Section I – Basic Information
Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: March 23, 2004 Report No.: AC496
A. Basic Project Data
A.1. Project StatisticsCountry: Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan / Project ID: P081505
Project: JO-AMMAN DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR / TTL: Mohammed Feghoul
Total Project Cost: US$160.95 million (by component):
(1) Amman Ring Road, Phase 1 (40.0 km) (US$106.91 million)
(2) Inland Port and Trucking Industry (US$8.05 million)
(3) Project Management and ADC Planning and Promotion (US$4.71 million)
Land Acquisition and Compensation Costs (US$40.90 million)
World Bank Loan Front-End Fee (US$0.38 million)
Appraisal Date: February 23, 2004 / Loan Amount ($US million): IBRD: 38.00
Board Date: May 27, 2004
Other Financing Amounts by Source (US$ million):
EIB: 32.50
AFESD: 39.38 / GOJ (US$ million): 51.07
Managing Unit: MNSIF / Sector: Roads and Highways (100%)
Lending Instruments: Specific Investment Loan (SIL)
Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency recovery)? / Yes? / [ ] / No? / [X]
Environmental Category: A / Safeguard Classification: S1
A.2. Project Objectives
The Project’s development objectives are to: (i) support more efficient transport and logistics services by removing key infrastructure transport bottlenecks; and (ii) provide access to affordable land for productive investment and urban development purposes. Principal benefits of the Amman Development Corridor Project’s (ADCP) include a reduction in freight transport costs and an increase in trade flows.
Combined, the ACDP’s components would contribute to stronger, more vibrant and competitive trade and transport services in Jordan by providing an alternate route for freight traffic to bypass central Amman, establishing basic infrastructure for a modern inland logistics port to be operated by the private sector and relocating the Amman Customs Depot to an area where expansion can be adequately accommodated. These actions would also serve as a catalyst for enhancing the conditions for private sector growth and investment by opening up some 300 square kilometers of affordable land for development within the corridor’s area of influence.
A.3. Project Description
The scope of the proposed Project would consist of: (a) constructing Phase 1 of the Amman Ring Road (40.0 km), which would be divided into three sections; (b) developing access infrastructure and utility services for inland port facilities, relocating the Amman Customs Depot, and supporting the Government’s on-going program to restructure the trucking industry; and (c) providing technical support for urban and transport planning, traffic engineering, and project management. The Project’s estimated cost is US$161.0 million, and the Bank would finance around US$38.0 million.
A.4. Project Location and Salient Physical Characteristics Relevant to the Safeguard Analysis
South and east of the Greater Amman Area. Phase 1 of the Amman Ring Road (ARR-1) begins at the Desert Highway approximately seven km north of Queen Alia International Airport, and extends in a northeasterly direction about 40.0 km where it terminates at the Zarqa Highway. The inland port facility and customs depot would be developed on contiguous sites within the Amman Development Corridor (ADC) at a location approximately midway along the ARR-1.
B. Check Environmental Category A [X ], B [ ], C [ ], FI [ ]
Comments:
C. Safeguard Policies Triggered
Yes / No
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) / [X] / [ ]
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) / [ ] / [X]
Pest Management (OP 4.09) / [ ] / [X]
Cultural Property (draft OP 4.11 - OPN 11.03-) / [X] / []
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) / [X] / []
Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) / [ ] / [X]
Forests (OP/BP 4.36) / [ ] / [X]
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) / [ ] / [X]
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)[*] / [ ] / [X]
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) / [ ] / [X]
Section II – Key Safeguard Issues and Their Management
D. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues.D.1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts.
Environment. Consistent with Jordanian policies and World Bank procedures, the proposed Project has been placed in environmental screening category “A,” and was the subject of a full Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA was completed and approved by the World Bank in 1999 as an integrated part of the detailed Feasibility Study for the southern and eastern sections of the Ring Road. It included extensive mapping of physical, biological, socio-economic and cultural heritage features in the series of proposed alignments. This was followed by preparation of a constraints analysis used to identify sensitive areas in order to avoid impacts through alignment modification or, when necessary, to indicate mitigation actions to reduce the scope and extent of potentially adverse impacts. In addition to field surveys, consultations were held with local authorities and communities to identify the location of important habitats, prime agricultural lands and other important natural and manmade features in or adjacent to the proposed right-of-way. The recently revised EA summarized and updated the impacts associated with the proposed ADCP, and an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) was developed to eliminate or minimize these potential impacts.
The Environmental Assessment found that the greatest potential environmental impacts would occur during the construction phase. The potential construction impacts were subdivided into temporary (on-site, such as disruption to communications and utilities, site drainage, the imbalance of Cut and Fill, noise and air pollution and off site, including construction camps, borrow pits, and sites used for the disposal of surplus materials), and permanent, such as land acquisition and induced development along the ADC.
Social. An updated Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan (LARP) for the project has been prepared, based on the LARP originally prepared in September 1999 as part of the Category “A” EIA. An earlier Project-Affected Persons (PAPs) census and socio-economic survey were conducted and integrated into the 1999 LARP, which was prepared in a manner consistent with the provisions for a Resettlement Action Plan. An update of the ownership status was carried out in August 2002, and an updated land acquisition analysis was repeated in November 2003. The present LARP summarizes the project’s objectives, describes its activities, impacts, the pertaining legislative and regulatory frameworks, and provides an overview of community profiles in affected areas, together with the public consultation process undertaken. A summary of compensation and entitlements is presented, and project costs and displacement-related risks are identified, together with a time frame for implementation.
The main social issues identified are involuntary resettlement and land acquisition. Resettlement and compensation have been approached in the LARP as an opportunity to develop and improve living standards, and potentially stimulate economic growth. The project impact assessment addresses land acquisition, property and asset take, land users, resettlement, income loss and economic loss.
D.2 Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area.
The primary operational or long-term impacts are noise, safety, and the potential for ground water pollution. Other operational impacts of significance include: (i) air quality impacts associated with emissions from trucks and cars using the road and from the suspension of dust; (ii) the introduction of lighting along the road in areas currently unlit at night; (iii) impacts associated with landscape maintenance measures along the highway; and (iv) localized impacts from routine highway maintenance activities.
D.3. Describe the treatment of alternatives (if relevant)
Alternatives for the ADC included the ‘Do Minimum’ and a wide variety of alternative development options considered throughout the period of project gestation. The ‘Do Minimum’ option comprises the upgrading of existing routes, which would be expensive, highly disruptive, wholly impractical and would not satisfy the needs and objectives of the ADCP. Since the project is conceived as fulfilling both strategic (national and regional) and local (sub-region, city) functions, no single alternative investment is viewed as being capable of meeting both these aims. A wide variety of alignment options were considered during the Feasibility Study, particularly with respect to where the ADC left the Desert Highway and where it joined the Zarqa Highway. The final alignment reflects the recommendations of the 1999 EA, the Cultural Resources Impact Statement and the guidelines established in the 1999 Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan.
Alternative Sites for the Inland Port. Preliminary studies identified seven sites within the ADC that could accommodate the Inland Port. Three were subsequently considered worthy of further evaluation on the basis of land and infrastructure costs, the potential for expansion and rail access and access to Amman and international borders. The evaluation confirmed a site at the Madounah Road Interchange to be the preferred location for the Inland Port, offering the lowest cost for acquisition, good opportunities for expansion, good access to Amman, and the best access to international borders.
D.4. Describe measures taken by the Borrower to address safeguard issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described.
Environment. As part of the EAs, an EMP detailing potential impacts, mitigation, monitoring and institutional strengthening and capacity building was prepared by the Ministry of Public Works and Housing (MoPWH). A program of Environmental Auditing will be targeted at activities perceived as posing the highest environmental and/or public health risk. At least two Environmental Audits will be carried out for every major facility in operation during the construction phase, the first prior to handing over the site to the Contractor. Overall management of the EMP will rest with the MoPWH, which will establish a Project Management Team (PMT) to oversee all aspects of project implementation. The principal aim of the PMT in respect to the present report will be to: (i) take an overview of engineering management, provide the necessary coordination between the construction contracts, and ensure the equal applications of standards throughout implementation; and (ii) implement the EMP. While the PMT and its staff will undertake site inspections and some monitoring, the majority of noise and air quality monitoring, and laboratory analyses may be contracted out to an independent consultant reporting to the PMT.
Social. The Government has issued a decision to compensate all lands acquired for the project at full replacement value, which represents a significant shift in legislation, which brings it in line with Bank policy as laid down in OP4.12. Specific compensation measures for tenants have been developed under the project to increase compensation as required, which meets Bank standards. Female plot owners (33 percent of the total) constitute the main vulnerable group under the project, and specific measures have been identified and will be employed to protect their interests. A second potentially vulnerable group is customary use pastoralists, the majority of whom are also plot owners who will be appropriately compensated via the land acquisition process. The project will provide remedial measures to enable access and retain traditional patterns of movement. In addition, identified project-affected land users have all constructed fixed assets on such land, which therefore comprises plot development for compensation purposes. In determining entitlements, category of loss rather than category of person affected will be used, since some PAPs will suffer more than one type of loss.
D.5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people.
An extensive Information, Participation and Consultation (IPC) Program for the ADC was undertaken. Initially, three Scoping Sessions and one Scoping Review Meeting were held during the 1998 Pre-Feasibility study. The second phase of the program was undertaken during the 1999 Feasibility Study and comprised: (i) two technical sessions on issues of particular concern, cultural resources and socio-economics; (ii) a second Scoping Session at Zarqa to discuss two new components, the Zarqa Eastern Bypass and Zarqa Through Link, and the results of the 1989 session; (iii) two project exhibitions to which the public were invited through the media; and (iv) an Environmental Assessment Review Meeting. The third phase comprised the Census and Socio-Economic Survey of potentially affected persons to identify those affected and to create a database of potentially impacted plots. Four types of community consultation meetings were held with: (i) representatives of local government, Mayors, and elected members of the Municipalities and Governors in Amman, Zarqa, Sahab and Madaba; (ii) representatives of communities in villages and scattered settlements along the route alignment, with separate meetings for women members of each community; (iii) concerned government officials, women’s leaders, representatives of NGOs and Army officials; and (iv) tribal and family leaders that have a high number of land holdings and tribal ties within the project affected areas. More than 25 meetings were held during the survey, about half specifically for women in the directly affected communities. Community-based meetings helped the survey team obtain information on Project Affected Persons, and the communities to better understand the objectives of the survey. For the Inland Port, an additional Census and Socio-Economic Survey of potentially affected persons has been undertaken at both the proposed site and the existing Customs Depot at Al Juwaidah.
E. Safeguards Classification (select one)
[X] S1. –The project has significant, cumulative and/or irreversible impacts; where there are significant potential impacts related to several safeguard policies.
[] S2. – One or more safeguard policies are triggered, but effects are limited to their impact and are technically and institutionally manageable.
[ ] S3. – No safeguard issues
[ ] SF. – Financial intermediary projects
F. Disclosure Requirements Date
Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other:
Date of receipt by the Bank February 20, 2004
Date of “in-country” disclosure February 20, 2004
Date of submission to InfoShop February 20, 2004
For category A projects, date Executive Summary
of the EA distributed to the Executive Directors March 1, 2004
Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process:
Date of receipt by the Bank February 20, 2004
Date of “in-country” disclosure February 20, 2004
Date of submission to InfoShop February 20, 2004
Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework:
Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable
Date of “in-country” disclosure Not Applicable
Date of submission to InfoShop Not Applicable