Federal Republic of Nigeria Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Staple Crop Processing Zones Support Project (scpz)

Assessment of a No Project and Go Ahead Project Alternatives

Analysis of alternatives is done to establish the preferred or most environmentally sound, financially feasible and benign option for achieving project objectives. This requires a systematic comparison of proposed investment design in terms of site, technology, processes etc in terms of their impacts and feasibility of their mitigation, capital, recurrent costs, suitability under local conditions and institutional, training and monitoring requirements. For each alternative, the environmental cost should be quantified to the extent possible and economic values attached where feasible, and the basic for selected alternative stated. The analysis of alternative should include a NO ACTION alternative.

The following alternative actions were considered for the study areas –
The “No Action” alternative assumes that there will be no alteration to the existing areas. This would imply that the SCPZ AND ABIR investment proposed area/location would be left in their present states with a real potential for worsening. Specifically, if the area is left unimproved, environmental degradation as a result of the ongoing agricultural practices by the locals would continue and in turn will continue to lead to an ever increasing destruction of the habitat without proper or sustainable management leading to soil erosion, deforestation, etc.. In other words, damage and loss rates may increase even in the remaining forest reserve as there will not be proper and systematic management, monitoring and guidance from the appropriate authorities which had characterise the area over the years. Furthermore, poverty level amongst the local population will remain high and the objective of the ATA of the Federal Government for the country will suffer a setback.
A no-action or no project alternative is certainly not recommended.
A “Go Ahead Project Alternative,” though more expensive in terms of cost in every respect at the start, is seen to be the most feasible than do nothing alternative. Go ahead alternative is expected to reduce operational costs for cassava processors by up to 30% and create 7,500 new jobs and contribute overall up to US$ 0.5b to Nigeria’s economy. The development of Alape ABIR / SCPZ will strengthen national food security, improve regional economic growth and generally improve livelihoods in the rural farming communities in the SCPZ/ABIR through increased household incomes arising from opportunities for secured markets, improved productivity, reduced post-harvest losses and increased employment of the locals. In addition, the negative impacts on the environmental resources due to the unsustainable manner in which the local farmers devastate the forest resources to eke out a living in the area will be reduced if not eliminated as there will be enhanced knowledge on how these environmental resources could better be mined or used through knowledge to be created by the project. This in turn will reduce the overall level of poverty noticed in the communities.

The two scenarios considered herewith are summarized in ES Table c. The inference from this consideration is that even though the go ahead option is more extensive, it is a the preferred or most environmentally sound, financially feasible and benign option for achieving project objectives and ensuring economic growth and sustainable development both at the micro and macro scale.

The successful implementation of the ESMF depends on the commitment of the sector and related institutions, and the capacity within the institutions to apply or use the framework effectively, and the appropriate and functional institutional arrangements, among others. Hence these key ESMF areas relevant to its successful implementation were included in the ESMF, namely: institutional arrangements, capacity building, environmental and social monitoring. . The roles and responsibilities of these levels of institutions with regard to this ESMF are outlined in the ES Table d.

Capacity Building and Training

• 
  Limited knowledge of the relationship between World Bank Safeguards policies and the extant environmental and social laws in Nigeria;
  
• 
  Lack of enforcement of development control regulations;
  
• 
  Limited knowledge on EIAs and Environmental and Social Audits during construction/rehabilitation of drainages and culverts;
  
• 
  Limited knowledge on Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment;
  
• 
  Limited monitoring of water quality, river flow and lack of systemic hydrologic data collection;
  
• 
  Limited technical capacity on solid waste management;
  

In order to achieve the goal of the ESMF, there is a need for capacity building and strengthening of relevant competencies on environmental and social management at federal and state level MDAs – Kogi State Ministry of. It involves organizational development, the elaboration of management structures, processes and procedures, not only within organizations but also the management of relationships between the different organizations and sectors (public, private and community).

The environmental and social management requirements and provisions outlined in this ESMF, competencies and capacity building will be required in the following areas:

• 
  Environmental Impact Assessment Process - screening, scoping, impact analysis, mitigation measures and monitoring, reviewing ESIA reports;
  
• 
  Environmental Due Diligence - types of due diligence, screening projects for liabilities, scoping due diligence investigations and reviewing due diligence reports; and
  
• 
  Monitoring and Evaluation - understanding the importance of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in project implementation, M&E requirements for environmental and social sustainability of projects.
  

Estimated Budget for Implementing the ESMF

Tentative budget for each of the project includes the environmental and social mitigation cost, management costs, cost of environmental monitoring and capacity building. All administrative costs for implementing the ESMF shall be budgeted for as part of the project costing.

Table ES e below shows an indicative budget breakdown of the cost for implementing the due diligence in the project. The total cost for implementing the ESMF is estimated att N49.17m ($265,783.78)) (Table ES d).

Stakeholders Consultation

The objectives of the consultations were to:

• 
  Inform the affected communities within the ABIR about the project development objective,
  
• 
  Give them opportunity to express their perceptions and concerns about the project impact;
  
• 
  Collect useful local data/information/solutions that will help in the ESMF/ESMP/ESIA project preparation (e.g. Local grievance redress procedures).
  
• 
  Receive from, and deliberate with the stakeholders on measures to avoid or mitigate impacts as well as facilitate rehabilitation of affected persons
  
• 
  Empower their voice by mainstreaming their inputs into ESMF/ESIA implementation plan