Project Preparation Under the PDF-B Grant

Livestock Waste Management in East Asia

Project Preparation under the PDF-B Grant

Environmental Impact Assessment

Prepared by:

Farzad Dadgari

September 2004

1

1

Table of Contents

1Introduction

1.1Purpose and Basis of the Report

1.2EA Methodology

1.3Relationship to Project Feasibility Study

1.4Assessment Categorization and Focus

1.5Assessment Scope and Periods Covered

1.5.1Assessment Scope

1.5.2Periods Covered

1.6Assessment Factors and Assessment Classification

1.7Assessment Standards

1.8Assessment Procedures

2Project Description

2.1Project Background

2.2Project Goals

2.3Project objectives

2.4Project Components

2.5Project Time Frame

2.6Project Alternatives

3Environmental Settings and Key Impacts

3.1Key Impacts during Construction/Implementation Phase

3.2Key Impacts during Operation Phase

3.2.1Lagoon Systems

3.2.2Biogas Production System (covered lagoons/biogas tanks)

3.2.3Manure Recycling on Agricultural Land/Fish Ponds

4Alternative Analysis

4.1Without Project Scenario

4.2With Project Scenario

4.3COMPARISON OFALTERNATIVE SCENARIO

5Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan

5.1Monitoring Key Environmental Issues

5.2Environmental Management and Monitoring Schedule

5.3Environmental Training Requirements

5.4Environmental Capacity Building

5.4.1Topics for Training

5.4.2The levels of training

5.4.3Training Structure, Components and Materials

5.5EMMP Budget

6Other Significant Issues

7Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1General Conclusions

7.2Selection of Project Areas

7.3Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

7.4Recommendations

7.5Public Participation

7.6Further Suggestions and Environmental Requirements

8List of References

Environmental Assessment, and Safeguards, International Expert

Environmental Assessment, Local Consultant

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Project Time table (assuming a mid-2005 starting date)

Table 4-1 Potential Environmental Impact Matrix (Without Project Scenario)

Table 4-2 Potential Environmental Impact Matrix (With Project Scenario)

Table 4-3 Score Difference, Alternative Scenarios

Table 5.1 Monitoring Framework

Table 5-2 Surface Water Resources Monitoring

Table 5.3 Groundwater Resources Monitoring

Table 5.4 Soil and Crop Monitoring

Table 5.5 Total Cost Estimate of EMMP by country

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Assessment Procedures for the EA of LWMEAP

Annexes

Annex 1: Terms of References for International and National Consultants, Environmental Assessment and Safeguards

Annex 2: List of Environmental and Safeguard National Consultants

Annex 3A: Environmental Impact Assessment, GuangdongProvince, PRC (Separate Document)

Annex 3B: Environmental Impact Assessment, Thailand (Separate Document)

Annex 3C: Environmental Impact Assessment, Vietnam (Separate Document)

Executive Summary

Governments of China (Guangdong Province), Thailand and Vietnam have applied for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) grant for support to promote livestock waste management in respective countries to address the regional pollution problems from increased growth and intensification of livestock industry in the project countries.

Livestock Waste Management in East Asia (LWMEAP) is an environmental and social development project. It is designed to reduce nutrient loading, mainly nitrogen and phosphorus that is polluting the international waters and causing significant environmental and social impact including increased eutrophication, fish kills, destruction of natural mangrove and coral reefs ecosystems of the coastal zone of the Gulf of Thailand and South China Sea and increase in incidents of water-borne and zoonotic diseases, not only within the livestock raising communities, but also other water users living downstream of the livestock raising areas. For these reasons, if the project is implemented and the findings are disseminated throughout the project countries, the overall impacts of the LWMEAP are expected to be both significant andpositive.

Regional Environmental Settings: The details of regional characteristics are provided in the attached national EA reports for Guangdong, China (Annex 3A), Thailand (Appendix 3B) and Vietnam (Appendix 3C). In general the climatic condition in all three countries is influenced by South-western monsoon. The average temperature varies from about 19 oC in Northern Guangdong to more than 27 oC in Southern Vietnam. The rainfall varies from around 1000mm in Northern Guangdong to over 2500 mm in Southern Vietnam (DingnaiProvince) representing different agro-ecological systems within project countries.

Physiographic settings are also quite variable between different project regions with flat river floodplain and deltaic settings in Northern Vietnam (HatayProvince) and Guangdong (BoluoCounty) to hilly and mountainous in parts of Southern Vietnam and Thailand (Dongnai Province, Vietnam, Chonburi Province, Thailand).

The project areas are located in the major river catchments of the Gulf of Thailand (Maeklong River in Ratchaburi Province, and Bang Prakong River in Chonburi Province, Thailand), and South China Sea (Dongjiang River in Bolouo County, Guangdong Province, China, and Mekong river in Dongnai Province and Red River in Hatay Province, Vietnam).

Livestock production is one of the major industries in the identified project demonstration areas. The livestock management systems vary between regions and countries, being dominated by small-scale production systems in Vietnam, medium-scale in Guangdong, and large-scale in Thailand. This variation in production system distribution should allow the project team to establish different manure management technologies to represent different livestock production systems that are dominant within countries bordering the South China Sea and should assist the project team in dissemination of project findings within and between the projects countries and to other countries in the region.

The total investment of project is US 21.45 million, of which US$ 9.2 million will be from GEF grant. The proposed LWMEAP aims at improving the livelihood and health status of the livestock farmers in the project sites in the three countries and to demonstrate the effectiveness of proposed manure treatment plans in reducing nutrient loading of water resources and identifying best management practices for different agro-ecological and livestock development systems. The project anticipates to be viewed as a demonstration project by local governments and livestock farmers and hopes that the findings of different project components would be disseminated throughout the region. It is believed that through project interventions other interested parties in the region also use project’s findings with regards to sustainable development of livestock production in their own development systems.

The proposed LWMEAP has won strong support form individuals, farmers, NGOs, and every level of the government authorities at national, provincial and local level in all project countries and there is a strong commitment from all levels to the successful implementation of the proposed project.

This environmental assessment report is prepared to satisfy relevant environment protection requirements of the countries involved in project implementation (China, Thailand, and Vietnam), and the World Bank/GEF. The project is classified as World Bank’s Category B project, requiring discussion of significant environmental issues and preparation of an environmental management and monitoring plan (EMMP).

The primary objective of the EA process is to obtain a framework to identify key environmental issues related to the project both on environmental concerns related to proposed project components and on the assessment of the environmental benefits of the project. It was to serve as a valuable tool for addressing environmental issues that would help influence project appraisal and design, execution, supervision, and monitoring of its components success. In addition, the EA would serve as a set of environmental guidelines to shape environmentally sustainable investment strategies in the project. The main objectives, envisaged for the EA are:

To provide a framework for identification of key environmental issues related to the project and to quantify its environmental impact;

To assess positive environmental contributions of manure management initiatives, environmental concerns associated with various project components;

To suggest mitigation measures, outline monitoring and evaluation strategies associated with the appropriate indicators to measure environmental benefits of the project and outline an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) to be mainstreamed into the project cycle including their preparation, implementation and operation;

To bring out recommendations that would keep constant involvement of the other members of the implementation unit and would also lead to the design of environmental awareness programs, the baseline, monitoring and evaluation strategies as early in the project as possible;

To help in identifying the additional detailed studies that need to be conducted as part of the project; and

To provide a screening/analysis tool for addressing the environmental issues that shall help influence project appraisal and design, execution and supervision of its components.

These objectives are to be achieved through the following scope of the EA:

Description of the environmental risks and impacts associated with various activities under the major components of the project;

Recommendation of procedures and institutional arrangements to address environmental concerns and ensuring safe guards, or any activity that would trigger a more detailed EA or Environmental Monitoring;

Identifying training and capacity building needs of environmental institutions and environmental monitoring team members to successfully implement the proposed EMMPs; and

Recommendation of mechanisms and procedures to mainstream the EA work and environmental concerns in general in the proposed LWMEAP.

In order to carry out the analysis of automotives, the first step was to identify impacts on key environmental components in two broad categories: potential positive impacts and potential negative impacts. The physical and temporal nature of the impact was determined using three sub-sets, i.e., short-term and long-term, reversible and irreversible and local and regional.

Based on the identification of impact attributes and prediction tools, the analysis of alternatives was accomplished through the use of a set of matrix score. Each of these matrix score again has been given a Project Importance Values (PIV) ranking by iterative Delphi method. The values were distributed to different key environmental components and sub-components depending upon their relevance and importance to the project. The sub-components net score showed that the without the project scenario would have negative impact in all components, while in with the project scenario all the environmental sub components show positive impact environmental impacts of the project on every category. The summary of the results of project alternative scoring process is presented in the following Table 1. The cumulative assessment indicates that there is a significant positive impact on the environmental features once the project interventions are applied in the project areas. The highest positive impact is predicted to be on water environment, followed by social and soil environments. The high positive nature of the impact on the socio-economic environment is the clear indication of the objectives of the proposed watershed project that would improve the quality of life through reduction of water-borne and zoonotic disease incidents and odor problems within project areas.

Table 1Summary of Score Difference, Alternative Scenarios

Key Environmental Components / Without Project / With Project / Increase
Water Environment
Surface Hydrology / -50 / 50 / 100
Groundwater / -200 / 500 / 700
Water Quality / -900 / 1200 / 2100
Total / -1150 / 1750 / 2900
Soil/Land Environment
Soil Erosion / -30 / 30 / 60
Arable lands / 0 / 80 / 80
Wetlands / -100 / 100 / 200
Soil Fertility & Productivity / -50 / 250 / 300
Soil Biota & Degradation / -40 / 80 / 120
Soil Moisture / 0 / 40 / 40
Total / -220 / 580 / 800
Biological Environment
Flora and Micro Flora / -100 / -50 / 50
Fauna and micro Fauna / 0 / 50 / 50
Nature Reserves, National Parks / 0 / 0 / 0
Biodiversity / -120 / 120 / 240
Total / -220 / 120 / 340
Air Environment
Ambient Air (Odor) / -180 / 240 / 420
Global Warming / -120 / 120 / 240
Total / -300 / 360 / 660
Socio-Economic Environment
Community Participation / 0 / 160 / 160
Social Economy / +40 / 80 / 120
Public Health / -180 / 300 / 480
Gender Issues / -80 / 80 / 160
Employment / 0 / 30 / 30
Downstream Water Users / -80 / 160 / 240
Total / -300 / 810 / 1110

The results of environmental impact assessment indicate that, in general, the proposed LWMEAP will have minimal negative environmental impact. The implementation of subcomponents of the project, if successfully implemented, is conducive to the improvement of the environment, and the project impacts on social environment are believed to be highly positive. If the recommended mitigation and control measures, presented in respective national EA reports, are adopted (Appendices 3A, 3B, and 3C) the impact of the project on the environment should be highly positive. It is recommended that the World Bank,GEF and governments of China, Thailand and Vietnamand respective provincial governments to support the implementation of this project and urge the earliest start of the project.

However, if the project locations are improperly selected, and/or if the proposed mitigation measures are not implemented, the project can have potential negative impact on the natural and social environment, which might jeopardize sustainable development and effectiveness of the project in ultimately reducing nutrient loading to the South China Sea through dissemination of project findings within the region. On the other hand, if effective mitigation measures are implemented, the potential short and long term negative environmental impacts of the project will not be significant.

The negative impacts on the environment during implementation/construction phase of the project in all project area in the three countries are believed to be temporal and of low magnitude with the exception of permanent loss of some land, agricultural or “wasteland”, for construction of large lagoons for aerobic/anaerobic ponds. The major potential impacts on the environment include: impact to vegetation due to temporary land occupation at the construction sites, pollution of waste of daily life at the construction site and noise and dust of the construction machinery. If the mitigation measures proposed in the EA report are implemented, the negative impact to the environment during implementation/construction phase will be minimized.

During operational phase, potential environmental issues that are identified in the report are mainly environmental risk/hazards that can happen only if poor construction, design or operational management is followed and include: (1) potential impact (Nutrient overload) on surface and groundwater resources, and soil, ifwastewater from cleaning of breeding facilities or from biogas/lagoonponds applied intensively on cropland not according to the soilcharacter and nutrient condition, or discharged to the surface water not reaching the discharge standard (2) potential soil pollution through applyingwaste sludge from respectivemanuremanagement facilities improperly on croplands, (3) potential adverse impact on biodiversity, contagious animal diseases on wildlife, increase in plant diseases and yield reduction if improper or intensive application of effluents on soil, (4) potential air pollution (toxic gases and odor) as well as greenhouse effect (CO2, CH4), in case biogas reactors gas collection systems are not working properly, and fermentation of livestock manure,and (5)construction of a lagoon/central biogas/waste water treatment facility in project site will occupy a relatively large area of farm land.

Water pollution can negatively impacts the quality of both surface and groundwater resources within and downstream of the project area. Risk of spills, structure failure, and purposeful discharges must be taken into account. If manure is not properly treated through activities such as composting, potentially contagious animal diseases and caused by dangerous pathogens, bacteria and viruses and exotic weeds can be spread out through the application of untreated swine wastes and can cause proliferation of diseases and weeds. In addition, nutrients pollution in the water bodies may occur through leaching of nutrients accumulated in soil, when excessive amounts of solid and liquid manure were applied.

For most parts, implementation of the project should not cause any significant negative impact on the environment; on the contrary, it should generate positive impact on the ecological and social environment during project operation. The development of code of practice and conducive policies on livestock waste management (regulation on discharge of effluent, collection of the manure guideline, etc.) and dissemination of knowledge on cost effective preparation of organic manure, adaptive methodology on recycling (quantity and timing) of organic (livestock) solid and liquid manure in agricultural activities, etc are believed to assist the reduction of nutrient loading and environmental pollution pressure due to livestock waste. The improvement of manure management practices should have positive benefits and should better the quality of ecological environment within project areas.

If the project is implemented as planned, project activities including capacity-building, awareness-raising, development of Code of Practice (COP) and enforcement of realistic environmental policies and standards,and development of national communication programs should generate positive impact onboth natural and social environment. The introduction of improved manure management practices should be environmentally beneficial and should provide anatmosphere conducive of bettering the ecological environmental quality within project areas. Proper implementation of the project should also improve health status of local communities and reduce incidence of zoonotic diseases. The respiratory diseases and water borne diseases should also be reduced.

Since rational use of organic composting will reduce chemical fertilizer application, this should also produce positive impact on environment by improving soil inherent fertility, soil structure, and water holding capacity. In addition, the use of organic manure should increase soil faunal communities (both in number and variety), helping soil improvement and increased micro-faunal biodiversity.

In order to minimize potential negative environmental impacts and to enhance positive impacts, the appended national EA report have proposed detailed prevention/mitigation measures to minimize potential environmental impacts. In addition environment management plans are prepared for each country and are detailed in Chapter 8 of the respective appended reports, in which the responsibilities of the Project Managementorganization and other related institutions, environment management training and capacity building needs of the project and environment monitoring plan and their respective costs have been clearly detailed. The summary of impact and mitigation measures and the proposed EMPs are summarized in Chapters 3 and 5 of this report.

The total estimated EMMP cost for each country is USD 76,153, USD 115,720, and USD 95,007 for Guangdong, Thailand, and Vietnam, respectively. The details and breakdown of costs are presented in the country specific EAs. The provided cost estimates are preliminary in nature and will be updated as the specific location of manure treatment activities, manure treatment methodology, and manure recycling fields are determined and site specific environmental monitoring and number of sampling locations are finalized.

The proposed EMPs should be strictly implemented by each country/province to ensure that the proposed project would have neither significant nor irreversible adverse impact on the natural environment of the project area.