Mozambique - Water Private Sector Contracts OBA for coverage expansion

39945 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Report No.: Date preparedlupdated: 05/31/2007 I. Basic Information Country: Mozambique Project ID: PI04945 Additional Project ID (ifany): Project Name: Mozambique Water Private Sector Contracts - OBA for coverage expansion - Task Team Leader: Luiz TavaresIJane Walker Estimated Appraisal Date: June 18,2007 Estimated Board Date: July 12, 2007 Managing Unit: AFTU1 Lending Instrument: GPOBA (Trust Fund) Grant - - - - - Sector: Water supply (100%) Theme: Access to urban services and housing (P) IBRD Amount (US$m.): IDA Amount (US$m.): GEF Amount (US$m.): PCF Amount (US$m.): Other financing amounts bv source: GPOBA Grant Amount (US$m): 6.00 Environmental Category: C Simnlified Prncensin~ - --------- Simnlc I 1 ----- -Reneater- -- ---- r 1 1 ! Is -a*--- C L J L J this a transferred ~roiect Yes IX1 2. Project Objectives: The proposed GPOBA program will increase coverage and facilitate access for low- to middle- income households that currently have no access to piped water. Specifically the project would subsidize the cost of new connections for domestic customers in five (5)cities (Maputo, Pemba, Nampula, Quelimane, and Beira) to piped distribution networks that already exist or are being financed by others (e.g. AfDB, Water Aid, World Bank NWDP I1 and WASISP). 3. Project Description: Program for Maputo: The proposed GPOBA program would subsidize the cost of new connections for domestic customers in Maputo. This will facilitate access for low- to middle- income households that currently have no access to piped water. It is proposed that a per connection subsidy be adopted equal to the connection cost paid by the household to the Operator [(Agus de Mocambique (AdM)]. This approach will avoid any change in the present lease agreement or any additional direct benefit to AdM (the operator), other than the increased revenue base from the provision of additional services to new costumers. By enlarging the  installed base (number of connections) AdM can increase their revenue base. The revenues of AdM are related to the consumptions of water (m3) by households. Program for Beira, Pemba, Quelimane, and Nampula: The present management contract for these four cities will expire in July 2007. Fundo de Investimento e Patrimonio do Abastecimento de Agua (FIPAG) would like to procure a new set of contracts by the second half of 2007. Under the new set of contracts, probably following the lease model, the private operator will be responsible for the entire operation of the water infrastructure. FIPAG will continue to be the asset holder responsible for financing the necessary civil work to rehabilitate and expand the systems, and Water Supply Regulatory CounciVConselho de Rugulacao de Abstecimento de Agua (CRA) will continue to perform the tariff and service regulation independently. It is proposed that a per connection subsidy be adopted equal to the total cost of the connection paid by the household to obtain each new connection. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis: Maputo: Laulane area Pemba: Ingoname, Natite, and Marangania areas Nampula: Muahivire, Muahivire expansao, Nampicopo, Namutequelina, Bamboo in Netikiri, and Muhala Expansao areas Quelimane: Janeiro and Torrone Novo, 17de Setembro, Sangariveira, and 3 de Fevereiro areas BeiraDondo: Macrrungo West, Manga, and Inhamizua ,Consito, and Mafarinha areas 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialistson the Team: This is a transferred project. No SGP specialist required because the project does not involve land acquisition, construction, or potential environmental or social impacts. 6. SafeguardPolicies Triggered (please explain why) Yes No P EnvironmentalAssessment (OP/BP4.01) Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Forests (OP/BP4.36) X Pest Management (OP 4.09) -- X Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP4.11) X Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) X Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP4.12) X Safety of Dams (OPIBP 4.37) X Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP7.50) X I P Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) X This is an EA Category C project since it involves installing only simple yard taps fed from water distribution pipes in the roadway adjacent to the households. Thus, it is likely to have no or minimal adverse environmental impacts. Similarly, land acquisition will not be required.  FIPAG's normal contracting arrangements will ensure that operators, as needed, restore household property (e.g. fences, walls, walkways, yards) to at least their pre-existing condition. 11. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues 1.Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant andlor irreversible impacts: None 2. Describe any potential indirect andlor long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: N/A 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts: N/A 4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard policy issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described: N/A 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people: N/A 1B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Man~mentPlanlother: I 1 Was the document disclosed ~ r i oto a~nraisal? r I N/A I Date of "in-country" disclosure I Date of submission to InfoSho~ 1 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive I I of the EA to the Executive Directors Action Plan/Framework/Policv Process: 1 Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? N/A ( Date of receipt by the Bank 1 Date of "in-countrv" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Indigenous Peoples PlanPlanning Framework: Was the document disclosedprior to appraisal? 1 Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-countrv" disclosure I Date of submission to InfoSho~ 1 I  Pest Management Plan: Was the document disclosedprior to appraisal? NIA Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop * If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources policies, the respectiveissues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of the Environmental Assessment/Audit/or EMP. If in-countrydisclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why: No safeguard reporting instruments are required. C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (to befilled in when the ZSDS is finalized by theproject decision meeting) OPBP 4.01 Environment Assessment - Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including Yes [ 1 No [XI N/A [ 1 EMP) report? If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the creditlloan? OPIBP 4.04 Natural Habitats - Would the project result in any significant conversion or Yes [ ] No[ 1 NIA [XI degradation of critical natural habitats? If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of other (non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank? OP 4.09 Pest Management - Does the EA adequately address the pest management Yes [ ] No[ 1 NIA [XI issues? Is a separate PMP required? Yes [ 1 No[ 1 NIA [XI If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a safeguards specialist or Sector Manager? Are PMP requirements included in project design? If yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? OPIBP 4.11 -Physical Cultural Resources Does the EA include adequate measures related to Yes [ 1 No[ 1 N/A [XI cultural property? Does the creditlloan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on physical cultural resources? OP/BP 4.10 Indigenous Peoples -  Has a separate Indigenous Peoples PlanPlanning Yes [ 1 No[ 1 N/A [XI Framework (as appropriate) been prepared in - - - - - I consultation with affected Indigenous Peo~les? I I If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for I safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? If the whole pro-jectis designed to benefit IP, has the design been reviewed and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit? OPBP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement - Has a resettlement planlabbreviated planlpolicy Yes [ 1 No[ 1 NIA [XI framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review and approve the ~lanl~olicvframeworkl~rocessframework? OPBP 4.36 -Forests Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional I Yes [ ] No[ 1 N/A [XI 1 issues and constraints been carried out? I 1 Does the project design include satisfactory measures to I overcome these constraints? Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if I so. does it include ~rovisionsfor certification &stem? I OPBP 4.37 Safety of Dams - Have dam safety plans been prepared? 'Yes r 1 Nor 1 N/A IX1 Have the TORSas well as composition for the independent Panel of Experts (POE) been reviewed and approved by the Bank? Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP)been prepared and arrangements been made for public I awareness and tra&ing? OPBP 7.50 Projects on International Waterways - Have the other riparians been notified of the project? Yes [ 1 No[ 1 N/A [XI If the pro-jectfalls under one of the exceptions to the - - notification requirement, has this been cleared with the Legal Department, and the memo to the RVP prepared and sent? What are the reasons for the exce~tion?Please explain: 1 Has the RVP approved such an exception? I OPBP 7.60 Projects in Disputed Areas - Has the memo conveying all pertinent information on the I Yes [ ] No[ I N/A [XI international aspects of the including the procedures to be followed, and the recommendations for dealing with the issue, been prepared Does the PADIMOP include the standard disclaimer 1referred to in the OP? I  The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to Yes [ ] No[ 1 N/A [XI the World Bank's Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? All Safeguard Policies Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional Yes [ ] No[ 1 N/A [XI responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name /m,.- ,\ ,; Date Task Team Leader: Luiz TavaresIJaneWalker \. ~ \, T * W ~06/04/2007 . * ' Comments: The project does not involve land acquisition, or potential environmental or social impacts. The project remains as and ISDS and has not changed in terms of its safeguard requirements. /. Sector Manager: IJaimeBiderman L/ ' f>c ,- 1 06/04/2007 I Comments: / I