NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
BARAZA LA TAIFA LA HIFADHI NA USIMAMIZI WA MAZINGIRA
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED KIHANSI CATCHMENT CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PROJECT IN KIHANSI CATCHMENT MOROGORO AND IRINGA REGIONS, TANZANIA
June 2013
Consultants:
Prosper Makongoro
Wilson Shimo
Patrick Valimba
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES 4
LIST OF FIGURES 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
ACKNOWLDEGEMENT 13
ACRONYMS 14
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 15
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 15
1.1.1 The Kihansi catchment 15
1.1.2 Objectives of Environmental and Social Impact Assesssment (ESIA) 16
1.2 Scoping 16
1.2.1 The process 16
1.2.2 Key findings 17
1.3 Objective of the ESIA 17
1.3.1 General objective 17
1.3.2 Specific objectives 17
1.4 Study Methodology 18
1.4.1 Stakeholders’ consultations 18
1.4.2 Assessment of Environmental Impacts and Development of Mitigation Measures 18
1.4.3 Development of Environmental Monitoring Plan 19
1.5 Report Structure 19
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 20
2.1 Geographical Location 20
2.2 Accessibility 21
2.3 Project Scope and Activities 22
Component 1: Institutional capacity building for the management of the Kihansi catchment 22
Subcomponent 1.1: Develop operational guidelines for conducting Environmental Flow Assessment 22
Subcomponent 1.2: Develop a sustainable financing plan for the management of the Kihansi catchment 23
Component 2: Conserve endangered species in the Kihansi catchment 23
Subcomponent 2.1: Species and habitat conservation 23
Subcomponent 2.2: Community Conservation and Livelihoods 26
Component 3: Project Management 27
2.6 KCCM Project Social Benefits 27
2.7 Environmental Benefits of KCCMP 27
CHAPTER 3: POLICY, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 28
3.1 Introduction 28
3.2 Need for EIA 28
3.3 Relevant Policies 28
3.3.1 The National Environmental Policy (URT, 1997) 28
3.3.2 National Forest Policy (1998) 29
3.3.3 The National Wildlife Policy (URT, 2007) 29
3.3.4 The National Land Policy (URT, 1995) 29
3.3.5 The National Water Policy (URT, 2002) 29
3.3.6 Rural Development Policy (1996) 29
3.4 World Bank Safeguard Policies 30
3.5 Legal Framework 33
3.5.1 The Environmental Management Act (2004) 33
3.5.2 Village Land Act (1999) 33
3.5.3 Wildlife Conservation Act (2009) 34
3.5.4 The Forest Act (2002) 34
3.5.5 The Water Resource Management Act (2009) 34
3.5.6 Land Use Planning Act (2007) 35
3.5.7 National EIA and Audit Regulations (2005) 35
3.6 International Conventions and Agreements 35
3.6.1 East African Community Treaty (1999) 35
3.6.2 The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) 35
3.6.3 IUCN Red List 36
3.6.4 Convention on Climate Change (1992) 36
3.7 Guidelines 36
3.7.1 The Tanzania Development Vision 2025 36
3.7.2 The National Strategy for Growth and Poverty Reduction (2011-2015) 36
3.8 Institutional Framework 36
CHAPTER 4: BASELINE CONDITIONS 41
4.1 Introduction 41
4.2 Location and Administrative Boundaries 41
4.3 Physical Characteristics 41
4.3.1 Climate 41
4.3.2 Hydrological variation 41
4.4 Biologicalcharacteristics 42
4.4.1 Plants 42
4.4.2 Mammals 42
4.4.3 Birds 42
4.4.4 Fish 42
4.4.5 Herptiles 43
4.5 Socio – Economic Characteristics 43
4.5.1 Demography 43
4.5.2 Economic Infrastructure 43
CHAPTER 5: STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTANTIONS 45
5.1 Stakeholders Consulted During Preparation of a Proposed KCCMP 45
5.2 The Stakeholders 45
5.3 Addressing Stakeholders’ Concerns 46
CHAPTER 6: IMPACTS ASSESSMENT 50
6.1 Background 50
6.2 Impacts Identification and Description 52
6.3 Impacts Prediction 60
6.5 Analysis of Alternatives 64
6.5.1 Project site 64
6.5.2 The no project option 64
6.5.3 The current design option 64
CHAPTER 7: MITIGATIONAND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES 66
7.1 Background 66
7.2 Measures Against Impacts on Physical Environment 66
7.3 Measures Against Impacts on Biological Environment 67
7.4 Measures Against Impacts on Socio-Economic Environment 68
CHAPTER 8: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 70
8.1 Rationale for Preparation of EMP 70
8.2 Organisation Structure for EMP 70
8.3 Roles and Responsibilities 70
8.3.1 Environmental Management Responsibilities 70
8.3.2 Environmental Management Costs 72
CHAPTER 9: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MONITORING PLAN 75
9.1 Background 75
9.2 Monitoring Responsibilities and Costs 76
CHAPTER 10: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 79
10.1 Background 79
10.2 Benefits of the Proposed KCCMP 79
10.3 Costs of the Project 80
10.4 Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis 80
10.5 Socio-Economic Cost-Benefit Analysis 81
10.6 Summary of Cost – Benefit Analysis 81
CHAPTER 11: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 82
REFERENCES 83
Annex 1: Terms of Reference 84
ANNEX 2: 5-Year Budget Breakdown for Implementation of Activities 92
ANNEX 3: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED 94
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Key Institutions in the EIA Process 39
Table 5.1: List of stakeholders consulted 45
Table 5.2: Stakeholder concerns that have been addressed by KCCMP 46
Table 6.1: Criteria and rating scales for impacts assessment 50
Table 6.2: Convention for assigning a consequence rating 51
Table 6.4: Potential impacts of KCCMP on the environment 53
Table 6.5: Summary of potential impacts during the implementation and post-implementation phases of the project 61
Table 7.1: Summary of measures against significant impacts on physical environments 66
Table 7.2: Summary of measures against significant impacts on biological environments 67
Table 7.3: Summary of measures against significant impacts on social, economic, cultural and political environments 68
Table 8.1: Institutions and their responsibilities 71
Table 8.2: Responsibilities and management costs related to implementation of Project EMP 73
Table 9.1: Environmental Monitoring Plan 77
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Location of Kihansi River Catchment with riparian districts (Valimba, 2013) 20
Figure 2.2: Accessibility to Kihansi River Catchment (Valimba, 2013). 21
Figure 8.1 Organisation structure and responsibilities for implementation of EMP for KCCMP. 71
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
General Introduction
The Government of Tanzania (GoT) has ratified three key global environmental conventions: Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). As part of implementation of these conventions, the GoT officially submitted for endorsement by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), a project proposal titled ‘Kihansi Catchment Conservation and Management Project (KCCMP)’.
The proposed activities to be funded by GEF will contribute to the achievement of GEF-5 Biodiversity Strategy Objective 2 -- mainstream biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into production landscapes/seascapes and sectors -- by enhancing biodiversity conservation in the Kihansi catchment of which 48% is under agricultural production. The project is to provide for the long-term conservation and management of globally critically endangered species and critical habitats in the Kihansi catchment. The Kihansi catchment, which is relatively small (580 km2), brings to the fore the cross-sectoral challenges associated with water allocation for energy and environment and other water uses. In this context, the Kihansi catchment is critical for both water resource management and the protection of biodiversity.
The project development objective is to enhance biodiversity conservation in the Kihansi catchment[1]. The project will compliment as well as assist on-going efforts of key resource regulatory authorities to conserve critically endangered and highly endemic plant and animal species in the Kihansi catchment. The KCCMP has 3 components, each with different set of activities and impacts:
· Component 1 will support the preparation of technical guidelines that will assist improve (i) future river basin planning and (ii) future (Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for water resources infrastructure project by integrating downstream impacts that relate to water availability, or Environmental Flow Assessment (EFA); the key impact of which will be improved future water resources in environmental planning and decision making. Component 1 will also support preparation of a communication strategy and sustainable financing. None of these are physical interventions, but are aimed at improving knowledge and awareness and understanding of the complex issues at hand and improving sustainability of the project interventions.
· Component 2 has three distinct sets of interventions, including physical ones: i) biological interventions (monitoring, reintroduction, scientific experiments, etc.) related to Kihansi Spray Toad (KST) and other endangered species; ii) preparation and implementation of the Kihansi catchment management plan; and iii) livelihood activities and interventions. The impacts would therefore be a function of the specific type, size and extent of the interventions.
· Component 3 is basically project management.
The KCCMP builds on and extends the work done earlier under the Lower Kihansi Environmental Management Project (LKEMP) and the current Tanzania Energy Development and Access Project (TEDAP) bridging support, which constituted mitigation measures for the LKHP.
Diversion of water away from the Kihansi Gorge started in December 1999 when the Lower Kihansi Hydropower Plant (LKHP) started its operations. Since then the river flow over the Kihansi falls was significantly reduced by over 91 percent (i.e. from an average flow regime of 16.4 m3/s to a constant bypass release of about 1.5m3/s). The Kihansi river flows have historically ranged between a minimum of7 m3/s during dry seasons to a maximum of 64 m3/s during wet seasons. Assessments of Kihansi gorge wetland habitat change following the commissioning of LKHP have shown that the original habitat was altered by approximately 95 per cent. TANESCO’s was granted a final water right for diverting up to 25.2 m³/s including a condition requiring a minimum environmental (or bypass) flow requirement of 1.5-2.0 m³/s to maintain flows in the Kihansi River immediately downstream of the LKHP dam. The conditions of the Final Water Right for the LKHP also included provisions that mandated that TANESCO implement the Environmental Management Plan, including the regular maintenance of the artificial sprinkler system that has been constructed to augment the reduced river flow and the spray generated from that water falling over the Kihansi falls. Thus, the 1.5 – 2.0 m3/s bypass flow plus the spray from the artificial sprinkler system form the environmental flow into the Kihansi Gorge.
Following this significant change of the KST habitat, there was a rapid decline in number of toads in the gorge from as high as about 50,000 to 12,000. This rapid decline of KST population coincided with the observed infection by chytrid fungus and the flushing of sediments into the gorge. In 2000 the GoT with support from development partners established a captive breeding program for the KST as an “insurance policy” in case species become extinct in the gorge. 499 KST individuals were translocated into captivity in the USA, with a view to establish a captive bred line. In addition, a series of emergency mitigation measures were initiated in 2000 under the Immediate Rescue and Emergency Measures Project (IREMP) to conserve the spray wetland habitat and the KST in situ.
Restoration measures established under IREM were accomplished in Phase I and II of the Lower Kihansi Environmental Management Project with a focus on long-term conservation and mitigation of habitat loss in the Kihansi Gorge ecosystems and upstream catchment areas. After closure of LKEMP critical activities in the KST reintroduction plan were merged under additional financing for Tanzania Energy Development and Access Project (TEDAP) with the objective of filling the financing gap required for the reintroduction of Kihansi Spray Toads (KST).
The EnviroPlanners LTD has been contracted to prepare an environmental and social impact assessment of the proposed KCCMP according to Environmental Management Act (EMA), 2004 and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Audit (EA) Regulation of 2005. The project falls under the mandatory list of projects that requires an EIA. The Project is a full-sized GEF project with a five year implementation period, with the key objective being ‘to enhance biodiversity conservation in the Kihansi catchment’.
Policy and legal framework
A review of the relevant international, regional and national policies and legislations pertaining to this project was undertaken in order to provide directives during implementation of project activities. The relevant policies under the study that were reviewed include the following: The National Environmental Policy (URT, 1997); The National Forest Policy (1998); The National Wildlife Policy (URT, 2007); The National Land Policy (URT, 1995); The National Water Policy (URT, 2002) and Rural Development Policy (1996).
Relevant World Bank Safeguard Policies include the following: Natural Habitats (OP 4.04); Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01); Forests (OP 4.36) and Pest Management (OP 4.09). The relevant legislation applicable to the project includes the following: The Environmental Management Act (2004); Village Land Act (1999); The Wildlife Conservation Act (2009); The Forest Act (2002); The Water Resource Management Act (2009); The Land Use Planning Act (2007) and The National EIA and Audit Regulations (2005).
Public consultations
Public consultations were carried out to explain the objectives and scope of the project as well as to identify, discuss and respond to project issues of concern to different stakeholders. Consultation with different stakeholders from key sectors, local government authorities and non-government agencies indicates that they generally view the proposed project as a positive initiative that will support and build on the earlier work done under LKEMP, will create new social and economic activities and enhance development of the area. Some issues of concern especially on the impacts of the project were addressed by developing mitigation measures in the development of the management plan. Most of the consulted stakeholders were aware of the KCCMP project. Stakeholders view the project as a positive initiative in terms of biodiversity conservation, community support by improving livelihoods as well as enhancing protection of water sources and entire Kihansi catchment.
Impacts assessment
This ESIA discusses a number of potential positive and negative impacts of the project on the physical, biological, and socio-economic environment; these are listed in Table ES1. Several impacts were identified as being positive impacts; they dominate (Table ES1).
Table ES1: Identified potential impacts of KCCMP
IMPACTS ON PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT /Environment / Potential impacts /
Positive / Negative /
Landscape / · Conservation of natural landscape within gazetted areas
· Restoration of natural or near natural landscape within gazetted areas
· Reduction of destruction of important natural landscape
Surface water / · Availability of reliable information on water quantities (streamflows) and quality
· Knowledge of quantities and quality of all existing water resources in Kihansi catchment
· Quantification of existing and future surface water availability in rivers in Kihansi Gorge and Kihansi catchment
· Protection of surface water resources from impacts of anthropogenic activities
· Establishment of water user committees to oversee water resources allocation and protection
· Reduction of sediment and agricultural chemical loads into water resources
IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTS
Environment / Impacts
Positive / Negative
Forests / · Conservation of endemic plant species found in Kihansi catchment
Gorge vegetation / · Management of gorge vegetation
· Conservation of endemic flora and fauna found in the Kihansi Gorge
· Restoration and maintenance of KST habitat in the Kihansi Gorge / · Disturbance to KST habitat
KST / · Management of KST habitat changes in the Kihansi Gorge
· Development of new approaches to amphibian re-introductions to the wild for new species
· Development of resistance to chytrid fungus in amphibians
· Stable populations of KST in captive facilities / · Disturbance to KST habitat
· Side effects of chemicals used on gorge environment and ecosystem
· Increased KST population leading to congestion in captive facilities
IMPACTS ON SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, CULTURAL AND POLITICAL ENVIRONMENTS /
Environment / Impacts /
Positive / Negative /
Education / · New scientific knowledge on amphibian husbandry, disease prevention and re-introductions of critically endangered amphibian species
· New scientific knowledge on endemic and endangered flora and fauna to Kihansi catchment and their survival characteristics
· Methodologies for identification and monitoring of water sources and biodiversity refined
· Improved natural resources conservation skills of local communities
· Generation of more experts in EFA
· Generation of more Master’s and PhD level human resource (increased capacity of local scientists)
Livelihoods / · Increased inflow of water due to demarcation of water sources within Kihansi catchment
· Reduction of soil losses from farms / · Restricted farming within demarcated areas
Electricity / · Reliable availability of water at Lower Kihansi Hydropower Plant for electricity generation
· Improved management of Lower Kihansi Reservoir from identified trends in reservoir water inflows / · Use of alternative power source (normally a generator) to supply power to captive facilities at UDSM and KRS in times of grid power failures / interruptions
Energy / · Improved hydropower generation due to reliable supply of water throughout the year / · Loss of some areas for firewood collection
Employment / · Employment of researchers and research assistants, gorge attendants for monitoring Kihansi gorge, supporting staff and personnel for captive facilities in USA, UDSM and Kihansi Research Station for KST husbandry
· Employment of supporting staff (e.g. drivers)
Local policies / · Development of new bylaws to deal with gazettement issues / · Conflicts with local inhabitants and their political representatives
Country and international policies / · Legal cooperation between Tanzania, USA, International Institutions (WBG, IUCN, etc)
· Detailed guidelines for conducting EF Assessments in Tanzania and other countries
· Inclusion of EFA guidelines into EIA guidelines for projects related to water resources
· Knowledge and costing of available ecosystem services within the Kihansi catchment / · Legal challenges on ownership, distribution and use of KST in places other than Bronx and Toledo zoo in USA and elsewhere
· Increase of illegal exploitation of high value natural resources of Kihansi once their actual values have been established and information made available to communities
An assessment of significance of these potential impacts indicated that some will actually be significant (Table ES2) and therefore will require mitigation and enhancement measures.