments and recommendations, e.g. additional studies/information /actions required to meet the requirement should presented. A template for a monitoring status report is presented in Annex 8.

An annual environmental and social safeguards monitoring report shall be prepared by an independent expert at each activity level and submitted to the TDF with a copy to SWMTSC for the their review and necessary course of corrective measures to be taken wherever necessary. TDF shall forward this report to the World Bank as part of the Annual progress report within three months upon completion of the Nepal’s fiscal year.


5 Institutional Capacity for Environmental and Social Safeguards Management

5.1 Institutions and key stakeholdersThe key implementation institutions and stakeholders under the OBA project include: › Town Development Fund (TDF)› Solid Waste Management Technical Support Center (SWMTSC)› Participating Municipalities › Independent Technical Verification Agent (ITVA) – to be competitively

procured under the project› Independent Financial Verification Agent (IFVA) – to be competitively

procured under the project› Tole Lane Organizations (TLOs)› Private Sector / NGOs› Households and Businesses (Beneficiaries)

Other stakeholders are Ministry of Finance (as grant recipient), Ministry of Industry (in relation to non-hazardous industrial waste), Ministry of Health and Population (in relation to non-hazardous hospital waste), the Ministry of Urban Development (under whose budget/supervision SWMTSC is placed, although it as per SWM Act 2011 under the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development) and District Development Committees (e.g. for any villages adjacent to a participating municipality that included under the project of the participating municipality or coordination between adjacent participating municipalities).

5.2 Roles and responsibilitiesOverall roles and responsibilities with focus on environmental and social impacts and management are briefly presented in Table 4.1 below. A detailed description of the roles and responsibilities of all parties as well as reporting obligations in relation to the entire project is provided Project Operations Manual.

Table 4.1 - Overall roles and responsibilities in relation to the OBA in SWM with focus on environmental and social impact and management

25

26

Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities

1 TDF › Responsible for all environmental and social safeguards monitoring under the project

› Review in general of environmental and social documents (with technical support from SWMTSC)

› Endorse SWM-SIP with the ESMP enclosed› Monitor and ensure that Participating municipalities are in

compliance with the ESMF for the OBA project› Prepare and submit periodic reports to environmental and

social safeguard issues

2 SWMTSC › Provide technical support to TDF and participating municipalities on environmental and social safeguard issues

› Provide technical support in environmental and safeguards monitoring

› Coordinate overall day to day implementation of the OBA Project

› Provide technical support to municipalities in developing SWM-SIPs and ESMPs

› Provide technical support to TDF in monitoring and ensuring compliance with the ESMF

› Contracting technical assistance providers to assist municipalities with implementation (e. g. on environmental and social issues)

› Review SWM-SIPs and provide a no-objection› Monitoring and quality assurance of the implementation of

the SWM-SIP › Prepare and submit progress reports to TDF

3 Participating Municipalities

› Responsible for environmental and social safeguards planning and management

› With the support of SWMTSC develop a SWM-SIP (with the ESMP attached)

› Establish SWM Committee and dedicated SWM Unit› Implement service improvements under the OBA project as

per agreed priorities in SWM-SIP› Ensure SWM-SIP activities/interventions are implemented

following the ESMF› Prepare and submit progress reports to SWMTSC, who will

then consolidate and send to TDF

4 ITVA › Confirm/collect environmental and social baseline data› On-site inspection and verification of a sample of the primary

data collected by the participating municipalities› Visual on-site inspection of all waste collection, transport and

disposal procedures supported by interviews with SWM staff as well as representative TLO managements

› Issue of the technical verification reports to the SWMTSC Manager immediately following the verification

5 IFVA No role for the IFVA on environmental and social issues

7 TLOs › Liaise with municipalities on service improvement priorities and quality of actual service delivery


Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities

8 Private Sector / NGOs

› Enter agreements with Participating Municipalities on service provision if envisioned in municipal service delivery model

9 Beneficiaries › Participate in waste separation and home composting activities in accordance with guidance and equipment provided by Participating Municipalities

› Dispose waste at designated disposal points› Provide feedback on quality of actual service delivery

through TLO

5.3 Assessment of institutional capacity to plan, implement and monitor safeguard measures

5.3.1 Capacity at the municipality level

An assessment of environmental and social safeguard management capacities in a sample of municipalities has revealed that municipalities have limited organizational capacity in terms of staffing levels and qualifications. The day to day delivery of SWM services rests with the Environment & Sanitation Section which consists of sweepers, drivers and a supervisor (“In-charge”). Other sections / staff relevant to SWM include Rural Urban Partnership and Social Welfare Sections responsible for providing oversight/ capacity building of TLOs/ CBOs. Managerial / administrative oversight to the above sections and the municipality as a whole is provided by the Executive Officer. In the absence of elected representatives (Municipal Council, Mayor, Deputy Mayor), it is understood that several subject specific committees with representation from political parties and other stakeholders have been formed.

There are two key institutional issues vis-à-vis the OBA project:

› Lack of single point responsibility/ accountability for environmental and social issues related to the OBA: While environmental and social concerns in the context of the OBA project could arguably be under the purview of the Environment & Sanitation and Social Welfare sections, in practice, these sections have minimal staff without the necessary qualifications. Further aspects such as aspects such as occupational health and safety of waste-pickers and developing the capacity of recyclers are not considered to be a priority;

› Limited organisational capacity in terms of staffing levels and qualifications, as well as physical recording and reporting systems for SWM.

A critical review of the SWM strategic plans prepared by two of the participating municipalities (Tansen and Dhankuta) shows that the municipalities largely

27

28

acknowledge the above institutional issues, and have set out strategic objectives and corresponding activities at a very broad level to address them. These municipalities (and others intending to participate in the project) will be required to include in their SWM-SIPs certain actions to strengthen management capacity for the OBA Project including environmental and social safeguards management.

To support project implementation, the Participating Municipalities shall: › Form a relevant subject committee of the municipal council (the SWM

Committee) and include in its job description (ToR) the obligations of the municipality under the OBA project

› Establish a Dedicated SWM Unit and give it a job description (ToR) which encompasses the environmental and social safeguards obligations under the OBA project.

› Each participating municipality will have Environmental and Social Officer,

Other key institutional strengthening activities agreed, and which form part of the performance/technical scorecard for each participating municipality are outline in Table 4.2 below.

It should be noted that 3 out of the 5 municipalities in the initial pipeline are also participants in the on-going UGDP/ETP project, and as such will be benefit from additional safeguards training and expertise provided under the project.

Table 4.2 - Enhancement of operational and management capacity through institutional strengthening

Key activities Description Timing

1(a) Establish SWM Committee

This should be done on a priority basis; the SWM Committee would also need to approve and monitor the OBA initiative including the ESMP as well as the Strategic Plan and Action Plan as a whole.

The TOR should take into account the provisions of the SWM Act, 2011

Year 1

1.Establish dedicated section/unit for SWM

Should also address issues such as single point accountability and job descriptions with indicators of performance for key staff.

Review should also cover (a) Environment & Sanitation sections and (b) Rural Urban Partnership and Social Welfare Sections to address capacity requirements for ESMP and in the case of the latter for providing oversight/ capacity building of TLOs and (c) finance staff to the extent of meeting requirements for accounting/ costing of SWM related activities. In practice, it is best to carry out an organisational review of the municipality as a whole, while implementation of the SW related aspects should be fast tracked.

Year 1

2. Utilise effectively a technical support team for assisting municipality in coordination, planning, execution, M&E of IWSM and mobilise experts

Work closely with the SWMTSC on:

(1)Preparation of public private partnership guidelines ( covering potential roles of TLOs in SWM, including collection of service fee) and approval from SWM Committee

(2) Review / establish SW related recording and reporting systems; reports on progress against service delivery / operational efficiency KPIs prepared

(3)Review / establish financial (billing, collections, accounting and costing) systems; reports against financial / cost recovery / efficiency KPIs prepared

Year 1-4


Key activities Description Timing

as and when required

(4) Preparation of the ESMP (while implementation capacity would be built in house within the municipality).

(5) Planning waste minimization activities

(6) Ensuring proper operation of the waste disposal facilities

5.3.2 Capacity at the central level

At the central level, TDF shall be responsible for the overall monitoring of safeguards management. TDF is already implementing the socio-economic infrastructure component of the UGDP/ETP project, and monitoring the associated social and environmental safeguards issues.

TDF will be supported by SWMTSC in its capacity as the lead technical agency on solid waste management in Nepal. SWMTSC will also provide training and technical support to the municipalities. The SWMTSC has Environmental and Social Specialists to support/strengthen municipalities’ capacity for safeguards management. SWMTSC will augment its expertise by recruiting additional environmental, solid waste and social experts as consultants or technical support providers under the project.

In addition, the technical support component of the project (component 2) will support capacity building measures for enhancing implementation capacity for environmental safeguards management, both at the center and municipality level. In addition, UGDP/ETP municipalities will benefit from safeguards training and implementation support provided under the project.

5.4 National Legislation and Policies Relevant to the OBA Interventions

In terms of enabling legislation, the Solid Waste Management Act 2011, Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1997 and Environmental Protection Regulation (EPR) 1997, provide a basic framework for addressing the environmental issues under the project. Other national guidelines relevant to the OBA project include:

› SWMRMC - Initial Environmental Examination (IEE).Format for Solid Waste Management Facilities in the municipalities of Nepal;

› SWMRMC - National Environmental Impact Assessment (NEIA). Guidelines for Solid Waste Management Project in the municipalities of Nepal; and

› Solid Waste Management Technical Guidelines for Municipalities of Nepal

The above Acts and guidelines provide an enabling legal framework and technical guidance for addressing the environmental and social issues and management practices. A brief description of the relevant specific OBA project related Nepalese

29

30

acts and guidelines is given in Annex 6. A brief summary is provided in the following sections

5.4.1 The Solid Waste Management Act 2011Solid waste management including other environmental responsibilities falls under the jurisdiction of the municipal government in Nepal legally and functionally. According to the Solid Waste Management Act, 2011, municipal governments are responsible for constructing and operating the infrastructure required for the collection, final disposal and processing of solid waste (including transfer station, landfill site, processing plant, compost plant, bio-gas plant) either directly or through outsourcing/partnerships with the private sector10.

Managerial / administrative oversight to the above sections and the municipality as a whole is provided by the Executive Officer. In the absence of elected representatives (Municipal Council, Mayor, Deputy Mayor), it is understood that several subject specific committees with representation from political parties and other stakeholders have been formed.

5.4.2 Environmental Protection Act, 1996 and Environmental Protection Regulation, 1997 (EPA and EPR)

In the process of internalizing the environmental assessment system in development proposals, government of Nepal enacted the EPA 1996 and EPR 1997 which make the integration of IEE and EIA legally binding to prescribed projects. EPR was amended in 1999. The EPR adopts the environmental assessment criteria mentioned in the National EIA Guidelines. However, the EPR establishes the administrative framework for assessing, exhibition and determination of the EIA, in terms of issues needing to be addressed and the format of EIA document. Social aspects are included in the EPA and EPR

5.4.3 SWMRMC - Initial Environmental Examination (IEE).Format for Solid Waste Management Facilities in the municipalities of Nepal

The IEE is a planning tool for integrating environmental consideration and public involvement into development project for solid waste management. The main objective of developing IEE Format for solid waste management facilities such as sanitary landfills site, transfer stations and compost plants has been to build the capacity of municipalities in conducting the IEE efficiently.

10 However, the responsibility for managing hazardous / medical / chemical waste to prescribed standards rests with the waste producer; the municipality can provide services for final disposal after processing on payment of a fee.


5.4.4 SWMRMC - National Environmental Impact Assessment (NEIA). Guidelines for Solid Waste Management Project in the municipalities of Nepal

The overall objective of the EIA Guidelines for SWM projects is to improve urban environment through proper management of solid waste in a sustainable manner.

The guidelines address SWM issues in all stages of activities from strategic environmental assessment of SWM related policy, plan and programs to post evaluation and revision of environmental management guidelines

5.4.5 Solid Waste Management Technical Guidelines for Municipalities of Nepal

The guidelines have been prepared by the SWMTSC with the support of UN-HABITAT. The aim of the guidelines is to assist municipal solid waste managers as well as policy makers in establishing efficient and effective solid waste management systems in Nepalese municipalities.

31

32

6 Stakeholder Consultations and Communication

6.1 Stakeholder consultations

The key stakeholders in the OBA project include waste producers (households, hotels/restaurants, shops/retail, industry, hospitals, etc); Municipality; Tole Lane Organizations (TLOs), NGOs; government agencies (SWMTSC; TDF); waste pickers and private sector companies involved in waste collection. Stakeholder assessments were carried out during project preparation, and an overall strategy for stakeholder engagement has been outlined in the project operations manual at the operations stage of the project. Between March –September 2012, a series of consultations were held with the municipalities and other stakeholders, including TLOs, municipal officials, NGOs, and political representatives as a part of preparatory studies. In addition, extensive consultations were held in September 2012 in selected municipalities and at the central level during preparation of the draft ESMF. A report on all the consultations carried out to date is provided in Annex 9. These consultations confirmed the basic design of the OBA project, but also resulted in a number of improvements to the project design, including:

inclusion of environmentally safe and acceptable waste disposal as a performance indicator under the project

inclusion of a TA component to finance implementation support/technical assistance and training to municipalities in the following areas: (i) preparation of SWM-SIPs: (ii) establishing an operational manual for landfill and upgrading landfill operations and management expertise; (iii) design and implementation of awareness campaigns; (iv) design and implementation of 3R activities; (v) establishing the M&E and performance management systems for SWM services. This TA component complements (but does not duplicate) what is already provided for under the UGDP/ETP.

The draft ESMF and executive summary was disclosed in both the website of TDF (http://www.tdf.org.np/new/) and SWMTSC (http://swmtsc.gov.np) on Nov 2,


2012. The Nepali version of the executive summary has also been disclosed at the municipality level.

6.2 Communication

Communication is a cornerstone for the project, given the focus on service quality and cost recovery, and the need to engage with, and find support from many stakeholders. Early engagement with stakeholders is a key design element. A preliminary stakeholder assessment revealed the following broad categories of stakeholders:› Waste producers, who have need for solid waste collection services, but

minimal interest in paying service fee and have the ability to strongly determine outcomes/ success of the OBA initiative;

› Elected representatives, other appropriate Committees/ Executive Officer of municipality; government agencies, TLOs and donors all have a high interest in the OBA initiative and can strongly influence outcomes;

› Municipal staff involved in solid waste / related services who would be concerned with possible increase in their work load and can adversely affect service delivery/ achievement of performance indicators;

› Waste pickers dependent on solid waste for a living; and› NGOs and private sector companies involved in solid waste management

An overall strategy and plan for stakeholder consultations and communications will be prepared as part of the Project Operations manual. In the meantime, the following consultations and surveys have been carried out in two of the municipalities (Dhankuta and Tansen) during the planning and preparation phase of the project:› Assessment of user satisfaction with existing service. A number of interviews

with households and small businesses have been conducted to assess their satisfaction with the existing solid waste management system with regard to the quality and regularity of collection service, interactions and communications with the municipality/service provider. This has been used to identify any specific problems users may have encountered, which has primed their perceptions of services provided by the local authorities;

› Key stakeholders have been identified, their incentives for participating analyzed and a strategy for stakeholder relations during the OBA project preparation and implementation established;

› Key stakeholders have been consulted about the proposed OBA interventions. The views of the key stakeholders regarding the proposed structure of the OBA scheme and the service improvements envisioned under the scheme have been discussed in interviews with the key stakeholders;

› User’s willingness to pay (WTP) has been assessed. A household survey of target beneficiaries has been conducted in order to determine what they currently pay for solid waste services, their willingness and ability to pay for improved services, and their preferences regarding payment options;

› A tariff analysis and sensitivity to collection ratio and OPEX has been carried out in order to assess the users affordability to pay (ATP) for improved solid waste management services. The social impacts of increased tariffs will be

33

34

acceptable if the tariffs do not exceed 1-2% of the monthly average income for households in the lowest income deciles; and

› SWMTSC has recently started conducting stakeholder workshop where the proposed OBA scheme and findings are being discussed and disseminated.


Annex 1: Key data for each Municipality in the Initial Pipeline and the Proposed OBA Interventions

35


Municipality Dhankuta

District Dhankuta

Population 27,572 (2011/12)

Household income Income - CBS 2011 Living Standard Survey:Lowest 20%NLR/year 99,115 Median NLR/year 165,010 Average NLR/year 202,374

Waste generation 0.236 kg/person/day

Waste collected 8 MT/day

Service level - collection The solid waste collection in Dhankuta municipality is performed with two tractors with trailers. One drives two-three trips per day in the Dhankuta town area, the other drives one trip per day in the Hile town area 12 km from Dhankuta.

The households and shops place their waste in own bin, cardboard or pile along the collection route. The tractor blows its horn when slowly passing on the street and the collectors collect the waste and manually compress it.

The collection frequency (formally) is:› Urban market centre: 6/week› Urban other main roads: 2-3/week› Urban branch roads: 2/week› Rural and far from road: 1/week› Off branch roads: no service› Rural (ward 2, 3, 8 & 9): no service

Key issues identified in relation present waste collection service:› The actual service level provided is below the formal level› The Blue Tractor servicing Hile experiences extended periods of

breakdown › There are un-serviced areas off the black top roads› Although some customers separate food waste, there are no formal source

separation and waste reduction initiatives.

Service level - street sweeping Responsibility of individual household and shop

Service level - disposal New landfill outside Dhankuta town with four landfill cells, manual waste sorting/recycling and a composting facility.

It is assessed by the municipality that around 7 MT of waste per day comes to the new landfill outside Dhankuta town. The collected waste is assessed based on the capacity of the collection vehicles as the landfill does not have a weigh bridge. 75% of the waste is collected in Dhankuta and 25% origins in Hile

The original construction cost of the landfill was 26 million NR for an assessed capacity of around 66,000 MT waste. The remaining lifetime of the landfill on this basis is in the order of 20 years.

At the recycling facility at the new Dhankuta landfill, the following materials are hand sorted from the waste stream and sold to third parties in Nepal or India: paper, beer bottles, smaller glass bottles, plastic bottles, tin cans and iron. The recycling revenue in the first 6 months of operation (dry season) was NLR 27,000. The potential is assessed at NLR 50,000/6mth during dry season (paper is ruined during the wet season).

The key issues identified in relation to the present disposal are:› The landfill was not implemented according to recommended design (e.g.

no leachate treatment has been constructed)› There is no operational manual› There is a lack of knowledge of landfill management practices› The actual capacity is below the original expectations

37

Municipality Dhankuta› The composting facility is not operating due to lower than expected organic

fraction in the received waste› Hazardous elements in the waste stream makes the manual sorting risky› Medical waste is not separated in collection from clinics

Tariff range for households › Urban centre: 700› Urban: 500› Residential: 250› Rural and far from road: 60› Agricultural areas: 25

Revenue collected (last available year)

6 Lakh (2011/2012)

Sanitation fee collected as part of the Integrated Property Fee

Public employees in SWM Total: 18Administration: 2Collection: 1 supervisor + 2 drivers + 6 collectorsStreet sweeping: no separate employeesDisposal: 1 engineer + 6 waste pickers

Average length of collection route 5 km (Hile +24 km roundtrip)

Distance from city to landfill 1 km

Cost of Municipal SWM operation (last available year)

35 Lakh (2011/12), of which:› Salary: 15› Fuel: 13,5› Maintenance: 5,5› Others: 1

Role of private and informal operators No private or informal operators are active in the city.

TLOs established under the Rural Urban Partnership Program appear to be active and well functioning community based organizations that have proven track records in mobilizing their members.

Key institutional and financial issues A number of challenges have been identified in the institutional set up for SWM in Dhankuta:› The municipality does not have an overall strategy for SWM (although one

is under preparation, see below)› There is no single account responsibility for the SWM system› There is inadequate control of actual service delivery› There is no systematic collection of operational data› There is no activity based accounts for SWM› The TLO system could be better utilized as interface with customers.

Furthermore, the municipality faces financial challenges in relation to SWM:› The actual cost of service provision has more than doubled over the past 3

years from 15 Lakh in 2008/9 to 35 Lakh in 2011/12. This is due to a increase in the number of staff in connection with the opening of the new landfill, general increase in fuel cost and general increases in salary levels

› The collected sanitation fee has over the same period increased from 2 Lakh in 2008/9 to an expected 6 Lakh in 2011/12. The sanitation fee has been collected annually as part of the Integrated Property Tax for the last 5 years and the municipality assesses that 65-70% of households pay.

› The revenues from recycling only contribute marginally at 0.5 Lakh per year and the potential is not significantly higher.


Municipality Dhankuta› The resulting cost recovery is in the order of 19% in 2011/12.

SWM Service Improvement Plan The March 2012 Solid Waste Management Strategic Plan and Action Plan for Dhankuta Municipality11 provides an overview of the existing situation within Solid Waste Management (waste amounts and composition, waste handling and separation, waste collection systems, waste transport system, waste disposal, waste processing (composting and recycling) and special/hazardous waste management) and set out strategic issues, strategic objectives and action plan of the municipality.

The SWM strategy and action plan identifies the following Strategic Objectives in relation to waste management in Dhankuta:

To implement effective collection and transportation of source segregated waste.

To promote 3R principles (reduce, reuse and composting/ recycling). To safely manage non-recyclable waste. To formulate and enforce policies, by-laws, guidelines and code of

practices. To enhance participation and responsibilities of stakeholders, particularly

local communities and Private Sector. To facilitate management of special waste (Institutional Waste) in safe

manner. To enhance operational and management capacity through institutional

strengthening including establishment of dedicated unit, database system, M&E system and mechanism of Services delivery.

To ensure financial sustainability by enhancing efficiency and promoting cost recovery mechanism.

In general the description of the existing system in the Strategic Plan and Action Plan is in line with the findings of COWI during the mission in March 2012 and the proposed OBA interventions (see below) are well in line with the intentions of the Strategic Plan and Action Plan and will support the implementation of the strategic plan and action plan.

Proposed OBA intervention Proposed service improvements under OBA intervention:› Actual delivery of the present formal service level in the existing urban and

peri-urban service areas› Increase in service area to cover some of the presently un-serviced urban

and peri-urban areas off the black top roads and possibly larger rural settlements close to the existing urban areas in Dhankuta and Hile

› Provision of a higher service level through:› Kerbside collection along streets where the collection truck drives› Offer home composting bins to households with own land (pilot)› Three bin household separation in organic, inorganic and hazardous

(pilot) and training households in waste separation› Litter bins in market area

11 Draft Final Report, Volume 2: Municipal Profiles, Strategic Plan and Action Plan, Annex-3: Dhankuta Municipality, March 2012, MULTI Disciplinary Consultants (P) Ltd., prepared under the SWMTSC project 'Preparation of Solid Waste Management Strategic Plan and Action Plan for 15 Municipalities'.

39

Municipality Dhankuta

Identified minimum investment needs Procurement of:› 1 New tractor and trailer› 3,000 waste collection bins with lid › 100 bins for home composting pilot› 300 bins for three bin households collection pilot› 100 litter bins in market area › Capacity building at municipality and TLOs

Identified challenges The proposed improvements in service provision under the OBA intervention require the up-front procurement of one new tractor and trailer.

Municipality Tansen

District Palpa

Population 23,299 (2011/12)

Household income Income - CBS 2011 Living Standard Survey:

Lowest 20% NLR/year 99,115

Median NLR/year 165,010

Average NLR/year 202,374

Waste generation 0.18 kg/person/day (possibly underestimated)

Waste collected 6 MT/day

Service level - collection One truck and one tractor with trailer

900 blue waste bins distributed through TLOs

Under a pilot on household composting 80 composting bins were distributed through the TLOs.

The households carry the bins to the truck and hands it up to collector on the truck.

The collection and street sweeping frequency (formally) is:› Main streets: Daily collection and street sweeping› By-streets: 1-3 collections per week and no street sweeping› Peri-urban: No collection

The key issues identified in relation to the present collection services are:› There are un-served areas in ward 3, 9, 11, 14 with around 750

households that have stated that they would like service› It is not clear whether the formal service level is actually delivered› The potential for waste reduction through home composting is difficult to

assess due to lack of monitoring of the implemented pilot› There is extensive littering outside central areas

Service level - street sweeping In the central areas of Tansen the streets are swept daily by the municipality.

Service level - disposal A new landfill outside the city has been constructed, but it has not started operation as 3 km of the access road has not been completed due to lack of funds

The municipality is temporarily using an open dump in a forest area 1.5 km from the city.


Municipality Tansen

The original construction cost of the new landfill was 36 million NR for a capacity of around 23 million MT waste. The estimated remaining lifetime of the landfill is in the order of 11 years.

The key issues identified in relation to the present disposal are:› The existing dumpsite is unacceptable from an environmental and safety

point of view› Completion of the missing access road upgrading to the new landfill should

be top priority› At the new landfill leachate collection is not divided in sections which may

result in over float of treatment facility during the first years of operation› Furthermore, gas venting is insufficient for semi-aerobic method or

collection of gas› Finally, the new landfill has no operations manual and there is a lack of

knowledge of landfill management practices in the municipality.

Tariff range for households › Main streets: 300› By streets: 120› Peri-urban: 0


2.3 Lakh (2011/12) but expected to increase to 9 Lakh (2012/13)

Public employees in SWM Total: 23Administration: 1Collection: 1 supervisor + 3 drivers + 9 collectorsStreet sweeping: 10 sweepers

Disposal: None prior to opening of new landfill

Average length of collection route 5 km

Distance from city to landfill 1 km (existing dump)

5 km (new landfill)


54 Lakh (2011/12) , of which:› Salary: 45› Fuel: 5› Maintenance: 1› Others: 4

Role of private and informal operators No private or informal operators are active in the city.

TLOs established under the Rural Urban Partnership Program appear to be active and well functioning community based organizations that have proven track records in mobilizing their members.

Key institutional and financial issues A number of challenges have been identified in the institutional set up for SWM in Tansen:› The municipality does not have an overall strategy for SWM (although one

is under preparation, see below)› There is no single account responsibility for the SWM system› The registration of operational data could be better (e.g. registration of

waste amounts, customers by category, control of fuel consumption, etc.)› There is no computerized billing system for SWM › There is no activity based cost accounting for SWM

The TLO system is however working well in Tansen and could be used even more in relation to SWM.

41

Municipality Tansen

Furthermore, the municipality faces financial challenges in relation to SWM:› The actual cost of service provision which has been kept fairly stable in

recent years (by a reduction in the number of street sweepers) is expected to increase to 54 Lakh in 2011/12 (higher salaries and fuel costs) and will increase further when the new landfill becomes operational (increased fuel consumption due to 4 km increase in routes and increased salary costs due to additional staff at landfill, although some street sweepers are expected to be relocated there).

› The collected sanitation fee is only expected to be 2.3 Lakh in 2011/12 but it is expected to increase to 9 Lakh in 2012/13 as the fee level has recently been increased. The sanitation fee is only about one year old and has been collected in parallel with (but not as part of) the Integrated Property Tax. The municipality assesses that 60% of households pay.

› Low and late collection of the sanitation fee is endemic as the billing of sanitation fee (and IPT) is based on voluntary show up at municipality for other purposes (i.e. no bill is sent out).

› The resulting cost recovery is in the order of 5% in this year and 15% next year at unchanged tariff and collection ratio.

SWM service improvement plans The March 2012 Solid Waste Management Strategic Plan and Action Plan for Tansen Municipality12 provides an overview of the existing situation within Solid Waste Management (waste amounts and composition, waste handling and separation, waste collection systems, waste transport system, waste disposal, waste processing (composting and recycling) and special/hazardous waste management) and set out strategic issues, strategic objectives and action plan of the municipality.

The SWM strategy and action plan identifies the following Strategic Objectives in relation to waste management in Tansen:

To promote source segregation, recycling, end-use and composting of solid waste at municipal level.

To implement the provision made in existing acts, bylaws and guidelines and establish mechanism for monitoring the effective management of solid waste.

To enhance the public private partnership aspect in solid waste management.

To mobilize TLOs, CBOs, local clubs and for raising awareness, and engage the community themselves for waste management.

To enhance the institutional capacity, human resources, facilities and equipments of municipality to address the solid waste problems at municipal level.

To initiate periodic research and development activities, and adopt sustainable technologies for solid waste management.

To establish functional coordination and linkage with line government agencies, international/national non-government sectors, donors and other stakeholders.

The Strategic Plan and Action Plan fails to mention the blue boxes provided to many of the households for storage of waste prior to collection, only mentions the home composting pilot project briefly, and has not identified the difficult accessible access road to the new landfill facility as a major problem.

Nevertheless, in general the description of the existing system in the Strategic Plan and Action Plan is in line with the findings of COWI during the mission in

12 Draft Final Report, Volume 2: Municipal Profiles, Strategic Plan and Action Plan, Annex-9: Tansen Municipality, March 2012, MULTI Disciplinary Consultants (P) Ltd., prepared under the SWMTSC project 'Preparation of Solid Waste Management Strategic Plan and Action Plan for 15 Municipalities'


Municipality Tansen

March 2012 and the proposed OBA interventions (see below) are well in line with the intensions of the Strategic Plan and Action Plan and will support the implementation of the strategic plan and action plan.

Proposed OBA intervention Proposed service improvements under OBA intervention:› Extending services into the non-serviced areas in wards 3, 9, 10, 11, 14

where households have stated interested and willingness to pay› Piloting TLOs as customers in these areas to facilitate customer

responsive service and high tariff collection ratio› Increase coverage of the existing well functioning blue bin system through

purchase of 2-3,000 new bins › Extend home composting pilot to reduce waste to landfill, but support with

both training upon inception and monitoring during implementation

Identified minimum investment needs Procurement of:› 2,000 bins for kerbside collection› 200 bins for extension of the home composting pilot› Capacity building at municipality and TLOs

Identified challenges The proposed improvements in service provision under the OBA intervention require the new landfill becoming operational, which in turn will require an upgrade of the remaining 3 km of the access road.

Municipality Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City (LSMC)

District Lalitpur

Population 400,000 (163,000 in 2001 census) annual growth 5%+

Household income Income - CBS 2011 Living Standard Survey:Lowest 20% NLR/year 99,115 Median NLR/year 165,010 Average NLR/year 202,374

Waste generation 0.23 kg/person/day (2008 waste composition survey) of which 72% organic, 6% paper and 10% plastic.

Waste collected 65 MT/day of which 40% or around 25 MT/day is collected by NGOs

Service level - collection The Municipal operator LSMC Environmental and Sanitation Department performs street collection (passing truck blows horn and households throw waste directly in vehicle) and from containers. This is performed with 12 tippers, 4 big trucks, 2 tractors and 2 loaders. Street sweeping is provided in the same areas.

LSMC Environmental and Sanitation has more or less formally (some times on a contractual basis and sometimes on a no objection basis) accepted that about 10 private/NGO operators provide a higher quality waste collection service in Lalitpur.

The largest private/NGO operator (NEPCEMAG) performs door to door collection for 17,000 households in Lalitpur with 7 tractors, 3 trucks and 40 tricycles. NEPCEMAG also performs street sweeping of 12 km streets in the same areas, has pilot on source segregation with 5-600 households, runs two composting plants in Central Zoo and Chobhar and performs regular awareness raising and training.

Other large private/NGO operators are WEPCO, NEPCO and CEPC who each

43

perform door to door collection from 2,000 households as well as composting, dual collection pilots and training

Service level - street sweeping Most of the areas of Lalitpur are swept daily by the municipal or private operators

Service level - disposal The waste is reloaded from smaller to larger vehicles at informal transfer stations where some manual separation of plastic, paper and metal also occurs.

The residual waste is transferred to disposal at Sisdol landfill site (jointly operate between Kathmandu and Lalitpur). Recently, the municipality has however also authorized waste disposal a semiofficial dump site on the riverside closer to city.

Tariff range for households › No tariff charged in areas covered by municipal operator› NRS 30-300 pr month per household charged in areas covered by private

operators (NGOs)


No sanitation fee is collected by the municipality. However, a fee of 21 NRS/square foot charged for new construction is partly justified by waste collection. This fee is reportedly 20 Lakh (2012/13).

NEPCEMAG monthly collects NRS 1,100,000 in waste collection tariffs + 100,000 in revenues from sale of compost + 100,000 in revenues from sale of segregated recyclables

Public employees in SWM Municipal operator (195, of which 20 drivers, 150 collectors/sweepers, 25 management and administration)

NEPCEMAG (80 drivers, collectors and tariff collectors), NEPCO (22), Other NGOs (around 50)

On the top of this come the informal waste pickers and waste pickers hired on contract by the public and private operators.




Total cost of municipal operator: 61,220,000

Of which:› Salary: 30 million› Fuel: 15 million› Maintenance: 5 million› Others (Lalitpur share of landfill operation): 10 million

Role of private and informal operators Out of 65 metric ton per day of waste generation 25 metric ton is collected by the private sector.

The private operators (NGOs) play a very important and accepted role and the municipality has a clear for increasing the role of door to door collection by private operators from presently 40% of households to 75% in the longer term.

Proposed OBA intervention Proposed service improvements under OBA intervention:› Clear contractual framework for private operators combined with

professional monitoring function in the municipality› Higher level of door to door collection by private operators combined with

waste minimization (waste segregation, composting and recycling) as well as awareness and training

› Gradual shift in municipal focus to ensuring efficient and environmentally acceptable transfer and disposal and monitoring of collection service providers

Identified minimum investment needs Procurement of:› 2-4 smaller waste collection vehicles per year to gradually replace tricycles


and rickshaws› Waste segregation bins and home composting bins for households› New improved transfer station(s) and bulk transport to landfill.

Identified challenges › Unwillingness of municipality to charge for own service is significant risk› Ambitious outsourcing strategy has to be followed by reduction in number

of municipal employees› Longer term land fill site unclear› Poor maintenance of municipal vehicles questions municipal ownership of

vehicles funded under OBA project› Behavior change needed for waste minimization requires continuous

awareness and training

Municipality Pokhara Sub-Metropolitan City

District Kaski

Population 300,000 estimated (156,352 in 2001 census) , annual growth 5%+


Lowest 20%NLR/year 99,115 Median NLR/year 165, 010 Average NLR/year 202,374

Waste generation 0.23 kg/person/day (2008 waste survey) of which 48% organic, 12% plastic and 18% paper

Waste collected Waste production is assessed at 69 MT/day (300000*0,23/1000)

Actual waste to landfill is 50-60 MT/day (based on vehicle capacity)

Service level - collection The Municipal operator PSMC Environmental and Sanitation Department performs street collection (truck parks at regular stops every 400m and blows horn, households throw waste directly in vehicle). The waste collection service is delivered to 60,000 households (60% daily, 40% at intervals of days to several weeks). This is performed with 7 tippers (3 trips per day) and 4 compactors (2 trips per day). The vehicles are old (and gradually to be replaced) and the capacity is dimensioned to 200,000 persons and 40 MT waste per day. PSMC estimates that one vehicle is needed in each of the 18 wards.

PSMC Environmental and Sanitation has formally (based an internally developed one year contract concept and in the context of the UNDP PPP in Urban Environment) initiated PSP for 4,000 households.

In the riverfront Ward 6, the private Pokhara Waste Management Services Ltd (PWMS) with 50 employees collects waste from 2,500 households and operates a local transfer and segregation station. PWMS collects 8 MT mixed waste per day from 5 MT plastic, paper and metal is segregated and sold. PSMC drives the residual waste (2MT/day) to the landfill. PWMS separately collects 2 MT kitchen waste from hotels and restaurants which is used in own their piggery. PWMS collects the official sanitation fee and retains 60% for their operation. PWMS. The recycling revenues are an important supplementary revenue source.

In the peri-urban Ward 5, the CBO Kancha Waste Management Center until recently provided waste collection for 1,200 households under a similar model, but had difficulties to achieve a financial balance at the 60-40 split due and low fee collection.

45

PSMC would like to use a similar model in wards 7 and 17 as well as in other service expansion areas (e.g. 4,650 presently un-served households in 4 areas neighboring the city).

Two markets generate 10-12 MT/day of organic waste which is presently taken to landfill. PSMC has land for a composting facility but lacks funds and know how. A small composting facility funded by JICA was established at one of the markets, but the facility has never been in operation.

Service level - street sweeping Street sweeping of main streets is provided in the same areas (Bagar, Mahendrapool, Prithivicowk, Naya Bazar, Rastrabank Chowkn Prithivi highway and Siddhrtha Highway).

Service level - disposal All waste is transported to the Pokhara Sanitary Landfill site. The waste is compacted with excavators and covered at the end of each day. No waste pickers are allowed at the landfill.

Remaining landfill lifetime is estimated to 8-10 years and new sites are difficult to locate so focus is on waste reduction at source.

Tariff range for households A uniform tariff structure is applied in both public and private service areas. The tariff is based on the size and location of the household, shop, hotel, etc.

Household tariffs range from 8-80 NRS/month, small hotels 500-2,000, large hotels 3,000-8,000, restaurants 300-1,000

Revenue collected (last available yr) 2.5 million NRS (2009/10), 7 million NRS (2010/11), 10 million (2011/12)

Public employees in SWM 85 in collection (of which 7 Administration, 3 supervisor, 9 drivers, 22 collectors, remaining sweepers)

15 at landfill




25.8 million NRS (2011/12) , of which:› Salary: 18 million› Fuel: 6 million› Maintenance & Others: 2 million

Role of private and informal operators PSP being tested under UNDP PPP for Urban Environment inspired model.

Municipality positive on using same model for future service expansion.

Proposed OBA intervention Proposed service improvements under OBA intervention:› Build on experience from PPPUE and existing contracts for PSP when

extending service area to 4650 new households in To Pame Sarankot VDC, Nemta VDC, Lamachow VDC and Kanseri Arba VDC and increasing service level from weekly/biweekly service in Wards 13, 14, 16 and 18.

› Establish composting and separate collection for 12 MT/day vegetable market waste as PSP on public land

› Extend existing pilot on home composting by distribution of 500 bins per year @1500 RS net of household cofunding

› Pilot on source segregation supported by awareness building› Purchase around 8 new vehicles (compactors) @2.5 million RS

Identified minimum investment needs Procurement of:› 8 new waste collection vehicles gradually (e.g. 2 per year for 4 years) to

supplement existing vehicles (which the municipality is also gradually replacing)



› Composting facility for market waste under PSP management

Identified challenges › One year duration of PSP contracts limits incentives for investments› Some wards are not financially sustainable at 60-40 revenue split and

present tariffs of 8-200 RS/hh/month› Behavior change needed for waste minimization requires continuous

awareness and training› Possible need for formal transfer station(s) and bulk transport to landfill to

be clarified (transport gain may be too small to justify costs)

Municipality Lekhnath

District Kaski (10 km from Pokhara)

Population 55,000 in 2001, 65,000 in 2012 (equal to 12,000 households)


Lowest 20%NLR/year 99.115 Median NLR/year 165.010 Average NLR/year 202.374

Waste generation 0.15 kg/person/day

Waste collected Data not available, as presently no SWM collection system in place

Service level - collection The municipality has not provided waste collection and has no vehicles or equipment.

The municipality is however planning to initiate waste collection services from August/September in the new budget year. Initially 5,000 households, hotels and restaurants along main roads and in lake resort areas will be covered. Collection will be by a private contractor who will collect waste once per week from 16 collection points.

The municipality is encouraging source separation of organic waste and considers the organic waste a household responsibility as many households have open land and animals which allows for easy disposal of organic waste.

The private contractor will hence mainly collect the non-organic fractions and will be required to separate recyclable prior to landfilling.

A Monitoring & Evaluation Committee will be established with administrative and stakeholder participants.

Service level - street sweeping No municipal service provision, but some TLOs sweep in own area

Service level - disposal The municipality has in cooperation with SWMTSC and local bodies identified and prioritized three landfill sites. The municipality now plans to develop a landfill and a recycling center at the preferred site in the southwestern perimeter of the municipality. Environmental approval processes have been initiated, but it is likely that a new landfill will not be operational for 3-5 years.

The municipality has discussed access to the Pokhara landfill with Pokhara municipality who were not very positive due to the capacity constraint they expect to face. Lekhnath may consider suggesting a capacity swap arrangement where they are allowed to deposit residual waste at the Pokhara landfill until the Lekhnath landfill becomes operational and Pokhara is subsequently allowed access to the Lekhnath landfill for a similar amount of waste.

Tariff range for households The municipal council has approved a tariff structure from 30 Rs/month for households to 1,000 Rs/month for hotels.

47

Revenue collected (last available yr) None, but 1 million NRS is expected for first year of operation.

Public employees in SWM Administrative personal will be employed as needed but operational staff will be the responsibility of the private operator.

Average length of collection route 10 km (assessed)



None, but 3 million NRS is expected for first year of operation.

Role of private and informal operators Role of private or informal operators active in the city: A private company or NGO is expected to operate the future waste collection and separation.

The municipality is considering involving the 183 TLOs in street sweeping, sanitation fee collection, home composting and awareness building. The municipality has distributed 200 bins for home composting through one of the TLOs one year ago (not yet evaluated) and is presently distributing 200 sets of waste segregation bins in the same way.

Proposed OBA intervention Proposed service improvements under OBA intervention:› Developing a Solid Waste Management Plan› Contracting and monitoring a private operator› Waste collection services to 5,000 households, hotels and restaurants in

first year and gradually growing thereafter› Work with TLOs on household level source segregation and home

composting › Segregation and sale of recyclables prior to landfilling of residuals

Identified minimum investment needs Necessary procurement to deliver this service improvement:› Home composting bins› Bins for household separation› TA on managing Private Sector Participation in waste management

Identified challenges The proposed improvements in service provision under the OBA intervention will require:› Identification of an environmentally acceptable short term solution to the

disposal of residual waste prior to the possible Lekhnath landfill being operational should be a precondition to the OBA intervention.

Informal recycling systemOf the 5 pipeline municipalities recycling of waste is mainly practised in Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City. The recycling is mainly carried out by the informal sector.

The system is described based on field visits and interviews with small vendors and waste pickers and from a meeting with PRISM - Poverty Reduction of Informal SWM Sector that are working on pilot projects on poverty reducing supported by the Japanese. The PRISM will make a mapping of the informal waste sector and propose improvements for the sector. There is established an Informal Waste Workers Group in the Kathmandu Valley area.

Most of the waste separation and collection of recyclable materials is being done by waste pickers operation in different areas:


› Waste pickers operation at dumpsites. The collects mainly metal, glass bottles, plastic, paper and food waste. The waste is sold to the middleman (small vendors or to bulk suppliers that collect the recyclable materials from the dumpsite);

› Waste pickers operation in streets and at markets (using bicycles or rickshaws for collection) where they without any payment collect recyclable materials from waste thrown away by households and shops (e.g. from waste containers) and sell the materials to small vendors in the same area. The waste pickers have an unofficial system where they have divided a the city in districts and allocated a district to a certain group where only this group of waste pickers are allowed to operate;

› Waste pickers walking from door to door and buy recyclable materials from households and shops etc. They purchase the materials at minimal prices and sell to small vendors in the same area at a small margin; and

› Waste pickers that operates at informal transfer stations where they sort the waste and sell recyclable materials to small vendors in the area. Residual waste should be transferred to the dumpsite, but it was during field visits revealed that residual waste often is dumped at the Bagmati River side or directly into the river.

The vendors (or kabadi shops) buy the recyclable materials from the waste pickers and sell the materials to larger vendors /bulk suppliers or directly to the recycling industry depending of the amount and quality of the recyclable materials.

Some of the vendors buy a mix of recyclable items and sort and refine the materials at their premise before it is sold in order to obtain a higher price for the materials. Other vendors are specialized and buy only recyclable materials, e. g. plastic. The plastic is sorted in different plastic materials and washed/cleaned as necessary to obtain a high price for the materials. /

The waste pickers are often from India or the southern part of Nepal and tare only working as waste pickers in Lalitpur on a temporarily basis. The small vendors have often a team of waste pickers living at their premises and paying a small amount for the housing.

The larger vendors or bulk suppliers have often their own trucks to transport the recyclable materials to the recycling companies.

The following mechanisms have been identified to improve the livelihood of waste pickers:› Formalise the informal waste collection system by organising the waste pickers in a corporative -

group (25-30 persons in each group), so that the group has more power to negotiate with authorities and vendors etc. (this is a tool practised by the PRISM);

› The municipality could establish an official system with separate collection of the recyclable fraction by use of waste picker;

› The municipality could in the contract with private waste service providers request them to employ waste pickers in the waste collection, treatment and disposal system;

› The municipality could establish a buy-back centre13 in the area with known and "fair" prices fro the recyclable materials. The buy-back centre may provide the waste pickers with proper collection equipment, personal protection clothing, gloves and shoes as well as a restroom, cleaning and washing facilities, health and safety training and frequently health checks.

13 A buy-back centre is a facility where individuals, waste pickers, street hawkers, small vendors etc. can deliver recyclable materials and get a payment in cash for the materials at the delivery.

49

It is the experience that waste pickers often are "free /independent" people that do not want to be organised. This should be carefully taken into consideration in designing f new systems/organisations for waste pickers and in the discussions with the waste pickers about their expectations. It will often be needed to enter into an informal agreement with the waste pickers.

OBA NEPAL - DRAFT ESMF 51

52

Annex 2: Environmental and Social Framework ProceduresA standard project cycle from expression of interest by the new interested municipality and signing of an implementation agreement with TDF, to service improvement planning, service delivery, technical and financial verification and subsidy payment and reporting is described in the Project Operations Manual.

Relevant environmental and social steps for the OBA project are described in more detail in the following Table. The Table and steps have been adapted from Annex 4, Appendix - 1: Table of Environmental steps in the Appendix 1 Project Implementation for 6 Participating Municipalities in UGDP:NETP, September 2011. The Table has been slightly adjusted to comply with the requirements of the OBA SWM project and social steps have been included.

The OBA project is as per Local Self Governance Act 1999 (LSGA) categorized as Urban Infrastructure projects (Solid Waste Management - collection, transportation and disposal including equipment).

As per EPR 1997, screening of proposed activities under the SWM-SIP shall be carried out as the first stage in the environmental assessment process to specify the project category, i.e. requiring no IEE, an IEE, or an EIA before carrying out the feasibility study for its development and operation. For screening purpose, all interventions/activities can be broadly categorized into the following two types:

1. Activities/interventions involving the development and implementation of operational systems for waste management (e.g. collection, delivery, disposal systems etc.); and

2. Activities/interventions involving construction and operation of waste management facilities (e.g. transfer station, compost plant, incineration plant, landfill site etc.).

Screening of interventions/activities during identification facilitates the planners decision makers to: › Save time and money by avoiding unnecessary delays; › Identify immediately the environmental issues of major concern; and


› Specify the level of environmental assessment to be carried out for the activity during pre-feasibility/feasibility study.

Table A2.1 Environmental and Social steps for the OBA project

Environmental and Social steps Relevant to the OBA interventions

Responsibility

1. Collection and assessment of preliminary information about environmental and social issues of activities as proposed under the SWM-SIP(This will be done as part of the preparation of the SWM-SIP with ESMP enclosed or early in the planning and preparation phase of the OBA project in order to have an early indication of likely environmental and social issues)

Yes Planning and preparation team of the municipality/contracted party will collect the preliminary information of each activity being considered.

An overview of environmental and social issues to be considered in the collection of information is provided in Annex 4 and 5.

This preliminary information and early indication of environmental and social issues will be reviewed by the Environmental and Social Officer of the municipality

2. Environmental and Social Screening and Categorization14 (This will be done during a pre-feasibility study in the planning and preparation phase of interventions identified in the SWM-SIP, before a Final Pre-feasibility Report is submitted. Potential environmental issues and concerns related to the activities will be highlighted).

Yes Environmental and Social Officer of the Municipality will propose Screening and Categorization, Mayor (or by Executive Officer) will endorse.

Environmental and Social Officer of Municipality reviews activities, environmental and social setting & surroundings, and propose Environmental Category and Social Category and necessary steps (including specific studies etc).

SWMTSC’s Environmental and Social Specialists will review and confirm the proposed Environmental and Social Category

SWMTSC will coordinate the approval of the categorisation and inform TDF.

The municipal pre-feasibility team / contracted party collect and furnish detailed information needed for Environmental and Social Screening and Categorization.

Stakeholders will be consulted in the process of information collection.

Formats to be used for Environmental and Social screening:

Below Table A2.2: Format for Initial Environmental Screening and Categorization.

Below Table A2.3: Format for Social Impacts Screening and Categorization

Below Table A2.4: Format for IPs & Vulnerable Groups Screening and Categorization

14 The two steps - initial and the final Environmental screenings and categorizations - included in the PIM for the UGDP/NETP are proposed to be combined to only one step - Environmental and Social screening in this OBA project

53

54


Responsibility

TDF will handle the formal approval of the Environmental and Social Screening and Categorization.

Without Environmental and Social Screening and Categorization, activities would not be selected for further studies

3. Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP)(An ESMP will be prepared by the municipalities and included in the SWM-SIP.

Yes Municipalities prepare the SWM-SIP including ESMP. A template for the ESMP is enclosed as Annex 9

SWMTSC’s Environmental and Social Specialists will review and provide a ‘no-objection’ to the SWM-SIP including the ESMP

TDF will formally approve the SWM-SIP including the ESMP

Without SWM-SIP including ESMP the municipalities cannot participate in the OBA project

Category IV Activities: not requiring formal environmental assessment and management plan.

N/A15

Category III Activity. Preparation of Environmental Codes of Practice for the activity/ activity.

(To be prepared in the planning and preparation phase as part of the municipal SWM-SIP or during activity feasibility study)

Yes Municipality Environmental and Social Officer, with necessary support from SWMTSC’s Environmental and Social Specialist, will prepare activity specific simple Environmental and Social Management Plan for use in the activity / activity.

Stakeholders (including potentially affected parties) will be consulted while preparing ESMP.

SWMTSC to provide a no-objection to the ESMP. TDF to formally approve ESMP.

Without approved simple EPMP, Category III Activity’s Feasibility Study Report would not be approved.

Category II Activities. Preparation of IEE or EIA

(To be done during feasibility study and prior to detailed engineering)

Yes, IEE16 See below

15 It is a request for participating in the OBA project that an ESMP is prepared as part of the municipal SWM-SIP16 Request for an IEE has only been identified for the initial pipeline municipalities in Lekhnath municipality for a project (waste management system - landfill and other facilities) that is a precondition for the participation in the OBA project, see Section 2.5. The municipality has forwarded request for IEE through the SWMTSC.



Responsibility

Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) required activities/ activity

IEE requires consultations with stakeholders, including activity affected parties.

Yes Draft IEE ToR prepared by Environmental and Social Officer of the Municipality, with support from SWMTSC’s Environmental and Social Specialist.

SWMTSC will review, provide no-objection and forward the IEE ToR to respective approving ministry, and facilitate approval.

IEE study is commissioned by the activity proponent municipality (through expert agency/ private sector or by forming an IEE team). Activity IEE Report as well as process followed is reviewed internally by proponent municipality.

Activity Proponent Municipality submits IEE Report, via SWMTSC, for approval to Ministry of Urban Development

SWMTSC forwards the IEE Report, with comments, to Ministry of Urban Development for approval and facilitate the approval.

SWMTSC, in coordination with TDF monitor the IEE process followed, and reports to Ministry if Urban Development on IEE process followed.

EIA Requiring activities N/A17 Not eligible under the OBA project

SWM-SIP approval is subject to clearance to environmental and social screenings and assessments.

4. Incorporation of environmental and social mitigation measures into activity detailed documents (To be done in parallel with preparation of detailed plans and bid documents. Incorporation of environmental and social measures must be confirmed prior to bid invitation)

Yes18 SWMTSC prepares model documents and contract / agreement clauses for incorporation of environmental mitigation measures.

Municipal Activity team, with support from Environmental and Social Officer, incorporates environmental and social mitigation measures recommended by Environmental Screening and IEE etc.

Municipal Environmental and Social Officer, prior to finalization of tender documents, confirms/ certifies that the activity documents incorporate recommended environmental and social mitigations. SWMTSC checks activity/ activity documents to ensure incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures.

5. Overall review of the pre-investment environmental preparation/ study of a activity.

(To be done during activity appraisal)

Yes TDF’s environmental and social specialists will review environmental and social documents of each activity as well as activity documents, and the processes followed; and confirm the quality and completeness.

17 No facilities requiring EIA are included in the OBA interventions18 E.g. for subprojects involving private operators/service providers in waste collection services, transfer, waste transportation and composting etc

55

56


Responsibility

6. Environmental and Social monitoring and auditing(To be done during implementation and operation phases)

Yes The Municipality Environmental and Social Officer, regularly supervise and monitors environmental and social compliance and performance of each activity/ activity, keeps record and reports monthly to the SWMTSC with copies to TDF

TDF supported by SWMTSC, will monitor environmental and social compliance and performance every three-month.

The monitoring team discusses the observations and findings at municipality level and provides feedbacks to the concerned municipality. After each monitoring visit a written report is submitted to MUD with copy to World Bank

SWMTSC will recruit an independent consultant as third party for annual review of environmental and social compliance.

The following environmental and social topics and surveys have been carried out in Dhankuta and Tansen municipalities in the planning and preparation phase of the OBA project:› Assessment of user satisfaction with existing service. A number of interviews

with households and small businesses have been conducted to assess their satisfaction with the existing solid waste management system with regard to the quality and regularity of collection service, interactions and communications with the municipality/service provider. This has been used to identify any specific problems users may have encountered, which has primed their perceptions of services provided by the local authorities;

› Key stakeholders have been identified, their incentives for participating analysed and a strategy for stakeholder relations during the OBA project preparation and implementation established;

› Key stakeholders have been consulted about the proposed OBA interventions. The views of the key stakeholders regarding the proposed structure of the OBA scheme and the service improvements envisioned under the scheme have been discussed in interviews with the key stakeholders;

› Users willingness to pay (WTP) have been assessed. A household survey of target beneficiaries has been conducted in order to determine what they currently pay for solid waste services, their willingness and ability to pay for improved services, and their preferences regarding payment options;

› A tariff analysis and sensitivity to collection ratio and OPEX has been carried out in order to assess the users affordability to pay (ATP) for improved solid waste management services. The social impacts of increased tariffs will be acceptable if the tariffs do not exceed 1-2% of the monthly average income for households in the lowest income deciles;


› SWMTSC and Participating Municipalities have conducted stakeholder workshop where the proposed OBA scheme and findings were presented and discussed

The two municipalities are currently updating and revising their SWM-SIP with the ESMP attached.

The other 3 municipalities in the Initial Pipeline are in the early planning phase and have not yet made any environmental and social surveys or detailed assessments.

57

58

Annex 3: Screening ChecklistsThe screening checklists presented in this Annex has been based on the Screening Checklists in Annex 2 to the PIM for 6 Participating Municipalities in UGDP:NETP adjusted to the requirements of the OBA Waste Management Project.

General Instructions for completing screening checklist of Sub Projects› The environmental and social screening checklist is designed to capture and

record relevant environmental information and social aspects/impacts on the people living in the activity influence zone including those belonging to Indigenous people and vulnerable communities. It also provides early warning to activity preparation team about potential adverse/negative environmental/social issues/factors that could affect the project and provides opportunity to address them in time.

› The screening team of municipality/contracted party must be familiar with activity's background through secondary information before walk through.

› During walkthrough the team should hold discussion or inquires with communities along the way. Note a more detailed environmental investigation will follow at the later stage. The method to be follow include; observation, inspection and inquiry with local people.

› The team must carry topographical map with them, mark important environmental features on the map and refer to appropriate section of the checklist. The map should be included as annex to the screening report.

› The team should take photographs of areas with environmental implications, and attach in the report with caption

› The team should include summary of the screening findings, listing main environmental issues/ concerns related to activity.


General Information to be collected for Screening › Name of Project › Proposed sub project level activities including approximate investment

required› Enlistment of project in SWM-SIP of municipality› Identification of Environmental hot spots in and near project vicinity

(Protected areas, forest, landslide prone area, flood plains etc)› Environmental factors trigger by the sub project level activity › Area or site of Significant Development Potential (tourism potential sites,

agriculture development, forestation, watershed conservation etc)› Identification of Impacts, Induced Impacts by the sub project› Involvement of community, community consultation and consensus

The screening procedure for municipal solid waste according to the EPR, the NEIA guidelines for SWM Project in the municipalities of Nepal and the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) Format for SWM Facilities in the municipalities of Nepali as presented in Table A3.1 below is proposed used in the SWM OBA project. Any risks during screening process will be addressed through Annex 7.

Table A3.1 Screening Checklist/procedure of solid waste management projects according to EPR etc

Name if the Municipality:

District:

Activity Name/Intervention:

Type of waste Requiring no IEE Requiring IEE Requiring EIA

Municipal solid waste19

1. Solid waste management system, intended to serve a population of < 2,000.

2. Activities related to the following waste management facilities:

Final disposal by landfilling: Capacity of the landfilling: <100 t/a.

Compost Plants: Area of the plant : < 1 ha

1. Solid waste management system, intended to serve a population of 2,000 – 10,000.


Final disposal by landfilling: Capacity of the landfilling: 100 – 1,000 ton/a.

Waste transfer station and resource recovery area: Size of the transfer station/ resource recovery area: max. 3 ha.

Waste recycling plants with facilities for segregation, treatment and processing (chemical, mechanical or biological techniques): Area of the recycling plant: max. 2 ha.

1. Solid waste management system, intended to serve a population of more than 10,000.


Final disposal by landfilling: Capacity of the landfilling : > 1,000 ton/a.

Waste transfer station and resource recovery area :

Size of the transfer station/ resource recovery area more than 3 ha.

Waste recycling plants with facilities for segregation, treatment and processing chemical, mechanical or biological techniques): Area of the recycling plant: more

19 Municipal waste is defined as all general wastes of non-hazardous type generated from household, residential and other related activities.

59

60

Type of waste Requiring no IEE Requiring IEE Requiring EIA

Compost Plants: Area of the compost plant: 1 - 5 ha.

than 2 ha.

Compost Plants: Area of the compost plant: more than 5 ha.

Final disposal by burying: Urban waste generation of min 10,000 population.

These above are threshold criteria defined in Nepal legislation. Municipalities will need to review the risks as well during Screening. Potential Environmental Risks may be reviewed by checking against Annex 4 and 5.Legal requirements and potential environmental risks related to the ‘Linked’ activity should also be checked during environmental screening.

Classification of the OBA intervention

[ ] Category I: Activity ineligible for funding as it falls in the negative list

[ ] Category II: Activities requiring IEE or EIA.[ ] Category III: Activities requiring simple ESMP

[ ] Category IV, Activities that do not require formal environmental assessment, nor use of code of practice, but need some monitoring and management during implementation20)

Assessed/prepared by

Name*: _________________________

Environmental Officer/ Contracted Party

Date: ______________________

Reviewed and corrected by

Name*: _________________________

Department/Section Head, Municipality

Date: ______________________

Approved by

Name*: _________________________

Executive Officer, Municipality

Date: ______________________

Endorsed by

Name*: _________________________

Environment Safeguard Specialist, TDF

Date: ______________________

* Should also be signed by the respective officer

The screening Checklist from the UGDP: NETP for assessment of Social Impacts is presented in below Tale A3.2

20 Category IV is not relevant for the OBA project as is a request for participating in the OBA project that an ESMP is prepared as part of the municipal SWM-SIP


Table A3.2 Screening Checklist for Assessment of Social Impacts

Name of the Municipality:

District:

Activity Name/Intervention:

Probable Involuntary Resettlement Effects Yes No Not known

Possible

Remarks

Will the activity include any physical construction work?

Does the activity include upgrading or rehabilitation of existing physical facilities?

Are any activity effects likely to cause any damage/ loss of housing, other assets, resource use?

Is the site for chosen for this work free from encumbrances and is in possession of the government/Municipality?

If the site is privately owned, will this be purchased or obtained through voluntary donation?

If the land parcel has to be acquired, is the actual plot size and ownership status known?

Is land for material mobilization or transport for the civil work available within the existing plot/ Right of Way?

Are there any non-titled people who living/doing business on the proposed site for civil work?

Will there be loss of /damage to agricultural lands, standing crops, trees?

Will there be loss of incomes and livelihoods?

Will people lose access to facilities, services, or natural resources?

Does the Municipality have its own laws/ regulations for land acquisition?

Are any vulnerable households including dalits and janjatis affected?

Whether the affected land/structure owners likely to lose less than 10% of their land/structure area.

If so, are these land / structure owners willing to voluntarily donate the required land for this activity?

Is any temporary impact likely?

61

62

Estimates of Specific Impacts

Com

pone

nts

of th

e ac

tivity

Priv

ate

land

re

quire

d in

m2

No

of la

ndow

ners

lo

sing

mor

e th

an

10%

of la

nd a

rea

Gov

ernm

ent l

and

requ

ired

in m

2

Fore

st la

nd

requ

ired

in m

2

No

of h

ouse

s af

fect

ed

No

of s

hops

af

fect

ed

No

of o

ther

st

ruct

ures

affe

cted

No

of S

quat

ters

af

fect

ed

Publ

ic u

tiliti

es

affe

cted

Information on Affected Persons

Any estimate of the likely number of households that will be affected by the activity?

[ ] No. [ ] Yes. If yes, approximately how many? _____

No. of HHs losing <10% of their productive assets (land/ cowshed/shops/economic units)_______

No. of HHs losing <10% of their productive assets (land/ cowshed/shops/economic units)_______

No. of HHs losing 10% or more of their productive assets? _____

Are any of them poor, female-headed households, or vulnerable to poverty risks?

[ ] No. [ ] Yes. If yes, please briefly describe their situation with estimated number

Project Categorization and Resettlement Planning Requirements

[ ] Category A, Significant impact, a full Resettlement Plan is required.

[ ] Category B, Non significant impact, a short Resettlement Plan is required.

[ ] Category C, No negative impacts, no resettlement report, is required.


Name*: _________________________

Social Development Officer/ Contracted Party

Date: ______________________


Name*: _________________________


Date: ______________________

Approved by

Name*: _________________________


Date: ______________________

Endorsed by

Name*: _________________________

Social Safeguard Specialist, TDF

Date: ______________________


The screening Checklist from the UGDP: NETP for IPs and Vulnerable Groups is presented in below Tale A3.3


Table A3.3 Screening Checklist for IPs & Vulnerable Groups

Name of the Municipality:

District:

Activity Name /Intervention:

Impact on Indigenous Peoples (IPs) / Ethnic Minority (EM) / Vulnerable Group (VC)

Yes No Not known

Remarks or identified problems, if any

Are there dalits, janjatis, or ethnic minorities present in project locations?

Do they maintain distinctive customs and traditions and economic activities in their locality?

Will the activity in any way affect their economic and social activity and make them more vulnerable?

Will the activity affect their socioeconomic and cultural integrity?

Will the activity disrupt their community life?

Will the activity positively affect their health, education, livelihood or social security status?

Will the activity negatively affect their health, education, livelihood or social security status?

Will the activity alter or undermine their local knowledge, customary behaviors or institutions?

Are IP and VC households likely to lose customary rights over, access to land?

Are IPs and VCs likely to lose shelter/business and be displaced?

In case no disruption of indigenous community life as a whole, will there be loss of housing, strip of land, crops, trees and other fixed assets owned or controlled by individual indigenous households?

Estimates of Specific Impacts

No

of IP

fam

ilies

lo

sing

land

No

of V

C fa

mili

es

losi

ng la

nd

No

of IP

HH

's lo

sing

ho

use

over

10%

of

thei

r res

iden

ce

Gov

ernm

ent l

and

requ

ired

in m

2

Fore

st la

nd re

quire

d in

m2

No

of IP

/VC

hou

ses

affe

cted

No

of IP

/VC

sho

ps

affe

cted

No

of o

ther

IP/V

C

stru

ctur

es a

ffaec

td

No

of IP

/VC

Sq

uatte

rs a

ffect

ed

Publ

ic u

tiliti

es

affe

cted

63

64

Additional Information Required› Total and affected areas of land, by type of land assets; › Total and affected areas of structures, by type of structure (main or secondary)› Legal status of affected land and structure assets, and duration of tenure and ownership; › Quantity and types of affected crops and trees; › Quantity of other losses, e.g. business or other income, jobs or other productive assets, estimated

daily net income from informal shops;› Quantity/area of affected common property, community or public assets, by type;› Summary data on PAP households including ethnicity, name of the head of household, sex, household

size, primary and secondary source of income, if headed by women, or consists of marginalized ethnic groups (Dalits, Freed Jamaica), Muslims/religious minorities, elderly, disabled, indigenous people, below poverty line of NRs 3000/month), landless or households losing 50% of total landholdings (particularly those totally dependent on agriculture for livelihood), as well as remote villages.

› Identify whether affected land or source of income is primary source of income; and› AP knowledge of the activity and preferences for compensation and as required, relocation sites and

rehabilitation measures

Anticipated impacts on Indigenous Peoples

Activity and output Anticipated positive effect Anticipated negative effect

1.

2.

Decision on Categorization

After reviewing the above, it is determined that the activity is:

[ ] Categorized A: [An Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP) is required

[ ] Categorized B: Project, a specific action favourable to indigenous peoples is required and addressed through a specific provision in related plans such as a Resettlement Plan, or a general Social Action Plan

[ ] Categorized C: Project, no IPDP or specific action required


Name*: _________________________

Social Development Officer/ Contracted Party

Date: ______________________


Name*: _________________________


Date: ______________________

Approved by

Name*: _________________________


Date: ______________________

Endorsed by

Name*: _________________________

Social Safeguard Specialist, TDF

Date: ______________________



Annex 4: Potential Environmental Issues and Impacts in Solid Waste ManagementFor information a brief description of Environmental Issues and Impacts to be considered in the scoping session according to the National Environmental Impact Assessment (NEIA) Guidelines for Solid Waste Management Project in the municipalities of Nepal is presented in this Annex. The lists include both environmental and social issues and could be used as a checklist for the actual projects.

Potential Environmental Issues in Solid Waste ManagementThe following priority issues should according to the National Environmental Impact Assessment (NEIA) Guidelines for Solid Waste Management Project in the municipalities of Nepal are identified for consideration in the scoping exercise and to be included in the ESMP. These issues deserve special attention and may be required for elaboration and quantification in order to identify, predict and evaluate the impacts of the Solid Waste Management project on the environment. They are grouped under physical, biological, socio-economic and cultural components as given below:

Physical Aspects › Change in land use › Landscape disturbance › Landslide, soil erosion › Air pollution/odour › Water pollution,/surface and ground water › Visual pollution › Public hazards › Fire hazards › Bird hazards

Biological Aspects› Loss of forest › Loss in natural biodiversity and habitat

65

66

› Possible impact on flora and fauna› Disturbance to wild life› Impact on fish species› Increase in scavengers and vector species› Disease in wild animals

Socio-economic Aspects › Loss of agricultural land › Effect on Population › Spreading of epidemic and communicable disease › Potential of aeroplane crash › Increase in respiratory diseases › Health, sanitation and safety› Pressure on social services infrastructures› Mobilization of local people› Public health hazards › Loss of real state value and land prices

Cultural Aspects› Impact on Cultural, Religious and Historical Sites

Management Issues › Environmental Management Plan› Reinstatement of public service› Technology for implementation of 4Rs – principle (Reduction, Reuse,

Recycling, Resource Recovery)

Potential Environmental Impacts of Solid Waste Management The following potential Environmental Impacts of SWM is listed in Section 8.4 in the NEIA Guidelines for SWM Project in the municipalities of Nepal

The Collection System The potential environmental impacts of a waste collection system are to be summarized as follows:

1) Pest problems › Attraction of mice, rats, cats, dogs, pigs etc. and › Proliferation of flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches and other insects on exposed

solid waste awaiting collection.

2) Bad odour › Spread of bad odours from collection facilities adversely affecting sensitive

areas such as residential, commercial, recreational etc.


3) Burning of rubbish › Smoke contributing to air pollution, › Bad odours, › Unsightly conditions, and › In some cases, even endanger property.

4) Leachate › Generation of leachate from the collected wastes can cause nuisance and

contribute to water › Pollution in the inner city. › Localized problem confined to small area can cause ground water pollution.

5) Spillage from collection trucks › Spillage of wastes from collection trucks causes littering on streets,

encourages pests and odors › Causing traffic hazard. › Spillage occurring while transferring waste from storage bins to garbage

collection trucks is › Unsightly and seriously detracts the quality of urban environment.

6) Traffic Impacts › Stopping and starting garbage collection vehicles can significantly interfere

the free flow of road traffic.

7) Health Impacts › Handling of solid waste during collection system without any safety measures

entails health risks, potentially leading to infectious and chronic diseases and accidents.

The Delivery System The delivery system consists of two components, i.e. › The transportation system and › Usually a reloading system at transfer station, i.e. transferring waste from

small transport units to large transport units prior to delivery to remote disposal site through secondary transport.

A smaller transfer station may only have few impacts when sited at a suitable location reasonably well away from dense settlement.

Main environmental impacts arising from a large transfer station includes:

1) Traffic › The arrival/departure of garbage trucks at transfer station implicates

concentrated heavy vehicle movements causing disruption to general traffic unless adequate provisions are made to minimize the impact.

67

68

2) Noise › Noise from trucks engines, squeaking brakes, changing body panels and

hydraulic equipment at the transfer station is “impulsive noise” (happening in short sharp bursts) rather than “broadband steady noise” (i.e. a continuous drone), which can be a major problem in noise sensitive areas such as schools, hospitals, residential or recreational areas.

3) Visual › A transfer station, if badly managed, will be visually incompatible with land

use areas requiring visual quality e.g. public recreation areas, tourist areas, residential areas and other public areas.

4) Water Pollution › The transfer process with mechanical compaction of waste (for cost-

effectiveness) may release substantial quantity of leachate, causing water pollution if not managed properly.

› The leachate being produced at a waste transfer station can be expected to be quite high in colour, suspended solids and bio-chemical oxygen demand and as such has high pollution potential when discharged into an inland surface water without any treatment.

5) Air Pollution › Transferring of wastes from handcarts to larger trucks at informal transfer

stations creates air pollution. › Carrying out operations in a more or less permanent mixture of moist and

waste generates quite strong bad smells.

6) Littering

› Litter can be generated at the transfer station resulting in its unsightly look, due to: › dumping waste delivered out of working hours outside the entrance to the

transfer station, › wind blown litter from the waste transfer operation, and › the spread of litter by disorganized scavengers.

7) Health Impacts › Handling of solid waste during delivery system without any safety measures

entails health risks, potentially leading to infectious and chronic diseases and accidents

The Disposal System Of all the components of the solid waste management system, the disposal system has the greatest potential of adverse environmental impacts, because: › It is the point of concentration of all wastes within municipal area, and


› The impacts lasts for a long duration since a solid waste disposal facility will usually be designed to last for at least 20 years, and often longer.

It is for this reason that this component of solid waste management system deserves the greatest attention in the environmental planning and design of a waste management system.

The options available for municipal solid waste disposal includes: › An uncontrolled dumping in which the solid waste is dumped in a haphazard

manner (without any pollution control measure, e.g. covering of waste) either on land or in a river, canal etc. Uncontrolled dumping, which has potential hazards to natural environment and public health has been unfortunately adopted in most places in Nepal.

› A sanitary landfill, in which the solid waste is disposed on land in a controlled manner, with the following two essential features: › only sites that will be improved (!not degraded), by a change of level

associated with the landfill of waste, are selected, and › simple but effective engineering techniques are used to control the input

(i.e. the waste being dumped) and outputs (i.e. leachate, landfill gas etc.) › Incineration, in which the solid wastes are burnt under controlled conditions.

› especially incinerator operators are at risk of chronic respiratory diseases, including cancer resulting from exposure to dust and hazardous compounds.

› Composting, where organisms (bacteria, fungi and other invertebrates like earthworms) are used to break down the organic fraction of the solid waste into “humus” which makes useful mulch for agricultural and horticultural purpose. It may also produce by-products such as earthworms which can be sold as fish feed. The adverse environmental impacts of composting, in general, can be described as follows: › Pathogens: › Most organic wastes from human and animal communities will be

contaminated to some extent with pathogenic organisms which can cause infections in man, animals and plants.

› Flies and vermin: › Some of the materials used in composting (e.g. manure-type materials of

human or animal origin) attract flies and vermin. › Odours:

› Decomposition of organic matter either in absence of air (anaerobic process) or in presence of insufficient air results in the release of unpleasant release of hydrogen sulphide and other sulphur compounds.

Landfill site Main environmental impacts arising from construction and operation of a landfill site includes:

1) Air pollution

The two principle sources of air pollution at a landfill site are: › Dust from movement of heavy vehicles during dry periods; and

69

70

› Smoke from burning waste materials.

2) Surface Water Pollution

The major source of both surface and ground water pollution potential associated with landfill operations is “leachate”. It is essential for any planned large scale landfill disposal that the leachate management and control plan be prepared with the assistance of experienced solid waste/ wastewater management specialists.

3) Groundwater Pollution

Leachate from a landfill also has potential to seep into and pollute ground water aquifers surrounding or near the landfill site. The environmental impacts on ground water are to be described as follows: › The effects of high strength organic leachates on ground water can be quite

persistent due to the usually limited amount of oxygen available and the low rates of dispersion.

› Groundwater pollution tends to be extremely persistent for the reason that some leachate constituents are chemically stable and others are not amenable to attenuation by physical process such as dilution into groundwater environment.

› In general, the greatest environmental hazard will arise when a large landfill is to be located within a groundwater aquifer which is being extensively exploited for drinking purposes.

4) Public Health Impacts

Three main health hazards associated with municipal solid waste are:

a. Content on biological wastes such as slaughter waste, dead animals etc. in the municipal refuse provides sources of micro-organisms which can directly endanger human beings. In addition, uncontrolled waste disposal sites can provide excellent breeding grounds for disease vectors such as mosquito, rats, mice, and stray domestic animals such as cats and dogs. b. Some hazardous decomposition by-products of the waste leave the site with the formation of leachate. c. Smoke from fires on municipal disposal sites can have quite deleterious effects on people working on the site and can also cause chronic respiratory effects throughout the community.

d. Landfill gases (major constituents: CH4, CO2 , CO) generated in the landfill through the normal process of waste decomposition can be an acute hazard to the people working on the site.

5) Public and Occupational Health Hazards

Major public and occupational safety hazards caused by a landfill are: › Easy access to the site for general public is risky to them because of regular

activities of heavy vehicles such as trucks, bulldozers, etc. › People working at the site (e.g. waste pickers and inexperienced staff) near

uncontrolled dump areas are at risk of waste slumping.


› Uncontrolled landfill gas accumulated in hollows and enclosed spaces in or around the landfill can be a threat to people who are not aware of this hazard.

› Fires in the dump pose risk to spread to neighbouring buildings. Similarly, slow fires can also reduce the load carrying capacity of the landfill surface which becomes hazardous to vehicles/ people moving across.

Handling of solid waste at the final disposal site without any safety measures entails the following health risks, potentially leading to infectious and chronic diseases and accidents.

› Infections › skin and blood infections resulting from direct contact with waste and

from infected wounds: › eye and respiratory infections resulting from exposure to infected dust,

especially during landfill operations; › zoonosis resulting from bites by wild or stray animals feeding on wastes;

and › enteric infections transmitted by flies feeding in wastes.

› Chronic Diseases › especially incinerator operators are at risk of chronic respiratory diseases,

including cancer resulting from exposure to dust and hazardous compounds.

› Accidents › musculoskeletal disorders resulting from the manual handling of heavy

containers; › wounds, most after infected, resulting from contact with sharp items; › poisoning and chemical burns resulting from contact with small amounts

of hazardous chemical waste mixed with general waste; and › burns and other injuries resulting from occupational accidents at waste

disposal sites or from methane gas explosion at landfill sites.

6) Visual (Aesthetic) Impacts

Even the best designed and managed landfills, especially during operation period, can be unsightly and can have an adverse impact on areas requiring aesthetic quality of land use e.g. touristic places, recreational areas, residential/ commercial areas etc. ultimately resulting in adverse impact on local socio-economic environment.

7) Traffic Impacts

Traffic impact arises in the following two different forms:

› a. Access to the site by vehicular traffic via narrow local roads can cause increased wear and tear on not appropriately designed roads.

› b. Direct access from a major road can cause traffic impact due to the possibility of vehicular interference at the junction resulting from:

71

72

› waste delivery trucks queuing up and blocking the intersection while entering or leaving the site,

› badly located and/or designed with inadequate sight distances, or › spillage of dirt and garbage onto public roads, making them slippery and

unsafe.

8) Noise Impacts › Noise impacts arise due to arrival and departure of truck and activities of

machinery on landfill area. The level of hazard depends on the size of dumping operation and proximity of noise sensitive areas.

› Noise from a landfill can be particularly annoying, because much of it is of “impulsive” nature of short duration, e.g. clanging of truck tailgates and body panels, squeaking of bulldozer tracks, handling of metal containers etc.

9) Land Use Impacts

The use of land as a municipal landfill generally makes it and the immediately surrounding area incompatible with alternative land uses, often reflected directly in reduction in land values.

10) Social Impacts

Opposition from people living nearby (following the syndrome “NIMBY”) can reasonably be expected to increase in future during the site operation. It is very important to take active steps to avoid or reduce this form of social impact.


Annex 5: Anticipated Environmental and Social Impacts and Mitigation MeasuresAnticipated Environmental and Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures related to the activities in the SWM-SIP should be identified, described and discussed in detail.

Possible biophysical resources sensitive to impacts of the activities in the SWM-SIP include soil, landscape, air, surface water and groundwater, urban and natural habitats, protected nature areas and species of flora and fauna, ambient noise, and areas of cultural heritage.

Social receptors sensitive to impacts include residents of the municipality, waste pickers, collection staff, operation staff at the landfill and treatment facilities, employees of contractors involved in construction and operation activities as well as persons visiting the municipality regularly and often (working in the area) or for a short time (tourists)

World Banks Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Waste Management FacilitiesThe IFC World Bank Group Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines are technical reference documents with general and industry-specific examples of Good International Industry Practice. When a member of the World Bank Group is involved in a project, these EHS guidelines are applied as required by their respective policies and standards. The Guidelines provide useful information for identification of the anticipated environmental and social impacts and mitigation measures related to SWM activities.

The EHS guidelines for Waste Management cover facilities or projects dedicated to the management of municipal solid waste and industrial solid waste, including waste collection and transport, waste receipt, unloading, processing, and storage, landfill disposal, physic-chemical treatment, and incineration projects.

73

74

The guidelines provides a definition of municipal solid waste and describe possible environmental and occupational health and safety impacts and associated mitigation measures applicable to municipal solid waste activities.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures during ConstructionAnticipated environmental impacts and mitigation measure in the construction phase should be identified, described and discussed in detail. All activities in the SWM-SIP should be included in the screening and assessment.

The SWM-SIP includes in general improved waste collection, transportation, recycling and disposal operations. Thus, e.g. the establishment of central composting and sorting facility, transfer stations and eventually establishment of new landfill capacity as well as possible other treatment facilities may be included in the SWM-SIP.

The impacts should be grouped under physical, biological, socio-economic and cultural components. The following is example of possible major environmental impacts in the construction phase: › Pollution of surface water and ground water› Air pollution› Wastewater generation and disposal› Hazard vulnerability (the term "natural hazard" refers to all atmospheric,

hydrological, geological (including seismic), and wildfire phenomena that, because of their location, severity, and frequency, have the potential to affect humans, their structures, or their activities adversely).

› Noise› Odour› Spillage of hazardous or medical waste› Biodiversity› Sustainable natural resources management› Health and safety hazard for workers› Greenhouse gas emission

A summary of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures required should be included in the description. An example of a summary Table related to a WM facility construction is presented Table A5.1 below.

Table A5.1: Example of summary sheet of environmental impacts, significance and mitigation measures

Impacts Assessment Mitigation measures required

Contamination of soil, surface water and groundwater

Minor negative Immediate clean-up of spills

Air pollution (dust and emissions from machinery, dust during soil works)

Moderate negative Maintenance of equipment, sprinkling of soil, covers during soil transportation, low on-site


Impacts Assessment Mitigation measures required

vehicle speed

Noise from construction machinery and vehicles

Moderate negative Construction during day hours, use of silencers, low on-site vehicle speed, PPE for workers

Odor Minor negative Maintenance of vehicles and machinery

Biodiversity Negligible -

Management of natural resources (land, water)

Negligible Use local materials where applicable

Greenhouse gas emissions Minor negative Use efficient machinery and work schedule

Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures during ConstructionAnticipated social impacts and mitigation measure in the construction phase should be identified, described and discussed in detail. The activities in the SWM-SIP should be included in the screening and assessment.

The SWM-SIP includes in general improved waste collection, transportation, recycling and disposal operations. If, e.g. the establishment of central composting and sorting facility, transfer stations and eventually establishment of new landfill capacity as well as possible other treatment facilities are included in the SWM-SIP it should in the ESMP in the SWM-SIP be assessed if an IEE/EIA are needed for this activity and the IEE/EIA procedure followed when the facility should be established. Key adverse social impacts of construction of a SWM facility usually include increased traffic, noise, aesthetic degradation, and property devaluation nearby landfill area.

The following is an example of possible major social impacts in the construction phase, e.g. in connection with the construction of a transfer station and composting facility and upgrading of access road:› Movement of population› Reinstatement of damaged community services and infrastructure› Socio-economic and cultural impacts› Labour and working conditions› Occupational health and safety issues› Visual impacts, including view from the main road› Economic impacts› Community health, safety and security› Education› Social conflict› Gender issues› Impacts on vulnerable groups

75

76

A summary of the social impacts and mitigation measures required should be included in the description.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures during Operation and MaintenanceAnticipated environmental impacts and mitigation measure of all activities in the operation phase should be identified, described and discussed in detail. The activities in the SWM-SIP including ongoing waste collection, segregation and disposal activities etc. should be included in the screening and assessment.

The SWM-SIP includes in general improved waste collection, transportation, recycling and disposal operations. Thus, all operation activities new as well as ongoing included in the SWM-SIP should be screened and assessed.

The impacts should be grouped under physical, biological, socio-economic and cultural components. The following is an example of possible major environmental impacts in the operation and maintenance phase: › Change in drainage pattern› Flooding potential› Landscape impacts › Pollution of surface water and ground water› Air pollution› Visual impact from littering or uncontrolled dumping of waste in the

environment› Soil pollution e.g. from using of compost with content of glass and plastic etc.

as fertiliser/soil conditioner› Wastewater generation and disposal› Hazard vulnerability › Noise› Odour› Spillage of hazardous or medical waste› Biodiversity› Sustainable natural resources management› Greenhouse gas emission

A summary of the impacts and mitigation measures required should be included in the description, see above example.

Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures during Operation and MaintenanceAnticipated social impacts and mitigation measure of all activities in the operation phase should be identified, described and discussed in detail. The activities including ongoing activities the SWM-SIP should be included in the screening and assessment.

The following is an example of possible major social impacts in the operation and maintenance phase:


› Impact due to land acquisition and resettlement - population movement› Socio-economic and cultural impacts› Labour and working conditions› Occupational health and safety issues› Visual impacts, including view from the main road› Economic impacts - increase of tariffs› Community health, safety and security› Education› Social conflict› Gender issues› Impacts on vulnerable groups

A summary of the impacts, significant of the impact and mitigation measures required in the operation and maintenance phase should be included in the description, see above example.

77

78

Annex 6: GoN Acts and Guidelines relevant to the OBA ProjectThe following acts and guidelines are the most relevant to the OBA municipal solid waste management project in Nepal:

The Solid Waste Management Act 2011The Solid Waste Management Act addresses the following issues: › Definitions › Provisions related to production, collection, minimisation and disposal of solid

waste› Provisions regarding transfer stations and sanitary landfill sites› Involvement of the private sector and community in solid waste management› Provisions regarding solid waste management service fee› Provisions regarding pollution control and the monitoring of solid waste

management work› Provisions regarding Solid Waste Management Council› Provisions regarding Solid Waste Management Support Center› Offences and punishment› Miscellaneous (management of medical waste, provision regarding chemical

pesticides, maintaining record of community sector institutions involved in solid waste management, information to be provided, delegation of authority, contact with the Government of Nepal, reward, power to frame the rules and by-laws, standards or Directives, prevailing law, repeal and saving)

In the context of SWM, the Municipalities are statutorily responsible for: › Constructing and operating the infrastructure required for the collection, final

disposal and processing of solid waste (including transfer station, landfill site, processing plant, compost plant, bio-gas plant) either directly or through outsourcing/ partnerships with private sector21. Inter alia, this includes

21 However, the responsibility for managing hazardous / medical / chemical waste to prescribed standards rests with the waste producer; the Local Body can provide services for final disposal after processing on payment of a fee.


› Promotion of reduction, reuse and recycling of solid waste and formulation and enforcement of necessary directives.

› Prescribe guidelines for segregation of solid waste (at least organic and inorganic) at source.

› Provision of necessary technology, goods, equipment, containers, etc. to waste producers.

› Designation of Solid Waste Collection Center by arranging for location of container.

› Setting out the time, location and method for discharge of solid waste into the Collection Center.

› Transportation of SW from Collection Center to the Transfer Station or Sanitary Landfill Site.

› Day to day operations of the sanitary landfill.› Impose22 and collect service fee from the waste producer; suspend or terminate

services to a waste producer who does not pay the service fee; further, if a waste producer discharges SW in ways other than the prescribed time and place, impose fines up to NRs 5000/ 10000/15000 for the first/second/ third violation respectively."

Managerial / administrative oversight to the above sections and the municipality as a whole is provided by the Executive Officer. In the absence of elected representatives (Municipal Council, Mayor, Deputy Mayor), it is understood that several subject specific committees with representation from political parties and other stakeholders have been formed.

Environmental Protection Act, 1996 and Environmental Protection Regulation, 1997 (EPA and EPR)In the process of internalizing the environmental assessment system in development proposals, government of Nepal enacted the EPA 1996 and EPR 1997 which make the integration of IEE and EIA legally binding to prescribed projects. EPR was amended in 1999. The EPR adopts the environmental assessment criteria mentioned in the National EIA Guidelines. However, the EPR establishes the administrative framework for assessing, exhibition and determination of the EIA, in terms of issues needing to be addressed and the format of EIA document. Social aspects are included in the EPA and EPR.

Major highlights of EPA1996 are as follows:

Section 3 : It requires the proponent to carryout IEE and EIA as prescribed in schedule.

Section 4 : No one is supposed to implement the proposal without approval from the concerned agency (In case of IEE it is the concerned ministry, whereas in case of EIA it is the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology (MoEST))

Section 5 : In order to implement any proposal, the proponent should submit the proposal along with its report on IEE or EIA to the concerned

22 Fee / service standards to be in line with policy determined by Solid Waste Management Council chaired by Minister for Local Development.

79

80

agency for approval.

Section 6(1): The relevant agency is empowered to grant approval for the IEE report, only if it finds that no significant adverse effects will be caused to environment by the implementation of the proposal. The government agency is required to forward the EIA report submitted along with proposal to it, with its opinion on the report to the Ministry of Environment.

Section 6(2): While examining the IEE proposal, if it is found necessary to carry out EIA of such a proposal, the concerned agency can issue an order to carry out EIA.

Section 6(3): Any member of the public is entitled to copy the EIA report through the Ministry on their own initiative and at their own expense for the purpose of providing their opinion or suggestions on it.

Section 6(4): MoEST is empowered to set up a committee to provide opinions on EIA received by it.

Section 6(5): While granting approval to any proposal, MoEST is required to take into account public comments received on the EIA report and the opinion of the committee, if any. The Ministry can only grant its approval if it does not seem to cause significant adverse impact on the environment.

Section 6(6): If it appears from the IEE or EIA report that significant adverse impact could be mitigated or controlled, the concerned agency or Ministry may grant approval with prescription of necessary terms.

EPR, 1997 - (Amendment 1999)

Rule 3: The proponent is required to carry out IEE or EIA as per Schedule 1& 2 respectively.

Rule 4: Before preparing an EIA report, the proponent should publish a 15 –day’s public notice to provide the stakeholders to offer their opinions and concerns in writing on the proposal. The proponent should prepare and submit the scoping report to the concerned agency and forward to MoEST for approval and MoEST should determine the scope of EIA study as submitted or amended.

Rule 5: In case of IEE report, the proponent should prepare and submit the TOR and get approval from concerned agency while in case of EIA report, the proponent should prepare and submit the TOR to the concerned agency, which should forward it to MoEST for necessary approval.

Rule 6: In case, the approving agency of IEE report finds appropriate to carry out EIA, the proponent should fulfil all the formalities of the EIA process.

Rule 7(1): The proponent should prepare IEE and EIA report in the format as indicated in schedule 5 rule 4 and 5 of the EPR, 1997.

Rule 7(2): In case of IEE report, the proponent should notice the concerned


VDC, municipality, DDC, schools, Health posts, and hospital through a National level daily newspaper to offer their opinions and suggestions in writing within 15 days and prepare a date of public inquiry. The opinions and suggestions received should be included in the report. However the proponent should conduct a public hearing in the project site to conduct the EIA.

Rule 8(1): It is stipulated that after the proponent prepares the EIA report, proponent must send a copy thereof to the relevant VDC or municipality or DDC to enable them to offer their opinion and suggestion on it.

Rule 8(2): It obliges the proponent to make the EIA report public for a period of 30 days for perusal or study by any interested individuals or institutions; they may offer their opinions and suggestions, if any, to the proponent within 30 days from the date when the report is made public.

Rule 10: The proponent should submit 15 copies of the EIA report along with the recommendation of the concerned VDC or municipality to the concerned agency for approval.

Rule 11: The concerned agency, after investigation should approve the IEE report within 21 days from the date of its receipt, and forward the ten copies of the EIA report with its suggestion to MoEST within 21 days from the date of receipt. Upon the receipt of the EIA report, MoEST should issue a 30 days public notice in the daily newspaper to offer written comments of the stakeholders. MoEST may also seek the suggestions from the committee, if formed for this purpose, and should approve the EIA report within 60 days from the date of receipt or within 90 days in case of special reason.

Rule 12: The Proponent should implement EIA and other conditions given during the approval process.

Rule 13: The concerned agency (ministry) is made responsible for environmental monitoring and evaluation activities, and issue necessary directives to the proponent to implement environmental protection measures.

Rule 14: MoEST is responsible to prepare the environmental auditing report after two years of the commencement of the service by the proposal.

Rule 45-47: Anyone wishing to receive compensation may file the application to the Chief District Officer (CDO) and should forward the file to the concerned agency in case the evaluation of effects/loss. Once the loss is evaluated, the CDO should determine the amount of compensation within 60 days of receipt of application. The proponent should pay the compensation amount within 30 days of decision. In case the proponent (individual, institution or proponent) fails to pay within time limit, the victim may submit an application, and the CDO shall auction the property of the proponent and pay the amount of compensation as determined.

81

82

SWMRMC - Initial Environmental Examination (IEE).Format for Solid Waste Management Facilities in the municipalities of NepalThe IEE format for the municipalities has been developed by the School of Environmental Management and Sustainable Development, Pokhara University for the SWMRMC. The main objective of developing IEE Format for solid waste management facilities such as sanitary landfills site, transfer stations and compost plants has been to build the capacity of municipalities in conducting the IEE efficiently. The application of an IEE at an early stage of SWM facilities makes the project environmentally sound, socially acceptable and technical feasible.

The IEE addresses the following issues: e

› Introduction› Solid waste management system for the municipalities in Nepal› Objectives of developing IEE format for solid waste management

facilities› The need of IEE for development of solid waste management facilities

› Project screening› Need for screening› Screening procedures (general procedures for screening of SWM

facilities, screening procedures for selection of SWM facilities, pre-selection of potentially suitable areas for SWM facilities, selection of potential SWM facilities

› Initial Environmental Examination (IEE)› Procedural requirement› IEE process› IEE procedure

› General format for development projects› Maters to be mentioned when preparing reports relating to IEE

› IEE report format applicable for transfer stations, composting plants and sanitary landfill sites as per EPR

› Name and address of individuals and institutions preparing the report› Summary of the proposal (objective, impact on land use, adverse

impact on the environment and public health, other necessary maters)› Project description (project component, project alignment, project

schedule, IEE study approach and methodology)› Baseline conditions (physical condition, biological conditions, socio-

economic and cultural condition)› Potential environmental impacts (physical impacts, biological impacts

and socio-economic and cultural impacts in all phases from site selection to site post-closure)

› Alternative analysis› Mitigation measures (physical environment, biological environment,

socio-economic and cultural environment)› Environmental impact monitoring plan for physical, biological and

socio-economic environment (types of monitoring - baseline - impact -


compliance, mechanism for monitoring, training/awareness/visit capacity building, environmental and social enhancement program, environmental impact monitoring matrix

› Conclusion and recommendation› References

› Relevant laws and regulations› Checklist for IEE of potential sanitary landfill site

SWMRMC - National Environmental Impact Assessment (NEIA). Guidelines for Solid Waste Management Project in the municipalities of NepalThe SWMRMC - National Environmental Impact Assessment (NEIA) Guidelines for Solid Waste Management Project shall be applicable to all municipalities of Nepal and aims to provide:› An environmental basis for implementing solid waste management projects;› A basis for how to comply with environmental protection Rules (1997)

and environmental standards and norms;› A basis for developing and implementing solid waste management

projects, waste management facilities and landfill sites construction and operation in a safe and environmentally sound manner;

› A basis for environmental screening of solid waste management projects and basis for the selection of sanitary landfill site development; and

› A guideline for conduction IEE and EIA and the basis for environmental decision-making

Solid Waste Management Technical Guidelines for Municipalities of NepalThe guidelines have been prepared by the SWMRMC with the support of UN-HABITAT

The guidelines aim to assist municipal solid waste managers as well as policy makers in establishing efficient and effective solid waste management systems in Nepalese municipalities.

The guidelines are based on the following basic principles:› Integrated and sustainable waste management systems should be promoted› The 3-R principle (reduce, reuse and recycle) should be promoted at all levels› Waste should be segregated at source to maximise recycling› The practise of dumping waste on streets or open areas for collection should

be stopped and more efficient forms for waste collection that minimise waste handling and exposure to waste should be promoted

› Open waste dumps should be replaced by controlled dumps or sanitary landfilling

83

84

› Recycling should be maximised and only non-recyclable waste should be landfilled

› Environmental impacts of waste should be minimised› Polluters pay principle should be applied to minimise waste production,

recover cost and make the SWM system as a whole sustainable› Participation of local communities and private sector in SWM should be

encouraged

The first part of the guidelines provides an overview of key issues related to urbanisation and municipal solid waste management in Nepal.

The second part describes 10 steps for effective waste management. These steps include the following:

1. Assess existing situation2. Prepare for strategic and operational plans for integrated SWM3. Establish an efficient waste collection and transport system4. Maximise recycling and composting5. Implement sanitary landfilling for non-recyclable waste6. Manage hazardous waste, such as health care waste7. Mobilise local communities and maximise public participation8. Involve private sector in waste management9. Strengthen institutions involved in waste management10. Establish effective financial management for sustainable SWM system

List of environmental and social legislation and policiesThe existing EMF prepared under the UGDP/ETP has in Chapter V identified, described and discussed relevant policies of the Government of Nepal for the UGDP/ETP that also might be relevant for the OBA project. However, the document does not include the new Solid Waste Management act and EIA/IEE guidelines as these documents have been approved after the submission of the ESMF. These documents are included in the description in Section 3.1

The following policy documents are identified in the UGDP/ETP:

1. The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 20062. Policies of Government of Nepal (GON) relevant to

environmental and development National Environmental Policy and Action Plan (NEPAP)

Three - Year Interim Plan (2007-2010)

National Urban Policy, 2007 (2064 BS)

Local Self-Governance Act, 1998 and Local Self- Governance Rule, 1999

Labor Act 2048 B.S, (1991)


3. Environmental related legislation of GON applicable to UGDP Environmental Protection Act (1996) and Environmental Protection

Regulation (EPA and EPR), 1977

EPR, 1997 (Amendment 1999)

National Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, 1993

National Building Code of Nepal, 1993

National Policy on Land Acquisition, Compensation and Resettlement, 2006

Land Acquisition Act, 2034 (1977)

Land Reform Act, 1964

Guthi Corporation Act, 1976

Urban Environment Management Directives - 2065

Urban Environmental Management Guidelines, 2010 (2067)

Municipality Grant Operation Guidelines, 2010 (2067)

Water Resources Act 1992

Water Resources Regulations 1993

Ancient Monument and Protection Act, 1956

Guthi Corporation Act, 1976

Aquatic Animals Protection Act 1961

Land Acquisition Act, 2034 (1977)

Public Procurement Act, 2063

Health care waste guidelines, 2002

Industrial Enterprise Act, 1992

Right to Information Act, 2064 (2007)

Good Governance (Management and Operation) Act, 2064 (2008)

4. Related Guidelines of GON Public Work Directives, 2002

National Environmental Standards of GON

5. International Conventions, Agreements related to UGDP

UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of World Culture and Natural Heritage, 1972

Ramsar Convention (1971)

World Bank Environmental Safeguard Policies

Environmental Assessment E (OP 4.01)

Forestry (OB/BP 4.36)

85

86

Natural Habitats (OP 4.04)

Physical Cultural Resources (OP 4.11)

WB/IFC's Environmental, Health and Safety Requirements

6. GON Policies on Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and other Vulnerable Communities The Interim Constitution of Nepal 2063 (2007)

The Three Year Interim Plan (TYIP) (2007-2010)

National Foundation for Upliftment of Adivasi/Janjati Act, 2058 (2002)

Local Self-Governance Act, 1999

7. Communication, Good Governance & Social Accountability The Interim Constitution of Nepal 2063 (2007)

Right to Information Act, 2064 (2007)

Good Governance (Management and Operation) Act, 2064 (2008)

8. International Policy Guidelines and Conventions World Bank Policy Guidelines

International Labor Organisation Convention (169), 1989


88

Annex 7: Template for an ESMP

1. Project Description(The project description should be a summary of the content of the Solid Waste Management Service Improvement Plan (SWM-SIP). The Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) should be prepared in such a way that it is a stand alone document so that it is not necessarily needed to read the total SWM-SIP. However, details could be found in the SWM-SIP)

1.1 Introduction and background(The section should include a description of the background for the project and the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) as well as a brief summary of socio-economic background data and existing situation on solid waste management including identified major problems within the existing waste management system in the municipality)

1.2 SWM-SIP Scope(The section should include a brief description of the SWM-SIP – i.e. the 4 year action plan included in the municipality’s long term SWM strategy.

1.3 SWM-SIP Activities(The section should include a description of the activities included in the SWM-SIP including time schedule for implementation and operation of the activities. The description should include on-going solid waste management activities as well as planned new activities and improvement of existing activities in the municipality. The activities should be listed and presented in a Table in order to provide a good overview. It should be specified in the ESMP which activities are included in the OBA interventions)

2. Environmental and Social Management Plan

2.1 Scope of Environmental and Social Management Plan(This section should include a description of the scope of the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP).


The ESMP should include the following action points:› Actions required contain/remediate past environmental damage and

assessment of costs and/or further investigations.› Actions required to achieve compliance w with environmental and social

issues, including national environmental, health, safety and labour regulations and standards (occupational safety and health - OHS)

› Actions that might be required to mitigate any adverse socio-economic impacts of the project and to increase the benefits of the Project for the local population.

Implementation responsibilities as well as a schedule and an estimated budget for each of the identified mitigations shall be included in the ESMP)

2.2 Objectives of Environmental and Social Management Plan(The section should include a description of the objectives of the ESMP, e.g.)

The basic objectives of the EMSP are to: › to ensure that all mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will

actually be carried out at different stages of project implementation and operation - pre-construction, construction and operation and maintenance;

› recommend a plan of action and a means of testing the plan to meet existing and projected environmental and social problems;

› establish the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in the project’s environmental and social management;

› describe mitigation measures that shall be implemented to avoid or mitigate adverse environmental and social impacts and maximizing the positive ones;

› ensure implementation of recommended actions aimed at environmental and social management and its enhancement; and

› ensure that the environment and its surrounding areas are protected and developed to meet the needs of the local people, other stakeholders and safeguard the interests of the common people. )

2.3 Implementation of Environmental and Social Management Plan(The section should include a description of the of the implementation of the ESMP including a time schedule, how it will be monitored that the plan will be followed and procedures and time frame for updating of the plan regulatory (at least parallel with the update of the SWM-SIP) as well as update due to unforeseen projects in the SWM-SIP)

2.4 Anticipated Environmental and Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures(The section should include identification, description and discussion in detail of the anticipated environmental and social impacts and mitigation measures related to the SWM-SIP)

2.4.1 Methodology of impact assessment(The methodology of impact assessment should be described in this Section. See Annex 4 and 5 in the ESMF for guidance)

89

90

2.4.2 Environmental screening of activities in the SWM-SIP(All solid waste management projects have to undergo a screening process. This section should include a description of procedures and result of the initial screening of the solid waste management activities included in the SWM-SIP. It should be assessed if some activities require the preparation of IEE or EIA). If IEE/ EIA is requested it should be stated that detailed impacts and mitigation measures will be identified in the IEE/EIA process and will be followed in project implementation and during the operation.

In order to have comparable impact assessment for the different municipalities included in the OBA project the methodology of impact assessment as described in Annex 4 and 5 in the ESMF should be followed for the assessment of the identified environmental and social impacts. Annex 4 Potential Environmental Issues in Solid Waste Management and Annex 5 Potential Environmental Impacts of Solid Waste Management in the ESMF could be used as guideline for the identification of the potential impacts.)

2.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures during Pre-construction activities(The section should include a description and discussion in detail of the possible environmental and social impacts and mitigation measure in the pre-construction phase).

2.4.4 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures during Construction(The section should include a description and discussion in detail of the anticipated environmental impacts and mitigation measure in the construction phase. See Annex 4 and 5 in the ESMF for guidance

2.4.5 Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures during Construction(The section should include a description and discussion in detail of the anticipated social impacts and mitigation measure in the construction phase. See Annex 4 and 5 in the ESMF for guidance)

2.4.6 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures during Operation and Maintenance(The section should include a description and discussion in detail of the anticipated environmental impacts and mitigation measure in the operation and maintenance phase. See Annex 4 and 5 in the ESMF for guidance)

2.4.7 Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures during Operation and Maintenance(The section should include a description and discussion in detail of the anticipated social impacts and mitigation measure in the operation and maintenance phase. See Annex 4 and 5 in the ESMF for guidance)

2.5 Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP)(This section should include an overview of identified main environmental and social impacts and mitigation measures in the different project phases as well as implementation schedule, cost of implementation and monitoring the measures (budget/resources), delineation of responsibility for implementation of measures and means of verification. It should be notes which activities are included in the OBA intervention. A template for of an ESMP summary Table is presented in Annex 8.


Annex 8: ESMP Overview and Monitoring Template

91

92

Template for ESMP overview Table for Solid Waste Management Plan/Project

No Activity/OBA intervention

Potential environmental and

social impacts/issues

Mitigation measures / management actions

Implementationschedule

Budget / resources

Responsibility

Success verification

means23

1

2

3

4

5

23 In addition to annual reports


Template for Environmental and Social Management Monitoring Table for the ESMP

No Activity/OBA intervention

Potential environmental and

social impacts/issues

Area Are ESMP mitigations measures / management actions implemented and acceptable environmental and social conditions established?

Comments/ recommendations, e.g. re additional studies / information / actions required

1 (Yes/No)

2

3

4

93

94

Annex 9: Report on Stakeholder Consultations carried out to date

1 IntroductionThe present note provides an overview of the consultations done in preparing the OBA project in general and the ESMF in particular.

First the overall communications and consultation framework is presented. Thereafter the conducted and planned stakeholder consultations are described. Finally, a summary of the conclusions as well as concerns stated by the stakeholders are provided and it is described how these have been addressed in the project design.

2 The communications and consultation frameworkCommunication is a cornerstone for the project, given the focus on service quality and cost recovery, and the need to engage with, and find support from many stakeholders. A project design which has broad support and understanding of key stakeholders will be more sustainable than one without. Early engagement with stakeholders is a key design element.

A stakeholder assessment was carried out during the OBA project preparation for the two pilot municipalities Dhankuta and Tansen, and an overall strategy for stakeholder engagement has been outlined based on the requirements at the design stage and operations stage of the project.

The stakeholders in fall into four broad categories:

Waste producers, who have need for SW collection services, but minimal interest in paying service fee and have the ability to strongly determine outcomes/ success of the OBA initiative.

Elected representatives/ SW Management / other appropriate Committees/ Executive Officer of municipality; government agencies, TLOs and donors all have a high interest in the OBA initiative and can strongly influence outcomes.


Municipal staff involved in SW / related services who would be concerned with possible increase in their work load and can adversely affect service delivery/ achievement of KPIs.

Waste pickers/ others dependent on SW for a living (not an issue in the two pilot municipalities, but it will be in the Sub-Metropolitan areas Lalitpur and Pokhara).

In Sub-Metropolitan areas, the NGOs and private sector companies involved in solid waste management will also be important stakeholders

The overall strategy for stakeholder relations for the OBA pilot is outlined in the table below.

Table 12.1: Stakeholder relations strategy

No Stakeholder category Design stage Operations stage

Need for engagement

Method of engagement

Need for engagement


1 Waste producers (beneficiaries)

Assessment of required service levels and ability to pay

Brief survey of waste producers and TLOs, the latter for an indirect assessment

To increase level of interest in improved SW services and readiness to pay for services through e.g. creating awareness of advantages of a clean city and costs of providing SW services.

(1) Mass/ mid-media media campaigns; seminars with TLOs/ NGOs/ business associations /media representatives to highlight progress against KPIs

(2) Grievance redressal mechanism

2 Elected representatives/ SW Management / other appropriate Committees/ Executive Officer of municipality; government agencies, TLOs and donors all have a high interest in the OBA initiative and can strongly influence outcomes.

Key decision makers / influencing agents on design of OBA initiative/ source of funds

Consultation through presentations; dissemination of design documents; individual meetings

Key decision makers on provision of SW services and service fee increases.

Presentations; dissemination of information on progress against KPIs.

3 Municipal staff involved in SW / related services

To ensure high level of commitment to meeting KPIs.

Share (internal meetings) details of OBA initiative and invite/ incorporate feedback including on steps to tackling increased work load, if any.

To ensure high level of commitment to meeting KPIs.

Disseminate information on progress against KPIs; invite feed back; and also introduce incentive schemes

4 Rag pickers/ others dependent on SW for a living.

To address social concerns/ needs and incorporate

Brief survey / assessment of magnitude of the

Assess actual impact on livelihoods and

Periodic surveys/ assessments; leading to corrective action.

95

96

No Stakeholder category Design stage Operations stage

Need for engagement


Need for engagement


necessary changes in the design

problem, if any. identify corrective actions required, if any.

Note: If significant adverse impact emerges from the environmental and social assessment, then this would need to be incorporated in the Table.

The participating municipalities will be responsible for all communication with stakeholders on the project design and for assessing and mitigating social impacts of all SWM activities that will be implemented under the project.

While responsibility for communication and for social safeguards planning and management will lie with the participating municipalities, the process and outcome will be monitored by the SWMTSC on behalf of the TDF. SWMTSC will also be arranging consultation workshops in each municipality.

3 Consultations conductedThe project preparatory team held rigorous interactive consultation with the municipalities participating in the OBA project and visited all five municipalities viz. Dhankuta, Lalitpur, Lekhnath, Pokhara and Tansen.

3.1 The two pilot municipalitiesThe project preparatory team conducted consultations during three visits each of the two pilot municipalities Dhankuta and Tansen:

Due diligence of the existing SWM system and interaction with municipal officials, TLOs and beneficiaries on possible improvements under the OBA project (March 2012)

In-depth beneficiary interviews and WTP survey (July 2012)

Baseline information collection for the project M&E framework / the Technical Scorecard (September 2012)

These visits were very interactive with discussions being held at all levels - households and businesses, TLOs and municipality. After every visit a briefing meeting was held in the presence of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the municipality to debrief on the findings. The CEOs are very enthusiastic about OBA and committed that they support this activity. A list of the key Municipal officials, TLO leaders and NGOs consulted during the project design phase is provided in Attachment 1.

For the in-depth beneficiary interviews and WTP survey in July 2012, a questionnaire was prepared, local enumerators were hired and trained and household/business were randomly selected with the help of municipality concern officials (Tansen, 57 respondents of which 24 households, Dhankuta, 61 respondents of which 33 households). The enumerators then visited the selected households/business and interviewed them at their own premises. The interviews were documented in a questionnaire and all data was entered into a specially


designed computer programme and analysed. A full list of the respondents in the in-depth beneficiary interviews is attached in Appendix B.

The in-depth beneficiary interviews concerned:

The beneficiaries' major concerns concerning SWM services (service provision, presence of litter and illegal dumping, as well as possible nuisance from waste disposal sites)

The beneficiaries' existing situation regarding solid waste collection (service level, frequency, customer satisfaction, reasons for not being satisfied, payment for services)

The beneficiaries' views of the service improvement options being considered under the OBA project (the different options were explained and the households interest in and willingness and ability to pay for these was discussed)

These interviews generated important feedback which was incorporated in the design of the OBA project.

The collection of baseline data for the technical scorecard was based on interviews with the municipality staff responsible for SWM around a structured questionnaire covering:

The implementation of the SWM strategy and action plan for the municipality

The availability of a system to capture and report key operational data

The ability of the municipality to track the provision of collection and disposal services against defined targets

The ability of the municipality to tracks the developments in collection ratio, tariffs and cost recovery

This generated important feedback on the limited municipal capacity to monitor the implementation of the OBA project which resulted in changes to the M&E framework and inclusion of additional TA as described below.

3.2 The pipeline municipalitiesIn the three pipeline municipalities Pokhara, Lekhnath and Lalitpur, limited consultations with municipal officials, TLOs and beneficiaries on the OBA project were conducted in connection with a quick survey of the existing SWM system (June 2012). A list of the key Municipal officials, TLO leaders and NGOs consulted during these meetings is attached in Attachment 2.

Furthermore, information about the involvement of the informal sector the recycling system and related social issues were collected via field visits to and interviews with small vendors and waste pickers in Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City as well as in a meeting with the Poverty Reduction of Informal Workers in Solid Waste Management (PRISM) Project in September 2012. PRISM is working on pilot projects on poverty reducing and has established a system of Informal Waste Workers Groups in the Kathmandu Valley area.

97

98

3.3 SWMTSC managed consultationsFurther to the above, SWMTSC has initiated a series of formal stakeholder workshops with municipality officials, political party leaders and other stakeholders:

Dhankuta, conducted on October 11, 2012

Tansen, scheduled for mid-end November, 2012

Pokhara/Lekhnath, scheduled for mid-end November, 2012

Lalitpur, planned for end November/early December, 2012

The agenda and list of participants for these workshops is attached in Attachment 3.

4 Impact on project designThe consultation process during the project design phase provided a number of inputs to the project design choices:

All technical recommendations /options in the project design have been based on consultation with municipal staff at Tansen and Dhankuta.

The OBA intervention was designed as an integrated part of the municipalities' strategic plan rather than a standalone project.

Provisions were made for a larger role for TLOs based on the active involvement of the TLOs in recent years in almost all municipal activities at their levels and the high willing of the TLO elders/active persons to collaborate with the municipalities in managing SWM activities.

The key conclusion of the in-depth beneficiary interviews in Tansen were:

Current collection service is poor (11 % receive daily service, 23% receive 2-3 collections a week, 25% receive 1 collection a week, 26% receive no service at all) and a large group (37% of the respondents) are not satisfied with the present collection service at all.

A large group (46% of the respondents) are concerned about whether the final disposal is environmentally safe and acceptable.

The willingness to pay for the service level envisioned under the OBA project (daily collection - door to door) is in the order of the current actual fee whereas and the willingness to pay WTP to pay for lower service levels (2 collections per week and communal container) which many have today is significantly lower.

Key conclusion of the in-depth beneficiary interviews in Dhankuta were:

Current collection service is perceived as better in Dhankuta than in Tansen, but still rather poor (33% receive daily service, 32% receive 2-3 collections a week, 10% receive 1 collection a week, 8% receive no service at all) and a smaller group (18% of the respondents) are not satisfied with the present service at all.

Similarly to Tansen, concerns about the whether the final disposal is environmentally safe and acceptable are very high (70% of the respondents).


The willingness to pay for the high service level (door to door service) is comparable to Tansen with a lower willingness to pay for the lower service level (2 collections per week and communal container).

In both municipalities the interviews highlighted that social mobilisation is weak and increased focus on this is required for informing the households on SWM activities and services by the municipality. It was also clear that earlier pilots on home composting have not been followed up to ensure sustainability.

These consultations confirmed the basic design of the OBA project and the improved service provision model selected, but also resulted in the following improvements in the project design:

Inclusion of environmentally safe and acceptable waste disposal as a M&E indicator

Inclusion of TA on establishing operational manual for landfill and upgrading landfill operations and management expertise

Inclusion of TA on design and implementation of awareness campaigns

Inclusion of TA on design and implementation of 3R activities

Inclusion of TA for establishing the M&E and performance management systems for SWM services

The subsequent baseline information collection for the project M&E framework (the Technical Scorecard) showed that the existing data collection systems and capacity in the municipalities are very limited. Furthermore the officials expressed concerns about the complexity of the Technical Scorecard.

This has resulted in a revision of the Technical Scorecard with a reduction in the number of indicators to simplify the data collection.

99

100

Attachment 1: List of Municipal officials, TLO leaders and NGOs consulted during the project design phase

Dhankuta Municipality› Nush Raj Shrestha, Acting Executive Officer› Neelam Bajaj, Chief, Planning and Technical Section› Keshab Kumar Shrestha, Accountant› Krishna Bhundasi, Community Development Section› Bishnu Poddar, Assistant Sup Engineer, Technical Section› Tej Bahadur Trapa, Solid Waste Manager, Environmental Section› Raju Guragain, Chief, Revenue and Tax Section› Tribikram Dahal, Chief, Internal Audit Section› Babu Ram Gautam, Local Development Officer, Dhankuta District› Gainya Devi TLO, Basal Davi, Chairperson› Shantihi TLO, Hile, Dhrendra Thing, Chairperson› Sainik TLO, Hile, Gaurabh Karki, Chairperson

Tansen Municipality› Shisir Poudel, Executive Officer› Bishnu Paudel, Acting Executive Officer› Ramji Karki, Section Head, SWM Section› Barat Prasad Acharya, Section Head, Social Welfare Section› Madhusudan Gharti, Social Mobilizer› Sunil Prasad Pradhan, Municipal Support Team, (GIZ/GFA)› Markan TLO, Hari Rai Maji, Chairperson› Bansthali TLO, Ms Narayani, Chairperson› Santahaghuri TLO, Bantung

Pokhara Sub-Metropolitan City› Gyanendra Prasad Dhakal, Chief Executive Officer, Pokhara Sub-

Metropolitan City› Ananta Prasad Koirala, Internal Audit Officer, PPPUE Coordinator› Khem Bahadur Bhandari, Environment Officer› Chudamani Tiwari, Section Officer, Sanitation Branch› Surya Mohan Poudel› Er. Dhniba Bhattarai, Municipal Facilitator› Sub Er. Padam Lal Adhikari› Er. Bahadur Gurung, Chief Planning and Technical Department› Er. Dharma Raj Lomichhane› Er. Arun Raj Poudel› Netra Prasad Timilsena, Landfill Management Branch› Nirmalnansing Bhandari, Environment Officer› Om Raj Poudel, Chief of Social Development & Foreign Affairs

Department› Shiva Lari Sharma, Tax Officer


› Bishnu Prasad Bastola, Mechanical Engineer› Kalpara Baral, Administrative Officer› Santosh Poudel, Pokhara Solid Waste Management Company Ltd.› Yam Prasad Gurung, Kancha Waste Collection and Management

Center› Sivattam Gurung,Kancha Waste Collection and Management

Center

Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City› Narahari Sharma Bhandari, Chief Executive Officer, Lalitpur Sub-

Metropolitan City› Pradeep Amatya, Environmental Engineer, LSMC Environment &

Sanitation Section› Deepak Ratna Kansakar, Site Manager, Sisdol Sanitary Landfill

Site› Devi Prasad Acharya, President, NEPCEMAC› Laxmi Prasad Ghimire, NEPCEMAC› Bishu Thakali, President, WEPCO› Acharya Surendra, Environmental Volunteer, NEPCO› Sahadev Raux, Chairman, Creative Environment Preservation

Center› Nabin Shrestha, Poverty Reduction of Informal Workers in Solid

Waste Management (PRISM)› Nirmal Sigdel, Poverty Reduction of Informal Workers in Solid

Waste Management (PRISM)

Lekhnath Municipality› Ram Mani Adhikari, Legal Officer, Lekhnath Municipality› Surya Mohan Adhikari, Municipal Facilitator› Sabirya Poudel, Admission

101

102

Attachment 2: In-depth beneficiary interview respondents Dhankuta MunicipalityWard numbe

r TLOHousehold or

BusinessPosition of Respondent ID Date

1 Bitch Bazar Household Other 4906-07-

2012

1 Bitch BazarStores (shoes, clothes & daily items)

Head of business 60

06-07-2012

1 Bitch Bazar HotelHead of business 61

06-07-2012

1 Bitch Bazar BusinessHead of business 59

06-07-2012

1 Gumba Business Other 5406-07-

2012

1Micro Station

Stores (shoes, clothes & daily items)

Head of business 48

06-07-2012

1Shiwalaya Tole


Head of business 14

06-07-2012

1Shiwalaya Tole Household

Head of household 12

06-07-2012

1 Tumba ToleStores (shoes, clothes & daily items)

Head of business 58

06-07-2012

2 Kagate HouseholdHead of household 2

11-07-2012


11-07-2012


27-07-2012


11-07-2012

2 Kagate HotelHead of business 25

11-07-2012

2 Kagate HotelHead of business 50

11-07-2012

3 Atmara HouseholdSpouse of head of household 1

05-07-2012


05-07-2012

3 Atmara HouseholdHead of household 19

05-07-2012


11-07-2012


05-07-2012


11-07-2012

3 Patle Khola HouseholdSpouse of head of household 27

11-07-2012

3 Patle Khola HotelHead of business 6

11-07-2012

3 Patle Khola Food and vegetable Spouse of 20 05-07-


store business 2012

4 Debrash Household Other 3712-07-

2012

4 Debrash HouseholdHead of household 43

12-07-2012

4 Debrash HouseholdHead of household 8

06-07-2012

4 Debrash HotelHead of business 33

12-07-2012

4 Debrash Hotel Other 3812-07-

2012

4 Salleri HouseholdHead of household 32

06-07-2012

5 Bihibare BusinessHead of business 9

05-07-2012

5 Karmitar HouseholdHead of household 13

06-07-2012

5 Karmitar HouseholdHead of household 57

06-07-2012

5 Karmitar BusinessHead of business 10

06-07-2012

5Tallo Kopche Household


06-07-2012

6 Bitch Bazar HouseholdSpouse of head of household 39

11-07-2012

6 Bitch Bazar HouseholdSpouse of head of household 42

05-07-2012

6 Bitch Bazar HouseholdHead of household 44

12-07-2012

6 Bitch BazarFood and vegetable store

Head of business 7

11-07-2012

6 Moti Tole HouseholdHead of household 15

05-07-2012

6Nashal Chowk Household

Spouse of head of household 4

11-07-2012



11-07-2012



05-07-2012



05-07-2012

6Nashal Chowk Hotel

Head of business 31

04-07-2012

6Nashal Chwok Hotel

Head of business 40

11-07-2012

7Bhimnarayan Chowk


Head of business 29

06-07-2012

7 Bitch Bazar HotelHead of business 47

12-07-2012

7 Bus Park HotelHead of business 45

12-07-2012

7 Bus Park HotelHead of business 46

12-07-2012

7 Danda Gaun Household Spouse of head 11 06-07-

103

104

of household 2012

7 Hulak ToleStores (shoes, clothes & daily items)

Head of business 34

05-07-2012

7 Hulak Tole HouseholdSpouse of head of household 18

05-07-2012

7 Hulak ToleFood and vegetable store

Head of business 36

05-07-2012

7 Hulak Tole BusinessHead of business 53

05-07-2012

7Sangam Tole


Head of business 16

05-07-2012

7 Shreewani Household Other 2312-07-

2012

7Triveni Chowk

Food and vegetable store

Head of business 35

05-07-2012

7 Wastend HouseholdHead of household 17

05-07-2012

7 Zero Point HouseholdHead of household 28

06-07-2012

7 Zero Point BusinessHead of business 30

06-07-2012

Tansen MunicipalityWard

number TLO

Household or Business

Position of Respondent ID Date

1 Maheldhara HouseholdHead of household 57

01-07-2012

1 Maheldhara HouseholdHead of household 21

01-07-2012

1 Maheldhara TailoringHead of business 22

30-06-2012

1 Maheldhara BusinessHead of business 24

01-07-2012

1Makhan Tole Hotel

Head of business 7

01-07-2012

2Badigyan Tole Business

Head of business 51

30-06-2012

2 Narayanthan Household Other 901-07-

2012

2 NarayanthanShop- selling stationary goods

Head of business 3

01-07-2012

2 Narayanthan HotelHead of business 56

01-07-2012

3Bhimsen Tole Household


30-06-2012

3Bhimsen Tole Hotel on rent

Head of business 53

01-07-2012

3Bhimsen Tole Business

Head of business 43

30-06-2012

3 Bus Park Household Head of 28 01-07-


household 2012

3 Bus Park HouseholdHead of household 35

01-07-2012

3 Bus Park Hotel on rentHead of business 25

01-07-2012

3 Pragati Tole BusinessHead of business 45

30-06-2012

4 Shreekhantol Household Other 1930-06-

2012

4 Shreekhantol BusinessHead of business 18

30-06-2012

5Pragati Nagar Household


01-07-2012



01-07-2012



01-07-2012

6 Basantapur HouseholdHead of household 29

30-06-2012

6 Basantapur HouseholdSpouse of head of household 47

30-06-2012

6 Basantapur HotelHead of business 20

30-06-2012

7 Kailashnagar HouseholdHead of household 55

30-06-2012


30-06-2012

7 Kailashnagar Household Other 530-06-

2012


30-06-2012

7 Kailashnagar Business Other 4830-06-

2012

8Bhagawati Tole Household


30-06-2012

8Bhagawati Tole

Restaurant - serving food & snacks

Spouse of head of business 31

30-06-2012

8Bhagawati Tole Restaurant Other 26

30-06-2012

8Bhagawati Tole house on rent


30-06-2012

9 Bartung HouseholdHead of household 12

30-06-2012

9 Bartung HouseholdHead of household 27

30-06-2012

9 Bartung BusinessHead of business 32

30-06-2012

9Bhote Chaupari Household


30-06-2012

9Bhote Chaupari Business

Head of business 4

30-06-2012

9Bhote Chaupari Business

Head of business 14

30-06-2012

10 Dhrubaghat Household Head of 39 01-07-

105

106

household 2012

10 Dhrubaghat HouseholdHead of household 44

01-07-2012

10 Dhrubaghat BusinessHead of business 17

01-07-2012

10 Gairagaun HouseholdHead of household 11

01-07-2012

10 Gairagaun HouseholdHead of household 15

01-07-2012

10 Gairagaun Shop-selling goodsHead of business 13

01-07-2012

11

Kaji Pauwa (Bahumukhi) Household


30-06-2012

11

Kaji Pauwa (Bahumukhi) Business

Head of business 2

30-06-2012

12 Seti Pokhari HouseholdHead of household 6

01-07-2012

12 Seti Pokhari HouseholdHead of household 10

01-07-2012

12 Seti Pokhari BusinessHead of business 40

01-07-2012

13 Batasedanda HouseholdSpouse of head of household 50

30-06-2012

13 Batasedanda HouseholdHead of household 54

30-06-2012

13 Batasedanda HotelSpouse of head of business 36

30-06-2012

14 Bastari HouseholdHead of household 34

01-07-2012

14 Basturi HouseholdHead of household 38

01-07-2012

14 Basturi BusinessHead of business 42

01-07-2012

15 Asan ToleShop -selling food items and vegetables

Spouse of head of business 49

30-06-2012


108

Attachment 3: List of participants for SWMTSC managed workshops

Dhankuta Municipality24

24 At the time of writing this report, SWMTSC had completed workshops with political leaders and officials in Dhankuta municipality only. Other workshops are planned in Nov/Dec. SWMTSC will prepare a separate report on consultations with political leaders once all the workshops are completed.


Documents

World Bank · Web view2012/11/16 · prepared under the Urban Governance and Development Program / Emerging Towns Project (UGDP/ETP) in order to accommodate environmental and social