Uganda - Road Development Program Project : environmental impact assessment (Vol. 3 of 3)

E-265 VOL. 3 REVISED THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA MINISTRY OF WORKS, HOUSING AND COMMUNICATIONS ROAD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REVIEW AND UPDATE FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN OF KARUMA-PAKWACH-ARUA ROAD FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OCTOBER 1999 ROUGHTON INTERNATIONAL THE PERMANENT SECRETARY 321 MILLBROOK ROAD WEST MINISTRY OF WORKS, HOUSING SOUTHAMPTON AND COMMUNICATIONS UNITED KINGDOM P 0 BOX 10 ENTEBBE In association with U-GROUP CONSULT CONSULTING ENGINEERS   THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA MINISTRY OF WORKS, HOUSING AND COMMUNICATIONS ROAD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REVIEW AND UPDATE FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN OF KARUMA-PAKWACH-ARUA ROAD FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OCTOBER 1999 ROUGHTON INTERNATIONAL THE PERMANENT SECRETARY 321 MILLBROOK ROAD WEST MINISTRY OF WORKS, HOUSING SOUTHAMPTON AND COMMUNICATIONS UNITED KINGDOM P O BOX 10 ENTEBBE In association with U-GROUP CONSULT CONSULTING ENGINEERS   Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Table of Contents REVIEW AND UPDATE FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN OF KARUMA - PAKWACH - ARUA ROAD Final Feasibility Study Report Volume 2: - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment This volume is the second volume of a set of four volumes. The other volumes are: - Volume 1 Main Text Volume 3 Appendices Volume 4 Preliminary Engineering Drawings Roughton Intemational In association with U-Group Consult  J  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Table of Contents ROAD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW AND UPDATE FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN OF KARUMA - PAKWACH - ARUA ROAD Final Report Volume 2: - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Table of Contents Executive Summary 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................... 1-2 1.1 Introduction .......................................................... 1-2 1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment .......... ........... 1-2 1.3 Acknowledgements .......................................................... 1-2 2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................ 2-1 2.1 General Approach to Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................ 2-1 2.2 Environmental Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework ........................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Historical Perspective ....................................................... 2-1 2.2.2 Current Environmental Management Practices ....................................................... 2-2 2.2.3 Responsibilities and Practical Problems in Environmental Management .. 2-2 2.2.4 Summary of Relevant Legislation and Guidelines ................ ...................... 2-3 2.2.5 World Bank Requirements ........................................ -5 2.3 Objectives and Use of Social Assessments ....................................... 2-5 2.4 Methodology and Approach to Social Assessment ...................................... 2-6 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................... 3-1 3.1 ProjectAim ......................................................... 3-1 3.2 The Existing Road ......................................................... 3-1 3.3 Alternative Alignment in Area of Murchison Falls National Park ...................................... 3-2 3.4 Rehabilitation Works ......................................................... 3-2 3.4.1 Road Widening and Earthworks ........................... 3-2 3.4.2 Drainage Improvements ........................... 3-3 3.4.3 Pavement Construction ............................ 3-3 3.4.4 Road Safety ........................... 3-3 3.4.5 Programme for Execution of the Works ........................... 3-3 4. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES AROUND MURCHISON FALLS NATIONAL PARK ................ 4-1 4.1 Introduction .......................................................... 4-1 4.2 The 'No Action' Option ......................................................... 4-1 4.3 Route Alternatives ......................................................... 4-1 4.4 Assessment of Route Altematives Around MFNP ......................................................... 4-3 4.4.1 The Existing Alignment .......................................... 4-3 4.4.2 AltemativeA ......................................... . 4-3 4.4.3 Altemative B ......................................... . 4-4 4.5 Mitigation Measures for Construction In or Around MFNP ......................................... 4-4 4.5.1 The Existing Alignment .......................................... 4-4 4.5.2 AltemativeA ......................................... . 4-5 4.5.3 Altemative B .......................................... 4-5 4.6 Alignment Conclusions ......................................... 4-5 5. CULTURAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE .................................... 5-1 5.1 Overview ................................... 5-1 5.2 The Project Area ................................... 5-1 5.3 Population Characteristics ................................... 5-1 5.4 Settlement and Housing ................................... 5-2 5.5 Energy and Domestic Water Sources ................................... 5-2 Roughton Intemational In association with U-Group Consult  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Table of Contents 5.6 Transport and Communication ......................................................... 5-2 5.7 Health ......................................................... 5-3 5.8 Education and Literacy ......................................................... 5-3 5.9 Land Tenure ......................................................... 5-4 5.10 Land Use ......................................................... 5-4 5.11 Sources of Income and Employment ......................................................... 5-4 5.12 Social Organisation ......................................................... 5-5 5.13 Areas of Socio-cultural Importance ......................................................... 5-5 5.14 Agencies with Interests in the Project ......................................................... 5-5 6. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE INFORMATION ......................................................... 6-1 6.1 Introduction ......................................................... 6-1 6.2 Environmental Characteristics of Road Sections ......................................................... 6-1 6.3 Climate and Weather Patterns ......................................................... 6-1 6.4 Geology and Geomorphology ......................................................... 6-2 6.5 Drainage ......................................................... 6-6 6.6 Soils ......................................................... 6-6 6.7 Vegetation ......................................................... 6-6 6.8 Wildlife and Protected Areas ......................................................... 6-9 7. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ................. 7-1 7.1 Introduction ......................................................... 7-1 7.2 Impacts on the Physical Environment ................... ...................................... 7-1 7.3 Impacts on the Biological Environment ......................................................... 7-2 7.4 Impacts on the Socio-economic and Cultural Environment .............................................. 7-4 7.4.1 Effects on Local Communities and Families ...................................... 7-4 7.4.2 Effects on Women ...................................... 7-5 7.4.3 Effects on Refugees ...... ...........I............ 7-5 7.4.4 Effects on Private Companies ...................................... 7-5 7.4.5 Tourism ...................................... 7-6 7.4.6 Effects on Urban Areas ...................................... 7-6 7.4.7 Resettlement Impact Assessment .......................................7-6 8. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES .8-1 8.1 Introduction ....................................... 8-1 8.2 Land Take ...................................... 8-1 8.2.1 Permanent Land Take ...................................... 8-1 8.2.2 Temporary land take ...................................... 8-1 8.2.3 Compensation procedure and considerations ....................................... 8-1 8.3 Borrow Pits and Quarries ...................................... 8-2 8.4 Spoil Disposal ....................................... 8-3 8.5 Pollution of Water Courses and Drainage ...................................... 8-9 8.6 Erosion of Earthworks slopes ...................................... 8-9 8.7 Construction Camps ....................................... 8-9 8.8 Construction Traffic and Road Detours ...................................... 8-10 8.9 Traffic (Road) Safety ....................................... 8-10 8.10 Tree and Shrub Planting by Construction Contractors ...................................... 8-11 8.11 Tree Plarting for Firewood (Afforestation) ...................................... 8-12 8.12 Loss of Business Opportunities by Women ...................................... 8-12 8.13 Proliferation of Diseases ...................................... 8-12 8.14 Possible Food Shortages ...................................... 8-13 8.15 Loss of Business Opportunities by Women ...................................... 8-13 9. CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL EXTRACTION IN MFNP ........................ ................ 9-1 9.1 Introduction.. 9-1 9.2 Sources of Base Course Material (Hard Rock) ........................................ 9-1 9.3 Sources of Subbase Material (Natural Gravel) ........................................ 9-1 9.4 Sources of Selected Fill (Natural Gravel) ........................................ 9-2 Roughton Intermational iv In association with U-Group Consult  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Table of Contents 9.5 Potential Impacts of Materials Extraction and Their Mitigation ......................................... 9-4 9.5.1 Pajok Quarry ............................................ . 9-4 9.5.2 Karuma Cutting Borrow Pit ............................................. 9-5 9.5.3 Pajok Army Camp Borrow Pit ............................................. 9-6 9.5.4 Pajok West Pit ............................................. 9-7 9.5.5 Use and Reinstatement of Other Borrow Pits in the Park . .......................... 9-7 9.6 Conclusions ............................................ 9-7 10. MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN . 10-1 10.1 Introduction ......................................... 10-1 10.2 Environmental and Social Monitoring Team Composition ........................................ 10-1 10.2.1 Monitoring Team Composition .. 10-1 10.3 Scope of Work for the Monitoring Team . 10-2 10.4 Activity Schedule for Social and Environmental Monitoring . 10-3 10.4.1 Pre-Construction Monitoring .. 10-3 10.4.2 Construction Monitoring ............................. . 10-4 10.4.3 Post-Construction Monitoring ..10-4 10.5 Reporting .10-4 10.6 Cost of Mitigation and Monitoring .10-4 10.6.1 Cost of Mitigation Measures ..10-4 10.6.2 Cost of Monitoring ..10-6 10.7 Future Environmental/Social Management and Training ........................................ 10-7 Appendices A Rates of Compensation B People Consulted During the Study Summary of Findings of Consultations C Environmental Compliance Monitoring Forms D Details of Improved Cookstoves E References F List of Abbreviations and Acronyms G Correspondence with the Uganda Wildlife Authority H Photographs Roughton Intemational v In association with U-Group Consult  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Table of Contents List of Tables Table 2-1 Permissible and Intended Activities in Different Categories of Protected Area2-4 Table 3-1 Summary of Pavement Design ...................................... ...................... 3-4 Table 3-2 Approximate Quantities of Construction Materials .................... ...................... 3-5 Table 5-1 Population Numbers and Density ............................................................ 5-1 Table 5-2 Other Important Demographic factors in the Project Area .............................. 5-1 Table 6-1 Mean Monthly Rainfall (mm) for Masindi and Arua ................... ...................... 6-1 Table 6-2 Temperature in Degrees Celsius in Arua District ............................................. 6-2 Table 6-3 Characteristics of Geological Provinces .......................................................... 6-2 Table 6-4 Selected Mammalian Population Estimates in the N Sector of MFNP ............ 6-9 Table 7-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts of the Improved Road ............ 7-3 Table 8-1 Environmental Review of Possible Quarry Sites (Sheet 1 of 2) .......... ........... 8-7 Table 8-2 Summary of Adverse Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 8-15 Table 10-1 Environmental Monitoring Activities ............................................................ 10-3 Table 10-2 Estimated Costs for Environmental/Social Monitoring ................................ 10-6 Table of Figures Figure 1-1 Location Plan ............................................................ 1-3 Figure 4-1 Alternative Alignments in the Area of the Murchison Falls National Park ..... 4-2 Figure 6-1 Regional Geology ............................................................ 6-4 Figure 6-2 Regional Geomorphology ............................................... 6-5 Figure 6-3 Regional Soils ............................................................ 6-7 Figure 6-4 Natural Vegetation ............................................................ 6-8 Figure 6-5 Map of Protected Areas ............................................... 6-10 Figure 6-6 Wildlife Densities in Murchison Falls National Park ............. ....................... 6-11 Figure 6-7 Proposed Road Rehabilitation Programme in MFNP . ....................... 6-12 Figure 8-1 Location of Major Material Sources - Karuma to Pakwach ........... ................ 8-4 Figure 8-2 Location of Major Material Sources - Pakwach to Arua ........... ..................... 8-5 Figure 8-3 Tree Protection Cage ................................................ 8-14 Figure 9-1 Location of Potential Material Sources in the Pajok Area ............ ................. 9-3 Roughton Intemational Vi In association with U-Group Consult  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Executive Summary Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Executive Summary E.1 Introduction As part of the feasibility study for the upgrading of the Karuma to Pakwack to Arua Road from gravel to bitumen standard, an environment and social impact assessment has been undertaken in order to identify the likely beneficial and detrimental consequences of the project. This study has been carried out with the primary aim of recommending appropriate actions to mitigate any adverse effects on the physical, biological and human environment. Part of the project road passes through the northern part of the Murchison Falls National Park (MFNP) and as a consequence the project is classified as Category A for environmental and social impact analysis by the World Bank. The guidelines for carrying out Category A studies (contained in the World Bank Operational Directive 4.01: Environmental Assessment - October 1991) have therefore been followed. This study has also been carried out in accordance with the Uganda Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 1998 and the National Environment Statute (NES), 1995. Adherence to the procedures of environmental assessment in Uganda especially the Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (National Environment Management Authority - NEMA, 1997) has also been ensured. The following general approach has been adopted as a basis for this assessment: a) Determination of Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework. b) Examination of Details of Project Components c) Determination of the Current and Anticipated Environmental and Social Baseline Conditions d) Evaluation of both Positive and Negative Impacts has been undertaken. e) Analysis of Altemative Options and the 'Do nothing' Scenario and comparison of environmental consequences associated with each. f) Identification of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Enhancement Measures. An environmental and social monitoring plan has been developed outlining the nature, location and methodology of monitoring that should take place during the construction and operation phases. An evaluation has also been made of the bodies/offices nominated to supervise monitoring tasks. E.2 Project Description The aim of the project is to construct a high standard bitumen surfaced road to replace the existing gravel road connecting the towns of Karuma, Pakwach, Nebbi and Arua in north west Uganda (refer Figure 1-1 Location Plan). i) The Existing Road The existing route alignment is essentially well engineered and generally fits well into the undulating topography. As a result, there is no engineering requirement for the design of any major road realignments. Karuma to Olwiyo (53 km) This first section of road follows a nearly direct route across hilly terrain and has been constructed with minimum earthworks. For the first 42 kms the road lies just within the north- eastern boundary of the Murchison Falls National Park (MFNP).. Upgrading of this alignment will involve relatively minor deepening of road cuts and raising of embankments across watercourses and low lying swampy land. The existing road is generally unsurfaced or poorly surfaced with "murram" (laterite gravel) derived from borrow pits adjacent to the road (many of which are in MFNP). As a result, parts of the route are extremely rough with deep rutting. Very poor side drainage has resulted in localised erosion of the road carriageway. During wet weather long sections of the road become Roughton Intemational Page No:E-1 In association with U-Group Consult  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Executive Summary dangerously slippery and some short sections become impassable. The existing road is generally 7.0 metres wide but reduces to 6.5 metres in some sections. There is one major bridge at chainage 33.2 km that crosses the Ayago River. At Olwiyo there is a junction with the road to Gulu. Olwiyo to Pakwach (54 km) This section of road follows a less direct alignment as it typically follows a watershed route. As a result there are no bridges along this section. Approaching the Albert Nile at Pakwach the road crosses about 1.5 kilometres of swamp on high embankment. The road surface is typically rough except on the approach to Pakwach Bridge where a good gravel surface currently exists. Along this section the existing road is typically 8.0 m wide but varies between 6.5 m and 9.0 m. Pakwach to Nebbi (54 km) The first 30 km of this alignment from Pakwach to Nyaravur is hilly and undulating but follows a steadily rising ridge, consequently there are no major bridges. Between Nyaravur and Nebbi the road crosses several rivers and tributaries with significant catchments. The majority of the bridges are single lane and will to be replaced. Visibility is also poor on the approaches to several bridges and some realignments will be required at these locations to improve the geometry. Along this section the existing road is typically between 9.0 and 10.0 metres in width. The existing road surface continues to be rough and deeply rutted in places. Nebbi to Arua (76 km) At Nebbi the road tums northwards to Okollo and Arua. This section passes through rolling to hilly terrain. The road serves a relatively high local population and has been generally maintained in good shape. However there are several bridges that have failed in recent times and made the road impassable to traffic. The road crosses the Ora River, which is the largest river between Pakwach and Arua, immediately south of Okollo. Thereafter the road descends along a ridge before rising following another ridge to Uleppi. Subsequently the terrain becomes more hilly, crossing several rivers. The approach to Arua is paved for 1.5 kilometres before a roundabout at the entry to the town, but is in need of rehabilitaton. Wth the exception of the Okollo bridge over the Ora River, which is a single span through steel truss of about 40 metre span and 7.0 metres wide, the existing structures over the other rivers are single lane. There are thirteen single lane bridges along this road section that need to be replaced. Along this section the existing road is typically 9.5 metres in width but varies between 9.0 m and 11.0 m. ii) Upgrading Works The upgraded road is to comprise a 6m wide bitumen surfaced carriageway with 1.5 m wide bitumen sealed shoulders. Typically the existing road reserve is sufficiently wide to allow construction of the upgraded road without acquiring any additional land. The section through the MFNP is however the narrowest section of the existing road and will require some additional land for upgrading (the feasibility of realigning the road completely outside the Park has been investigated). In general, the new road will follow the existing alignment as closely as possible, which will minimise the amount of cut and borrow material required to construct the road. The upgraded road will also incorporate greatly improved and deepened side drainage. Covered road drains will be constructed in the settlements. It is expected that the new road pavement will typically comprise a 200 mm thick crushed stone base course with a 200 mm lime improved natural gravel subbase. One section of road from Pakwach for 21 km to the east may be constructed with a lime improved gravel base course. Quantities of construction material required for the project are summarised on Table 3-2 and the location of the main sources are shown on Figure 8-1 and Figure 8-2. Various measures to improve road safety will be incorporated in the road upgrading. Roughton Intemational Page No:E-2 In association with U-Group Consult  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Executive Summary iii) Programme for Execution of the Works The programmed start date for construction of the Works is the year 2000. The project road will be constructed as four separate contracts. The duration of the contracts will be between two and three years each. The two Contracts from Pakwach to Nebbi and Nebbi to Arua will be implemented first (Phase 1), whist the Karuma to Olwiyo and Olwiyo to Pakwach Contracts will be implemented later (Phase 2). E.3 Alternative Routes Around Murchision Falls National Park A section of the project road between Karuma and Olwiya passes through the northern edge of the Murchison Falls National Park (MFNP) and separates approximately 4% of the area of the park, which has a total area of 3,860 sq. kms (refer Figure 4-1 and Figure 6-5). The area of the MFNP to the north of the existing road was until quite recently inhabited (sparsely) consequently there has been a very low density of game in the area for many years. This has been exacerbated recently by the presence of security forces (there are now less than 10 wild mammals per km2 according a survey in 1997). The assessment of the impact of constructing a high standard bitumen road through a section of National Park is considered to be a key environmental issue associated with this upgrading project. The engineering and environmental studies have therefore reviewed the possibility of realigning the section of road in the Park outside the northern boundary. Two alternative alignments, which do not encroach into MFNP, were selected for detailed consideration along with the existing alignment. These routes are shown on Figure 4-1. The first alternative route (Alternative A) runs along the line of the ridge to the north of the Adibu River and the second (Alternative B) pursues a route through the valley immediately to the north of the river (Altemative B). The benefits and potential adverse impacts of realigning the Karuma to Olwiyo road outside the MFNP boundary or along the existing alignment are fully examined in Section 4. The potential adverse impacts associated with the construction of new alignment (through predominantly undisturbed natural habitat) are significant, not least because it will encourage ribbon development along the Park boundary with possible associated poaching and firewood collection problems in the Park. It is therefore recommended that the existing route through the Park is upgraded, but that well defined mitigation measures are implemented to control construction activities and vehicle speeds. These mitigation measures should be developed and agreed with the Uganda Wildlife Authority and MFNP authorities. Particular care will need to be given to controlling and restricting the extraction of construction materials; construction camp development; and restoration of construction sites to natural habitat. A key mitigation activity will also be control of vehicle speeds and road signing to limit the occurrence of wildlife kills. E.4 Socio-economic and Cultural Environment Section 5 describes in detail the social and cultural issues, which (in combination with technical, economic and environmental dimensions) may affect or influence the design and implementation of the project. i) Demographic Characteristics The project road goes through the districts of Gulu, Nebbi and Arua and forms part of the north- west trunk road system which connects to lhe eastern and southem parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Sudan respectively (refer Figure 1-1 Location Plan). The three districts have a combined total area of 22,460 km2 and a total population of approximately 1.5 million people. Nebbi and Arua districts are ethnically rich with every major tribe in Uganda represented particularly in the urban areas. The Acholi tribe mainly inhabits Gulu district with very few 'outsiders'. Roughton Intemational Page No:E-3 In association with U-Group Consult  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Executive Summary The population growth rate in Nebbi and Arua is much higher than the national average and pressure on natural resources is beginning to be felt. Accessibility to safe water for drinking is already low. Statistics show that 68% of the total population in the project area lies in the non- productive age group. The population in the study area is mainly rural. And up to 92% of the entire population in the study area live in grass thatched huts made from mud and wattle, although use of bricks is becoming popular especially in urban centres. Development of settlements (including major towns such as Nebbi, Pakwach and Arua) is generally not planned. This has had a negative effect on the provision of social services and improved environment management e.g. sanitation. Within the study area kinship ties are the main factor determining settlement patterns and choice of area for settling. An average 32% of the households in the project area have access to safe water (ie boreholes). The majority of people rely on water for domestic uses from unprotected sources such as shallow wells, rivers or dams. Urban areas such as Pakwach and Nebbi do not have piped water despite the fact that they have relatively high population densities. For this reason, water bome diseases such as cholera, dysentery, bilharzia, malaria and river blindness are rampant especially in the West Nile area. The majority of households in the project area depend on woodfuel for cooking. Nebbi and Arua towns are connected to the Uganda Electricity Board grid, but due to the high costs of running the diesel generators, power is only available between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. This explains why charcoal burning and firewood sales are important activities along the project road ii) Transport and Communications Road transport is by far the most important mode of transport in the study area. The project road is a trunk road and is fed by a number of feeder roads which are usually in poor condition and not always motorable during the rainy seasons. An estimated total of 538 km of feeder roads exist in Nebbi district, while Arua district has about 1,039 km. Public transport is only found on the major roads within the project area. The three districts of Gulu, Nebbi and Arua can also be accessed by air. The pedal bicycle is the most common type of transport for medium distances whilst short journeys are typically made on foot. Women in general do not pedal bicycles but only travel as passengers. Communication between Kampala and the study area is largely by radio. A private communications company now operates in Arua, which has greatly improved communication with this town. Uganda Posts Ltd is operational but letters currently take a number of days to be delivered. Upgrading the road would be expected to help to alleviate this problem. iii) Sources of Income and Employment The main source of household livelihood in the project area is predominantly subsistence farming. An average 80% of all households grow various crops on small-holdings. Incomes from activities such as petty trading and formal employment may be used to augment the assured income from subsistence farming. The project area is potentially a highly productive agricultural region, which will benefit from the upgraded road. In particular, it will become worthwhile for farmers to invest in traditional agriculture cash crops that they were previously unable to sell. iv) Health Each of the districts in the project area has at least one government run hospital, which is usually supported by mission hospitals. The best equipped referral hospital in the region (Mulago Hospital) is about 500 km from Arua and 325 km form Gulu. Very few people in the project area are able to utilise this hospital, due to existing high transport costs and poor bus services. The consequences of this situation are shown by the large number of widows and orphans living in the project area and by the infant mortality rate (under 5 years) which is much higher than the national average (the national average is high compared to other countries). Roughton Intemational Page No:E-4 In association with U-Group Consult  Kanima-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Executive Summary The most common diseases in the study area malaria (40%), respiratory infections (34%), diarrhoea diseases (8%) and intestinal worms (7%). The Aids pandemic is also rampant. The current level of AidEs awareness is estimated at over 60% of the total population. v) Education and Literacy Literacy levels in the three districts of the project area are still low. The lowest literacy levels being associated with females and rural areas. In Nebbi for example, only 32% of all the population aged 10 years and above can read and write. However, with the current Universal Primary Education (UPE) Program supported by the government, the rate of literacy is expected to increase. With improved accessibility (when the project road is upgraded) and increased literacy due to the UPE Program, the number of unemployed youths are expected to decrease. E.5 Physical and Biological Environment Section 6 describes the environmental baseline conditions in the project area. The purpose of this section is to facilitate the evaluation of potential impacts. It describes in greatest detail the resources that are most likely to be affected by the proposed project activities. Namely, flora fauna and protected areas. E.6 Evaluation of Potential Environmental and Social Impacts Possible positive and negative impacts of upgrading the Project road are assessed in Section 7 of the Report. The impacts are categorised according to their effects on either the physical, biological or socio-economic environment. As the road has existed for many years most of the environmental impacts associated with this upgrading project will be direct in nature and associated with the construction activities. A summary of potential positive and negative impacts on the physical and biological environment that may be caused by upgrading the project road is given in Table 7-1. This Table considers the magnitude, extent and duration of potential impacts and confirms that positive impacts outweigh potential negative impacts. Mitigation measures for the identified potential negative environmental impacts have been defined. The assessment of the significance of potential social impacts has been primarily based on their possible effect on the key stakeholders (identified in Section 1.3), which has been evaluated through meetings and discussions with stakeholder representatives. The main issues are briefly reviewed below: i) Effects on Women and Households As a special group, women will be affected in a number of ways, by the proposed road upgrading. The positive impacts will be of medium to long-term duration, since they are all significant. They include: improved mobility to health care facilities and markets; increased income from their produce; improved job opportunities; increased dealings with other areas of the country and their women's groups. Some negative impacts may be felt by women, such as a reduction in the availability of firewood. ii) Effects on Refugees The project area especially Gulu and Arua districts have a number of internally displaced people and refugees from Sudan and the Congo within their boundaries. The upgrading of this road will improve accessibility to the refugee camps and protected areas for relief agencies. The road has long been a problem to relief organisations dealing with refugees in northem Uganda. Most of the relief supplies to the intemally displaced and refugees from neighbouring countries, comes from Kampala. iii) Sites of Cultural Importance Investigations show that this project will not directly affect any known sites of archaeological or cultural importance. But as a general principle, the construction phase activities should try to avoid religious sites such as graveyards and family shrines. E.7 Proposed Mitigation Measures Bitumen sealing and upgrading the existing Karuma to Pakwach to Arua road will be associated with some adverse environmental and social impacts. However, these undesirable impacts can Roughton Intemational Page No:E-5 In association with U-Group Consult  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Executive Summary be minimised by implementing appropriate mitigation measures. These measures are considered in detail Section 8 and summarised on Table 8-2. Major issues are reviewed briefly below. i) Land Take and Resettlement There will be a very small amount of permanent land take that will be associated with road widening and with minor alignment improvements (such as at the approaches to new bridges). The existing alignment is generally well engineered therefore it will almost always be possible for the improved road to be coincident with the existing road. The construction of the new road will not require the demolition of any buildings. The majority of land taken will be grassland but some cultivated land (mainly maize and cassava) may be affected. Temporary land take will occur when land is used for borrow pits, quarries, contractor's camps and other working areas and accesses to them. Land will also be required for temporary diversions during construction of the road. Some bush houses are occasionally found in the area of potential borrow pits, but the need for involuntary resettlement is not foreseen, since alternative extraction sites will typically be available. Land take must be mitigated by fair compensation paid promptly. It is recommended that consideration be given to making compensation payments through the Contracts and that the Contractor enters into an approved agreement with the user/owner for the purchase or lease of the land in conjunction with the relevant Government authorities. ii) Borrow Pits and Quarries The development of borrow pits and quarries to supply construction materials is considered to be the construction activity with the greatest potential to create negative impacts on the environment. Considerable quantities of gravel, rock and embankment fill material will be required during road upgrading (refer Table 3-2). Borrow pits and quarries will have a variety of impacts. These include land take, access road requirements, dust and noise while operational, effects of blasting, haul road traffic, and visual impact. In view of these potential negative impacts, detailed consideration has been given to environmental factors associated with developing the identified possible material sources. Table 8-1 presents an environmental review of all possible quarry sites. Borrow pits and quarries development will need to be strictly controlled, particularly in the MFNP. Where investigations indicate that most natural gravel requirements could be supplied from just three locations where pit excavations already exist. Rock requirements could be supplied from a single quarry development at Pajok (21 km north west of Karuma). Site specific consideration of materials extraction in MFNP has been requested by the Uganda Wildlife Authority and is reported in Section 9 of this report. All material sources should be operated in accordance with a management plan to be agreed between the Contractor and Resident Engineer in advance. Each plan should include: * Arrangements for consultation with the farmer/land-user, and other affected parties. * The extent of each pit/quarry should be marked on the ground. A compensation agreement must be signed with the farmer/land owner. * Access arrangements must be agreed. * A working plan must be agreed, giving an outline of the direction, timing and depth of working. * A reinstatement plan must be agreed, giving details of the final profile, method of achieving the final profile, drainage and sediment control, re-soiling and re-vegetation measures. It seems that none of the existing material sources developed for the construction and maintenance of the existing gravel road have been reinstated. Once the road has been upgraded to bitumen standard many of the existing borrow pits will no longer be required. Roughton Intemational Page No:E-6 In association with U-Group Consult  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Executive Summary It is recommended that all borrow pits in the MFNP, whether used during the upgrading or not should be reinstated under the contract, unless the Ugandan Wildlife Authority specifically asks for pits to left open (for future Park Road gravel surface maintenance). iii) Spoil Disposal Relatively small, but environmentally significant, quantities of soil that is unsuitable for use in the road construction will be produced during road widening and slope trimming activities (refer Table 3-2). Ideally, worked out borrow areas or quarries should be used for disposing of spoil accumulated during construction. At some locations it may be impractical or uneconomical to haul spoil to a disused borrow area. In which case, the land used for dumping should not be under cultivation nor a wooded area. Swamps will not be infilled without consideration for the impact on the local wetlands ecology. Wherever spoil is dumped, it must be landscaped and top-soiled so that vegetation can be re-established. All areas must be approved by the Engineer, and suitable compensation paid for the land, if this is applicable. iv) Pollution of Water Courses, Drainage and Water Abstraction The most important impacts in need of control during the construction phase are sedimentation and the alteration of natural drainage and ground water levels. The applicaffon of good engineering practices in design and construction should ensure that water sources are not affected by the rehabilitation process. The most likely source of watercourse pollution is from loose soil being washed into rivers and streams during the construction of drainage structures. This hazard is not thought to be serious. However, if there is a risk of serious pollution, then the engineer must instruct the contractor to construct silt traps to alleviate the problem. v) Erosion of Earthwork Slopes Previous experience in the project area shows that climatic and other conditions are favourable for natural revegetation of slopes. The Contractors responsibilities for revegetation should be extended over two growing seasons to ensure full establishment. vi) Construction Camps Though covering a relatively small area, Contractors camps can cause significant environmental damage for a considerable time if not controlled. The major causes are pollution (due to all forms of waste), indiscriminate fuelwood collection, soil erosion, spillage of oils and fuel, land take, dust and noise of construction traffic. Many of the potential impacts of the contractors construction camp can be prevented or mitigated. The Contract Documents will make clear the Contractors responsibilities with respect to the operation and reinstatement of construction camps and workshops. Larger camps should be provided with a health clinic by the Contractor. In MFNP construction camps should be located on the site of the present army camps. This will | help to reduce environmental damage and will provide additional security. vii) Loss of Roadside Trees A significant number of both small and relafively large trees have grown in the road reserve (right of way). As a consequence of road widening and construction of improved side drainage structures there will be no option but to remove many of these trees. This will have a significant adverse environmental impact, unless a programme of replacement tree planting is implemented. It is proposed that the construction contract makes provision for the growing, planting and maintenance of about 1,000 replacement trees per construction contract. Recommendations are provided as to the location where planting should occur, type of trees to be planted, and maintenance of the seedlings. Roughton Intemational Page No:E-7 In association with U-Group Consult  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Executive Summary viii) Road Safety Improvement of the road will encourage more traffic and higher vehicular speeds. A major part of the traffic will be long-distance haulage trucks to and from southern Sudan and eastern Congo. Increased traffic speed due to a better standard of road will have an effect on road safety for pedestrians, cyclists, livestock and their owners, who will face increased risks of injury from faster moving vehicles. The existing road has a poor safety record therefore particular attention will be given to designing measures that will increase road safety along the rehabilitated road. The main safety improvements include: * Road widening and improved junction lay-outs * Provision of bitumen sealed shoulders (whole road), bus bays and parking spaces in settlements * Improved road signs and road marking * All new bridges will be constructed with 1.5 metre wide raised footpaths on both sides of the carriage-way ix) Proliferation of Disease Spread of diseases such as AIDS and other infectious diseases along the project road could be a significant social impact. Strengthening the medical facilities and improving on people's awareness based on current active programs will help in reducing the rate of infection. The level of awareness in Uganda with regard to improved health is now relatively high, therefore disease control is improving. x) Scarcity of Fuelwood Woodfuel is the main source of energy in Uganda and more especially in rural areas. Fuelwood consumption is likely to increase when the project road is upgraded. The main reason being that more new trading centres are likely to develop along these roads which may attract people from within and outside the project area. Since electric power from UEB grid will not be immediately available, the increased population in the centres and outside the area served by this road will use woodfuel for most of their energy requirements. The end result will be that the now well-vegetated areas along the proposed road will be targeted for charcoal production. Existing plots of wood on private land and some trees may be depleted. Strengthening afforestation programs and supporting the use of fuel saving cook stoves especially around all settlements in the project area should help alleviate the scarcity of fuelwood. E.8 Materials Extraction in Murchison Falls National Park The road alignment studies, which were strongly influenced by environmental influences, have concluded that the Karuma to Olwiyo road should be upgraded along its existing alignment through the MFNP (refer Section 4). Construction materials studies have shown that road upgrading ziong this section will require the excavation of natural gravel materials from a limited number of existing (open) borrow pits and the development of one new hard rock quarry in the Park at Pajok Hill. Proposals for the development of construction material sources in the Park were forwarded to the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) in August 1999 for their review. The UWA responded on 8 September by stating that they required a site specific EIA carried out with respect to extraction of construction materials in the Park. This would then provide a basis for either accepting or rejecting the proposals. Section 9 of this report has been prepared to fulfil the requirements of UWA and presents site specific details of materials extraction proposals in MFNP along with provisions for environmental protection and mitigation. Roughton Intemational Page No:E-8 In association with U-Group Consult  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Executive Summary E.9 Mitigation and Management Plan It is essential that all proposed mitigation measures should be implemented and monitored to ensure that they are undertaken to a satisfactory standard. Mitigation measures that can be implemented as a part of the construction contracts will be provided for under the Contracts., Where appropriate, Clauses will be written into the Contract Documents that ensure that the Contractor is aware of his responsibilities and environmental controls. ] There is an identified need for a full time environmental/social specialist (monitor) employed as part of the construction supervision team. It is recommended that this monitor is supported by three full time District Liaison Officers. They will co-ordinate activities within the Districts together with a further 12 part time District Assistants. The environmental/social monitoring team will work closely with the Engineer, the Contractors, and members of the local communities that may be affected by the road rehabilitation. The monitor will also liase with NEMA, UWA, MOWHC and all other interested stakeholders. The scope of work to be undertaken by the environmental monitoring team is outlined in Section li 10.3. Details are also provided for activity and reporting schedules. Reporting will be aided by the use of specially designed Environmental Compliance Monitoring Forms (refer Appendix C). A cost estimate has been prepared for environmental/social monitoring (refer Table 10-2) which totals US $ 996,200 for supervision of the 4 contracts over a project period of 6 years. This equates to a cost per Contract of approximately US $ 250,000. For the mitigation activities to be implemented, there will be financial costs incurred. Many of the recommended mitigation measures are simply good engineering practice, and should not be considered as 'extras" to the construction cost. Main areas of expenditure for mitigation and monitoring include: - - Compensation for land take both temporary and permanent, and for loss of crops and resulting income (approximately US $60,000/ Contract); Reinstatement of borrow pits and quarries at the end of the contract (approximately US $70,000/ Contract - included in Contractors rate for material supply and revegetation); - Establishment, management and ultimate reinstatement of contractors camps (approximately 30,000/ Contract - included in Contractors establishment charges) - Provision of road safety measures for vehicle speed control, accident reduction etc. (approximately US $450,000/ Contract) Road safety education (expected to be carried out by with monitoring team with all cost absorbed under monitoring team fees) ! * Re-vegetation and replacement tree planfing activities (US $300,000/contract) Support for reafforestation programmes (recommend US $ 200,000) I Monitoring team fees, subsistence and transport costs (US $250,000/contract). E.10 Conclusions Consultations with local representatives, women's groups and youth groups has shown that upgrading the Karuma to Pakwach to Arua Road to bitumen standard is very strongly supported in the communities served by the road. Indeed, road upgrading is thought to be long over due because the West Nile region has no good road connection to Kampala (unlike other regions). Upgrading the road will be associated with a number of potential adverse environmental and social impacts. Virtually all the identified undesirable impacts can be minimised or even prevented altogether by implementing the proposed mitigation measures. A comprehensive management plan has therefore been proposed that is designed to enable effective environmental and social monitoring throughout the project cycle and to facilitate effective implementation of measures required to mitigate potential negative impacts. This management plan will ensure that the benefits of road upgrading will far outweigh any negative impacts. Roughton Intemational Page No:E-9 In association with U-Group Consult  I  SCALE: 700 000 ) K . a rv u mI '1 [ AM. Akp*o. ha ARUAcr As a - P_pk 0~~~~~~~~~~~~M-W Am hua MINISTRADYDTALEDDEIGNOFOARKS,KWCHuUAROA c N a t no F a IIs INTERNA TIONAL 2TE IUR . OATO LN2aog  I  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessrnent Report Section 2: EIA Methodology 2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 2.1 General Approach to Environmental Impact Assessment In accordance with the National Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (NEMA, 1997) and Regulations 14 and 15 of the EIA Regulations, 1998, the following general approach has been adopted as a basis for this assessment: a) Determnination of Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework and requirements through identification of relevant legal documents, guidelines and planning procedures. These have been reviewed in order to ensure that necessary measures are included in the design and implementation of the project. In particular those measures, which could have an implication on environmental resources, were identified. b) Examination of Details of Project Components, including review of construction, maintenance and operation activities (taking place on and off-site) associated with the project. In particular consideration was given to those components that could have implications on environmental resources. c) Determination of the Current and Anticipated Environmental Baseline Conditions through review of existing information as well as field survey to establish site specific issues and sensitivity. d) Evaluation of both positive and negative environmental effects has been undertaken. e) Analysis of Altemative Options and the 'Do nothing' Scenario and comparison of environmental consequences associated with each. f Identification of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Enhancement Measures. Where adverse environmental impacts can be reduced to acceptable levels through the incorporation of practical and cost-effective measures, these have been identified. Where appropriate, opportunities for enhancement during construction or operation of the scheme have also been identified. An environmental monitoring plan has been developed outlining the nature, location and methodology of monitoring that should take place during the construction and operation phases. An evaluation has also been made of the bodies/offices nominated to supervise monitoring tasks 2.2 Environmental Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework 2.2.1 Historical Perspective Due to political upheavals that characterised the post independence period until 1986, no new policy or legislative instruments were put in place to promote sustainable development in Uganda. Environmental management issues were relegated to the background on the pretext that Uganda was well endowed with abundant natural resources. It was not until 1987 that a ministry in charge of environment protection was established. Since then, a number of developments have taken place in a bid by the Government of Uganda (GOU) to use and manage environmental resources on a sustainable basis. One such development has been the creation of the National Environment Action Plan (NEAP) which was embarked upon in 1990 with assistance from United States Agency for International Development (USAID). NEAP was given the mandate to recommend policy and legislative actions, institutional strengthening guidelines and potential investments with the main objective of putting in place a sustainable national development strategy. For instance, with NEAP's guidance the then Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) formulated a National Environment Management Policy in 1994. Strategies of this policy are intended to provide and assist decision-makers and resource users in determining priorities in the national context and also at the sectoral, private sector and individual levels. One of the strategies to assist in implementing the National Environment Management Policy was the establishment of the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA). The National Environment Statute (NES) passed by parliament in early 1995 created NEMA and provided its legal mandate. NEMA is now the principal national agency responsible for the supervision, co-ordination and management of the environment in Uganda. Roughton Intemational Page No: 2-1 In association with U-Group Consult  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Section 2: EIA Methodology The post-1986 era in Uganda has been associated with more development programs and an average economic growth rate of over 6% per year. This trend necessitated directing national development efforts to ensure that plans aimed at improving the standard and quality of life take due consideration of environmental concerns. Environmental management issues were initially made the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment Protection in 1987 and then the Directorate of Environment Protection in 1993. Since 1995 NEMA has been responsible for the environment. NEMA is under the general supervision of the Minister of Lands, Water and Environment (until May 1998 it was the Ministry of Natural Resources) which is also a member of the committee, that provides and co-ordinates environmental policy guidelines. NEMA is headed by an Executive Director, who is also an ex-officio member of the board that oversees the implementation and successful operations of the policy and functions of the Authority. NEMA is made up of four divisions, one of which is the Information and Monitoring Division (IMD). The primary purpose of this divisions to ensure adequate surveillance and control of the environment. Part of IMD's mandate is to see that environmental regulations such as EIA are complied with; environmental standards are set; and an environmental monitoring system is put in place. 2.2.2 Current Environmental Management Practices At the national level, NEMA works with lead agencies. According to the National Environment Statute, a lead agency is "any ministry, department, parastatal agency, local government system or public officer in which or whom any law vests function of control or management of any segment of the environment." In each sectoral agency, there is supposed to be an environment desk known as an Environment Liaison Unit (ELU) to act as a contact point for NEMA. As with the districts, day-to-day activities of running ELUs are not the responsibility of NEMA but respective lead agencies. In line with the national programme on decentralisation, the National Environment Statute provides for the transfer of environmental management responsibilities to districts, municipalities and rural communities at the grass roots. Based on the guidelines that had been provided during the National Environment Action Plan process, NES gives a framework in which to manage the environment at districts and lower levels so as to be in line with the overall decentralisation process which is one of the current priority government policies. In summary, this was set up to create an environmental management system that integrates and fortifies links among all levels in the districts, public sector and non-govemmental organisations (NGO). Environment related activities in districts are facilitated by District Environment Officers (DEOs) who are direct employees of respective districts. Among other duties, DEOs are supposed to liase with NEMA on all matters relating to the environment in their areas of jurisdiction. 2.2.3 Responsibilities and Practical Problems in Environmental Management According to the National Environment Statute, NEMA in consultation with lead agencies is responsible for establishment of quality standards for air, water, effluent, noxious smells, soil, noise and any other standards deemed necessary. However, due to the short time NEMA has existed, most of these are still in draft form (including soil standards, which have just been released). The whole NEMA establishment is in place but still has much to accomplish because environmental management and planning in Uganda is a relatively new phenomenon. The Environment Policy, Statute and NEMA are all new, as is the process of decentralisation. NEMA is expected to improve environment management practices in the country without taking over the duties of lead agencies. Initially, some practical problems emerged in the institutional and legal framework. For instance, the Ministry of Local Government had to amend the Local Government Statute of 1993 in order to accommodate DEOs who were originally not direct employees of districts. They were, however, provided for by NES although NEMA does not have the mandate and means to deploy permanent staff anywhere outside its Kampala headquarters. On the other hand, the Ministry of Roughton Intemational Page No: 2-2 In ACcnr.-iAtinn with ILrZim,,n tnnei #it  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Section 2: EIA Methodology Lands, Water & Environment, which is the parent ministry of NEMA, does not have any structure to take on such responsibilities because all environmental issues are supposed to be handled by NEMA. Recent pronouncements by the Prime Minister, which reflect the govemment position on the same issue, have eased the tasks. Some districts, including Nebbi, do not have District Environment Officers, although plans are underway to recruit one for Nebbi. This means that all other structures established to manage use of the environment at various local levels are also missing. Gulu and Arua districts, however, do have environment officers but they are not well facilitated to carry out all their expected duties. Environment Liaison Units in sectoral agencies are faced with financial, administrative and logistical constraints. For example, there are no guidelines at the sectoral level with regard to EIA procedures in most institutions with exception of the MOWHC. MOWHC expects to prepare EIA procedure guidelines by the middle of 1999. 2.2.4 Summary of Relevant Legislation and Guidelines In order to ensure that the post-1986 environmental organisation and policies succeed in Uganda, a number of legislative instruments and guidelines are being implemented. Those that are relevant to this study are reviewed below: - (i) The 1995 Constitution Land related issues were given high priority by the new Constitution. Article 237 vests all the land in the country to the people, while Article 26 prohibits forceful seizure of individual property including land by any authority public or private without adequate compensation. This has instilled a sense of security of tenure in most Ugandans, especially those who have been squatting on public or other lands. What is stated in these Articles of the new constitution cannot be described as "land reform actions", therefore a Land Bill was provided for by the new Constitution in which issues pertaining to land tenure and land use would be dealt with in detail. The Land Act (1998) is now in place and provides for all issues related to land in Uganda. One of the national objectives and directive principles of state policy is to promote sustainable development for the present and future generations. To ensure this, Article 245 of the new constitution empowers Parliament to provide for measures intended to protect and preserve the environment from abuse, pollution and degradation among others. (ii) The Wildlife Statute,1996 The management of wildlife both in protected and unprotected private land is vested in the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA). UWA came into existence in August 1996 following the enactment of the Wildlife Statute, and has taken over the management of Uganda's 40 Wildlife Protected Areas (WPAs). These comprise 10 National Parks (NP), 12 Wildlife Reserves (WR), 14 Communal Wildlife Management Areas (CWMA), and 4 Wildlife Sanctuaries. NPs are one of the most strict forms of protected areas. These are areas established to preserve natural or scenic resource while allowing research and controlled tourism. In WRs activities such as livestock management, charcoal/firewood or traditional materials or medicines may be granted by UWA on special permit (SP). Hunting in WRs and CWMAs may be allowed on the basis of Wildlife Use Right (WUR) and in order for this to occur, the wildlife species would be placed in different categories based on their rarity. Priority would be given to trophy hunting, which is considered to generate more income than subsistence hunting. In open areas such as Luwero, Ankole ranches and Karamoja, WUR may also be granted by UWA to landowners to practice wildlife ranching. Use of any resources in WPAs or carrying out an otherwise unlawful act in WPAs may take place on permission granted by the Authority's Executive Director on the advice of the Board or after carrying out an EIA. Section 27, however, gives powers to the Minister, on the advice of the Board, to make regulations regulating acts or omissions within a wildlife conservation area (WCA). A National Park is the highest level of wildlife protection in Uganda where extraction of Roughton Intemational Page No: 2-3 In association with U-Group Consult  Karuma-Pakwach-Arua Road Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Section 2: EIA Methodology natural resources is completely unacceptable unlike in a wildlife reserve or community wildlife area. General restrictions in wildlife conservation areas are summarised in Table 2-1 below: Table 2-1 Permissible and Intended Activities in Different Categories of Protected Areas Activity National Wildlife Wildlife Communal Park Reserve Sanctuary Wildlife ___________________________ _______Area Protection of species and habitats M\\\\\\\\\\\\\t% \WX X\\\\XVWV \X\X\ Settlement \____ \\\\W\XX\VIW \\\:\\\\\W\\X\\WN Cultivation _ _ _ VA\\\\\\ P Livestock \\\SPmu \w\\St\\X\\W \\\\\W\\\\\\ Charcoal/Firewood/Timber \\\\\%SP\WMA \V \X\X\5\\\NE\\\\ Traditional materials for building or 1 \W\.\S \ \\\ medicines _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hunting O\WWURWK ____ U_R_U_ Ranching/Farming/Trade ___ _ __ _ _ _ ___ Wx