Window 2: County governments Sub-national urban development and planning. Institutional and capacity development. Technical and institutional support for urban infrastructure and service delivery. 22.2 7.5 Window 3: Urban boards (county government agencies) Infrastructure and service delivery. 247.5 82.5 300.0 100.0 A number of development partners are currently engaged (or intend to engage) in urban development interventions in Kenya. Development partners currently active in the area of urban development include, among others, DFID, AFD, SIDA, JICA and UN-Habitat. Although no development partners have formally committed to providing specific support to KenUP, the Government intends to integrate any such support into its wider program or ensure that it is fully aligned with program objectives and implementation modalities. Disbursement Linked Indicators and Verification Protocols Program funds for sub-national activities will be disbursed on the basis of three DLIs. The first DLI provides funds to counties that choose to opt in to the Program and which qualify with UIG MCs. The second DLI aims to encourage counties to establish and make operational urban institutional frameworks. The third DLI focuses on strengthening urban planning, infrastructure, and service delivery. Together, the three DLIs provide strong incentives for improved management of urban areas. Table4 below provides a summary of the content and funding for the DLIs. Annex 3 contains the detailed DLI matrix. Table4: Program DLIs Window Results area DLIs Approximate disbursement amount (US$ million) % of IDA (PforR) amount Window 2: County governments County governments commit to address development and management issues DLI 1: County governments have met UIG MCs. 22.2 8.2 Window 3: Urban boards and counties Institutional framework established and operational DLI 2: County governments have met UDG MCs 171.4 63.6
assessment of the adequacy of the existing systems, and identification of gaps. Based on this analysis, actions to address the identified risks and gaps are identified and proposed. Validation and Disclosure Validation and disclosure of ESSA has been done at the national and County levels, with invitations of all the County representatives and other relevant stakeholders such as NGOs and developments partners to discuss the draft report. Although not obliged, the final ESSA incorporating comments from stakeholders’ validation workshop(s) consultations shall be disclosed on the client’s website before appraisal of the program. The World Bank will also disclose the ESSA report on the Bank’s Infoshop. DESCRIPTION OF KENYA’S ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Introduction This section describes the existing legal and regulatory framework, relevant laws and institutions responsible for environmental and social management in Kenya. The assessment of how these systems function as written, is presented in Section 4 along with a structured analysis that identifies the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and risks of the systems in relation to the six core principles as per the requirements Program for Results Policy. Program for Results Policy requires that all PforR operations “Operate within an adequate legal and regulatory framework to guide environmental and social impact assessment at the program level”. The management of environment and social impacts for investments financed by the KUSP will be based on the Kenyan legal and regulatory framework, and therefore the focus on this ESSA is on these country frameworks. In order to assess the adequacy of these frameworks, relevant laws and institutions for impact management are summarized below, as well as the roles and responsibilities of institutions involved in the environment and management process in Kenya. A gap analysis then summarizes inconsistencies between this framework and the requirements of Program for Results Policy. Further, the institutional responsibilities, which include the division of responsibilities among different levels of government, for implementing environmental management, including carrying out environmental and social analysis; internal review and clearance procedures such as licensing; consultation processes required; information disclosure; grievance redress mechanisms; supervision and oversight, monitoring, evaluation, and so on; and the relevant rules and procedures and, as needed relevant regulatory framework, applicable to the Program are outlined in this section. Finally, institutional responsibilities for implementing social management, which include the roles and responsibilities for areas applicable to the Program which could include resettlement/land acquisition; eligibility for compensation under resettlement and land
9: Possible Outcomes of NEMA Review of Project Reports Outcome Recommendation Important precautions Project found to have no significant Social and Environmental Impacts or Project report discloses sufficient mitigation measures An Environmental License will be issued by NEMA Project report must disclose adequate mitigation measures and show of comprehensive consultations within the area of influence. Significant adverse social and environmental impacts found or Project Report fails to disclose adequate mitigation measures. A full cycle EIA will be required by NEMA As A proponent is dissatisfied with the outcome of the NEMA review. An Appeal is provided for Project investment is approved. Where NEMA and lead agencies ascertain that a project report has disclosed adequate mitigation for identified impacts, NEMA approves the project upon which, conditions attached to grant of an Environmental License are issued. Once these are fulfilled, an Environmental License is also issued subject to conditions, which will be specific to the investment in question. Overall Project Compliance and Reporting Table 10 provides a summary of the stages and institutional responsibilities for the screening, preparation, assessment, approval and implementation of the KUSP activities. Table 10: Screening Responsibilities Stage Institutional responsibility Implementation responsibility Screening of Environmental and Social Infrastructure Project to assist in project formulation using checklist County Government, Implementing Agency, NPCT Environmental and Social Officer (ESO) in respective Counties, Environment and Social Specialist at NPCT Statutory Environmental Registration of sub projects County Government, Implementing Agency, NPCT Environmental and Social Officer (ESO) in respective Counties, Environment and Social Specialist at NPCT Determination of appropriate environmental assessment level/ category NEMA Follow up by County If ESIA is necessary, reject the investments County Government, NPCT NPCT, NEMA
Compensation plans to show evidence of consultation, consensus and availability of funds for compensation. Consultation and Public Consultation: Poor Consultations are held for specific subprojects. The program will undertake inclusive on-going consultations with stakeholders and a training program will be developed for implementers. Moderate Labour Influx: Social conflict due to labour influx The program will undertake a risk profile of the labour influx, which will goevern the requirements for mitigation measures, and to be part of the contractual obligations during program implementation Moderate Grievance Redress Mechanisms: There is a formalized complaint mechanism at the local (County) level but its effectiveness is hampered by lack of awareness The program will carry out dissemination and awareness raising activities amongst the implementing agency and the Counties about the work of the grievance mechanisms. As necessary, funds from the technical assistance component will be used for this process. Moderate Lack of capacity for environmental and social management: Capacity gaps (staffing and skills mix) at NEMA, UDD, and County levels may lead to a weak planning, implementation and monitoring of environmental and social management plan of the investments. KUSP will assess capacity needs in depth for environmental and social management in Counties and ensure that all Counties have adequate staff with all necessary skills. The program will develop Environment and Social Development Units with trained environment and social development specialists in all implementing entities. Significant Budget Allocation: Inadequate budget allocated to environmental and social management, including compensation payments. County Governments will be incentivized to provide adequate resources to environmental and social management as performance is a minimum condition to achieve the program objectives and access the KUSP. Training on costing EIA/ESIA and resettlement compensation will be included in capacity building program. Moderate Audit: Annual Performance Audit does not include technical expertise to assess environmental and social management performance Terms of Reference for annual capacity and performance assessment will ensure that adequate skills are present to assess environmental and social management systems. Low
Insufficient staffing, knowledge and skills for managing environmental and social issues Staff assigned to coordinate environmental and social management in UDD By negotiations (POM) By effectiveness (recruitment or second-ment) SDHUD POM (program management and ESSM sections and ToRs) Staff assigned to environmental and social management in Counties Role and responsibilities of safeguards specialists defined Environmental and social safeguards specialist assigned to CEC Urban By negotiations (POM) By effectiveness (recruitment or second-ment) SDHUD(for POM) County governments POM (ESSM section and ToRs) Covenant Training in environmental and social management issues for technical staff at the national, county and municipal levels Continuous SDHUD KSG and NEMA? Window 1 activities Lack of grievance redress mechanisms Establishment of a Grievance Redress Mechanism (will be part of the overall GRM for the program) By negotiations SDHUD POM Lack of Program coordination Coordination of efforts of the actions under the KUSP program with the Kenya Devolution Support Program (KDSP) project’s ESMS action plan and strategies Continuous SDHUD and World Bank Window 1 activities
Homabay County 13 Consolata Yambo CEC-Land, Housing and Physical Planning 0722842553 14 Livingstone Odundo Director Services 0725249910 15 John Maniafu NEMA 0724430437 16 Billy Odero Physical Planning 0720322350 17 Ochuodho Peter National Land Commission 0724211857 18 George Ogada Chief Officer- Land, Housing and Physical Planning 0722866285 Kitui County 19 Mkunda CEC – LIUD 0724734181 20 Muusya Mwinzi Chief Officer ammwinzi@yahoo.com 0722674243 21 Jeremiah Musyoka Deputy Director, LIUD 0722834012 22 Chris Kitonga Acting Director, LIUD chriskitonga@gmail.com 0724573849 23 Sammy Kathike D/A Planning 0724843052 24 Simon Weru NEMA – CDE wellrows@gmail.com 07137333751 Machakos County 25 Ruth Mutua CEC – Min of Agriculture, Livestock, and Urban Planning 0721695375 Kakamega County 26 Jacob Juma Shamala Senior Public Health / Ag Dir Environment 0720732295