DRAFT

JAKARTA URGENT FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECT (JUFMP)

CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY

OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

JUNE 2011

Government of The Republic of Indonesia

Ministry of Public Works

Directorate General of Water Resources

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents 1  Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1 

1.3  Safeguards Policies Triggered ...................................................................................................... 2 

1.4  Approach for Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ....................................................... 3 

1.5  Significant Environmental and Social Impacts ............................................................................. 5 

1.6  Proposed Environmental and Social Impact Management ........................................................... 6 

1.7  Consultations ............................................................................................................................... 11 

1.8  Project Communication............................................................................................................... 12 

1.9  Reputational Risks ...................................................................................................................... 13 

2  Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 14 

2.1  Project Development Objective .................................................................................................. 14 

2.2  Summary of Project Component ................................................................................................. 14 

2.3  Project Sites ................................................................................................................................ 15 

2.4  Sequencing of Works .................................................................................................................. 16 

2.5  Volume of Works ........................................................................................................................ 16 

2.6  Disposal Sites .............................................................................................................................. 17 

2.6.1  Ancol confined disposal facility (CDF) .............................................................................. 18 

2.6.2  Bantar Gebang landfill facility ............................................................................................ 18 

2.6.3  PPLi hazardous waste landfill ............................................................................................. 19 

3  Environmental and Social Legal Requirements and Project Institutional and Implementation Arrangements .............................................................................................................................................. 19 

3.1  Government of Indonesia Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................... 19 

3.2  Government of Indonesia Land Acquisition ............................................................................... 20 

3.3  The World Bank’s Triggered Environmental Safeguards Policies and Compliance Requirements. ......................................................................................................................................... 21 

3.4  The World Bank’s Triggered Social Safeguards Policies and Compliance Requirements. ........ 22 

3.5  Package of Environment and Social Safeguards Documents. ..................................................... 22 

3.5.1  Environmental safeguards documents ................................................................................. 22 

3.5.2  Social safeguards documents .............................................................................................. 25 

3.5.3  Preparation and disclosure of safeguards documents .......................................................... 26 

3.6  Institutional Arrangements .......................................................................................................... 27 

3.6.1  Institutional Arrangements (Phase 1 and Phase 2) .............................................................. 27 

3.6.2  Institutional Arrangements (Disposal sites) ........................................................................ 31 

ii

3.7  Implementation Arrangements (Environmental Safeguards) ...................................................... 31 

3.7.1  For the Phase 1 and Phase 2 works ..................................................................................... 31 

3.7.2  For the disposal sites (Ancol CDF, Bantar Gebang and PPLi) ........................................... 32 

3.8  Implementation Arrangements (Social Safeguards) ................................................................... 34 

4  Relevant Environment and Social Baseline Data ................................................................................ 36 

4.1  Sediment Quality in JUFMP Sites .............................................................................................. 36 

4.1.1  ERM 2008 ........................................................................................................................... 36 

4.1.2  DHV 2008 ........................................................................................................................... 37 

4.1.3  AMDAL for Phase 2 activities, sampling and analysis 2010 ............................................. 37 

4.1.4  Results and interpretation .................................................................................................... 37 

4.2  Sediment Quality in Ancol .......................................................................................................... 39 

4.3  Water Quality in JUFMP Sites .................................................................................................... 40 

4.4  Ancol Sea Water Quality ............................................................................................................ 41 

4.5  Ancol Marine Biota ..................................................................................................................... 45 

4.5.1  Plankton .............................................................................................................................. 45 

4.5.2  Benthos ............................................................................................................................... 45 

4.6  Social Economic Baseline ........................................................................................................... 46 

4.6.1  Population ........................................................................................................................... 46 

4.6.2  Social-economic Characteristics of the Population ............................................................. 46 

5  Summary of Significant Environmental and Social Adverse Impacts ................................................ 48 

5.1  Environmental Impacts associated with the JUFMP project activities ....................................... 48 

5.1.1  Significant traffic disruption. .............................................................................................. 48 

5.1.2  Reduced air quality and foul odors. .................................................................................... 49 

5.1.3  Change of water discharge rate ........................................................................................... 49 

5.1.4  Change of surface water quality. ......................................................................................... 49 

5.1.5  Change of sea water quality ................................................................................................ 49 

5.1.6  Increase of solid waste ........................................................................................................ 50 

5.1.7  Impact on Biota ................................................................................................................... 50 

5.1.8  Impact on Public health and environmental sanitation ....................................................... 50 

5.2  JUFMP Project Impacts on Ancol CDF ...................................................................................... 50 

5.3  Offsite Impacts from Ancol CDF ................................................................................................ 51 

5.4  JUFMP Project Impacts on Bantar Gebang and PPLi facility .................................................... 52 

5.5  Social Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 52 

iii

5.5.1  PAPs Sites ........................................................................................................................... 52 

5.5.2  Non-PAPs sites ................................................................................................................... 54 

5.5.3  Potential non-resettlement related social impacts. .............................................................. 55 

5.5.4  Evictions during the period of JUFMP Project Preparation. ............................................... 55 

6  Analysis of Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 57 

6.1  The “do nothing” option ............................................................................................................. 57 

6.2  Overall Alternative Analysis ....................................................................................................... 57 

6.3  Specific Alternative Analyses ..................................................................................................... 58 

6.3.1  Catchment wide vs. local flood management ..................................................................... 58 

6.3.2  Engineering vs. non-engineering approach ......................................................................... 58 

6.3.3  Choice of dredging sites ...................................................................................................... 59 

6.3.4  Dredging technology: Mechanical vs. Hydraulic ................................................................ 59 

6.3.5  Solid Waste Separation ....................................................................................................... 59 

6.3.6  Transport options: Land based (dump truck) vs. hydraulic ................................................ 60 

7  Environmental Management Plans ..................................................................................................... 60 

7.1  Overall Environmental Management and Monitoring Plans ....................................................... 60 

7.2  Transport Management Plans ...................................................................................................... 61 

8  Resettlement Planning ........................................................................................................................ 61 

8.1  Approach for Social Impact Management .................................................................................. 61 

8.2  Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) ...................................................................................... 62 

8.3  Resettlement Plans (RPs) ............................................................................................................ 65 

8.3.1  Census Updates and Finalization of RPs ............................................................................ 66 

8.3.2  Database for PAPs .............................................................................................................. 66 

8.3.3  Funding for RPF and RPs ................................................................................................... 66 

9  Consultations ....................................................................................................................................... 67 

9.1  Consultations during AMDAL .................................................................................................... 67 

9.2  Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) ............................................................................................... 70 

9.3  Consultations on the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) ..................................................... 71 

9.4  Consultations during the preparation of Resettlement Plans (RPs) ............................................ 73 

10  Grievance Redress System (GRS) .................................................................................................. 73 

11  Project Communications ................................................................................................................. 74 

12  Reputational Risks .......................................................................................................................... 77 

iv

List of Tables Table 2-1 Description of Floodways, Canals and Retention Basins under Project ..................................... 15 Table 2-2 Sequencing of Project Construction Works ................................................................................ 16 Table 2-3 Description of Floodways, Canals and Retention Basins under the Project ............................... 17 Table 3-1 Summary of due Diligence Process for Disposal Sites .............................................................. 24 Table 3-2 Summary of Environmental and Social Documents and Disclosure Status ............................... 26 Table 3-3 Summary of Processes and Conditions Governing Disposal of Project Material ...................... 33 Table 4-1 ERM 2008 data considering relevant soil use screening levels (in mg/kg) ................................ 38 Table 4-2 Phase 2 AMDAL data (2010) considering relevant soil use screening levels (in mg/kg) .......... 39 Table 4-3 Result of Marine Sediment Quality Measurement (by TCLP, USEPA) around the Study Area 39 Table 4-4 Water Quality Analysis Results: Cengkareng Drain .................................................................. 40 Table 4-5 Result of Seawater Quality Measurement in the Study Area ..................................................... 41 Table 4-6 Result of Seawater Monitoring in the 2005-2008 period in the Ancol Marine Waters .............. 42 Table 4-7 Populations of Areas where Project’s Floodways, Canals and Retention Basins are Located ... 47 Table 5-1 Summary of Activities Causing Impact and Direct Impact ........................................................ 48 Table 5-2 Estimated Affected Structures and Persons at Project Sites ....................................................... 53 Table 9-1 Issues raised with respect to the Phase 1 AMDAL and Ancol CDF consultation ...................... 68  List of Figures Figure 2-1 Summary of the Disposal Arrangements................................................................................... 18 Figure 3-1 AMDAL Process ....................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 3-2 Illustration of Project Implementation Arrangements (excluding disposal arrangements) ....... 27 Figure 4-1 TSS Parameter in the 2005-2008 Period ................................................................................... 43 Figure 4-2 pH Parameter in the 2005-2008 Period ..................................................................................... 43 Figure 4-3 Air Quality, Noise and Seawater Sampling Site ....................................................................... 45 Figure 5-1 Number of Potential Affected Persons (Structures and Number of headcount and Household) .................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 11-1 Communications between agencies......................................................................................... 77  List of Annexes Annex 1: Project Map Annex 2: Case Studies – Eviction in Kemiri, Tambora VI and Tambora VIII Sites Annex 3: List of Key Reference Documents in the Project Files

v

ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATION

AMDAL Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan – Process of environmental impact assessments ANDAL Analisis Dampak Lingkungan – environmental impact assessment/statement B3 Waste Limbah Bahan Berbahaya dan Beracun - Hazardous and Toxic Waste BAPEDAL Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan - Environmental Impact Management Agency BAPPENAS Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional – National Development Planning Board BAPPEDA Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah – Regional Development Planning Board BBWSCC Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai Ciliwung-Cisadane – Regional Office of Ciliwung-Cisadane

River Basin BPLHD Badan Pengendalian Lingkungan Hidup Daerah – Local Level of Environmental

Management Agency (including Provincial and Municipal Level) CDF Confined Disposal Facility DGCK Directorate General for Human Settlements (Dirjen Cipta Karya – MoPW) DGWR Directorate General for Water Resources (Dirjen Sumberdaya Air– MoPW) DKI Jakarta or DKI Daerah Khusus Istimewa Jakarta (Provincial government of DKI Jakarta) EA Environmental Assessment EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIA/SIA Consultant Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, a consultant hired by PMU EMP Environmental Management Plan ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan ESWG Environmental and Social Working Group FGD Focus Group Discussion GRS Grievance Redress System GoI Government of Indonesia JABODETABEK Jakarta-Bogor-Depok-Tangerang-Bekasi – Metropolitan DKI Jakarta JEDI Jakarta Emergency Dredging Initiative JSC Joint Steering Committee JUFMP Jakarta Urgent Flood Mitigation Project KA-ANDAL Kerangka Acuan – ANDAL - Term of Agreement of EIA Kelurahan /Kecamatan Urban Village/Sub-district MENLH Menteri Lingkungan Hidup – MoE MoE Ministry of Environment MoF Ministry of Finance MoPW Ministry of Public Works NGO Non-Governmental Organization OP Operational Policy P2T Panitia Pengadaan Tanah - Land Acquisition Committee PAP Project Affected Person PI Public Involvement PIP Project Implementation Plan PIU Project Implementation Unit PMU Project Management Unit POSKO Pos Komando - Site Office which also functions as, amongst others, public information

vi

center and site-based complaint handling unit PP Peraturan Pemerintahan – Government Regulation PPA EIA/SIA consultant hired by PMU to prepare AMDAL and RP PPC Project Preparation Consultants PT PJA Pembangunan Jaya Ancol Ltd. (Ancol Authorities) PPLi Prasadha Pamunah Limbah Industri – A licensed of secure landfill operator PU-MoPW Ministry of Public Works - Departemen Pekerjaan Umum RP Resettlement Plan RKL Rencana Pengelolaan Lingkungan – Environmental Management Plan RPF Resettlement Policy Framework RPL Rencana Pemantauan Lingkungan – Environmental Monitoring Plan SC Supervision Consultant SIA Social Impact Assessment TMP Transport Management Plan USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WASAP Indonesia Water and Sanitation Program Trust Fund WBC West Banjir Canal WJEMP Western Java Environmental Management Project

1

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Description of Project 1. The Jakarta Urgent Flood Mitigation Project (JUFMP or “the project”) aims to contribute to the improvement of the operations and maintenance of a priority part of the flood management system in the city of Jakarta, through:

Dredging sections of selected key floodways, canals and retention basins to improve their flow capacities, and disposing the dredge material in proper facilities;

Rehabilitating and constructing embankment in sections of, and repairing or replacing mechanical equipment in, the same selected key floodways, canals and retention basins to sustain and improve their operations;

Establishing institutional coordination between the three responsible agencies to encourage coordinated development, and operations and maintenance (O&M) of Jakarta's flood management system; and

Strengthening the capability of the responsible agencies to improve the operations, maintenance and management of Jakarta's flood management system.

2. Eleven critical floodways and canals, as well as four retention basins (waduks) were identified to be included in the scope of the project works. These were identified by the Government of Indonesia (GoI) as in priority need of rehabilitation and improvement in flow capacities to alleviate severe seasonal flooding. These floodways, canals and retention basins are located in areas where nearly 1.8 million people live1 (out of a total core city population of about 11 million). A project map is provided in Annex 1. 3. This dredging activity is expected to result in the removal of about 3.4 million m3 of sediment material and 95,000 m3 of solid waste. Non-hazardous sediment material is planned to be disposed at an ongoing sea reclamation project in a confined disposal facility (CDF) known as Ancol CDF, located off the north coast of Jakarta in the Jakarta Bay. Removed solid waste will be transported to the existing Bantar Gebang landfill in Bekasi, the main solid waste landfill serving Jakarta. Sampling tests at project sites indicate that the JUFMP dredge material is non-hazardous. However, pre-dredging testing will still be conducted during implementation and in the very unlikely event that hazardous sediment waste material is found, it will be disposed off at the existing secure landfill in Bogor owned by PT. Prasadha Pamunah Limbah Industri (PPLi), which is licensed to manage hazardous waste material. Both Bogor and Bekasi lie just outside Jakarta city, within the Jakarta metropolitan area.

1.2 Purpose and Content of this Consolidated Summary 4. The purpose of this report is to provide the summary of the environmental and social safeguards issues and arrangements of the JUFMP. This document also serves to provide both a consolidated picture as well as a summary of the environmental and social safeguards impact assessments and mitigation design for the JUFMP project as a whole. The JUFMP project includes works that come under the

1 See Table 4-7 in section 4.

2

responsibility of different agencies. At the same time, the project will also utilize disposal areas and facilities that are being constructed and/or operated by entities independent of the project implementation agencies. As such, the JUFMP project environmental and social safeguards designs and provisions as a whole consist of a set of different environmental and social impact assessments and mitigation plans underpinned by various key studies, reports and reviews processes. Each of these assessments and plans has been developed by different responsible agencies, approved for the different works or disposal sites, and at different times throughout the JUFMP project preparation period. These environmental and social safeguards designs and provisions have been assessed during the JUFMP project preparation. 5. It provides a summary of the safeguards requirements and policies2 applicable to the project. This document describes the principles and approaches for environmental and social impact assessments conducted during project preparation, including the preparation timing and disclosure of applicable documents that together make up the full safeguards instrument of the project. Further, the related due diligence, assessments, consultations and communications conducted during project preparation are discussed, including brief descriptions of key findings and conclusions of relevant reports and studies. The potential environmental and social impacts from the project, and mitigation measures adopted, are summarized. Finally, this report describes the various arrangements put in place to monitor and supervise the environmental and social impact mitigation plans related to project works and disposal activities, as well as to manage residual risks during implementation. A list of documents comprising the project safeguards instruments, and a list of other key reference documents is provided in Annex 3.

1.3 Safeguards Policies Triggered 6. The project is expected to yield positive environmental and social outcomes. Alleviating flooding will reduce the environmental impact and public health issues caused by overflowing and stagnant flood waters and reduce disruptions to communities in project areas – particularly to the predominantly poor communities living in flood-prone areas. Solid waste and sediments in the drains, if not removed, would be flushed uncontrolled into the estuary and bay area. Over the longer term, the flood information management system that is being introduced by the project would provide DKI Jakarta the information based planning tool needed to sustainably manage the network well beyond the life of the project and to continue to reduce the incidence of flooding in the area. However, adverse environmental impacts are also likely during the project implementation, e.g., from the sediment material and solid waste that would be generated, if they are not handled, stored, sorted, transported and disposed of properly. These impacts include potentially significant traffic disruption, reduction in air quality due to dust and foul odor emissions, increased noise levels, reduction in surface water and sea water quality, etc. Involuntary resettlement has also been identified as required in several project sites. Apart from Indonesian environmental and social safeguards requirements, the JUFMP project triggers the World Bank’s Environmental Assessment Operational Policy (OP4.01), and as per this policy’s requirements is assigned an EA category of A. The project also triggers the World Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12).

2 Including Indonesian and World Bank policies requirements.

3

1.4 Approach for Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Project Sequencing 7. Project funded construction works have been structured into two sequenced phases – Phase 1 and Phase 2. A sequenced implementation design has been adopted as a key implementation risk management mechanism for the project. Phase 1 works (proposed 4 sites / 3 works contracts) are expected to commence during the first year of project implementation. Phase 2 works (proposed 11 sites / 5 contracts) are expected to follow subsequently. This sequencing will help avoid the PMU/PIUs and their supervision consultant from being overburdened during the first year when detailed actual implementation processes, procedures and routines are established and operationalized. The sequencing will also allow time for DKI Jakarta to complete the necessary resettlement instruments and arrangements ahead of works in sites involving involuntary resettlement3, including the establishment of a Grievance Redress System (GRS) and the appointment of a Panel of Experts. Project Linked Sites 8. Technical assessments have identified 10 canals/waduks sections that are hydraulically and/or directly connected with the canals/waduks sections under JUFMP. The government currently has no specific plans for rehabilitation works in these sections. However, any such activities in these sections will be expected to impact the operations of the canals/waduks sections under JUFMP. Due to this reason, these 10 sections have been designated as project linked sites. In the event that the government carries out any works activities related to floods management (e.g., dredging and/or canal rehabilitation) in these 10 sections during the JUFMP project period, these will be deemed project linked activities and the government has agreed to apply the requirement of OP 4.12 on such activities. Assessment and Disclosure Approaches 9. The environmental and social safeguards requirements for Phase 1 works and for project material disposal arrangements have been appraised. Phase 1 works are expected to be ready for implementation soon after the project is effective (provided also that certain other agreed upon operational conditions are met). The project is set in a dynamic and fluid environment (i.e., design changes in response to continuously changing conditions can be expected during implementation, requiring associated revisions to the safeguards documents). Given the sequencing of project implementation, Phase 2 works are only expected to begin from around 12 to 18 months after project approval. The quality of implementation and the environmental and social outcomes related to Phase 2 works may only be assured through a similar sequencing of the preparation, disclosure and implementation of their environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and (if needed) resettlement plans (RPs). For this reason and in line with the sequenced two-phase implementation approach, the environmental and social safeguards requirements for Phase 2 works will be fully appraised during project implementation. Phase 2 works will only commence subject to the satisfactory completion of these environmental and social safeguards appraisals (provided also that certain other agreed upon operational conditions are met). 10. All applicable environmental safeguards documents related to Phase 1 works (including those related to the Ancol CDF, currently under construction) will be disclosed prior to project appraisal. In line

3 Phase 1 sites do not involve involuntary resettlement.

4

with the sequenced two-phase implementation approach, an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) will cover the environmental and social management requirements of Phase 2 works, and will guide the preparation, finalization and implementation of Phase 2 related EIAs and RPs. The ESMF and RPF will be disclosed prior to appraisal. Phase 2 EIAs and RPs will be completed during project implementation (prior to any related works commencing) and subject to World Bank review and no-objection prior to disclosure and implementation. Table 3-2 of this report provides a summary of the project’s environmental and social safeguards documents and their disclosure status. Safeguards Assessments for JUFMP Works 11. The environmental impact assessment process in Indonesia (referred to as the AMDAL) has also followed and is aligned with the JUFMP Phase 1 and Phase 2 works packaging structure. An AMDAL package consists of the (i) ANDAL, which is synonymous to the Environmental Impacts Assessment in the World Bank’s Environmental Policy OP 4.01, (i) RKL, which is the Environment Management Plan, and (iii) RPL, which is the Environment Monitoring Plan. The AMDAL for Phase 1 works has been prepared by the Project Management Unit (PMU). This AMDAL was consulted upon, reviewed and approved in March 2010 by the provincial level environmental agency (known as the BPLHD) as required by national and sub-national regulations of Indonesia. The World Bank has also reviewed the AMDAL and has provided extensive comments resulting in the PMU preparing a JUFMP Phase 1 Supplementary Report. This supplementary report includes further recommendations which will also be applicable to the project. This ensured that the AMDAL and supplementary report for Phase 1, combined, complied with the World Bank environmental safeguards policy requirements. The PMU has also prepared the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) which has been reviewed by the World Bank. The ESMF will guide and manage the process for preparing the environmental safeguards documents required for the Phase 2 works. 12. Preliminary social assessment study has been carried out in 2008 (SA Study). In addition, social impact assessments were also carried out in 2009 – 2010 as part of the AMDAL processes. In addition to standard AMDAL consultation processes, specific Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were also carried out in each project site to obtain deeper information on the environmental and social impacts of the project and to obtain support from the communities. Both resettlement-related and non-resettlement related potential social impacts were identified in these assessments and processes. DKI Jakarta has prepared the project Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) to clarify the principles, procedures and organizational arrangements to be applied to the preparation of RPs for Phase 2 sites that involve involuntary resettlement. The RPF has been reviewed by the World Bank.

Safeguards Assessments for Ancol CDF 13. Non-hazardous sediment material from JUFMP will be disposed at the Ancol CDF. Construction of the boundary walls for the confined disposal facility (Ancol CDF) is ongoing at the time of project preparation. The confined facility is currently expected to be completed at the end of calendar year 2011. The first AMDAL for the Ancol reclamation works prepared by PT. PJA, was approved by BPLHD in February 2006 where 12 million m3 of sand and 400,000 m3 of laterite were proposed as the fill material. This was prior to the proposal for the JUFMP project. The AMDAL was subsequently updated to provide for non-hazardous JUFMP dredge material to be utilized as part fill material for the Ancol CDF, reducing

5

sand requirements to 8.6 million m3. The updated AMDAL was reviewed and approved by BPLHD in March 2009. It is worthy to note that the Ancol reclamation project was planned to be implemented irrespective and independent of whether JUFMP proceeds or not. The primary objective of PT. PJA as a concessionaire as stated in the AMDAL is not to receive JUFMP disposal material but to reclaim about 119 hectares of land in Jakarta Bay for future commercial residential developments (as is typical of this area of Jakarta Bay since 1964). This notwithstanding, Ancol CDF is an integral part of JUFMP. The World Bank has reviewed the Ancol AMDAL documents4. To address gaps found in the Ancol AMDAL documents, the PMU has prepared an Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report. This supplementary report contains the additional measures which will also be applicable to the project. This ensured that the AMDAL and supplementary report for Ancol CDF, combined, complied with the World Bank environmental safeguards policy requirements with regards to the disposal of JUFMP material.

Safeguards Assessments for Bantar Gebang and PPLi 14. Solid waste material from JUFMP will be transported to the Bantar Gebang sanitary landfill, while hazardous sediment material (if any are found) is planned for disposal at the PPLi secure landfill in Bogor. Both these landfills already exist and are operating under national environmental permits and under the supervision of the respective jurisdictional BPLHD’s. Assessments have been carried out (including site visits by the World Bank) to ascertain that these facilities have adequate financial, technical and physical capacity to receive the type of waste material from the project and also that these facilities had the required and valid environmental permits.

1.5 Significant Environmental and Social Impacts Environmental Impacts from JUFMP Works 15. The overriding potential environmental impact associated with JUFMP works activities were identified in the AMDALs5. These impacts mainly stem from the dredging and embankment works, the significant quantities of dredge material and solid waste that would be generated, and how these dredge materials would be handled, temporarily stored, stockpiled, sorted, transported, and finally disposed in urban areas that are densely populated and that are surrounded by surface and sea water. Potential significant environmental impacts from these works include: (i) traffic disruption due to equipment mobilization and the transport of dredge material and solid wastes to their respective disposal sites, (ii) spillage of material along transportation routes, (iii) foul odors and reduced air quality from ongoing works, (iv) increased noise levels and vibration from ongoing works, and (v) reduction in surface water quality in canals and related estuaries during ongoing works. Hazardous material (if any are found) also poses potential environmental and health hazards if these are improperly handled. Environmental Impacts from Ancol CDF Works 16. At the Ancol CDF, the AMDAL identified the key potential environmental impacts on site from the construction and reclamation activities, including: (i) changes in tidal and current patterns, (ii) increased sedimentation around the CDF, (iii) degradation of sea water quality from filling and reclamation activities, and (iv) disturbance to the sea biota. There is also the potential for adverse off site

4 Including a further subsequent update related to changes in design of the northern boundary (dyke) of the CDF, for which the recommendations

of the World Bank review of the proposal was acknowledged and adopted prior to the approval of BPLHD. 5 The completed AMDALs for the Phase 1 works, as well as draft AMDALs for Phase 2 sites.

6

impact at the source locations and transport route of sand (8.6 million m3) and laterite (400,000 m3) required for the construction of the CDF (although the use of JUFMP dredge material to part replace sand material requirement – thus reducing sand requirement from 12 million m3 to 8.6 million m3 - is in itself a measure to reduce potential off site impacts).

Environmental Impacts from Bantar Gebang and PPLi Operations 17. The potential environmental impacts from the project to the operations of the Bantar Gebang sanitary landfill and the PPLi secure landfill are expected to be small. The estimated 95,000 m3 of total solid waste generated from the project over its expected 4 year duration will make up an insignificant percentage of normal loads being received at Bantar Gebang6. Hazardous material is not expected from JUFMP (confirmed by sampling tests) and even if some are found, the amounts are well within the capacity and handling norms of the PPLi secure landfill.

Social Impacts from JUFMP Works 18. The potential social impacts from the project were identified through the SA Study, AMDAL related consultations, and the FGD and other consultations carried out as part of the preparation of the RPF and preliminary RPs. The potential impacts include resettlement-related impacts and non-resettlement related impacts. The studies and consultations conducted during the earlier part of project preparation indicated that involuntary resettlement would be required at seven sites, affecting over 2,500 structures and more than 6,500 persons. However, efforts to minimize social impact7 over the last few months have reduced these numbers. At present, six of the 15 project sites are identified to include involuntary resettlement, affecting about 1,109 structures and 5,228 persons. Non-resettlement related impacts include “perception and concerns” of communities should they need to resettle without proper consultations and compensations. Communities were concerned that during construction their living environment will be disturbed and damaged by the improper management of works operations and handling of dredged materials, which could lead to inconvenience due to damage on local roads, dusts, bad odors, spilled dredged materials, increased traffic congestion and noise from the equipments and trucks. Another potential issue is the concerns of the impacted communities for not being able to participate during construction as workers/labors and lack of communications between them and the contractors and project management. Construction at project sites will also temporarily affect about 19 operators / owners of canal crossing boats.

1.6 Proposed Environmental and Social Impact Management 19. The project will be implemented through the appropriate existing institutions in line with the government institutional structure for floods management. There are three Project Implementing Units (PIUs) at both central and local government levels: (i) the Directorate General for Water Resources (DGWR), (ii) the Directorate General for Human Settlements (DGCK), and (iii) the local government of Jakarta (DKI Jakarta). Each will be responsible for carrying out the dredging and rehabilitation works in the selected key floodways, canals and retention basins that come under their respective institutional and legal responsibilities. In line with its responsibility mandate for social issues in the Jakarta

6 Normal daily load is currently between 5,000 – 6,000 tons per day, or about 20,000 to 24,000 m3 per day.

7 Based, amongst others, on adapting engineering designs and works methodology to minimize impact.

7

municipalities8, DKI Jakarta will be responsible for all project social safeguards arrangements. A Project Management Unit (PMU) has been established by DGWR to oversee and coordinate the overall preparation and implementation of the project by the three PIUs. The PMU will also implement and manage common activities, including (i) the overall construction supervision consultancy i.e., the Supervision Consultant (SC), (ii) the appointment of the Panel of Experts (POE), and (iii) the Floods Management Information Systems (FMIS), and (iv) support to DKI Jakarta related to involuntary resettlement and the project’s grievance redress system. The three JUFMP dredge material disposal locations are operated by separate entities independent of the JUFMP. Ancol CDF is operated by the concessionaire and operator of the reclamation project, PT. Pembangunan Jaya Ancol (PT. PJA). The Bantar Gebang landfill is managed by the Sanitary Agency of DKI Jakarta through a private operator, while PPLi secure landfill is a private commercial provider (i.e. PT. PPLi) of hazardous waste disposal services. Environmental Impact Management for JUFMP Works 20. For JUFMP works, the respective AMDAL as well as the JUFMP Phase 1 Supplementary Report requirements will be incorporated into the works bidding documents and contracts. This ensures that the works contractors will have primary responsibility for the implementation of the required environmental safeguards measures. Contractors are required to have specific staff with responsibility for environmental and social management. Bidders are required as part of their bid to submit preliminary contractor’s Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP), including a preliminary Transport Management Plan (TMP). These will be developed into detailed plans by the winning contractor. Since the majority of potential effects relate to interactions with the local communities, a minimum number of contract required meetings with the community has also been included in the contracts. The inclusion of environmental and social provisions in the biddings documents also ensures that these provisions will be adequately priced in the contracts. These costs are being built into the unit costs for dredging and transport. Environmental and social costs built into the contract unit costs include, but are not limited to, workplace sanitation, safety, traffic management, vehicle emissions control, spillage prevention, noise management, and consultations with the community. 21. The quality of the sediment materials in the selected drains and canals has been extensively tested over time. The results of the tests are consistent in so far as they all confirmed that the sediment material is non-hazardous waste (per the standards stipulated in GoI Regulations on hazardous material and hazardous waste management9). Hence, hazardous material (referred to as B3 waste in the GoI Regulations) is not expected to be found during implementation. Nevertheless, to ensure that no hazardous material from JUFMP are disposed of in the Ancol CDF10, a strict regime has been developed and adopted requiring pre-testing of sediment in sections immediately prior to dredging. In the highly unlikely event that the pre-dredge testing reveals the presence of B3 waste and material, the location will be marked off. Subject to the approval of the Minister of Environment (as required by Indonesian

8 Jakarta is officially designated a province with special status as the capital of Indonesia i.e., DKI Jakarta ( or ‘Special Capital City District of

Jakarta’). Administratively, DKI Jakarta is divided into five municipalities (i.e, North Jakarta, South Jakarta, West Jakarta, East Jakarta and Central Jakarta municipalities) and one regency (i.e., Kepulauan Seribu, a group of small islands located on the Java Sea). 9 Government Regulations no. 85/1999 on Hazardous and Toxic Waste Management. 10

This requirement is also a stipulation of the Ancol CDF AMDAL.

8

regulations) this material is expected to be dredged and transported only to the PPLi secure landfill facility. 22. For JUFMP works, the primary responsibility for implementing the environmental measures detailed in the AMDALs and the JUFMP Phase 1 Supplementary Report lies with the civil works and dredging contractors. The requirements are embedded as contractual obligations of the contractors. The project Supervision Consultant (SC) will be responsible for the day-to-day supervision of the contractors (including adherence to required environmental measures). The SC will in turn report directly to the PMU. The PMU will hold both the SC and the contractors accountable for ensuring compliance with the required environmental measures. The Terms of Reference of the SC requires that the consultant team includes environmental expertise with the capacity in supervising activities that addresses environmental impacts. Also, given that the selected drains and canals lie in the province of Jakarta and run across sub-provincial jurisdictional city boundaries, the local environmental agencies (the BPLHDs) at both the Provincial level (i.e. the office that reviewed and approved all the AMDALs) and the municipal level BPHLD (i.e. Walikota level) will also be undertaking their mandated routine direct monitoring of works. The World Bank will carry out regular supervision of the project implementation, primarily through the PMU. The PMU will also retain a Panel of Experts11, who will monitor and evaluate the preparation and implementation of the project safeguards instruments (including the EMPs, RPF, RPs, and the grievance redress system) and advise the PMU on any actions to be taken to improve compliance. Environmental Impact Management for Ancol CDF Works, and the Bantar Gebang and PPLi Operations 23. For Ancol CDF works, the AMDAL requirements have been incorporated by PT. PJA into the contracts of the Ancol CDF contractors. Hydrodynamic simulations done as part of the AMDAL process for Ancol CDF indicated that the construction of the facility will likely lead to only slight changes to the pattern of longshore current around the facility location. To mitigate against the other identified impacts, the AMDAL for Ancol CDF requires that that the deposited material in the reclaimed area be confined on all sides by the construction of an outside wall along the entire length of the perimeter of the reclamation concession area (approx 119 ha). The perimeter walls are designed so as to retain only the solids from the fill material (which will include about 3.4 million m3 of dredged material from the JUFMP project) while allowing the discharge of cleaner/filtered water from the confined area via weir. The design of the facility has been reviewed and assessed as satisfactory during project implementation. This notwithstanding, to ensure that JUFMP dredge material is not disposed at Ancol CDF before the facility is ready, the World Bank’s ‘no objection’ to any given JUFMP dredging contract will only be given once the World Bank is satisfied with the adequacy of the confined facility and has received satisfactory evidence of PT. PJA‘s compliance with the requirements of the AMDAL for Ancol CDF. The AMDAL for Ancol CDF also requires transport vehicles to be washed down after unloading the dredge material in the Ancol CDF site in order to further prevent unacceptable transfer of dredge material onto the local roads. The Ancol CDF AMDAL process has also reviewed the potential off-site impact at the source locations and transport route of sand (8.6 million m3) and laterite (400,000 m3) required in addition to JUFMP dredge material for the construction of the CDF. The AMDAL stipulates the specific source location of the sand – a marine source in the Banten area off the west coast of West Java – which has been reviewed to already possess

11

The specialists are expected to comprise an environmental expert, an engineer experienced in dredging and dredge disposal, and an urban resettlement expert.

9

the approved environmental permit consistent with Indonesian laws and regulations on mining and quarry. The AMDAL also requires the laterite (required at the final stages of the reclamation process) be sources approved by the DKI BPLHD (Provincial Level). 24. For Ancol CDF works, the immediate responsibility for implementing the environmental measures detailed in the Ancol CDF AMDAL lies with PT. PJA’s contractors. The requirements are embedded as contractual obligations of the contractors. PT. PJA through its Property Development Unit is supervising all aspects (including environment) of the contracts. Additionally, PT. PJA has recruited a consulting firm that carries out quarterly compliance monitoring of the ongoing construction works. PT. PJA, in compliance with the AMDAL requirements, is preparing and submitting to the DKI BPLHD quarterly implementation reports of the RKL and RPL. These reports contain measures and actions taken by PT. PJA to implement the measures contained in their approved RKL and RPL. These reports will also include the implementation of the additional measures contained in the Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report. 25. The primary responsibility for supervision and oversight monitoring of the works at the Ancol CDF will be with the BPLHD agencies at the Provincial and Municipal Levels. PT. PJA has also agreed for the JUFMP project Supervision Consultant (SC) to carry out supervision and oversight monitoring of the Ancol CDF works (including activities at off-site locations) during the life of the JUFMP project. BPLHD has already started monitoring the ongoing construction works at Ancol CDF and has recorded and reported its findings and issued its instructions to PT. PJA to undertake any required corrective measures. On their November 2010 site inspection, the DKI BPLHD invited the World Bank to undertake a joint monitoring inspection of the works and the World Bank participated in the process with the DKI BPLHD. The provincial BPLHD has indicated that it will continue to invite the World Bank to its routine monitoring inspections of the works at the Ancol CDF. PT. PJA’s quarterly implementation reports of the RKL and RPL will also be shared with the World Bank. The World Bank has appraised the technical and financial capacity of the provincial BPLHD to satisfactorily undertake their mandated monitoring responsibility. While there is no direct legal agreement between the World Bank and PT. PJA, the JUFMP legal agreements will include requirements for DKI Jakarta to exercise its rights (as a shareholder of PT. PJA) to cause PT. PJA to implement the requirements (including mitigation measures) of the AMDAL for Ancol CDF and the Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report. 26. The primary responsibility for supervision and oversight monitoring of the ongoing operations of the existing Bantar Gebang and PPLi facilities lies with the respective city and provincial BPLHD. The project supervision consultant (SC) will also supervise and carry out oversight monitoring of project related activities at Bantar Gebang and PPLi. Social Impact Management 27. The project seeks to avoid or minimized (if avoidance is not possible) both resettlement and non-resettlement related social impacts. This is done through limiting works to priority sections, careful selection of dredging approaches and equipment technology, and detailed engineering designs (DEDs) geared towards minimizing impact. As explained in Section 1.5, significant efforts over the project preparation period have reduced the expected number of project affected structures from an initial estimate of over 2,513 to the current 1,109 structures. These efforts will continue during project

10

implementation. The sequencing of works will also allow sufficient time to prepare, consult and implement RPs, as well as provide for the establishment of a grievance redress system and the appointment of a panel of experts ahead of major resettlement implementation.

28. A Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) has been developed by DKI Jakarta that addresses the entitlements of Project Affected Persons (PAPs), the rationale for compensation for lost assets at replacement cost, specific measures to address vulnerable groups, and assistance for livelihood restoration. The RPF will guide the preparation of Resettlement Plans (RPs) in project sites where involuntary resettlements are required (including project linked sites). Given a checkered history of evictions practices in Jakarta, the RPF with key principle for equitable social safeguards practices represents a transformatory progress in DKI Jakarta’s approach to handling involuntary resettlement. However, DKI Jakarta has strong concerns that its policies should not inadvertently reward illegal behavior but simultaneously fail to protect vulnerable people who are at risk of losing their home and livelihoods. For this reason, the RPF makes a distinction between squatter landlords and encroachers and other PAPs12. The RPF clarifies that assistance provided to squatter landlords and encroachers would be determined in the RP on a case by case negotiated and mutually agreed basis, without any predetermined limiting criteria. This serves to highlight the aim to protect public interests and the spirit of the involuntary resettlement policy to protect vulnerable people at risk of losing their homes or livelihoods, but balances it with conformance to the World Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement policy by not excluding any particular category of affected people from assistance and/or compensation.

29. All project sites will be screened for PAPs and an RP prepared in accordance with the RPF where PAPs cannot be avoided. The RPs will identify affected people and lay out the framework for compensating and restoring the livelihoods of entitled households with a clear and agreed timeline between the PAPs and DKI Jakarta. All RPs will be reviewed by the World Bank. The RP will require the World Bank’s ‘no objection’, be publicly disclosed and implemented (except any elements related to post-resettlement activities) prior to any works commencing at the associated site. DKI Jakarta will establish a project Grievance Redress System (GRS) that will function, amongst others, to receive and address / resolve resettlement-related complaints.

30. The implementation of the resettlement-related activities is the responsibility of the DKI Jakarta, particularly its Environmental and Social Working Group (ESWG), Project Management and Quality Assurance Working Group, and the Monitoring and Reporting Working Group. At the operational level, particularly in preparing and implementing the RPs, the ESWG will be teamed up with the staff of the relevant municipalities (resettlement team). The Supervision Consultant (SC) will monitor, supervise and advice the ESWG in preparing and implementing the RPs. Budgets for preparing and implementing the RPs (except for the consultant) will be borne by DKI Jakarta. This would include operational costs for the ESWG and the resettlement team, compensation for assets, resettlement assistance and rehabilitation supports. This SC will also be responsible to ensure that DKI Jakarta implement the RPs consistently and in line with the RPF, and to support DKI Jakarta in establishing and managing the project Grievance Redress System (GRS). The SC will monitor project linked sites and areas adjacent to project sites and report any relevant activities - especially those that could involve resettlement. 12

Encroachers are property owners who have extended their property beyond its legal limits into adjacent state or government land, but who will not necessarily have their source of livelihoods adversely affected nor have to relocate as a result of the repossession of the state or government land, and squatter landlords are those have built structures on state or government land for the expressed purpose of profiting from rents, but who may not rely on these rents to sustain a reasonable livelihood.

11

31. The transformatory nature of the project approach to handling resettlement as embodied in the RPF also poses significant implementation challenges. While DKI Jakarta has committed to the RPF and associated RPs, their implementation (especially in the initial period) will inevitably have to contend with inconsistent and previously established practices, procedures, and regulations. In order to minimize this potential implementation bottleneck, DKI Jakarta is currently engaged in an intensive consultation and dissemination exercise specifically with the four relevant Jakarta municipalities who will carry out the day-to-day implementation of the RPF and RPs. These efforts are aimed to strengthening the understanding and support from these municipalities towards the completion and implementation of the RPF and RPs.

1.7 Consultations 32. The consultative process for the project has been widespread over the period of project preparation (mainly 2009 – 2011) and has occurred at multiple levels depending on the target stakeholders and issues being discussed. During project preparation, most of the consultations were related to the AMDAL process13 (for both JUFMP and Ancol CDF), and the preparation of the RPF and preliminary RPs. Broader consultations between DKI Jakarta, government agencies, academia, civil society, and other stakeholders on issues ranging from technical, engineering, environment, social, planning and implementation arrangements have also been conducted and are expected to continue. During project implementation, interactions with the local communities at and near the project sites are mandated with a minimum number of contract required periodic meetings with the community included in the works contracts. The project site offices (POSKOs) to be maintained as each project site will amongst others serve as public information centers . These site offices will also serve as an easily accessible venue to receive feedbacks (including complaints) about the project from the local community as well as to carry out consultation as required. 33. The various public consultations carried out during the project preparation covered issues related to the project objectives and scope / components, institutional and implementation arrangements, project timetables, environmental impacts and mitigation plans, social impacts (including resettlement), other community concerns, and plans for ongoing community consultations and involvement. Details of the AMDAL related consultations are recorded in each approved AMDAL. In addition to AMDAL mandated consultations, a series of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were also carried out covering all kelurahans (‘urban village’ administrative areas within the municipalities) in which the project sites are located. The purposes of the FGDs were to (i) update communities on the status of the project, and (ii) obtain community feedback and aspirations. Participants comprised representatives from the kelurahan offices, Board of Trustees of the kelurahans, Community Guidance Officers (Babinsa), Head of the Family Welfare Program (PKK), community leaders, heads of community neighborhoods (RT and RW), and representatives of the communities of the project sites. Overall, there was broad support for the project from the potentially affected people and their communities given the project aim to alleviate seasonal flooding which causes them tremendous hardship and significant economic losses. But communities also expressed various concerns, mainly related to potential construction related impacts and

13

Public consultations (at least two rounds) of the project proposal are mandatory in the AMDAL process, and these form key pre-requisites for compliance with both Indonesian and World Bank requirements.

12

nuisance (e.g., noise, odor, traffic congestions, spillages, etc.), as well as potential involuntary resettlement impacts. 34. The community consultations, in particular the FGDs, were instrumental to help DKI Jakarta prepare the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). A series of workshops and dialogues were also carried out to inform the preparation of the RPF. In particular, two internal consultations and an external consultation were carried out to disseminate and obtain support and feedback from government and other stakeholders for the draft RPF. The internal consultations involved participants from DKI Jakarta province level to the lowest level (representatives of the mayors from all four DKI municipalities, relevant DKI agencies and bureaus, and sub-local governments down to the level of Kecamatan / Kelurahan). The external consultations were attended by DKI Jakarta representatives as well as NGOs, university representative and technical experts. The internal consultations are now being followed up with intensive consultation and dissemination exercise specifically with the four relevant Jakarta municipalities who will carry out the day-to-day implementation of the RPF and RPs. 35. DKI Jakarta has also carried out consultations during the preparation of initial draft RPs for the Phase 2 sites which have been identified to have PAPs14. These initial socialization activities were done with the local levels of government / community leaders (mainly kelurahan, RT / RW) with this in turn being done either by group meetings at the kelurahan offices or by multiple small meetings moving from RT / RW to RT / RW. More intensive consultations with PAPs are planned after cut-off dates are announced, among others to confirm the lists of the PAPs and the affected assets, to discuss and agree on compensation and assistance options, dismantling and relocation schedules, etc., as part of the RP preparation. Consultations with the PAPs are expected to be done either in groups or plenary, depending on the specific situation in each site.

1.8 Project Communication 36. During the project preparation period, the consultation processes related to the environmental and social safeguards of the project (to date, over a three year period of 2009-2011) have been one of the key avenues for information dissemination of the details of the project to the public and other stakeholders. Consultations have included the dissemination of the latest project design, scope and status, and have broadly garnered positive support for the project and its floods mitigation aims. DKI Jakarta has also publicly positioned JUFMP as a key piece of its near term floods mitigation strategy. Given the overwhelming effect of recent and worsening flood incidences on city life, the local media has generally picked up these dissemination efforts. Consequently, public awareness of the JUFMP project (both at the community level as well as the city level) has increased over the period of project preparation. Media monitoring and audits carried out for the period of January 2010 to January 2011 pointed to sustained and increasing media exposure of the project15, mainly through online news portals, community blogs and the print media. The tone of media discussions on floods mitigation efforts have also evolved towards the positive over the audit period. The periodic Joint Steering Committee meetings have been instrumental in providing the platform for inter-agency communications and information sharing of the latest developments and status of the project. Within DKI Jakarta, the opportunity of the consultation processes

14 Phase 1 sites do not involve involuntary resettlement, while some Phase 2 sites will involve involuntary resettlement. 15

Averaging over 10 media articles per month over the period.

13

related to the social safeguards of the project has been utilized to communicate details of the project to the lowest level of local government.

37. During project implementation, communication through the platform of environmental, social and contractors’ consultations will continue. At the community level, the public information center (located in the POSKO) at each JUFMP project site will play a critical role, where project information (including the latest implementation status) will be available and easily accessible to the public, in particular communities within or close to project sites. The Joint Steering Committee meetings are expected to continue. DKI Jakarta has also assigned its Bureau for Infrastructure Development (Biro Prasarkot) with the specific task of coordinating and communicating the project across the relevant DKI Jakarta and other government agencies. Apart from the project communications efforts of the Government and implementing agencies, the World Bank is preparing a project website on which the latest project information can be made available during implementation.

1.9 Reputational Risks 38. The JUFMP project preparation has undergone a fairly comprehensive and exhaustive environmental and social assessment process. This notwithstanding, there are three key areas of activities that are not directly in the responsibility of the project implementation entities that may pose a risk to the reputation of the JUFMP and/or the World Bank during the implementation. The first relates to non-project activities that may occur in or close to project sites. The second concerns the activities within the Ancol CDF. The third concerns the long term reclamation activities in north Jakarta. Various measures will be undertaken during implementation to mitigate, reduce or otherwise manage these risks to acceptable levels. It should be noted that these measures will not completely remove these risks. 39. Given the highly dense urban setting, the occurrence of projects and other activities unrelated to the JUFMP project within or in close proximity to some JUFMP sites is likely unavoidable. These activities may have different objectives, standards and processes, but may be wrongly associated to JUFMP in the minds of the public and other stakeholders. This may lead to wrong expectations of the public on these activities, or the wrong attribution of any poor environmental and social management measures to the JUFMP project. Various actions will be undertaken to mitigate and reduce these risks, including the posting of project signage, temporary fencing where feasible, and the maintenance of a public information center (located in the POSKO) at each project site to disseminate project information and to serve as an immediate venue for the clarification of any misunderstanding that may arise. The Supervision Consultant (SC) will also monitor areas adjacent to JUFMP sites (and project linked sites) as a means to provide advance notice to the PIU, PMU and the World Bank to allow for coordination and actions to prevent any communications misunderstanding and inadvertent wrong associations to JUFMP.

40. While JUFMP will contribute only some of the fill material for Ancol CDF, the reclamation at Ancol CDF itself is a separate project which is outside the responsibility of JUFMP project implementing agencies. Nevertheless, the public and other stakeholders may directly associate any problems (e.g., environmental, social, financial, commercial, etc.) that may arise at Ancol CDF with JUFMP. Given the JUFMP interests in the proper and successful implementation of the Ancol CDF activities, arrangements have been made for the Supervision Consultant (SC) to have access to Ancol CDF for the purposes of monitoring and supervision (including of the source locations for the sand and laterite fill material).

14

During project implementation, the World Bank will also work with BPLHD to conduct joint supervision and site inspections of the Ancol CDF. These monitoring and supervision activities will allow for actions to be formulated and taken to address any implementation shortcomings, and is expected to reduce the potential reputational risk to the JUFMP and/or the World Bank. The project design will include provisions to limit the World Bank’s liability with respect to activities at Ancol CDF. 41. The Ancol CDF reclamation activity itself is a specific and relatively small reclamation set within a larger and ongoing long term reclamation process in the Ancol area of north Jakarta that started in the early 1960’s. While the JUFMP project is clearly unrelated to reclamation activities other than Ancol CDF specifically, the possibility exists that it may still be wrongly associated by the public and other stakeholders as being responsible over other reclamation projects e.g., those that have occurred in the past or potentially may occur in the future . The project documents and information dissemination efforts will aim to emphasize and make clear that the extent of JUFMP’s linkage in this regard is confined to the Ancol CDF.

2 Project Description

2.1 Project Development Objective 42. The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to contribute to the improvement of the operations and maintenance of a priority part of the flood management system in Jakarta. The PDO will be achieved through:

Dredging sections of selected key floodways, canals and retention basins to improve their flow capacities, and disposing the dredge material in proper facilities;

Rehabilitating and constructing embankment in sections of, and repairing or replacing mechanical equipment in, the same selected key floodways, canals and retention basins to sustain and improve their operations;

Establishing institutional coordination between the three responsible agencies to encourage coordinated development, and operations and maintenance (O&M) of Jakarta's flood management system, and

Strengthening the capability of the responsible agencies to improve the operations, maintenance and management of Jakarta's flood management system.

 

2.2 Summary of Project Component 43. The Project consists of two components which are summarized as followed: Component 1. Dredging and rehabilitation of selected key floodways, canals and retention basins. This component will support the dredging and rehabilitation of 11 floodways / canals and four retention basins which have been identified as priority sections of the Jakarta flood management system in need of urgent rehabilitation and improvement in flow capacities. The 11 floodways / canals are estimated to have a total length of 67.5 km, while the four retention basins estimated to cover a total area of 65.1 hectares (see

summary details in Table 2-1 below). About 42.2 km of embankments are expected to be rehabilitated

15

or constructed within these floodways, canals and retention basins. Where necessary, mechanical equipment (pumps, gates, etc) will be replaced or repaired. Component 2. Technical assistance for project management, social safeguards, and capacity building. This component will support contracts management, engineering design reviews, construction supervision engineers for the dredging and rehabilitation works and technical assistance. Technical assistance includes support to improve institutional coordination for operations and maintenance of Jakarta’s flood management system as well as the establishment of a Floods Management Information System (FMIS). Provision has been made for the cost of implementing required Resettlement Action Plans, as well as the establishment and operations of a project Grievance Redress System and a Panel of Experts.

 2.3 Project Sites 44. Fifteen priority floodways, canals and retention basins were identified to be included in the scope of the project works (see Table 2-1 for detailed descriptions and Project Map in Annex 1 for locations). These were identified by the Government as in priority need of rehabilitation and improvement in flow capacities.

Table 2-1 Description of Floodways, Canals and Retention Basins under Project

Contract Works

Package

Location Description of Drains (Estimated) Length (m) Width (m) Area (m2 or

ha.)

1 (DKI)

Ciliwung-Gunung Sahari Drain 5,100 21.50 ~ 45.90 171,870 m2 Waduk Melati (Kali Gresik & Cideng Hulu) (2,004) (1,260) 4.90 ha.

2a (DGWR)

Cengkareng Floodway (including sea side) 7,840 (540) 38.00 ~ 87.00 490,000 m2

2b (DGWR)

Lower Sunter Floodway Note 1 9,980 20.20 ~ 47.40 338,320 m2

3 (DGCK)

Cideng Thamrin Drain (Round Road drain) 3,840 (1,960) 10.00 ~ 19.00 55,680 m2

4 (DKI)

Sentiong-Sunter Drain (including Ancol Canal) 5,950 (400) 16.10 ~ 31.20 161,240 m2 Waduk Sunter Utara (Outlet drain) (570) 33.00 ha. Waduk Sunter Selatan 19.20 ha. Waduk Sunter Timur III 8.00 ha.

5 (DGCK)

Tanjungan Drain 600 9.20 ~ 26.00 10,560 m2 Lower Angke Drain 4,050 31.00 ~ 51.00 166,050 m2

6 (DGWR)

West Banjir Canal (sea side) 3,060 (590) 33.00 ~ 141.00 266,220 m2 Upper Sunter Floodway Note 1 5,150 15.00 ~ 36.00 131,320 m2

7 (DKI)

Grogol – Sekretaris Drain 2,970 21.00 ~ 51.00 106,920 m2 Pakin – Kali Besar – Jelakeng Drain 4,910 13.00 ~ 31.00 108,020 m2 Krukut Cideng Drain Note 2 3,250 15.00 ~ 29.00 71,500 m2 Krukut Lama Drain Note 2 3,490 7.00 ~ 29.00 62,820 m2

67,514 2,140,520 m2 65 ha.

Note 1 For contracting purposes, the Sunter Floodways has been divided into two sub-packages – Upper Sunter Floodway and Lower Sunter Floodway. Note 2 For contracting purposes, the Krukut Drain has been divided into two sub-packages – Krukut Cideng Drain and Krukut Lama Drain

16

45. Linked sites. Ten sites were identified as project linked sites16. These linked sites are:

K. Item, Kalibaru and Sunter Kemayoran (linked to the Sentiong Sunter Drain); Ancol Kp. Bandan and Ancol Long Storage (linked to the Ciliwung-Gunung Sahari Floodway); Canal along JL Kayu Putih Timur (linked to the Upper Sunter River Drain); Ciliwung Kota, the canal along Jl Tubagus Angke, PHB Bandengan Utara; and Waduk Pluit (linked to the Pakin Drain– K. Besar Drain– Jelakeng Floodway).

46. The above-mentioned ten linked sites were identified as hydraulically and directly connected with the canals/waduks under JUFMP. DKI Jakarta currently has no specific plans for rehabilitation works at these linked sites. However, DKI Jakarta will apply the requirements of OP 4.12 in the event that linked activities are carried out in these sites.

2.4 Sequencing of Works 47. The construction works funded by the project are proposed to be carried out in two sequenced phases (see Table 2-2). A sequenced implementation design has been adopted as a key implementation risk management mechanism for the project. Phase 1 works (proposed 4 sites / 3 works contracts) are expected to commence during the first year of the project. Phase 2 works (proposed 11 sites / 5 contracts) are expected to follow subsequently. This sequencing will avoid the PMU/PIUs and their supervision consultant from being overburdened during the first year when detailed actual implementation processes, procedures and routines are established and operationalized. The sequencing will also allow time for DKI Jakarta to complete the necessary resettlement instruments and arrangements for Phase 2 sites17, including the establishment of a grievance redress system and the appointment of a panel of experts.

Table 2-2 Sequencing of Project Construction Works Sequencing Contract Package and Implementation Responsibility

Phase 1 1 (DKI - Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta) 2a (DGWR - Directorate General of Water Resource) 2b (DGWR)

Phase 2 3 (DGCK – Directorate General of Human Settlement) 4 (DKI) 5 (DGCK) 6 (DGWR) 7 (DKI)

2.5 Volume of Works 48. Surveys of the selected key floodways, canals and retention basins carried out during project preparation estimated the total volume of material to be dredged to be about 3.4 million m3 (of which about 95,000 m3 are estimated to be solid waste). About 42.2 km of embankments are expected to be rehabilitated or constructed within these floodways, canals and retention basins. Details are provided in Table 2-3. 16 Per OP 4.12, the criteria for identifying linked sites are: (1) directly and significantly related to JUFMP; (2) necessary to achieve JUFMP objectives; and (3) contemporaneous to JUFMP. Study on defining the linked sites was done during the preparation of the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and linked sites were mainly defined as hydraulically linked in the context of the first linkage criteria as specified in OP 4.12, but do not fulfill all the three criteria altogether. 17 Phase 1 sites do not involve involuntary resettlement.

17

 

Table 2-3 Description of Floodways, Canals and Retention Basins under the Project Package Location Dredging Estimates Embankment

Works (m) Dredging Depth (m)

Volume Dredge Material (m3)

Volume of Solid

Waste (m3)

1 (DKI)

Ciliwung-Gunung Sahari Drain 1.90 ~ 2.70 156,970 3,140 4,832 Waduk Melati (Kali Gresik & Cideng Hulu)

2.20 ~ 3.10 99,490 1,250 1,905

2a (DGWR)

Cengkareng Floodway (including sea side)

1.50 ~ 3.50 1,225,500 22,510 4,600

2b (DGWR)

Lower Sunter Floodway Note 1 1.60 ~ 2.30 399,250 19,970 1,800

3 (DGCK)

Cideng Thamrin Drain (Round Road drain)

0.60 ~ 2.30 33,230 810 2,570

4 (DKI)

Sentiong-Sunter Drain (including Ancol Canal)

0.50 ~ 2.10 140,150 7,010 3,865

Waduk Sunter Utara (Outlet drain)

1.30 ~ 2.10 413,400 10,340 5,000

Waduk Sunter Selatan 1.00 ~ 2.10 48,200 1,210 3,057 Waduk Sunter Timur III 0.70 ~ 3.30 51,000 1,280 305

5 (DGCK)

Tanjungan Drain 1.10 ~ 1.90 11,500 290 1,092 Lower Angke Drain 2.00 ~ 3.60 248,000 6,200 821

6 (DGWR)

West Banjir Canal (sea side) 1.70 ~ 2.50 350,080 8,760 1,190 Upper Sunter Floodway Note 1 1.80 ~ 3.40 82,000 4,100 1,850

7 (DKI)

Grogol – Sekretaris Drain 0.70 ~ 2.30 40,500 1,020 2,391 Pakin – Kali Besar – Jelakeng Drain

0.60 ~ 1.60 100,000 5,000 2,882

Krukut Cideng Drain Note 2 0.70 ~ 0.80 28,700 1,440 1,658 Krukut Lama Drain Note 2 0.50 ~ 0.80 14,900 750 2,400

3,441,870 95,080 42,218 Note 1 For contracting purposes, the Sunter Floodways has been divided into two sub-packages – Upper Sunter Floodway

and Lower Sunter Floodway. Note 2 For contracting purposes, the Krukut Drain has been divided into two sub-packages – Krukut Cideng Drain and

Krukut Lama Drain

2.6 Disposal Sites 49. The disposal sites are not financed by the project, however, they are considered an integral part of the project. The approximately 3.4 million m3 of sediment material18 and the approximately 95,000 m3 of solid waste that will be removed from the floodways, canals and retention basins that are being dredged by this project will be disposed of in the following manner (see Figure 2-1 for an illustration of the disposal arrangements).

Non Hazardous Sediment Material – will be transported and disposed of at the Ancol Sea Reclamation Works, known as the Ancol CDF.

Hazardous Sediment Material (if any are found) – will either be left in place (i.e. in-situ) or dredged, transported and disposed of at the PPLi Hazardous Waste facility in Bogor, West Java.

Solid Waste – will be transported and disposed of at City of Jakarta’s landfill in Bekasi, West Java, known as the Bantar Gebang Landfill.

18 All sections of the project floodways, canals and retention basins will be tested for the presence of hazardous material (known as B3 material) prior to dredging.

18

Figure 2-1 Summary of the Disposal Arrangements

2.6.1 Ancol confined disposal facility (CDF)

50. Non-hazardous dredge material will be disposed of at the Ancol Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) and utilized as material for land reclamation purposes. The Ancol CDF is a specific reclamation area set within a larger and ongoing long term reclamation effort in the Ancol area of north Jakarta that started in the early 1960’s. The JUFMP does not finance nor is it related to the Ancol reclamation effort19. Instead, the Project is working cooperatively and in a mutually beneficial manner with the developer of the Ancol CDF (i.e., PT. PJA) to demonstrate safe disposal and utilization of dredge material.

2.6.2 Bantar Gebang landfill facility

51. The Bantar Gebang Landfill facility which has been operating since 1989 is the largest landfill in Indonesia, in terms of volume of solid waste received and disposed of. It is located just outside the city limits of Jakarta, in the City of Bekasi and is owned by the provincial Government of DKI Jakarta. It is managed by the Sanitary Agency of the DKI Jakarta (Dinas Kebersihan) through a private operator.

19 In relative terms, the project dredge material will contribute only a very small percentage of the total overall Ancol reclamation.

Construct  and Operate  

Operate 

(outsourced) 

Operate

Dispose Hazardous 

Material (if any) 

Dispose Solid

 Waste 

Material 

Dispose Non‐

hazardous 

Material 

Supervise (through 

provincial 

environmental agency 

Supervise (through 

provincial 

environmental agency 

Supervise (through 

provincial 

environmental agency

 

 

DKI 

Sanitary Agency  

Project Supervision Consultancy 

ALL Project Works Contracts

7 contracts / 15 sites 

Ancol Conf ined 

Disposal Facility 

Bantar  Gebang  

Landf ill Facility

PT. Pembangunan Jaya 

Ancol (PT. PJA) 

PPLi Secure Landfill 

Facility 

Prasadha Pamunah Limbah 

Industri (PPLi) 

Jakarta  Provincial 

Environmental Agency 

West Java Provincial 

Environmental Agency 

19

2.6.3 PPLi hazardous waste landfill

52. Extensive testing of the sediment in the project floodways, canals and retention basins as part of the Environmental Assessment of this project, and in surrounding drainage systems as well, have not shown the presence of any hazardous dredged material. In the unlikely event that any hazardous dredged material is found20, an existing hazardous waste landfill, known as the PPLi secure landfill, located in Bogor, West Java, has been identified to serve as the disposal site for these hazardous dredged materials. PPLi landfill is a private entity licensed to provide disposal and treatment services for hazardous waste and has been operating since 1994.  

3 Environmental and Social Legal Requirements and Project Institutional and Implementation Arrangements

3.1 Government of Indonesia Environmental Impact Assessment 53. Indonesia has a plethora of national and sub-national environmental laws and regulations that govern the environmental planning process for works of this kind. The overarching regulation for the AMDAL process21 in Indonesia for any activity or project with potential significant environmental impacts is the Environmental Management Act No 23/1997, and specifically Article 15 on the environmental impact assessment requirements. A new environmental management and protection law, Act No. 32 of 2009, was issued on 2009 and substitutes Act No. 23/1997. Government Regulation (PP) No: 27/1999 provides detailed guidelines of the AMDAL system. Furthermore, the Ministry of Environment (MoE) Decree No. 11/2006 lists specific activities that require AMDAL and the MoE Decree No.8/2006 provides guidelines for AMDAL preparation.

54. With regard to the dredging work, the MoE Decree No. 11/2006 specifies that any maintenance dredging activity in the metropolitan city will require an AMDAL if the dredge volume exceeds 500,000 m3. This requirement is also in line with the regional law (i.e. Governor of Jakarta Decree No 2863/2001 on type and list of specific business and activities in Jakarta that require AMDAL), which states that any dredging with volume more than 50,000 m3 must have an AMDAL approved by the provincial level of environmental agency (i.e. BPLHD) of DKI Jakarta22.

55. Other key relevant national and regional legislations considered when preparing the AMDAL are:

MoE Decree No. 2/2000: Guidance on the evaluation of the AMDAL document. MoE Decree No.40/2000: Guidance on the working procedure of the AMDAL commission. MoE Decree No.42/2000: Guidance on the formation of evaluation team and technical team

members for the AMDAL. Head of Bapedal (Environmental Impact Management Agency) Decree No. 8/2000: Guidance on

public participation and information disclosure during the AMDAL.

20 During project implementation, sediments in each work site section will be tested again before dredging works is authorized – see Chapter 3. 21 Under the Indonesian System – an ANDAL is synonymous to the Environmental Impacts Assessment in the World Bank’s Environmental Policy OP 4.01, RKL is the Environment Management Plan and RPL is the Environment Monitoring Plan. The ANDAL, RKL and RPL are collectively known as the AMDAL. 22 The regional law being stricter than the national MoE Decree No. 11/2006.

20

Governor of Jakarta Decree No 76/2001: Operative guidance on public involvement and information disclosure during the AMDAL.

56. Figure 3-1 presents the AMDAL process. This is a fairly robust process which involves public consultation and solicitation of feedbacks from the public and technical experts, and several levels of review prior to the final environmental clearance23.

Figure 3-1 AMDAL Process

Review of ANDAL, RKL/RPLDocument

Screening and Initial Meetingwith Government

Decision on EnvironmentalClearance

Determination of ANDAL StudyScope

Information Disclosure

Solicitation ofComments/Information

ANDAL StudyImplementation

Preparation of ANDAL, RKL/RPL Documents (by

Proponent)

SocioeconomicSurvey

Information Disclosure

Information Disclosure

Review or Solicitationof Comments/Information

Scoping

ANDALStudy

ANDALReview

AMDALClearance

STEPSAMDAL

PROCESS

PUBLICINVOLVEMENT

PROCESS

RESPONSIBLEPARTIES

Proponent

EnvironmentalAgency

3.2 Government of Indonesia Land Acquisition 57. The Government of Indonesia has several main laws and regulations pertaining to land rights and acquisition for development activities in the public interests. The major important law that assures and

23 The ANDAL review in Figure 3-1 is conducted by an AMDAL Commission formed by BPLHD. The AMDAL Commission consists of representatives from BPLHD (2-3 persons), university experts (or known as Technical Team, 5-7 persons from different areas expertise), representatives from sub-district (Kecamatan) and neighborhood (Kelurahan), and representatives from NGOs.

21

regulates land rights is the Basic Agrarian Law No. 5 of 1960. Other relevant national regulations pertaining to land and land acquisition are:

Law No. 20 of 1961 on the Revocation of Land Rights; Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 on Land Registration; Presidential Regulation No. 36 of 2005 on Land Provision for Development Activities in the

Public Interest; Presidential Regulation No. 65 of 2006, which revises the Presidential Regulation No. 36/2005;

and, Implementation Guidelines No. 3 of 2007 for Presidential Regulations No. 36/2005 and No. 65

of 2006, issued by the National Land Agency. Another regulation relevant to the project is Law No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources, which intends to protect water resources to maintain their functions. 58. Presidential Regulation No. 36/2005 and No. 65/2007 regulate the procedures and processes of land acquisition (and assets attached to the land) for development activities that are in the public interests. These include development activities under the responsibility of the local government, such as roads/toll roads/railways/sanitation/water distribution; retention basins/dams; ports/airports/train station/terminals; public health facility; telecommunication and post; sport facilities; government buildings; police and security facility; solid wastes disposal facility; protection of natural habitat; and power generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. These regulations also stipulate the entitlements and procedures and criteria for compensation, appraisal for compensation, and consultations and negotiations, as well as complaints and dispute settlements and land revocation. These regulations categorize the procedures and process for land acquisition for more than 1 hectare, and for less than one hectare. The Implementation Guideline No. 3 of 2007 for Presidential Regulations No. 36/2005 and No. 65 of 2006, outlines in more detail the procedures, processes and criteria for land acquisition as stipulated in the two Presidential Regulations. The three mentioned regulations do not explicitly regulate assistance and do not cover income restoration. They stipulate that the compensation level for land should be made based on the assessment of an independent land appraisal team formed in accordance with the regulations. 59. DKI Jakarta also has regulations that regulate compensation of assets, i.e., Implementation Guidelines for the Assessment of Compensation for Buildings, which are issued regularly by the DKI Jakarta Agency for Housing and Government Buildings. This regulation is used as a basis for determining compensation levels for assets (buildings and ancillary assets attached to the buildings). In addition, DKI Jakarta has a Local Regulation No. 8 of 2007 pertaining to Public Order, which has been used as a basis for repossessing public land that have been used without permits from DKI Jakarta government or other land/public space that have been used for the purposes that are not in line with DKI Jakarta’s land use plans.

3.3 The World Bank’s Triggered Environmental Safeguards Policies and Compliance Requirements.

60. The project is expected to yield positive environmental outcomes for the following reasons: (i) alleviating seasonal flooding in the densely populated area of Jakarta will reduce the environmental impact and public health issues caused by overflowing and stagnant flood waters, (ii) removal of solid

22

waste and sediments from the selected drains would also prevent these materials from being flushed uncontrolled into the estuary and bay area and out into the open sea, and (iii) over the longer term the flood information management system that is being introduced by the project would provide the Government of DKI Jakarta, (i.e. DKI Jakarta) with the information based planning tool they need to sustainably manage the network well beyond the life of the project to continue to reduce the incidence of flooding in the area. 61. Notwithstanding, significant negative environmental impacts are likely from the dredging and embankment works and the significant quantities of sediment material and solid waste that would be generated and how these dredged materials would be handled, temporarily stored, stockpiled, sorted, transported and finally disposed in urban areas that are densely populated and surrounded by surface and sea water would be managed. These impacts include potentially significant traffic disruption, reduction in air quality due to dust and foul odor emissions, increased noise levels, reduction in surface water and sea water quality, etc. (see Chapter 5 for a more detailed description of significant adverse environmental impacts from the project). 62. The project will potentially have significant adverse impacts that may be sensitive and diverse and may thus affect areas that are widespread. Thus the project triggers the World Bank’s Environmental Assessment Operational Policy (OP4.01) and as per this policy’s requirements is assigned an EA category of A. The policy will apply to all project sites. In addition, all three disposal sites, namely the Ancol CDF, the Bantar Gebang Landfill and the PPLi facility are considered integral parts of the project.

3.4 The World Bank’s Triggered Social Safeguards Policies and Compliance Requirements.

63. The project is expected to have significant positive social impacts. In particular, the reduction of floods events will reduce the disruptions in communities in project areas. Beneficiaries will be predominantly poor communities living in flood-prone areas within the project scope. However, involuntary resettlement is currently identified as required in six project sites (see Chapter 5 for a more detailed description of potential significant adverse social impacts from the project). For this reason, the project triggers the World Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12). The policy will apply in all projects sites (including linked sites).

3.5 Package of Environment and Social Safeguards Documents.

3.5.1 Environmental safeguards documents

64. A comprehensive Environmental Assessment has been undertaken of the JUFMP in a process and manner that are aligned with the packaging and sequencing of the works as stated in Table 3-1 below. For Phase 1 works, the original AMDAL (i.e., ANDAL, RKL and RPL) was prepared by the PMU in 2009 to meet Government of Indonesia environmental requirements and was reviewed and approved by the Provincial BPLHD in March 2010 (following the AMDAL process outlined in Figure 3-1). During project preparation, the World Bank also reviewed the Phase 1 AMDAL for compliance with its own Environmental Assessment OP4.01 and found that there were gaps in the documents. Hence the PMU

23

prepared and have adopted a JUFMP Phase 1 Supplementary Report (including recommendations of additional measures) to address the identified gaps with World Bank OP4.01 requirements.

65. The Phase 2 works have been identified and notwithstanding that they will be implemented in subsequent years after the Phase 1 works, the PMU has completed the full AMDAL and the first draft of these reports is currently being reviewed by BPLHD. The Phase 2 works are not being appraised by the World Bank during project preparation but instead will be appraised during project implementation. Therefore, the PMU has prepared the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) to cover the environmental and social management requirements of Phase 2 works.

66. The AMDAL for the Ancol Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) requires that any material that is deposited for reclamation purposes to be confined on all sides to prevent the deposited material from coming into contact with the open sea and thereby risks being washed away and contaminating the sea. Therefore, the engineering design for the Ancol site is for a confined facility. The AMDAL for the Ancol CDF was first prepared by PT. PJA, the concessionaire for the reclamation site in 2006. The design of the facility was subsequently changed when DKI Jakarta requested that the JUFMP dredge sediment material be deposited at the Ancol CDF, leading to an AMDAL revision carried out in December 2008. This updated AMDAL for the Ancol CDF was then submitted for review and approval to the Provincial BPLHD who approved it in March 2009.

67. During project preparation, the World Bank also reviewed the updated Ancol CDF RKL and RPL and found a requirement for additional measures to further strengthen these documents and to meet the World Bank’s own requirements. These additional measures are recorded in the Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report prepared by the PMU are (i) to review the permits and sources of sand and to record the potential off-site impacts associated with extracting 8.6 million m3 of sand, (ii) strengthening day to day environmental supervision and monitoring of the construction and filling of the Ancol CDF by allowing the use of the project Supervision Consultant access at the Ancol CDF and inclusion of detailed transport management plans. PT. PJA has agreed with these additional requirements in the Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report. Therefore, as per the Indonesian AMDAL requirements, PT. PJA will include these additional measures in their next quarterly RKL and RPL progress report, which is due in April 2011.

68. The other disposal sites, i.e., the Bantar Gebang Landfill for solid waste and PPLi for hazardous waste are existing facilities that are already operating under environmental permits. As part of its due diligence review the World Bank visited these two facilities:

PPLi Landfill (for hazardous waste disposal, if any). A site visit was carried out by the World Bank team on October 19, 2010. PPLi a licensed hazardous waste management facility that has been in operation since 1994 is partly (5%) owned by the Government of Indonesia through Ministry of State Owned Enterprises while the rest of 95% is owned by Dowa Eco System Co. Ltd., Japan. PPLi is the first facility in Indonesia that provides a complete range of hazardous waste management services (payable tipping fee applied) including transportation, treatment processes, and disposal in a secure and modern landfill compliant with international waste management standards including those of the EU, and US-EPA. Situated at the Cileungsi sub-district, Bogor, the company owns 50 ha landfill that has a total capacity of over 3 million tons (at the time of WB team visit, only 2 ha. has been used). A double composite liner, constructed of

24

bentonite clay and high-density polyethylene (HDPE), lines the landfill's base, which prevents any leachate from contaminating the surrounding environment. New waste is covered with soil or a synthetic material on a daily basis. Once an area of the landfill fills to capacity, it is capped with clay and a HDPE liner to prevent water from seeping into the closed landfill cell. Based on rapid site assessment, it was confirmed that the PPLi facility meets the national and sub-national regulation and more importantly that it still has enough capacity to receive hazardous waste (if any are found during project implementation). The Project has allocated funds to ensure that in the unlikely event that the hazardous sediment waste is found and BPLHD decides that the waste has to be disposed of at the PPLi facility, funds are available for this purpose.

Bantar Gebang Landfill (for Solid Waste Disposal). Bantar Gebang disposal site is located within vicinity of the satellite City of Bekasi, approximately 35km east of Jakarta. The landfill which is owned by the Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta has been in operation since 1989 and it covers an area of 110.3 hectares. The site exclusively receives domestic solid waste from DKI Jakarta which is approximately 5,000t/day, of the total of 6,000 ton solid wastes generated per day in DKI Jakarta. For each ton of garbage, the DKI pays Rp. 100 000 tipping fee to the site operator (based on Dec 2010 site visit). The facility was designed to handle 19 million m3 of waste and since its opening, approximately 10 million m3 of waste had been disposed of at Banter Gebang. The site is managed by a private company, i.e. a joint venture of PT Godang Tua Jaya and PT Navigat Organic Energy Indonesia () under the supervision of the DKI Jakarta Provincial Sanitary Agency (Dinas Kebersihan DKI Jakarta). Within two years of its 15 yrs contract (contract ends 2023), the site operator has added few new facilities, these include (i) Garbage-methane power generation plant (design for 23 megawatt), (ii) Composting facility (capacity of 500 ton garbage per day; and (iii) new sanitary landfills. With regards this Project, the PMU and WB have both visited the site and confirm that landfill has the capacity to receive 95 000 m3 of solid wastes to be removed from drains, canals and waduks during the Project implementation and that the site has a valid operating permit (West Java Governor Number 593.82/SK/282.P/AGK/DA/86 dated on 25 January 1986 jo. 593.82/ SK.116.P /AGK/DA/26-1987) and is in compliance with local regulations. Implementation of environmental management and monitoring is carried out by the site operator and reported regularly on a quarterly basis to BPLHD Jakarta and BPLHD Bekasi.

69. The environmental due diligence carried out for the project disposal sites are summarized in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Summary of due Diligence Process for Disposal Sites

Name of Project Disposal

Sites

Category of Project waste to be disposed of at this facility

Operating

Status during Project

Preparation

Project

Environmental Requirements

Summary of World Bank (WB) Due Diligence

Actions

Ancol CDF Site (119 ha)

Non Hazardous (non B3) dredge material

At time of project preparation, Ancol CDF engineering

Updated ANDAL, RKL and RPL approved in March 2009

Reviewing the AMDALs (including hiring independent consultant to carry out review)

Reviewing the CDF design (and subsequent design changes)

Conducting (with the Provincial BPLHD) joint

25

designs were being finalized and facility is being constructed, with completion target date of December 2011.

(BPLHD) Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report

environmental supervision missions of ongoing works (last joint visit: November 2010).

Continued site visit during project preparation to review the ongoing construction of the CDF.

Reviewing the supplemental EA. Reviewing and assessing the sediment quality of

JUFMP location. Reviewing and assessing offsite impacts from

sourcing of material for the CDF (i.e., sand and red clay)

WB held various technical discussions with PT. PJA, DKI and other stakeholders on all aspects of the design and construction of the Ancol CDF.

The owners of the Ancol CDF, PT. PJA have agreed for the project Supervision Consultant (SC), to also supervise and monitor the implementation of the EMP in Ancol. This is included in the SC’s TOR.

Bantar Gebang Landfill

Solid Waste removed from project sites

Existing facility, in operations since 1989

Facilities construction based on West Java Governor Decree No: 593.82/SK/282.P/AGK/DA/86 dated on 25 January 1986 jo. 593.82/SK.116.P /AGK/DA/26-198724.

Visited the landfill to review operations and environmental permits and assess capacity / adequacy.

The SC will also supervise and monitor for compliance for these projects activities at the Banter Gebang facility.

PPLi

Hazardous, B3, dredged sediment material (if any are found).

Existing facility, in operations since 1994

AMDAL approved in July 1993 (Head of Environmental Impact Management Agency Kep-36/BAPEDAL/07/1993)25

Visited the facility to review operations and environmental permits and assess capacity / adequacy.

The SC will also supervise and monitor for compliance of these projects activities at the PPLi facility. This is included in the SC’s TOR.

3.5.2 Social safeguards documents

70. In order to address this safeguard policy issue and to ensure that implementation of project activities will be carried out in a socially sustainable manner, DKI Jakarta has prepared a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). The policy framework addresses the entitlements of Project Affected Persons (PAPs) who are occupants of state or government land as well as entitlements of PAPs affected by the acquisition of privately owned land, the rationale for compensation for lost assets at replacement cost, specific measures to address vulnerable groups, and assistance for livelihood restoration. The RPF will guide the preparation of Resettlement Plans (RPs) in project sites where involuntary resettlements are required (including linked sites). Chapter 8 provides a more detailed discussion of the project approach to

24 Then because of the requirement of the first Indonesia AMDAL regulation, i.e. Government Regulation No: 29 of 1986 regarding Environmental Impact Assessment. The Sanitary Agency of DKI carried out an AMDAL Study and the AMDAL was approved in 1989. 25http://www.menlh.go.id/i/art/pdf_1067455998.pdf

26

resettlement and resettlement planning, including social impact management and key aspects of the RPF and RP processes, procedures and implementation.

3.5.3 Preparation and disclosure of safeguards documents

71. In compliance with Indonesia’s and the World Bank’s requirements, the environmental and social safeguards documents for the respective works and sites were / will be disclosed. Given the sequencing of project implementation into two phases, i.e. Phase 1 and Phase 2, it is expected that Phase 2 works will commence later - around 12 to 18 months after project approval (see Section 2.4 for a description of sequencing as a key implementation risk management mechanism). The project is set in a dynamic and fluid environment (i.e., likelihood of design changes in response to continuously changing conditions requiring associated revisions to the safeguards documents). Consequently, the quality of implementation and the environmental and social outcomes related to Phase 2 works may only be assured through a similar sequencing of their EIAs and RPs preparation, disclosure and implementation. The applicable environmental safeguards documents related to Phase 1 works will be disclosed prior to project appraisal26. The ESMF and RPF for the project will be disclosed prior to appraisal. The ESMF and RFP will cover the environmental and social management requirements of Phase 2 works, and will guide the preparation, finalization and implementation of Phase 2 related EIAs and RPs. Phase 2 EIAs and RPs will be completed during project implementation (prior to any related works commencing) and subject to World Bank review and no-objection prior to disclosure and implementation.

72. Table 3-2 summarizes the disclosure status of the project environmental and social safeguards package of documents.

Table 3-2 Summary of Environmental and Social Documents and Disclosure Status Item Document Approval /

Review Language

Documents Available in locally

Public Disclosure

Date

Method/Venue for Disclosure

Project Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF)1

World Bank review: (Jan 2011) Draft (June 2011) Final

English Bahasa Indonesia & English

26 Jan 2011 TBD

MoPW: (i) MoPW website. World Bank: (i) Public Information Center (PIC) in Jakarta, Indonesia, (ii) The Info Shop, 1818 H Street N.W., Washington DC 20043. (iii) World Bank website

Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF)2

World Bank review: (May 2011) Final

Bahasa Indonesia & English

TBD

DKI: (i) DKI website MoPW: (i) MoPW website. World Bank: (i) PIC in Jakarta, Indonesia, (ii) The Info Shop, Washington DC. (iii) World Bank website

Phase 1 Works

AMDAL BPLHD approval: (March 2010) Final

Bahasa Indonesia & English

30 Mar 2010

BPLHD: Printed copies available at the BPLHD offices of DKI Jakarta, Nyi Ageng Serang Building, 10th floor, Jalan Rasuna Said, Kuningan, Jakarta

World Bank review:

Bahasa

26 Jan 2011

MoPW: (i) MoPW website.

26 Phase 1 activities do not involve any involuntary resettlement.

27

(Jan 2011) Final

Indonesia & English

World Bank: (i) PIC in Jakarta, Indonesia, (ii) The Info Shop, Washington DC. (iii) World Bank website

JUFMP Phase 1 Supplementary Report

World Bank review: (Jan 2011) Draft (June 2011) Final

English Bahasa Indonesia & English

26 Jan 2011 TBD

MoPW: (i) MoPW website. World Bank: (i) PIC in Jakarta, Indonesia, (ii) The Info Shop, Washington DC. (iii) World Bank website

Ancol CDF

Revised AMDAL3

BPLHD approval: (March 2009)

Bahasa Indonesia & English

30 Mar 2010

BPLHD: Printed copies available at the BPLHD offices of DKI Jakarta

World Bank review: (Jan 2011) Final

Bahasa Indonesia & English

26 Jan 2011

MoPW: (i) MoPW website. World Bank: (i) PIC in Jakarta, Indonesia, (ii) The Info Shop, Washington DC. (iii) World Bank website

Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report

World Bank review (June 2011) Final

Bahasa Indonesia & English

TBD

MoPW: (i) MoPW website. World Bank: (i) PIC in Jakarta, Indonesia, (ii) The Info Shop, Washington DC. (iii) World Bank website

1 The AMDAL for Phase 2 works, and any other required environmental safeguards documents, will be disclosed in a manner similar to Phase 1. 2 Resettlement Plans (RPs) where needed at Phase 2 sites, will be disclosed in a similar manner as the RPF. 3 Under the Indonesian system, all revisions to the AMDAL are carried out through an updated RKL/RPL document, approved by BPLHD.

 

3.6 Institutional Arrangements 73. Out of the overall project institutional and implementation arrangements, the World Bank and the Government of Indonesia have carved out a more streamlined arrangement specifically for the environmental management of the project during implementation. These are described below.

3.6.1 Institutional Arrangements (Phase 1 and Phase 2)

74. The overall institutional arrangements for the project are summarized in Figure 3-2 as follows:

Figure 3-2 Illustration of Project Implementation Arrangements (excluding disposal arrangements) 

28

75. Joint Steering Committee. A high level advisory committee, the Joint Steering Committee (JSC) was formed early in project preparation to oversee the preparation and implementation for the project and to provide coordination and advisory support at the policy level. To date, the JSC has been effective in this role. The JSC is led by Bappenas27 and comprises representatives from Ministry of Finance, MoPW, and DKI Jakarta. The JSC will continue to provide high level oversight during the implementation of the project. 76. Project Implementation Units (PIUs) and Project Management Unit (PMU). There are three Project Implementing Units (PIUs) at both central and local government levels, under DGWR, DGCK and DKI Jakarta. The main role of each PIU is to carry out the dredging and rehabilitation works in the selected key floodways, canals and retention basins that come under their respective responsibility. The Project requires close coordination among these three implementing agencies. DGWR will play the role of the overall project Executing Agency. A PMU has been established by DGWR for the purposes of preparing and overseeing the implementation of the project. The PMU comprises three staff from DGWR, three from DGCK, three from DKI Jakarta and one from MoPW’s Office of Planning and Overseas Cooperation. The PMU is supported by a secretariat of five staff from DGWR. During project implementation, the PMU will oversee and coordinate the overall implementation of the project by the three PIUs. The PMU will also implement support activities that are common across the project. These include (i) the overall construction supervisions consultancy, (ii) the Panel of Experts, (iii) the Floods Management Information Systems (FMIS) and (iv) support to DKI-Jakarta related to involuntary resettlement and the project’s grievance redress system. 27 The National Development Planning Board (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional)

29

i. Supervision Consultant (SC). This is the key consultancy contract that will be instrumental in

supporting the PMU’s overall management, oversight and monitoring of the project. Where there are assessed weaknesses in capacity, particularly in the areas of the supervision of project environmental plans, the implementation of Resettlement Plans (RPs) and the Grievance Redress System (GRS), the SC has been tasked to provide the necessary expertise to support the PMU during project implementation. The scope of this technical assistance services include (i) supervising the implementation of the various dredging and construction works contracts under the project including at all disposal sites (ii) supervising the implementation of the Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (RKL/RPL) by the works contractors, (iii) supporting the PMU and DKI in the implementation of Resettlement Plans (RPs), and (iv) developing and implementing the grievance / complaint handling mechanism of the project with DKI. A summary of the detailed scope of activities of the SC is provided in the box below.

Box: Key Scope of Activities of the Supervision Consultants

Supervision of Construction Works 1.1 Review / check final contracts with contractors. 1.2 Review / check Detailed Engineering Designs and drawings, method statements, specifications, and

activity schedules, carry out additional survey and investigation as required, as well as conduct any revisions deemed necessary and to obtain their approval by the PMU

1.3 Test all sections of each project site for hazardous material prior to dredging works. 1.4 Supervise the implementation of the works, including (but not limited to):

Dredging (including the separation of solid waste from dredge material, and their transportation and disposal at approved landfill and Ancol CDF respectively), embankment and rehabilitation of canals, pumps, rack repairs and maintenance.

Provide assistance to the PMU for processing of payment requests made by the contractors as required.

Maintain site records and prepare detailed monthly progress reports. Prepare work as executed drawings and records, and operation manuals and hand over the

completed works to the PMU. Prepare a Practical Completion and Outstanding Defects Report for each construction contract

supervised. Prepare a Final Completion and Handover Report for each construction contract supervised.

1.5 Supervise and monitor the construction activities at the Ancol CDF site during project implementation, and at all its offsite locations such as the source locations for the sand and the laterite soils.

1.6 Provide PMU with technical assistance as needed from time to time. This may include the provision of support and advice to the PMU regarding implementation of Project works, particularly on the technical, overall planning and procurement aspects of the Project.

Environmental Management 1.7 Monitor (including preparation of quarterly RKL/RPL implementation report) and supervise the

environmental protection measures undertaken to mitigate environmental impairment due to construction and disposal activities, consistent with

The Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (RKL/RPL) of each work site including all disposal sites.

The Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) of the Project. Resettlement Plans (RPs)

1.8 Supervise and support the implementation of Resettlement Plans (RPs), consistent with The Resettlement Plan (RP) of each site where involuntary resettlement in required, including

RPs for linked activities, if any. The Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) of the Project.

1.9 Provide technical and administration assistance in land acquisition and resettlement process

30

Grievance Redress System (GRS) / Complaint Handling Mechanism 1.10 Develop and operate the Grievance Redress System (GRS), which will include but will not be

limited to administering complaints from Project Affected Persons (PAPs) in a systematic way on a day to day basis;

1.11 Update complaints on the website, informing those who complain on the status of their complaint as well as providing feedback or follow up actions;

1.12 Assist DKI in providing acceptable follow-up actions on complaints, ensuring that decisions are made based on transparent, fair, independent, and accountable processes through Grievance Redress or Complaint Handling Advisory;

1.13 Provide recommendations to DKI Jakarta authorities on status of complaints, from the on-site unit through the provincial level processes.

Others 1.14 Monitor and report on any non-project activities at the project sites, and activities in project linked

sites and sites adjacent to the project. 1.15 Design, develop, and operate a web-based project communications and reporting system.

ii. Panel of Experts. A Panel of Experts (POE) consisting of three independent, internationally recognized specialists will be mobilized to provide advice on all aspects of the project. The specialists are expected to comprise an environmental expert, an engineer experienced in dredging and dredge disposal, and an urban resettlement expert. The POE’s main responsibilities will include monitoring and evaluating the preparation and implementation of various safeguards instruments (RPF, RPs, EMPs and the grievance redress procedures) and advising the PMU on actions to be taken to improve compliance. If required, the POE may be enlarged on a temporary or permanent basis by the addition of specialists to provide expertise for specific, unplanned or critical issues or needs, which may arise during project implementation. These additional experts, if any, may be mobilized with terms of reference agreed among the PMU, the Bank, and the three initial experts that will comprise of the POE. The POE will convene at regular intervals to review the status of work in progress. However, special extraordinary meetings may also be called to review particular critical stages of technical, environmental, and social activities. All POE reports will be submitted to the PMU and through the PMU to the World Bank.

iii. Floods Management Information Systems (FMIS). The FMIS, when established as a Government-owned and managed system, is expected to become an instrumental monitoring and assessment tool for the Government with respect to floods management in Jakarta. As the project is implemented, the works, changes, and upgrades to the floods management system will be input into the FMIS. The FMIS will thereafter simulate and analyze the levels of success of JUFMP structural works and to determine levels of achievement in flood mitigation. This will provide the capability to analyze and document reductions in estimated annual costs.

iv. Support for DKI Jakarta. During the project preparation, the PMU has provided support by hiring an environmental and social impact assessment consultant to initiate delineation of PAPs, to carry out census and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), and to assist DKI Jakarta in RPF consultation. During the project implementation stage, the PMU (through its SC) will support the DKI in the establishment of field site office (POSKO) as part of the project’s Grievance Redress System (GRS), and providing technical support for the POSKO.

77. DKI Jakarta. Since DKI Jakarta is the institution responsible for social issues in the Jakarta municipal area, it will be responsible for all social safeguards aspects of the project including project

31

related involuntary resettlement activities and the project grievance redress mechanisms28. The implementation of the social plans under JUFMP will be carried out by the appropriate agencies of DKI Jakarta.

3.6.2 Institutional Arrangements (Disposal sites)

78. Due to the way the project has been structured and the legal arrangements entered into by each party, the institutional and implementation arrangements for environmental management and supervision are different for the project sites (i.e. the activities in Phase 1 and Phase 2) and for the Ancol CDF.

79. The overall institutional arrangements for the project disposal sites have been summarized in Section 2.6 (see especially Figure 2-1). 80. PT. Pembangunan Jaya Ancol (PJA). PT. PJA is the developer and owner of the Ancol CDF. It is responsible for building and operating the CDF in compliance with, inter alia, all Indonesia environmental requirements. The Ancol CDF site is the fourth reclamation effort / phase for PT. PJA within the context of the overall long term reclamation effort in the Ancol area of north Jakarta that started in the early 1960’s (see Section 2.6 for further details). PT. PJA has obtained approval of their AMDAL and update RKL and RPL for the Ancol CDF from the provincial environmental agency (BPLHD). 81. Bantar Gebang landfill facility and PPLi hazardous waste landfill. The institutional arrangements for these facilities have been described in Section 2.6. 82. BPLHD. The Provincial of DKI Jakarta Environment Management Agency (DKI BPLHD) is the regional environment agency of DKI Jakarta with the responsibility of approving and enforcing the AMDAL for all city wide (Jakarta) projects. Also, the Agency is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the associated management plans. In implementation of AMDAL, the DKI BPLHD is also supported by the city level (Municipal-Walikota). DKI BPLHD has already approved the AMDALs for Phase 1 of this project and for the Ancol CDF.

3.7 Implementation Arrangements (Environmental Safeguards)

3.7.1 For the Phase 1 and Phase 2 works 83. During project implementation (i.e. during construction/dredging) for the project sites, the primary responsibility for implementation of the RKL and RPLs will be that of the civil works and dredging contractors. The requirements of the RKLs and RPLs will be included as part of the civil works and dredging contracts to ensure they are fully funded and that they can be legally enforced. The civil works and dredging contractors would then be supervised for compliance implementation of the measures in the RKLs and RPLs by the Supervision Consultant. The Supervision Consultant will in turn report directly to the PMU. The PMU will hold both the Supervision Consultant and the Civil Works/Dredging Contractors accountable for ensuring compliance with the approved RKL and RPL requirements.

28 The project grievance redress system in available for all project related complaints, including those related to involuntary resettlement.

32

84. The World Bank will work through the PMU to undertake its own supervision for compliance with its own environmental safeguards requirements which are also contained in the RKLs and RPLs. The provincial level of environment agency BPLHD and the city level environmental agency, depending on which part of city of Jakarta the works are located in, will also do compliance monitoring of the works for compliance with national and sub national requirements.

3.7.2 For the disposal sites (Ancol CDF, Bantar Gebang and PPLi)

85. Ancol CDF. With regards the use by the project of the Ancol CDF as a dredge material disposal site, the arrangements are slightly different due to the fact that the World Bank will not have a direct legal relationship with PT. PJA. The Ancol CDF already has its own separate and stand alone RKL and RPL approved by the provincial level environmental agency of DKI Jakarta (DKI BPLHD). These comply with the national and sub-national requirements and the Ancol CDF’s contractors are bound to implement the Ancol CDF RKL and RPL under already stringent national laws and requirements. These environmental requirements have been incorporated into the contracts of their civil works contractors who at the time of the preparation of this project have started construction of the perimeter walls of the CDF. PT. PJA through their Property Development Unit is supervising all aspects (including environment) of the contracts. Additionally, PT. PJA have recruited a consulting firm that does quarterly compliance monitoring of the ongoing construction works. PT. PJA, in compliance with the Indonesian AMDAL requirements, is preparing and submitting to the DKI BPLHD quarterly implementation reports of the RKL and RPL29. These reports contain measures and actions taken by PT. PJA to implement the measures contained in their approved RKL and RPL. These reports will also include the implementation of the additional measures contained in the Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report. The quarterly implementation reports will also be shared with the World Bank.

86. DKI BPLHD has already started monitoring the ongoing construction works at Ancol CDF and will continue to do so throughout the Ancol CDF project period. During project preparation (at the invitation of DKI BPLHD) the World Bank carried out joint supervision of ongoing works at the Ancol CDF at that time30. The World Bank will continue to work with the DKI BPLHD to do joint supervision and site inspections of the Ancol CDF when the reclamation works is being filled with sediment material from the project sites (works in Phase 1 and Phase 2). Any non-compliance issues that the World Bank wishes to raise will thus be channeled to PT. PJA through the DKI BPLHD. The World Bank has carried out a rapid assessment of the technical and financial capacity31 of the DKI BPLHD to adequately carry out their responsibility for oversight monitoring of the Ancol CDF and is satisfied that the DKI BPLHD has adequate technical and financial capacity and legal authority to enforce the RKL and RPL for the Ancol CDF.

87. The following key provisions will be put in place during the project implementation in order to manage, monitor and supervise the disposal of JUFMP dredge material at the Ancol CDF:

the World Bank’s ‘no objection’ to any given JUFMP dredging contract will only be given once the World Bank is satisfied with the adequacy of the confined facility and has received

29 As of the end October 2010, PT. PJA had submitted all but one of the updated RKLs and RPLs to the provincial BPLHD. 30 The joint supervision with DKI BPLHD team took place on November 5, 2010. 31 The assessment includes a review of DKI BPLHD’s organizational arrangements, staffing complements and qualifications, procedure for document reviews and site inspections, as well as a review of the adequacy of its budget (which has increased steadily over the past five years).

33

satisfactory evidence of PT. PJA‘s compliance with the requirements of the AMDAL for Ancol CDF;

DKI BPLHD will continue to include the Supervision Consultant (SC) and World Bank in its ongoing supervision and monitoring (including site inspections) of the Ancol AMDAL and Ancol Updated RKL and RPL, and share related supervision and monitoring reports with the SC and the World Bank.

PT. PJA will allow the SC access to the Ancol CDF and all it offsite locations (including source locations for the sand and laterite fill material) for the purposes of carrying out supervision of the approved RKL and RPLs, the Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report, PT PJA’s quarterly RKL and RPL Progress reports and any other tasks related to the disposal of JUFMP dredge material at Ancol CDF as specified in the terms of reference of the SC.

DKI Jakarta will exercise its rights as a shareholder to cause PT. PJA to implement the requirements (including mitigation measures) stated in the AMDAL for Ancol CDF and Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report.

88. Key implementation arrangements, including the processes and conditions governing the disposal of project material at Ancol CDF, Bantar Gebang landfill facility and PPLi hazardous waste landfill, are summarized in Table 3-3 below.

Table 3-3 Summary of Processes and Conditions Governing Disposal of Project Material Name of Project disposal

site

Category of Project waste to be disposed

of at this facility (and expected

volumes)

Process and conditions for disposal

Ancol CDF Site, 119ha

Non Hazardous (non B3) dredge material (estimated total 3.4m3 over project period)

Prior to the signing of any dredging contracts, clearance (including World Bank ‘no-objection’) required. Clearance will be given subject to confirmation that the Ancol CDF site has been constructed with adequate capacity to receive the dredge material and in compliance with (i) the DKI BPHLD approved AMDAL, and (ii) the approved Detailed Engineering Drawings.

Prior to dredging of any works section, samples will be obtained and tested by Supervision Consultant for hazardous material.

Contractors are required to obtain Supervision Consultant’s (SC’s) approval prior to dredging any works section. Clearance will be given subject to confirmation from sample test on non-presence of hazardous material.

Contractors responsible for transporting dredge material (after separating solid waste – see below) to disposal site (transport plans to meet minimum traffic management plan requirements and subject to Supervision Consultant (SC) approval).

Handover of material to PT. PJA for disposal at Ancol CDF governed by cooperation agreement between DKI Jakarta and PJA.

SC will supervise and monitor activities at Ancol CDF Bantar Gebang Landfill

Solid Waste removed from project sites (estimated 95,000 m3 over project period)

Contractors responsible for separating solid wastes from dredge material, subject to minimum size. (separation methodology subject to Supervision Consultant approval)

Contractors responsible for transporting and disposing material at disposal site (transport plans to meet minimum traffic management plan requirements and subject to Supervision

34

Consultant approval). Handover of material to Bantar Gebang governed by disposal

procedure prevailing for all solid waste tipping at landfill – necessary tipping fees to be paid by contractor.

SC will supervise and monitor project related activities at Bantar Gebang Landfill.

PPLi Hazardous, B3, dredged sediment material (no B3 material expected as indicated by sample testing during project preparation – site identification is precautionary in nature).

In the event that any section tested prior to dredging indicates the presence of hazardous material, the Supervision Consultant will not allow dredging to proceed and will inform relevant PIU and PMU.

Subject to the approval of the provincial BPLHD, this material may (i) be left in-situ or (ii) dredged and transported to PPLi for safe disposal.

Dredging and transportation methods will be developed on a case-by-case basis according to specific requirements and subject to MoE, PMU and World Bank prior approval.

SC will supervise and monitor disposal of JUFMP B3 material (if any are found) at PPLi facility.

3.8 Implementation Arrangements (Social Safeguards) 89. Within the PIU of DKI Jakarta (PIU-DKI) there will be several working groups32 (Pokjas): (i) Environmental and Social Working Group (ESWG), (ii) Project Management and Quality Assurance Working Group, (iii) Monitoring and Reporting Working Group, and (iv) other Pokjas as necessary to cover all activities required for JUFMP implementation. The ESWG will be responsible for the preparation of RPs and ensure that they are implemented. The Project Management and Quality Assurance Working Group will be responsible for reviewing the RPs and ensuring consistency with the RPF. The Monitoring and Reporting Working Group will prepare the monthly reports on the status of preparation and implementation of RPs to the Governor. 90. The respective mayor33 will coordinate the preparation and implementation of the RPs in his/her respective area. Camats (heads of kecamatan) and lurahs (heads of villages) will be the main spearheads of the preparation and implementation of the RPs on the ground. DKI Jakarta’s Land Acquisition Team (P2T) will carry out the operational tasks as set out in the approved RPs. 91. Although the Environmental and Social Working Group (ESWG) was formally established in late 2008, it has so far not been very active – in part due to the uncertainties presented by the fact that the institutional arrangements and roles and responsibilities of the PIU working groups are confirmed in the RPF, which until recently was itself under preparation. The preparations of the RPF and preliminary RPs thus far have been supported by project preparation consultants retained by the PMU. Given the

32 The Pokjas and their membership are established through Governor’s Decree. The Governor Decree No. 1255/2008 (issued on September 5, 2008) on the establishment of PIU DKI Jakarta showed that there were three Working Groups (WGs) under it, i.e. WG for environment, WG for Social Impact, and WG for Planning. On November 13, 2008, DKI Jakarta issued another Governor Decree (No. 1626/2008) for the establishment of the Environmental and Social Working Group (ESWG) with clearer tasks related to environmental and social aspects of the project. It was also meant to expedite the preparation of the RPF. DKI Jakarta is now drafting a new Decree on the re-establishment of PIU, which will include the WGs mentioned in the paragraph above, which among others has the task to implement RPF and RPs 33 Administratively, DKI Jakarta is subdivided into five municipalities each of which is headed by a mayor (walikota)

35

finalization of the RPF (in May 2011), the ESWG and other PIU-DKI working groups are expected to become active in taking over the day-to-day implementation of the social safeguards activities of the project. Throughout the project implementation period, the Supervision Consultant will provide technical support to the ESWG and the Project Management and Quality Assurance Working Group in carrying out activities related to the preparation of RPs, resettlement management, quality assurance, etc. This Supervision Consultant will also be responsible to set up and manage the Grievance Redress System (GRS)34.

92. Chapter 8 provides a more detailed discussion of the project approach to resettlement and resettlement planning, further details of RPF and RP processes, procedures and implementation.

34 See description of the tasks and scope of the Supervision Consultant in section 3.6.1.

36

4 Relevant Environment and Social Baseline Data 93. The AMDALs for the project sites and for the Ancol CDF presented and analyzed extensive baseline data on numerous relevant physical parameters in these areas of influence which included the following:

Sediment Quality Surface Water Quality Biological Nutrients Air temperature Solar Radiation Wind and Speed Direction Air Quality Noise levels Topography Soil geology Flora and Fauna Bathymetry Socio-economic

94. The quantitative and qualitative impacts are determined from how and in what manner the project’s activities change the baseline conditions. Therefore, the summary of the extensive baseline data presented here below is limited to the data that is most relevant to the project’s most significant impacts which are associated with the management and disposal of the dredged material. As the project’s significant impacts are related to pollution of the receiving bodies of the dredge material, the data presented here below is limited therefore to the pollutant loads of the sediment material ( i.e. both soil and water quality components of the sediment material).

4.1 Sediment Quality in JUFMP Sites 95. As project preparation evolved, three independent baseline studies of the quality of the sediment material in the drains and canals in Jakarta were carried out at different time horizons assessing various aspects including the adequacy of sampling and testing methodologies used, the test results, and the adequacy of Indonesian requirements against various other international standards. The reviews were as follows:

4.1.1 ERM35 2008 96. The ERM 2008 sediment quality study represents the first comprehensive and detailed primary sediment quality study for Jakarta’s drains and waduks, and supported much of the initial planning for the JUFMP project including the Ancol Updated RKL / RPL and the JUFMP Phase 1 AMDAL. Sampling covered all the Project sites (i.e. 15 sites) plus three others that were originally in the long list of potential JUFMP projects but have subsequently been removed. The total number of analyzed composite samples was 36 obtained from 180 sampling stations plus duplicate samples for quality assurance and quality control. Collected samples were sent to an international accredited laboratory (i.e. ALS Bogor, Indonesia) for physical and chemical analyses. Chemical parameters analyses were based on international best

35 The World Bank in 2008 commissioned ERM to carry out these tests.

37

practices technical guideline for dredged material characterization (London Convention 197236; OSPAR 2004), covering heavy metals, total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), organo-chlorine pesticide (OCP), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and total organic matter (TOM). In addition, toxicity characteristics leaching procedures (TCLP) based on USEPA SW 84637 was also performed to determine the toxicity characteristic of the sediment. These results are summarized in Table 4-1.

4.1.2 DHV 2008 97. In 2008 DKI Jakarta in association with DHV (with Dutch government donor funding undertook some pilot dredging in Kali Mati, a minor drain within Jakarta (not part of the project). As part of this study, a total of eight composite samples from nine sampling stations was sent out to an international accredited laboratory (i.e. ALS Bogor) and were analyzed for all tests required under Indonesian regulation for B3 (hazardous) waste identification, i.e. (i) physical test and screening (i.e. flammable, corrosive, explosive, infectious (only for medical wastes), reactive) (ii) chemical test (total content analyses and TCLP for both inorganic and organic pollutants); and (iii) biological test (Lethal dose 50 - LD50). In addition, a composite sample from Kali Mati was also sent abroad to an international accredited laboratory in the Netherlands (i.e. Eurofins) for the purpose of cross-check.

4.1.3 AMDAL for Phase 2 activities, sampling and analysis 2010 98. In 2010 a further set of primary sediment quality studies in proposed Phase 2 works was undertaken as part of preparation of AMDALs for these Phase 2 works. The areas sampled also included the three sites now excluded from the project. Composite samples (9 sub-samples each composite – 3 rows about 100-200m apart, three samples across each row) were collected considering both the location of the ERM sampling and the current (as at time of sampling) physical limits of each sub-project area. Analysis was by an accredited laboratory using local standard methodologies, concentrating on (i) physical characteristics, (ii) total metals, (iii) TCLP metals and (iv) TCLP organics. Thus sediment quality studies specific to Jakarta’s drains and waduks were undertaken in 2008 and 2010 involving more than 350 sub-samples compiled into a total of 70 samples for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and total metals and organics analysis. These results are summarized in Table 4-2.

4.1.4 Results and interpretation 99. The results and interpretation from all three studies were similar and are discussed in terms of:

TCLP testing. This is the definitive chemical test in Indonesia and elsewhere to establish whether waste material is deemed hazardous or otherwise in terms of whether the extract contains levels of organics and metals above specified “Regulatory Limit”. All samples from the three studies met the standards.

TCLP organics. Again all samples from the three studies met Indonesian standards Total metal analysis showed almost all samples met international “soil quality” screening levels

for almost all metals. Results are presented and discussed in more detail below. Acute toxicity testing (conducted on the DHV samples) demonstrated that in terms of lethal dose

50 (LD50) the dredged sediment had a low toxicity, lower than the acute toxicity of table salt (NaCl).

36 http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D17020/1-DredgedMaterial.pdf 37 http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/chap7.pdf

38

Table 4-1 ERM 2008 data considering relevant soil use screening levels (in mg/kg)

Parameter Max Min US EPA PRGs, R9, Industrial

US EPA PRGs, R9, Residential

Dutch Intervention

Values (DIV)

Korea (SEPA) NODGDMa

Screening level

No§ Screening level

No§ Intervention level

No§ Screening Level

No§ Screening Level

No§

Arsenic (As) 23 2 55 0 50 0 70 0

Barium (Ba) 246 9 67000 0 5400 0 625 0

Cadmium (Cd) 14 4 450 0 37 0 12 1 30 0 10 2

Copper (Cu) 1080 6 41000 0 3100 0 190 2 500 1 270 1

Chromium (Cr)

1260 27 450 1 210 3 380 1 370 1

Mercury (Hg) 3.17 0.02 310 0 23 0 10 0 40 0 1 3

Nickel (Ni) 161 6 20000 0 1600 0 210 0 400 0 52 4

Lead (Pb) 268 0 800 0 400 0 530 0 1000 0 220 2

Zinc (Zn) 701 38 100000 0 23000 0 720 0 2000 0 410 16 a Australian-New Zealand interim sediment screening levels for National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material (NODGDM). § Number of samples exceeding the standard

100. These reviews concluded that the sampling and testing methodologies meet international standards and test results show that the samples lay within international standards, except the following:

Arsenic levels in all samples exceed the screening level standards for one EPA standards used to screen pollutants in environmental media38, although all samples comply with other international screening levels of arsenic39. Further assessments revealed that the US EPA standards is an unsuitable comparator as it is derived based on health risks specifically of inorganic arsenic, while the sample tests and the other international screening levels for arsenic were based on total arsenic levels. Comparisons with an earlier Jakarta Bay-wide sediment study also indicates that the sample tests indicate arsenic levels occur naturally throughout the area and do not have anthropogenic origins.

Forty percent of samples exceeded the interim Australian and New Zealand sediment screening levels for zinc for ocean disposal, although all samples were below other soil screening levels for zinc. This risk is mitigated by the disposal of the project dredge material in a confined disposal facility, i.e. the Ancol CDF.

About 2% of samples exceeds the screening level for one or two (but not all) of the international standards for either one of chromium, cadmium or copper. This risk will be mitigated by the introduction of a protocol for testing canal and drain sections prior to dredging of that section as an added precaution40.

38 US EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) levels used to estimate contaminant concentrations in environmental media (soil, air and water) that the EPA considers protective of humans (including sensitive groups), over a lifetime. 39 Soil Standard in South Korea stipulated in the Soil Environment Preservation Act (SEPA), DIV (Dutch Intervention Values), and Australia-New Zealand National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material standards 40 Such tests have not been previously practiced in Jakarta and a successful implementation of this protocol could serve to improve dredge material management in the future. An outline of the protocol can be found in the “JEDI Sediment Quality Consolidated Report”

39

Table 4-2 Phase 2 AMDAL data (2010) considering relevant soil use screening levels (in mg/kg) Parameter Max Min US EPA PRGs,

R9, Industrial US EPA

PRGs, R9, Residential

Dutch Intervention

Values (DIV)

Korea (SEPA) NODGDMa

Screening level

No§ Screening level

No§ Intervention level

No§ Screening level

No§ Screening Level

No§

Arsenic (As) 11.32 0.84 55 0 50 0 70 0

Silver (Ag) 0 0 5100 0 390 0 15 0 3.7 0

Boron (B) 3.68 0 100000 0 16000 0

Barium (Ba) 68.3 2.14 67000 0 5400 0 625 0

Cadmium (Cd) 10.04 0 450 0 37 0 12 0 30 0 10 2

Copper (Cu) 78.31 1.75 41000 0 3100 0 190 0 500 0 270 0

Chromium (Cr) 64.21 0.03 450 0 210 0 380 0 370 0

Mercury (Hg) 0 0 310 0 23 0 10 0 40 0 1 0

Nickel (Ni) 16.5 0 20000 0 1600 0 210 0 400 0 52 0

Lead (Pb) 96.35 1.2 800 0 400 0 530 0 1000 0 220 0

Selenium (Se) 0 0 5100 0 390 0 100 0

Zinc (Zn) 262.13 40.23 100000 0 23000 0 720 0 2000 0 410 0

a Australian-New Zealand interim sediment screening levels for National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material (NODGDM). § Number of samples exceeding the standard

101. The review of sediment quality assessments also considered the health risks posed by the arsenic levels in the sediment. Results of acute toxicity level identified the sediment material as relatively harmless (i.e. very high amount of sediment required to be ingested to produce a lethal dose). Assessments of likely exposure pathways of construction workers to the sediment during the project as well as likely exposure due to the future usage of the disposal site also concluded that the health risks are low, particularly given the requirement in the AMDAL for Ancol CDF for the capping of the disposed material with sand and clay.

4.2 Sediment Quality in Ancol 102. The result of the marine sediment quality measurement around the study area which was conducted by a national accredited laboratory, i.e. PT. Unilab Perdana is shown in Table 4-3. The Table shows that the heavy metal content in the marine waters sediment around the Ancol study area is low and still far below the TCLP Regulatory Limit of Government Regulation No. 19 Year 1999 jo. 85 Year 1999.

Table 4-3 Result of Marine Sediment Quality Measurement (by TCLP, USEPA) around the Study Area

No. Parameter Unit Quality

Standard *) Measurement

Result 1. Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 1.0 < 0.005 2. Total chromium (Cr) mg/L 5.0 < 0.05 3. Copper (Cu) mg/L 10.0 < 0.003 4. Iron (Fe) mg/L - < 0.001 5. Lead (Pb) mg/L 5.0 < 0.001 6. Manganese (Mn) mg/L - < 0.001 7. Mercury (Hg) mg/L 0.2 < 0.001 8. Nickel (Ni) mg/L - < 0.001 9. Zinc (Zn) mg/L 50.0 0.07 - < 0.008

Source: PT. Unilab Perdana (2004)

40

103. Sediment quality at eastern wall of Ancol CDF. Part of the eastern wall of the CDF was started early in the construction phase to form part of a construction access/staging area for the construction of the CDF as a whole. Given that this relatively small part of the eastern wall was constructed with sediment material before the area was confined and given that this material will not be removed but will form part of the permanent works, the World Bank requested that the material be tested. Core samples were taken from the wall and tested and the results confirm that no hazardous substances are contained in this material. The test results show consistency with the sediment quality test results from the Phase 1 AMDAL, and confirm the absence of hazardous (B3) material.

4.3 Water Quality in JUFMP Sites 104. Summarized here below in Table 4-4 are the water quality data for one of the drains, Cengkareng, in the Phase 1 activities. Table 4-4 shows that, which is typical of the other drains in Phase 1 works as well (not presented here) shows measurements of a number of parameters i.e. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), oil and grease, detergent and organic substances at certain sampling locations exceeded the standards prescribed by DKI Jakarta Governor Decree No. 582 of 1995.

105. Measurements of pH in all sampling locations showed values within the standards. This indicated normal acidity levels. Microbiological analysis showed compliance with the standards by the 1995 Decree. The COD standard set by the 1995 Decree is 30 mg/L. The laboratory results showed that the value in almost all sampling locations exceeded or was equal to the standard, except at the SCA41 1 Cengkareng Drain). The BOD values were still within the specified standards of 20 mg/L in almost all sampling locations except at Waduk Melati and SSA-3 (Sentiong-Sunter River)42. The analytical results of organic matter contents indicated that the permanganates value was higher than the standard of 25 mg/L in almost all sampling locations. The high organic content may be caused by the accumulation of domestic waste or other activities around the sampling location. The TSS (Total Suspended Solid) is one of the water quality indicators associated with the physical appearance and turbidity. The suspended material has adverse effects on water quality because it reduces the penetration of sunlight into the water body, increases water turbidity that limits organisms’ growth. Turbidity is closely related to the concentrations of suspended materials in the water. Suspended materials in the water are typically composed of silt, clay and mud as natural inorganic materials or in the form of organic material floating in the water as natural sources and waste resulted from human activities such as industrial activities, agriculture, or household activities. The TSS analysis results in all sampling sites showed compliance with the specified standards.

Table 4-4 Water Quality Analysis Results: Cengkareng Drain No PARAMETERS UNITS Standard *) SCA 1 SCA 2 SCA 3

A. Physical

1 Temperature (in situ) **) 0C Normal 30.6 30.0 28.2

2 Total Dissolved Solid (TDS) mg/L 200 90 107 179

3 Total Suspended Solid (TSS) **) mg/L 200 56 23 30

41 SCA are the locations along the drain or canal where the test samples were collected. 42 Data from Waduk Melati and SSA-3 (Sentiong-Sunter River) are not presented here but the highest BOD values at these locations of the drains are 59mg/l at Waduk Melati and the highest value is 23mg/l.

41

4 Conductivity (EC) µmhos/cm 1000 187 223 371

B. Chemical

1 Mercury (Hg) mg/L 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

2 Arsenic (As) mg/L 0.050 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

3 Boron (B) mg/L 1.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

4 Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 0.010 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003

5 Cobalt (Co) mg/L 0.020 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02

6 Chromium VI (Cr 6+) mg/L 0.050 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

7 Manganese (Mn) **) mg/L 1.0 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02

8 Sodium (Na) % 50.0 49.3 49.5 50.2

9 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (in situ) mg/L 3.0 3.8 3.4 2.8

10 pH (in situ) **) - 6.0-8.5 7.51 7.67 7.75

11 Selenium (Se) mg/L 0.050 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002

12 Zinc (Zn) mg/L 1.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01

13 Nickel (Ni) mg/L 0.10 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02

14 Sulphate (SO4) **) mg/L 100 18.8 19.2 27.2

15 Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) me/L 1.25-2.50 0.53 0.51 2.44

16 Copper (Cu) **) mg/L 0.10 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02

17 Lead (Pb) mg/L 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

18 Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) - 10.0-18.0 0.8 0.9 1.1

19 Oil and Grease mg/L None < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2

20 Detergent (MBAS) mg/L 0.50 0.10 0.06 0.07

21 Phosphate (PO4-P) **) mg/L 0.50 0.06 1.23 0.29

22 Permanganates (KMnO4) **) mg/L 25.0 13.4 14.9 17.3

23 BOD5 mg/L 20 8 9 11

24 COD **) mg/L 30 28 30 36

C. MICROBIOLOGY

1 e. coli No./100ml 4,000 70 4,600 1,500

2 Total Coliform No./100ml 20,000 2,400 11,000 1,500

Note of PT. UNILAB PERDANA analytical result: *) = DKI Jakarta Governor Decree No. 582 of 1995 concerning Usage and Water Quality Standards for River/ Water Body and Wastewater in DKI Jakarta; **) = Parameter accredited by KAN No. LP-195-IDN; < = less than; Sample collected on 12 November 2009.

4.4 Ancol Sea Water Quality 106. Based on Table 4-5, overall the marine waters in the study area are currently in reasonably good condition. Nearly all of the measured physical, chemical and microbiological parameters are still below the quality standard and in line with Decree of the Minister of Environment No. Kep-51/MENLH/2004 for Marine Biota designation.

Table 4-5 Result of Seawater Quality Measurement in the Study Area

No. Parameter Unit Quality

Standard *)

Measurement Result **)

AL-1 AL-2 AL-3 AL-4 AL-5 AL-6

A. PHYSICAL 1. Brightness (in

situ) Meter > 6 m 3.0 0.20 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0

2. Smell (in situ) - Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural 3. Turbidity NTU < 5 m 4 4 4 3 2 3 4. Suspended solids

(TSS) mg/L 20 12 16 8 8 6 8

5. Temperature (in situ)

oC Natural +3oC

32 32.9 32.0 31.8 31.7 31.8

6. Oil Film (in situ) - Nil Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative 7. Garbage (in situ) - Nil Negative Positive Positive Negative Negative Negative

42

No. Parameter Unit Quality

Standard *)

Measurement Result **)

AL-1 AL-2 AL-3 AL-4 AL-5 AL-6

B. CHEMICAL 1. pH (in situ) - 7 - 8.5 8.2 8.2 8.4 7.9 8.0 7.9 2. Salinity 0/00 Coral:34 32.0 33.1 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.2 3. Dissolved

oxidants (OD) in situ

mg/L > 5 5.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.3

4. BOD mg/L 20 4.2 4.9 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.5 5. Total ammonia

(NH3-N) mg/L 0.3 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.05

6. Phosphate (PO4-P)

mg/L 0.015 0.02 0.02 0.02 < 0.0.1 < 0.0.1 < 0.0.1

7. Nitrate (NO3-N) mg/L 0.008 < 0.008 < 0.008 < 0.008 < 0.008 < 0.008 < 0.008 8. Cyanide (CN) mg/L 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9. Sulfide (N2S) mg/L 0.01 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 10. Phenol mg/L 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 11. Surfactant anion

(MBAS) mg/L 1.0 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.19

12. Oil & Grease mg/L 1.0 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 13. Mercury (Hg) mg/L 0.001 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 14. Chromium VI

(Cr6+) mg/L 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

15. Arsenic (As) mg/L 0.012 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 16. Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 0.001 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 17. Copper (Cu) mg/L 0.008 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 18. Lead (Pb) mg/L 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 19. Zinc (Zn) mg/L 0.05 0.0326 0.0331 0.0329 0.0334 0.0330 0.0331 20. Nickel (Ni) mg/L 0.05 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 C. MICRO-BIOLOGY 1. Coliform (total) MPN/

100ml Nil 0 0 0 0 0 0

2. Pathogenic bacteria

Cell/ 100ml

Nil 0 0 0 0 0 0

Note: *) = Kep-51/MENLH/2004 (Marine Biota) **) = Laboratory of PT. Unilab Perdana (August 2005) AL1 = Project Site Western Coastline AL2 = Project Site Central Coastline AL3 = Project Site Eastern Coastline AL4 = Western Coastline (+ 1000 M from the Coastline) AL5 = Central Coastline (+ 1000 M from the Coastline) AL6 = Eastern Coastline (+ 1000 M from the Coastline)

107. The parameters that exceed the quality standard include solid waste material at the AL-2 location (project site Central coastline) and AL-3location (project site Eastern coastline) sites and phosphate at the AL-1, AL-2 and AL-3 sites (Western, Central and Eastern coastlines respectively) which are found to be slightly above the quality standard. The solid waste that is found in small quantity at the observation site was generally generated by visitors who occasionally throw out garbage from their food and drinks into the water. The phosphate may be generated by laundry that uses soap/ detergent. The result of the seawater quality monitoring in the 2007-2008 period in the Eastern West Ancol water territory is shown in Table 4-6 below, Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2.

Table 4-6 Result of Seawater Monitoring in the 2005-2008 period in the Ancol Marine Waters Parameter Year AL1 AL2 AL3 AL4 AL5 AL6

Turbidity (NTU) Aug 2005 4 4 4 3 2 3 Aug 2007 13 16 13 14 16 13 Apr-08 14 11 10 9 8 8

43

TSS (mg/L) Aug 2005 12 16 8 8 6 8 Aug 2007 7 5 5 5 6 4 Apr-08 14 10 9 12 8 10 pH Aug 2005 8,2 8,2 8,4 7,9 8 7,9 Aug 2007 7,6 7,49 7,7 7,53 7,53 7,62 Apr-08 7,9 7,92 7,93 7,99 7,93 7,97

108. Based on routine monitoring result in general it is evident that the current turbidity value of the waters around the project site has exceeded the available quality standard (Decree of the Minister of Environment No. Kep-51/MENLH/2004 (Marine Biota Quality Standard)). In the Ancol area, the fish death phenomenon has occurred several times due to the boom in red algae (red tide) population at certain times. This is attributed to nutrient accumulation especially in the dry season.

Figure 4-1 TSS Parameter in the 2005-2008 Period

Figure 4-2 pH Parameter in the 2005-2008 Period

44

109. On the other hand, the result of seawater quality monitoring around the project site which was conducted by the DKI BPLHD in the 2003-2004 period reveals the following:

Temperature ranging from 28.82 to 30.09oC. Salinity ranging from 29.00 o/oo to 30.09 o/oo. Brightness ranging from 1.5 meter to 3.0 meter. Phenol ranging from < 0.001 mg/L to < 0.002 mg/L. Oil and Grease ranging from < 0.2 to < 0.3. Dissolved oxygen ranging from 3.5 mg/L to 4.5 mg/L. Detergent ranging from 0.21 to 0.32 mg/L. BOD ranging from 6.8 to 25.0 mg/L. COD ranging from 33.7 to 46.3 mg/L. Mercury ranging from undetected to < 0.005 mg/L. Cadmium ranging from undetected to < 0.0005 mg/L. Lead ranging from < 0.003 to < 0.005 mg/L.

110. In general, the result of DKI BPLHD monitoring for the 2003-2004 period indicates that the seawater quality around the project site is still good.

111. The Air Quality, Noise and Seawater sampling sites are shown on Figure 4.3.

45

Figure 4-3 Air Quality, Noise and Seawater Sampling Site

4.5 Ancol Marine Biota

4.5.1 Plankton 112. Plankton constitutes a microorganism group drifting in the water bodies and unable to move against the water current. Plankton is categorized into 2 groups, namely phytoplankton and zooplankton. Phytoplankton has a role in the waters as the primary producer for water ecosystem due to its major role as food (nutrient) provider for consumers (zooplankton, fish, etc.). Phytoplankton found in the study area consisted of 44 types from 4 classes, namely Cyanophyta, Chrysophyta, Chlorophyta and Pyrophyta with the diversity index rate between 3.4 and 3.8. The rate of diversity index rate of phytoplankton in the study area was ranging from 0.82 to 0.90 indicating that it was spread quite evenly and there was no type which was highly dominant. This is in line with the result of examination of sea water quality in the study area which also indicated good condition. The composition of zooplankton types in the study area waters consisted of 4 classes, namely Arthropoda, Protozoa, Annelida and Protochordata. The diversity rate of Zooplankton types ranged between 3.0 and 3.3 with the rate of diversity index ranged between 0.90 and 0.94, indicating that it was spread quite evenly and there was no type which was highly dominant.

4.5.2 Benthos 113. Benthos comprises all organisms living on or in the seabed. The role of benthos in the waters is highly significant, among other things as decomposer of organic substances existing on or in the waters and as biological indicator in the event of decrease in the quality of water ecosystem. Based on the observation of benthos around the study area, there are two types of benthos, namely Annelida and Mollusca. The diversity of benthos in the study area was classified as low up to moderate, with the

46

diversity index rate between 1.60 and 2.10, while the diversity index rate ranged between 0.70 and 0.85 (uneven and quite even spread).

4.6 Social Economic Baseline

4.6.1 Population 114. The Bank’s task team conducted rapid (preliminary) social assessment in 2008 through field visits, observations and unstructured interviews with selected community members along and nearby the project sites. A more structured social assessment including potential social impacts was then undertaken by the environmental and social impact assessment consultant teams hired by the PMU during 2009-2010 as part of the preparation of the AMDALs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 sites and RPs, respectively. The rapid social assessment study and AMDAL for Phase 1 sites were done in the situation where Detailed Engineering Designs (DEDs) were not yet prepared, and AMDAL of Phase 2 sites were carried out in parallel with the DEDs preparation. In any case, social impact assessment for all sites were carried out without confirmed project boundaries on the ground, and therefore the delineations of the impact areas of each project site were based on the best possible professional assessment of the consultant team.

115. Administratively, the project sites are located in 57 kelurahans (urban villages) as part of 19 kecamatans (subdistricts) in four municipalities, i.e. North Jakarta, East Jakarta, Central Jakarta, and West Jakarta. About 1.8 million people (Table 4-7) are living in these 57 kelurahans. Average density is 166 persons per Ha. Poor slum areas are mostly located in along West Banjir Canal, Pakin-Kali Besar-Jelakeng, Upper-Sunter, and Krukut-Cideng. The population in linked sites is estimated at about 173,000.

4.6.2 Social-economic Characteristics of the Population 116. The AMDAL process interviewed 487 peoples in the administrative areas in which the 15 project sites are located. Not all responded to all of the 29 questions, and some information was not available. However, the reports provide useful information on the social-economic characteristics of the people in the areas where the project sites are located. Based on the information provided in the reports, only about 4% of the interviewees knew about the project at the time but almost all support the project. Around 86% of the interviewees said that the project would overcome flood and the rest believed that the project would create a clean environment. Around 62% of the respondents have lived in the area for more than 10 years and more than 57% families consisted of 3-5 members. About 35% of families claimed that they are originally from DKI Jakarta, almost 90% of the interviewees hold DKI Jakarta identity cards, while 2.3% hold DKI Jakarta seasonal identity cards. More than 17% were renters and around 77% own their houses that they are occupying. About 80% of the interviewees claimed that they do not have other houses. About 20% of the interviewees admitted that they are living on government land. Further, slightly more than 70% of the structures are permanent. Only about 12% of the interviewees work in formal sectors such as government employees and private sectors’ employees. The remaining was working in primary sectors, labors, drivers, traders, etc. Some of them have side jobs. About 73% of the interviewees claimed that their families earned less than US$330 per month or about US$11 per day, or slightly more than US$2 per capita. About 11.5% earned less than US$56 per family per month, which is far below the minimum regional wage for DKI Jakarta (2010), i.e. USD130 per month.

47

Table 4-7 Populations of Areas where Project’s Floodways, Canals and Retention Basins are Located

Package Location Administrative Areas Number

of Kecamatan Number of Kelurahan

Area Population

Density (person/Ha)

1 (DKI)

Ciliwung-Gunung Sahari Drain 2 6 156,663 100 Waduk Melati (Kali Gresik & Cideng Hulu) 1 2 39,650 201

2a (DGWR)

Cengkareng Floodway (including sea side) 4 7 251,312 91

2b (DGWR)

Lower Sunter Floodway Note 1 2 6 230,742 204

3 (DGCK)

Cideng Thamrin Drain (Round Road drain) 3 6 92,668 190

4 (DKI)

Sentiong-Sunter Drain (including Ancol Canal) 4 9 277,610 192 Waduk Sunter Utara (Outlet drain) 1 2 78,383 282 Waduk Sunter Selatan 1 2 119,283 108 Waduk Sunter Timur III 1 2 70,696 305

5 (DGCK)

Tanjungan Drain 2 2 64,842 90 Lower Angke Drain 3 5 184,345 140

6 (DGWR)

West Banjir Canal (sea side) 1 2 65,027 390 Upper Sunter Floodway Note 1 1 4 130,630 215

7 (DKI)

Grogol – Sekretaris Drain 2 6 160,174 125 Pakin – Kali Besar – Jelakeng Drain 3 8 153,709 476 Krukut Cideng Drain Note 2 2 5 80,470 201 Krukut Lama Drain Note 2

Total 2,156,202 166 Total without overlapping kelurahans 1,794,096

Linked Sites

Sentiong-Sunter Drain: Kali Item, Sunter Kemayoran

1 3 21,445 184

Linked Sites

Ciliwung-Gunung Sahari : Ancol-Kp. Bandan, Ancol Long Storage

1 1 17,378 46

Linked Sites

Upper Sunter : Cannal Along Jl. Kayu Putih Timur

1 1 No data No data

Linked Sites

Pakin-Kali Besar-Jelakeng : Anak K. Ciliwung Utara, Jl. Tubagus Angke, PHB Bandengan Utara, Waduk Pluit

2 8 134,381 89

Total 173,204 98 Note 1 For contracting purposes, the Sunter Floodways has been divided into two sub-packages – Upper Sunter Floodway and Lower Sunter Floodway. Note 2 For contracting purposes, the Krukut Drain has been divided into two sub-packages – Krukut Cideng Drain and Krukut Lama Drain

117. About 73 % of respondents admitted that they had experienced flooding in the area in the last 5 years; 16% claimed that they experience flooding each year. About 57% of the interviewees said that flood water went into their houses. Furthermore, 41% of the interviewees claimed that the height of water inside the house is about 20-50 cm; 50% said that water subsided more than 24 hours. Interestingly, about 68% of the respondents did not move out during the flooding. Only 6.2% of the interviewees claimed that family members got sick after the flooding. About 53% of the interviewees claimed that they have water supply from the PDAM (DKI Jakarta-owned water company), and 41% bought water from gallon and vendors. Only 0.8% of interviewees admitted that they dispose their garbage to canals/waduks, but most interviewees (64%) claimed that disposed their wastes into the garbage carts. Only 2.5% respondents said that they did waste separation prior to disposing their garbage. It is interesting to note that almost 74% of the interviewees claimed that the persons in charge of waste collection did not regularly collected the garbage.

48

5 Summary of Significant Environmental and Social Adverse Impacts

5.1 Environmental Impacts associated with the JUFMP project activities 118. With respect to the impacts associated with the JUFMP project activities (i.e. the dredging works and disposal of dredged material), the AMDALs of Phase 1 (and Phase 2) focused on (i) the dredging activities and the impacts these would cause in the drains and canals, and (ii) the impacts associated with removing, temporarily stockpiling, transporting to the entry points of the final disposal sites and any other type of handling of the removed sediment material. For these impacts, the issues are briefly outlined in Table 5-1 and discussed in subsequent subsections.

Table 5-1 Summary of Activities Causing Impact and Direct Impact

Location

Root Causes of Impacts

Activities Causing

Impacts

Direct Impacts

Canals and Drains Generation of Significant Quantities of Dredge Material. An estimated 3.4 million m3 of sediment and 95,000 m3of solid waste materials will be dredged. Potentially inadequate engineering designs and poor management and supervision of the dredging process. Potentially inadequate oversight capacity of the project and of responsible local government institutions.

Dredging – removal of sediment and solid waste from polluted canals and drains.

Operating

Dredging Plant in relatively confined and densely populated areas.

Handling,

Placing and Transporting Dredged Material to Final Disposal Sites.

Significant Noise pollution. Significant Vibration Impacts. Reduction in Air Quality from emissions

of dust particles and foul odors. Pollution of land and surface water

receptors from leached material/pollutants from dredged material.

Public Health concerns associated with water and air borne diseases.

Disruption of Traffic flows and patterns in already congested and densely populated areas.

Increased Direct discharge immediately following dredging into the estuary/North Jakarta bay from canals and drains due to increased flows and discharge rate increasing pollution of the bay area.

Improper sanitation management of Construction Camps.

Final Disposal Sites Specifically with regards Ancol CDF

Improper and Inadequate Management at Disposal Sites. Potentially inadequate Engineering designs at these locations. Potentially inadequate oversight of operations at these locations

Handling and Placing of Large Quantities of Dredged Material at final Disposal Sites.

Poor Air Quality from emissions of dust particles and foul odors affecting nearby communities.

Pollution of water and land receptors from leached dredged material.

Public Health concerns affecting nearby communities

Changes in tidal and current patterns. Sedimentation. Disturbance of Sea Biota. Degradation of Sea Water Quality

5.1.1 Significant traffic disruption.

119. The impacts on traffic are related to street closure due to mobilization of heavy equipment and transport of dredged materials (solid waste and sediment). Furthermore, equipment mobilization can cause disruption to road surface due to spillage and negligence. Serious traffic disruption resulting from increased heavy construction vehicles and large trucks transporting sediment and solid waste material to

49

and from disposal sites, resulting in longer travel times for road users in already heavily congested roads in highly densely populated areas, resulting in increased ambient noise levels affecting public facilities like schools and places of worship, emission of exhaust pollutant gases and dust particles of including Carbon monoxide (CO) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) resulting in reduced air quality. For instance, the AMDAL for activities in the first year predicts that dredging activities at these sites will increase vehicle rotation per hour, for 360 days, by 2-8 trucks per hour.  

5.1.2 Reduced air quality and foul odors. 120. The impacts on air quality are due to equipment mobilization and operations of machineries and heavy equipment, and the land transport using trucks from dredging locations to the Ancol CDF and other disposal sites. Dredging and separating bulk refuse materials in Phase 1 sites are predicted to reduce air quality and to increase odor level. Without proper management, the dredging materials may make the environment surrounding the project locations unhygienic and cause stench. As the dredging locations are mostly in densely populated areas (residential, trading, etc), the impacts on air quality and odor require particular attention. The impact is of high intensity, affecting a large number of people and other environmental components. However, the impacts are of short duration (during the dredging and separating of bulk material) and there will only be limited impacts that are cumulative in nature.Increased noise levels

121. Disruptions from noise levels are due to equipment mobilization and operations of machineries and heavy equipment, and the land transport using trucks from dredging locations to the Ancol CDF and other disposal sites. Dredging activities (dredging, sorting and stockpiling) are to be carried out during day time, while transportation to the disposal sites will be done at night so as not to worsen the traffic congestion but this would exacerbate the effects of the increased in noise levels. Existing measured ambient noise levels during the day at the project levels already exceed acceptable standards and the dredging works will likely increase these levels further causing higher noise intensity in the project areas.

5.1.3 Change of water discharge rate

122. The impacts on water discharge rate are due to dredging activities that will increase the capacities of floodways/drainage canals and waduks, which consequently increase the discharge rate and reduce the risk of flooding. In the post-project period, maintenance dredging will maintain the holding capacities of floodways/drainage canals and waduks in order to continue reducing flood risk.

5.1.4 Change of surface water quality.

123. The impacts on water quality are due to dredging activities that will increase TSS content and consequently may disturb water biota. However, dredging will impact water discharge rate of the dredged floodways/drainage canals and waduks. The anticipated dredging volume of about 3.4 m3 will cause a minimum of about 50% increase in each of the water bodies’ capacity, which will consequently increase water flows by about 50%. Therefore, the risk of flooding will be reduced. This will be a high-intensity and long-term positive impact, and the impacts will not be limited to each project area.

5.1.5 Change of sea water quality

124. Changes to sea water quality are considered as a derivative impact of the change of water quality upstream during dredging activities. Due to the nature of dredging activities, the surface water quality at each location will be impacted in the form of TSS increase. Baseline TSS concentrations indicated

50

achievements of prescribed standard and the dredging activities may increase the TSS concentrations. This impact will occur at low intensity with a distribution limited to each project location and is reversible. However, it could affect a large number of people and other environmental components. If not managed properly, other environmental components will be affected and may last longer than the dredging period itself.

5.1.6 Increase of solid waste

125. Potential impacts on solid waste are due to the dredging and transport of dredged materials which may cause sediment and solid waste spills around the project locations. This could consequently impact public health and lead to negative public perceptions of the dredging activities. Dredging and separating bulk refuse materials in Phase 1 are predicted to increase solid waste. Without proper management, the dredging materials may make the environment surrounding the project locations unhygienic and cause stench. As the dredging locations are mostly in densely populated areas (residential, trading, etc), the impacts on solid waste require particular attention. The impact is of high intensity, affecting a large number of people and other environmental components. However, the impacts are of short duration (during the dredging and separating of bulk material) and there will only be limited impacts that are cumulative in nature.

5.1.7 Impact on Biota

126. Terrestrial Biota. Impacts on terrestrial vegetation may occur during workers and heavy equipment mobilization prior to the commencement of the dredging activities. Once the dredging is completed the areas will be rehabilitated.

127. Aquatic Biota. Disturbance to aquatic biota is a derivative impact from the changes to surface water quality.

5.1.8 Impact on Public health and environmental sanitation 128. Public health impacts are due to dredging activities and transport of dredged materials to the disposal sites. Similar to the impacts on public health, impacts on environmental sanitation will occur during the dredging and transport of dredged material.

5.2 JUFMP Project Impacts on Ancol CDF

129. Impacts associated with the disposal of the non hazardous sediment material once it enters the gate at the Ancol CDF and how that is managed from this entry point to how it is finally disposed of in a process which involves the final placing, compaction and capping of this material within the perimeters of the 119 ha Ancol CDF is the subject of a separate standalone AMDAL (ANDAL/RKL/RPL) for Ancol CDF prepared by PT. PJA the owner concessionaire of the Ancol CDF. The main impacts addressed in the AMDAL for the Ancol CDF, which are all inter-related, are:

Changes in tidal and current patterns - The AMDAL estimates that the construction and operation of the Ancol CDF will likely lead to only slight changes to the pattern of longshore current around the project location. The result of hydrodynamic simulation conducted indicates that the filing/reclamation of project area will not significantly change the pattern of the current. In general, the dominant pattern of the current around the project location remains the same, namely from Westward-Northwestward to Eastward-Northeastward. However, the velocity of the current

51

will decrease from 1.52 m/second to 1.45 m/second. In the eastern reclaimed island, the velocity of the current slightly increases, while in the northwestern side, the current reduces speed. The result of the hydrodynamic simulation of West Ancol Reclamation Plan conducted as part of the AMDAL indicates the following; (i) There is no significant change in the pattern and velocity of current before and after the reclamation. The current near the reclamation location slows down by + 5cm/second (insignificant). (ii) The sediment distribution modeling during the reclamation indicates an increase of sediment content by 33 mg/L (insignificant) and (iii) The bathymetry change modeling shows that the depth of water only changes a few centimeters (insignificant).

Sedimentation - Reclamation activity will lead to sedimentation as a result of disturbed natural balance, particularly that related to the change in the pattern of longshore current. Meanwhile, the construction of sea dike/breakwater will function as barriers of sea waves and minimize potential abrasion and sedimentation in project area and its surroundings. The result of simulation of the pattern of current after the reclamation activity indicates an increase in the current velocity in the eastern reclaimed land. This means that abrasion potentially will occur in that location. Meanwhile, sedimentation will occur in the northwest reclaimed island as the current in the aforementioned location weakens. The impacts of abrasion and sedimentation will further affect sea water quality and marine biota.

Degradation of Sea Water Quality - Filling/reclamation activity using sand, dredged sediment and laterite will increase the turbidity and TSS in the surrounding water, potentially by up to 5 times if compared to the pre-project (i.e. Ancol CDF) condition. There are also additional concerns that the activities of the approximately 400 project construction workers will produce sewage that may not be adequately managed and contained. At the end, these conditions will also affect the life of marine biota, environmental esthetics, environmental sanitation and public perception of the project. Disturbance of Sea Biota - Reduction in water quality due to increased sedimentation, filling the reclamation area with sand and dredged sediment and construction camp solid waste and sewage will potentially have a significant impact on marine biota. The anticipated impacts on marine biota (plankton, benthos & nekton) constitute both direct and indirect impacts. The filling activity will not only directly lead to the smothering of the marine biota habitat in the reclaimed area, but also indirectly increase the turbidity and TSS in the water territory so as to hamper the penetration of sunlight into the water and obstruct the photosynthesis process of phytoplankton and reduce the content of dissolved oxygen in the water territory which will affect benthos and nekton life.

5.3 Offsite Impacts from Ancol CDF 130. In addition to the 3.4 million m3 of dredged sediment material from this project, the construction of the perimeter walls and the filling of Ancol CDF will require about 8.6 million m3 of sand. According to the approved RKL and RPL, this sand is to be obtained from a marine source, in the Banten Area of the coast from North Jakarta. This location where the sand will be obtained from already has an approved Environmental Permit43. The engineering design shows that the sediment material would form the bottom most layer of the filled area, which will then be overlaid by the sand layer which will in turn be capped with laterite soil material. The volume of laterite material required is estimated at 400,000m3 to be 43 According to the approved RKL and RPL, the environment permits for the Banten marine area to provide sand are (i) Serang Regency Number 666/750/LKH dated April 13, 2005 issued to PT Gora Gahana and (ii) The Mining and Energy Central Amdal Commission Number 5038/0115/SJ.T/199 dated December 5, 1994 issued to PT SAC Nusantara. The permit allows the company to exploit about 10 million m3 of sand from the area of 1,056 ha in the position of 5o 54’ 47’2’’ – 5o 56’ 12.2’’ South and 106o 11’ 39.9’’ – 106o 17’ 36.3’’ East

52

obtained from land based sources near Bekasi, West Java that is also operating under environmental permits.44 The environmental impacts at the marine sources of sand and the land based source of laterite are not mentioned in the Ancol ANDAL, RKL and RPL. All that is mentioned is that these sites have an approved AMDAL and are operating under environmental permits. This remains a reputational risk for the project. This issue was raised by the World Bank with PT. PJA, and it was agreed that the Supervision Consultant for the project will supervise and monitor the activities at these offsite locations (for the sourcing of the sand and the laterite).

5.4 JUFMP Project Impacts on Bantar Gebang and PPLi facility 131. Impacts associated with the disposal of solid waste material in Bantar Gebang Landfill and hazardous B3 sediment material (if any are found) in the PPLi facility are not the subject of any recent AMDALs, as these sites are currently in existence and have been in use for many years and are deemed to be operating under environmental permits. Notwithstanding this, the project impacts at these facilities may include potentially and incrementally; leachate generation, uncontrolled methane generation and emission, increased traffic volumes and congestion, generation of foul odors and further reduction in air quality.

5.5 Social Impacts

5.5.1 PAPs Sites 132. Potential social impacts can be categorized into resettlement-related (hereafter called PAPs sites) and non-resettlement related issues (hereafter called non-PAPs sites). Preliminary census surveys were carried out at the project sites between April and October 201045. Since the detailed boundaries of the project work area had not yet been finalized at the time, the preliminary census and consultations considered the likely potential impacted areas. From the preliminary surveys, seven sites were identified to have potential resettlement that is related to activities of dredging and/or embankment works46. Initial data compilation from these preliminary census surveys recorded 2,513 units of potential affected structures (as per January 2011), which were occupied by 2,369 families, or 6,507 persons. 133. About 53% of families in the initially identified seven PAPs sites have lived there for more than 10 years, 66% held Jakarta identity cards, and 45% were living on non-permanent structures. About 82% of the families work in informal sectors (labors, drivers, farmers, farmers/fishermen, traders/small businesses and other jobs). About 13% families have built their structures on their own land, while the remaining are occupying government land. About 82% own their structures and 8.5% are renters. Information on the number of squatter landlords (both occupying and absentee), and encroachers are not yet available. These categories will be reconfirmed during the update of the survey census. Geographical distribution of affected structures and persons are concentrated in four of the seven sites, i.e., Upper Sunter and West Banjir Canal (WBC), Kali Pakin-Kali Besar-Jelakeng and Krukut Cideng, representing 2,253 structures or almost 90% of the total affected structures involving close to 88% of PAPs. The

44 The Environmental Permits for the source of laterite soil will be reviewed by the Supervision Consultant. 45 A further census was also carried out between November 2010 and January 2011 at an additional site (Sentiong-Sunter drains) after a design revision resulted in the identification of PAPs. 46 Sentiong-Sunter Drain, Waduk North Sunter, West Banjir Canal, Upper Sunter Floodway, Pakin-Kali Besar-Jelakeng Drain, Lower Angke Drain, and Krukut-Cideng.

53

mostly densely populated sites are Krukut-Cideng and Pakin-Kali Besar-Jelakeng, while WBC and Upper Sunter are the two sites that have largest numbers of impacted structures and PAPs. Both consist of 1,360 structures or 54% of the total affected structures involving 3,828 PAPs or almost 52% or the total PAPs. Geographical distribution of the affected structures and PAPs is presented in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1 Number of Potential Affected Persons (Structures and Number of headcount and Household)

134. Minimization of impacts. Significant efforts have been made to minimize the number of PAPs, initially through careful selection of the scope of the project – balancing between selecting priority sections of canals and waduks for flood mitigation impact and minimizing the potential PAPs. Following the initial census surveys, further efforts have been made through an iterative process to adopt engineering designs and selection of works methodology to minimize impact. Based on the latest detailed engineering designs (DEDs) and field verification47 in April 2011, it is now estimated that six48 out of the 15 project sites will involve involuntary resettlement, and the number of affected structures have been reduced from 2,513 units (occupied by 6,507 persons) to 1,109 units (occupied by 5,228 persons) – as summarized in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2 Estimated Affected Structures and Persons at Project Sites Package Location Area

Population Estimated affected

structures (May 2011)

Estimated affected persons

(May 2011) 1

(DKI) Ciliwung-Gunung Sahari Drain 156,663 - - Waduk Melati (Kali Gresik & Cideng Hulu)

39,650 - -

2a (DGWR)

Cengkareng Floodway (including sea side)

251,312 - -

2b (DGWR)

Lower Sunter Floodway Note 1 230,742 - -

3 (DGCK)

Cideng Thamrin Drain (Round Road drain)

92,668 - -

47 Carried out by the project preparation consultants hired by the PMU. 48 By avoiding involuntary resettlement at the Lower Angke Drain site (see footnote 46 for initial list).

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Total Number of Structures Number of Household in Structures Number of Headcount

54

4 (DKI)

Sentiong-Sunter Drain (including Ancol Canal)

277,610 104 547

Waduk Sunter Utara (Outlet drain)

78,383 42 165

Waduk Sunter Selatan 119,283 - - Waduk Sunter Timur III 70,696 - -

5 (DGCK)

Tanjungan Drain 64,842 - - Lower Angke Drain 184,345 - -

6 (DGWR)

West Banjir Canal (sea side) 65,027 593 2,838 Upper Sunter Floodway Note 1 130,630 63 368

7 (DKI)

Grogol – Sekretaris Drain 160,174 - - Pakin – Kali Besar – Jelakeng Drain

153,709 127 481

Krukut Cideng Drain Note 2 80,470 180 829 Krukut Lama Drain Note 2

Total 2,156,202 1,109 5,228 Total without overlapping

kelurahans 1,794,096

135. Project linked sites. As discussed in Section 2.3, project linked sites were identified based on hydraulic and direct physical linkages to JUFMP sites. DKI Jakarta currently has no specific plans for rehabilitation works at these linked sites. However, DKI Jakarta will apply the requirements of OP 4.12 in the event that linked activities are carried out in the linked sites49. Since there are no specific plans for the linked sites, it is not possible to determine the number of affected persons at this time. Based on a rapid survey carried out in 200950, a rough estimate of the structures that could be affected is 8,150 (90% of which is in a single linked site i.e., Waduk Pluit). This should be considered a hypothetical maximum – the number of affected structures would be smaller once impact minimization consideration is taken into account in designs, and especially if Waduk Pluit is not included. 136. Maintenance works. It is understood that DKI Jakarta has done and will continue to have maintenance activities in the project linked sites, i.e., clean up garbage on the water bodies and fixing some parts of the embankments as necessary. So far, DKI Jakarta has always avoided damage or the need to relocate structures during the maintenance activities by using appropriate equipments and avoiding areas where structures are present. For example, it was reported that in 2010 that two linked sites, i.e., Tubagus Angke and Anak K. Ciliwung Utara, were maintenance dredged with backhoe and manual equipment in selected sections to avoid any impacts on overhanging structures.

5.5.2 Non-PAPs sites 137. Currently, nine out of the 15 project sites are designated non-PAP sites - as summarized in Table 5-2. However, at four sites, i.e. Cengkareng drain, Lower Sunter floodway, Ciliwung-Gunung Sahari drain, and Grogol-Sekretaris drain, there would be impacts on the operators and owners of 19 crossing boats during the construction. Potential social impacts of dredging and embankment rehabilitation at the project sites would mostly occur during construction, such as disturbances during the mobilization of heavy equipments and transportation of the sludge materials to the disposal sites (including solid wastes); noise; odor; heavy traffic, and traffic accident; damage to local roads; temporary loss of income for boat scavengers who pick garbage from canals, and for operators and owners of crossing boats. As the impact

49 Linked activities as defined by the criteria for identifying linked sites in OP 4.12. 50 Two linked sites, i.e. Canal along Kayu Putih Timur and North Ciliwung were not covered in these surveys.

55

would be temporary on a relatively small number of boat operators/owners in each of the above-mentioned canals, DKI Jakarta will carry out intensive consultations with them to find practical solutions during construction so that they will be able to the extent possible continue their activities. Prior to the start of construction, DKI Jakarta will carry out verification field survey, to reconfirm that the non-PAPs sites remain free from PAPs within the subproject impact areas.

5.5.3 Potential non-resettlement related social impacts.  138. Potential social impacts that are not related to resettlement were identified during the AMDALs consultations and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) - see Chapter 9 for details of consultations. One of the main issue that arose during the consultations relates to the “perception and concerns” of communities on the project impacts. Communities were worried if the project required them to relocate, and if so, they were anxious to be properly compensated. This was perhaps because most of them are poor squatters, and DKI Jakarta has in the past relocated or evicted squatters without compensation or only with a small amount of social grants (see box at the end of this chapter for a discussion of recent eviction practices in Jakarta). Communities were also worried that they may not be properly consulted, well-informed prior to construction, and cannot communicate their complaints, aspirations and suggestions during construction to the project management and contractors. Communities expected that the project will employ them during construction, to participate in the garbage selection activities to obtain wastes that have economic value. In almost all project sites, the AMDALs studies indicated that constructions would only be able to provide small number of jobs compared to the number of the potentially available workforce in the community. For instance, in the waduks of North Sunter, East Sunter III, and South Sunter, it was estimated that the project would provide 294 low-paying jobs (labor) for 12 months, which is about 6.5% of the workforce51. For Upper Sunter, it was estimated that the project would only increase the total available employment opportunities by 0.024%. The study anticipated that contractors would bring skilled workers from outside the area that will operate high-technology dredging equipment. Further, communities were concerned that during construction their living environment will be disturbed and damaged by the improper management of temporary disposal and transportation of dredged materials, causing inconvenience due to damaged local roads, dusts, bad odors, dredged materials spillages, increased traffic congestion, and noise from the equipments and trucks.

5.5.4 Evictions during the period of JUFMP Project Preparation.  139. During project preparation, at least five major evictions had taken place in areas adjacent to the JUFMP project sites, i.e. Taman BMW, Kemiri, Tambora VI and VIII, and Priok, for several reasons that were apparently not related to the project. Taman BMW was a potential candidate for the project’s disposal site but was not chosen due to technical considerations. Eviction in Taman BMW took place in 2008 due to DKI Jakarta’s plan to build a sport stadium. The Priok eviction, located about 1 km north-west of the mouth of Lower Sunter Floodway, was related to the relocation of a cemetery that was believed to have cultural and spiritual value. The Kemiri, Tambora VI and Tambora VIII locations are adjacent to the project sites. The evictions took place for traders conducting activities along the inspection road shoulder of Cengkareng drain nearby the Kemiri market, and along the shoulders of Tambora VI and VIII roads (associated with project’s Pakin-Kali Besar-Jelakeng site). Evictions in these sites have been

51 The report did not provide clear information whether the total workforce used in the analysis consisted only of fully unemployed workforce, or included partially unemployed workforce.

56

long planned by the Municipality of West Jakarta. Evictions were carried out after a lengthy consultation processes between the traders and the West Jakarta Municipal Government on the options of relocation sites, but unfortunately, failed to reach agreement on relocation. The forced eviction outside Kemiri market of informal traders who were doing businesses along the roads on the side of the riverbanks (initial plan was in 2007, actual eviction took place in December 2008) was due to traffic congestions and complains by tenants of the formal Kemiri market against the informal traders along the shoulder of the inspection road that were more easily accessible by customer. The eviction at Tambora VI (initial plan was in September 2007, actual eviction in December 2008) took place to enforce public order control for illegal businesses, and restore the function of the riverbanks and road shoulder to their original conditions. The eviction at Tambora VIII in February 2009 occurred after the annual permits for traders expired and for reducing traffic congestion.

140. Considering the proximity of the Kemiri, Tambora VI and Tambora VIII locations to JUFMP sites, the West Jakarta Municipality (with support from the Bank) undertook Tracer Studies52 to assess impacts of the evictions and potential linkages to the JUFMP. The Bank’s team made field visits and discussed the possible remedial actions with the West Jakarta Municipality for the returned evictees. They claimed that they had offered alternative relocation sites prior to eviction and the offers are still valid after the eviction (when the tracer studies were carried out), but traders/vendors did not want to move to the offered sites. Based on documentary evidence and interviews carried out at these sites after the evictions, the studies confirmed that these eviction processes had started significantly before the commencement of the JUFMP discussions with the Government, and the reasons for eviction were unconnected to JUFMP. Annex 2 presents the more detailed summary of the tracer studies.

Box: Evictions in Jakarta

Historical development of evictions Eviction has been a long-standing policy and practice of DKI Jakarta government in repossessing government land mainly for the development of projects in the public interests. The implementation of evictions has evolved over time with the trend that illegal occupiers are getting better treated with more humane approaches. During the New Order (Suharto) Era, evictions had been implemented in more violent ways, whereby consultations with the illegal occupiers were not done, and no compensation was provided. Even during the tenure of the former Jakarta Governor, heavy extortion and violent methods were prevalent. Today, instructions to evict are given on the grounds of public order by employing Local Government Regulation no. 8 of 2007. Evictions are requested by various actors, e.g. the Railway Corporation for clearing railroads, the Public Works Office for protecting roads and waterways, Governors or Mayor’s office seeking public order, public parks/spaces, greenings, better traffic management, or simply responding to community complaints. The Province approves an eviction and the Municipality is responsible for implementation, employing the Public Safety Office (Trantib) to carry out such public orders. Evolution of eviction practices Recent evictions have involved some degree of consultations, better warnings (at least three notifications prior to the date of the eviction), the promotion of self-dismantlement of structures (to salvage reusable components), some amount of compensation, and in some cases, resettlement packages. The packages offer a range of options depending on the location and characteristics of the community, e.g.: (i) subsidized relocation to a selection of formalized markets that include 6 months free rent for traders; (ii) ‘social grant’ (uang kerohiman) packages that cover resettlement costs, or transportation costs to return to home villages, or compensation for structures (ranging in between US$50-110); and in some cases, (iii) low cost subsidized public housing, as well as in some exceptional cases, (iv) skills training. If evictions were planned at locations

52 The tracer studies reports i.e., “Tracer Study at Tambora VI and Tambora VIII” and “Case Study Eviction Cengkareng Drain Inspection Road” are available in project files.

57

that were previously cleared, forced evictions were conducted without any compensation. Concerns on evictions relate to the management and protection of the cleared sites from reoccupation, and DKI Jakarta has no data base system that can track those already compensated who may have moved to other public land.

6 Analysis of Alternatives

6.1 The “do nothing” option 141. At a strategic level, the “do nothing” option is to allow flooding and its adverse effects to continue and to worsen. Clearly this is not acceptable. Specifically in relation to the proposed JUFMP project, the “do nothing” alternative essentially means worsening the situation of clogged drainage channels and socio-economic effects of frequent flooding. This is not a situation favored by the GoI, DKI and by the affected communities. Additionally, the sediment in the waterways would continue to get flushed in an uncontrolled manner to Jakarta Bay.

6.2 Overall Alternative Analysis 142. In both AMDALs for the Phase 1 and for the Ancol CDF works, the analysis of alternatives focused on alternatives for mitigation or other impact management approaches. For example, with respect to the Phase 1 AMDAL, various mechanical dredging options and methodologies to reduce impacts associated with these types of activities were considered and with respect to the Ancol CDF AMDAL, various options for fill material and their sources were considered and evaluated. Whereas, with respect to the broader strategic options for disposal of the dredged sediment material, the World Bank, DKI Jakarta and PMU teams considered multiple options and alternatives based on sediment test results, past experiences, technical and financial reasons and opportunistic project development works, as part of the decision making process that led to the selection of the Ancol CDF as the final disposal site for non hazardous material. For instance, during past dredging operations, excavated material was usually dumped on any vacant land owned by DKI (Jakarta Provincial Government). In some cases sediments are placed on embankments and not otherwise disposed of, which results in sludge returning to waterways. The JUFMP provides the first opportunity for DKI Jakarta and the Government of Indonesia (GOI) to coordinate and dispose dredged materials in a defined and managed disposal area, and to introduce best-practice management principles. GOI assessed several disposal sites and management alternatives. Initially DKI proposed several land based sites that were available, scattered throughout the city:

Taman BMW – large site with many informal communities that were evicted53; very visible along the toll road

Muara Kali Adem – Sea based site and may be considered in the future54

Under Toll Road (Pluit Karang) – located on the toll interchange, very visible and poses concerns about the aesthetic and odor aspects if utilized as a disposal site; many informal communities with fisheries and banana plantations

Kamal Muara – very small location with nearby industry and housing (open lot)

53 For reasons unrelated to the project – see box at the end of Chapter 5. 54 Not for JUFMP. Ancol CDF’s potential capacity for 12 million m3 filling material is more than adequate to accommodate JUFMP dredge material estimated to be about 3.4 million m3.

58

Kapuk Muara – already converted into a housing development

Pluit – small location; next to fisheries

Rorotan – being utilized as a temporary solid waste disposal area along the river and near industrial activities

Cakung – next to Rorotan (above); a small lot next to industrial areas 143. The World Bank inspected and assessed the suitability of each proposed disposal site. These proposed sites were rejected due to their minimal disposal capacity, resettlement issues, aesthetic and odor issues, and supervision difficulties. Three sea-based disposal locations were also considered at Muara Kali Adem (MKA), Marunda, and Ancol. The site at Ancol was strategically chosen for its accelerated preparedness, size and capacity (capable of receiving almost three times the dredged materials of the Project, or approximately 12 million m3), and central location along the coast of Jakarta Bay. It is also important to note that the Ancol site also had the advantage that it was already an approved ongoing reclamation project. The utilization of the Ancol site is considered a ‘win-win’ scenario. The other two sea-based locations considered would have had to be constructed, at considerable costs and with the effect of displacing more near-shore area with additional environmental impacts. At the same time, the utilization of non-hazardous dredge material for the Ancol site reclamation will reduce the negative impact from use of other material (sand) to be sourced from quarries.

144. Developing the Ancol area is part of DKI’s greater spatial planning and the DKI BPLHD has approved the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA, or AMDAL). The site provides ease of access from the river mouths of the city. Plans for developing sea-based disposal facilities at MKA and Marunda were deemed unnecessary due to the large capacity inherent at Ancol. The Government also stated that the proposed disposal locations at MKA and Marunda potentially conflict with spatial plans on reclamation that would require review.

6.3 Specific Alternative Analyses

6.3.1 Catchment wide vs. local flood management 145. For the purposes of this subsection major flood management refers to very major activity such as construction of new major diversions to reduce flooding in the urban area from middle and upper catchment rainfall. Local flood management refers to actions that can be undertaken at the local level to enhance efficient delivery of local rainfall to local channels / drains and thence to the sea. While there may be debate on the relative priorities, there is common agreement that the two options are not mutually exclusive - both are required as part of an integrated package. JUFMP is based on the lower part of the catchment. While focusing mostly on local flood management, JUFMP project activities will increase the ability of already established but underperforming floodways to more effectively transfer upper catchment-derived floods to the sea.

6.3.2 Engineering vs. non-engineering approach 146. Engineering-works for the purposes of this subsection are defined as normal engineering construction and operation projects such as improving flow carrying capacity of drains, pumps, barriers / sea walls. The non-engineering approach by contrast addresses such aspects as changing people’s behavior (e.g., preventing deposition of solid waste into the waterways) and land use planning and

59

implementation to move people away from flood-prone areas. JUFMP’s focus is on the engineering approach that will yield immediate benefits. However, this would support the much broader non-engineering approach and opportunities are being undertaken through JUFMP to highlight the broader issues. For example, management of solid waste at and immediately around the dredging sites will demonstrate the benefits of appropriate solid waste management, thereby setting practical examples of what can be achieved.

6.3.3 Choice of dredging sites 147. JUFMP hydraulic simulation studies have recommended the rehabilitation of the city’s floods management system to its original design capacity and a routine maintenance system as the most beneficial first step for flood mitigation in Jakarta. The sections of the Jakarta flood management system included in the project have been identified by the Government as in priority need of urgent rehabilitation and improvement in flow capacities. Prioritization was made based on previous studies under the Western Java Environmental Management Project55 (WJEMP) and various earlier studies on flood control and flood mitigation in Jakarta area. The Project scoping also took into account the inclusion of all responsible institutions as a means to encourage and establish the required long term sustained routine maintenance system. The Project is expected to have important beneficial demonstration effects in terms of institutional coordination, dredging technology and methods, disposal of dredge material, and sound environmental and equitable resettlement practices. As such, the technical, environmental and social complexities of works were also taken into account in project scoping and implementation sequencing in order to increase the likelihood of success.

6.3.4 Dredging technology: Mechanical vs. Hydraulic 148. Dredging technologies can be broadly grouped as the back-hoe / clam shell type and the suction dredging (with or without cutter heads). Suction dredging was not pursued as it is incompatible with the significant amount of solid waste in the sediment of the waterways. Pontoon-based back-hoes are the preferred technology as the majority of construction activity can be restricted to the waterway itself, rather than having to disturb a wide strip along the length of the waterway being dredged.

6.3.5 Solid Waste Separation 149. Separation of the solid wastes from the dredged sediment was considered in terms of the amount of material to be separated, use of mechanical or manual sorting and the location of any sorting. Only large sized waste item from the dredged sediment will be sorted and removed. Examination of previous filling of other areas with dredged sediment determined that this is adequate and the disposal methods and post-filling land use would not be constrained. Sorting at the dredging sites themselves is preferred as it limits the potential congestion at the Ancol CDF, offers the potential for temporary local employment and integrates with other activities to keep the dredging sites and immediate surroundings “clean and tidy” during dredging.

150. Mechanical separation was tested but would need to be located at the Ancol site. The nature of the material, need for supplementary water and operational difficulties demonstrated no advantage for mechanical separation. Thus the proposed method of manual separation of only large sized items (and possibly optional separation of smaller items that can be recycled) at the dredging sites has been adopted.

55 World Bank-financed Western Java Environmental Management Project (Project ID P040528), which closed June 30, 2006.

60

Jakarta’s only currently operational general landfill at Bantar Gebang offers the only reasonable and secure disposal site for solid waste material.

6.3.6 Transport options: Land based (dump truck) vs. hydraulic 151. Transport considered three main options – hydraulic (pumping), barge and truck, integrating these with dredging technologies and with the chosen disposal site. Pumping was considered inappropriate since the amount of solid waste would likely cause blockages. This would significantly affect any dredging program. Barge transport would not be feasible in most locations because of the bridges and bottlenecks over the drains preventing access to the sea; however, this may be a contractor-preferred method for the lower portions of the larger waterways. Truck transport is therefore the only alternative for the majority of sites and hence is chosen, with the assumption that it will be used everywhere representing a potential worst case situation with regard to traffic effects.

7 Environmental Management Plans

7.1 Overall Environmental Management and Monitoring Plans 152. The Environmental Management Plan (RKL) and the Environmental Monitoring Plan (RPL) under the Indonesian AMDAL (EIA) system, together constitute the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) requirement under the World Bank Environmental Assessment OP4.01 Annex C. The RKL and RPL for the Phase 1 project sites and for the Ancol CDF have been approved as part of the AMDAL approval process (see Section 3.5). Under the Indonesia AMDAL system, quarterly implementation reports of the RKL and RPL for both the Project sites (i.e. Phase 1 and Phase 2 works) and the Ancol CDF will be have to be prepared and submitted to the provincial BPLHD during the construction period. These reports form the basis for oversight monitoring of the works by the DKI BPLHD. They also offer a tangible opportunity to report back to the DKI BPLHD on any changes in the project scope and details since the AMDAL was reviewed and approved and also on compliance during construction with the implementation of the approved mitigation and monitoring measures in the works.

153. Under this project, the Phase 1 and Phase 2 RKLs and RPLs will be incorporated into the dredging and civil works bidding documents to ensure that all potential contractors are able to price for them and that the plans become part of the suite of legally binding civil works contract documents56. The RKLs and RPLs and the other contract documents such as the detailed design engineering drawings, technical specifications for works, etc., together contain all the required elements such as the corresponding mitigation measures for each of the identified impacts for each stage of the works, the responsibilities for implementing and for monitoring these, the monitoring indicators, and the costs for ensuring these are all implemented. Meanwhile, the responsibility for pre-dredge sediment testing (as part of the projects overall testing protocol for determining hazardous material and thereby ensuring that only non-hazardous material is transported and disposed of at the Ancol CDF) has been included in the Terms of Reference of the SC.

154. Once project construction works start, the quarterly implementation reports for the associated RKLs and RPLs will be prepared by the dredging and works contractors jointly with the SC. These will

56 Note the similar arrangements for Ancol CDF where PT. PJA has incorporated the RKL and RPL requirements for Ancol CFD into their construction contracts – see Chapter 3, Section 3.7.2.

61

be reviewed and cleared by the PMU and the World Bank prior to submission to BPLHD. The preparation and submission of quarterly implementation reports for the RKL and RPL of Ancol CDF are ongoing (see Chapter 3, Section 3.7.2 for a description of the arrangements for Ancol CDF, including their preparation, review and submission).

7.2 Transport Management Plans 155. The dredging and construction contractors are also required to prepare and implement Traffic Management Plans (TMPs), which are subject to the approval and supervision of the SC57. Detailed contract specific TMPs is to be prepared by each contractor for their specific operating fleet. These contract specific TMPs, will be guided by the overall project level Generic Transport Management Plan (GTMP) that has been prepared by the PMU during project preparation. The GTMP have been developed for the JUFMP Phase 1 sites taking into account the following:

The project-required truck movement of dredged material from dredging sites to the Ancol (for the disposal of dredge material), the PPLi disposal sites (for the disposal of hazardous material if any are found), and to Bantar Gebang (for the disposal of solid waste).

The identified possible routes and road networks (with GPS system attached).

The standard city regulations associated with: o Transport truck movement around the city including route designation and restricted

hours of operation. o Certification addressing emissions and safety of the vehicles. o Traffic management / safety / signage etc. at loading / unloading areas.

The requirement for approval of the detailed implementation TMPs.

The concerns expressed during current project community consultation related to “community disturbance” (an all encompassing term), “site access and congestion” and preventing “spillage of material” along transport routes and at loading points.

The need for on-going community consultation and ANDAL, RKL and RPL requirements.

156. A separate detailed Ancol site TMP is being developed for the immediate area of the Ancol CDF site by PT. PJA and will be linked and coordinated into the specific Phase 1 site TMPs. The unloading of sediment material and solid waste all occur within the disposal sites. The Ancol updated RKL / RPL specifically requires vehicle washing of every truck before leaving the disposal site to prevent dirt being deposited onto public roads. Calculations indicate no traffic congestion on public roads associated with the Phase 1 truck movements. Moreover, it is noted that Ancol has experience of traffic management from other projects, including having a detailed system of “holding” trucks away from areas where congestion might be occurring under abnormal conditions.

8 Resettlement Planning

8.1 Approach for Social Impact Management 157. The key project social safeguards instruments consist of (i) a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF), and (ii) specific Resettlement Plans (RPs) for each project site where Project Affected Persons

57 During bidding, bidders are required to prepare preliminary Transport Management Plans as a part of their technical proposal. Final Transport Management Plans are prepared by the winning contractors prior to the start of work.

62

(PAPs) are found. The rationale of this approach, including a sequenced approach for implementation risk management, adaptation to a constantly changing urban setting, and the timing of the disclosure of various social safeguards documents have been discussed earlier (see sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3). 158. The key principles adopted by the project for social impact management were as follows:

First, both resettlement and non-resettlement related social impacts are avoided or minimized (if avoidance is not possible). This is done through limiting works to priority sections, careful selection of dredging approaches and equipment technology, and detailed engineering designs (DEDs) geared towards minimizing impact. The potential social impact of the project, including a discussion of the efforts to minimize impact, is described in Section 5.5.

Second, the project will be implemented in two phases (see Section 2.4). It is designed to proceed first with construction in the sites that have no potential PAPs (refer to Table 4-7). The sequencing of works is a key implementation risk management mechanism for the project. Amongst others, it will allow DKI Jakarta sufficient time to prepare the RPs for the PAPs sites (particularly to have sufficient and meaningful consultations).

Third, as a result of project phasing, a RPF has been developed by DKI Jakarta in close discussion with the Bank project task team since mid 2008. It will guide DKI Jakarta, particularly its RP team under the Environmental and Social Working Group (ESWG) of PIU DKI Jakarta in preparing the RPs. The institutional arrangements for the implementation of social safeguards requirements of the project, including arrangements and responsibilities for monitoring, have been described in Section 3.8.

Fourth, the project carried out significant public consultations - during AMDALs preparations through standard consultations (twice for each AMDAL, prior to the finalization of the TOR and the AMDAL study itself), and through FGDs in all project sites. These consultations have been reported to be effective in increasing the communities’ awareness of the project, and in capturing the concerns, aspirations and expectations of the communities for the pre, during, and post-construction stages. Chapter 9 provides a description of the consultations that have taken place during the project preparation period.

Fifth, relevant concerns, aspirations and expectations of the communities identified during the AMDALs consultations and FGDs that should be addressed during construction have been included in the bidding documents of the civil works (later to become contracts for the winning contractors). In addition, the TOR of the SC includes assignments to ensure that activities addressing these issues to be carried out by contractors are well monitored and supervised.

Lastly, in order to avoid uncertainty and unfair treatment of the PAPs that could lead to social unrest and conflicts between the PAPs and DKI Jakarta, the project will activate the GRS facilities and services, and continuously carry out meaningful consultations with the communities, especially with the PAPs during RPs preparation and during construction. Chapter 10 provides a summary description of the project’s GRS.

8.2 Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF)

159. DKI Jakarta has prepared the RPF for this project in close coordination with the Bank’s task team. The RPF seeks to address the gaps between the current legal framework on land acquisition and

63

resettlement of Indonesia and compliance with OP 4.12. The purpose of the RPF is to clarify principles, procedures and organizational arrangements to be applied to the preparation of the RPs. In particular, the policy framework (a) confirms that it applies for the project sites as well as linked sites; (b) identifies the likely categories of PAPs; (c) outlines the process of development of RPs including preparation, review, approval, and disclosure; (d) addresses the entitlements of PAPs who are occupants of state or government land as well as entitlements of PAPs affected by the acquisition of privately owned land; (e) specifies the rationale for compensation for lost assets at replacement cost, specific measures to address vulnerable groups, and assistance for livelihood restoration; (f) specifies the organizational arrangements for the implementation of the RPF and RPs; (g) outlines the grievance mechanisms; and (h) monitoring and evaluation for RPs. The full RPF document is available in the project files. 160. Key principles. The RPF applies the following key principles:

Principle 1: minimization of resettlement. Involuntary resettlement should be avoided where feasible, or minimized, exploring all viable alternative project designs58;

Principle 2: assistance to displaced persons. If resettlement is unavoidable, persons displaced by a JUFMP subproject should be supported in their efforts to gain access to adequate habitation. If the relocation affects their income sources and/or their livelihoods, displaced persons should be offered support for a transition period, based on a reasonable estimate of the time likely to be needed to restore their livelihood and standards of living;

Principle 3: consultations on resettlement options and forms of support. Resettlement options and support will be designed in consultation with the displaced persons. The consultations should involve a two-way transfer of information between JUFMP staff and the displaced persons;

Principle 4: legal resettlement sites. Occupants of state or government land who are displaced by JUFMP should be provided with opportunities to resettle at locations that can be legally occupied.

Principle 5: public facilities and community infrastructure. In cases of group relocation, public facilities and community infrastructure affected by the Project will be rebuilt at the resettlement sites.

Principle 6: transparent and accountable. Information on the budget to finance the implementation of this RPF will be announced.

161. Internal consultation. Apart from external consultations described in Section 8.1 above, internal discussions, consultation and information dissemination within DKI Jakarta have also been conducted. These have proven extremely important and relevant. In particular, it was noted during the preparation of the RPF (and initial preparation of RPs) that the approach on handling resettlement - particularly for squatters - introduced in the RPF is quite new for DKI Jakarta officials at all levels. Discussions between the Bank and DKI Jakarta to come to a shared understanding, awareness and agreement on the principles and procedures to address resettlement as specified in the RPF required significant efforts over an approximate three year period. Continuous socialization of the RPF amongst DKI, including to the lower levels officials of the province down to kelurahans (including the various land acquisition teams - P2T) are being and will be carried out (see further details in Chapter 9). Capacity building programs (such as awareness training, learning-by-doing training/coaching, etc) for all stakeholders involved in resettlement are very critical for the success of the project to consistently implement the RPF and RPs.

58 For example, a change of methodology / technology allowing for dredging around some structures have avoided the necessity of involuntary resettlement in two locations – Waduk Sunter Selatan and Tanjungan Drains.

64

Communication and coordination between DKI Jakarta and central agencies that could support the resettlement-related activities need to be strengthened. 162. Categories of PAPs. The two general categories of PAPs are (i) persons affected by the repossession of state or government lands, and (ii) persons affected by the acquisitions of privately owned land. Both general categories are provided for in the RPF. However, it has been determined that the JUFMP activities will mainly require state or government owned land, and only a small portion of project areas are likely to be on privately owned land. The categories of entitlement for persons affected by the repossession of state or government lands are:

Persons who own and occupy dwellings and other structures built on state or government land without any recognizable legal rights or claim to the land they occupy;

Renters of dwellings and other structures built on state or government land without any recognizable legal rights or claim to the land they occupy;

“Encroachers”, i.e., persons who aggrandize or extend their personal holdings (privately owned land and assets on the land) by encroaching adjacent state or government land;

“Squatter Landlords”, i.e., persons who derive illegal rents from structures built on state or government land, but do not occupy such structures.

163. Categories of entitlement. Various resettlement entitlements have been provided for in the RPF. These include, amongst others, compensation for loss of assets, assistance for relocation, and assistance for rehabilitation. Specific compensation options will be determined through consultations with the PAPs and will be specified in the RPs. 164. Distinctions between categories of PAPs. Given the previous history of evictions practices (see the discussions in sections 5.5.3 and 5.5.4), the adoption of the RPF represents a step change and transformatory progress in DKI Jakarta’s approach to handling involuntary resettlement. Over the course of the preparation of the RPF and its related discussions, DKI Jakarta has come to adopt and accept the key principles of the RPF as described above, which are key to equitable social safeguards practices. However, it is noted that DKI Jakarta has strong concerns that any social safeguards policies and practices it adopts should not inadvertently result in rewarding illegal behavior and at the same time not protect vulnerable people who are at risk of losing their home and livelihoods. In particular, DKI Jakarta has reservations to compensate (i) encroachers who are property owners who have extended their property beyond its legal limits into adjacent state or government land, and who will not necessarily have their source of livelihoods adversely affected nor have to relocate as a result of the repossession of the state or government land, and (ii) squatter landlords, who have built structures on state or government land for the expressed purpose of profiting from rents, but who do not rely on these rents to sustain a reasonable livelihood. 165. Squatter landlords and encroachers. The RPF makes a distinction between squatter landlords and encroachers and other categories of PAPs, reflecting DKI Jakarta’s concerns described in the foregoing paragraph. However, the RPF does not absolutely exclude benefits to these two categories – the RPF clarifies that they would provided with assistance in the forms determined in the RP on a case by case negotiated and mutually agreed basis, without any predetermined limiting criteria. The RPF provisions for squatter landlords and encroachers reflect a balance between the various concerns of stakeholders. It

65

reflects the concerns of DKI Jakarta that persons who purposely aggrandize or extend their personal holdings into adjacent state or government lands, or who utilize public lands as a source of enrichment by building structures on these lands and using them to derive rents (often exploiting poor and vulnerable persons), should not be further enriched from public funds, but balances this concern by providing the avenue for individual consultations and assistance that are mutually agreeable and acceptable. It also

serves to highlight the aim to protect public interests and signals the spirit of the Bank’s policy on involuntary resettlement to protect vulnerable people at risk of losing their homes or livelihoods, but balances this with conformance to the policy by not excluding any particular categories of affected people from assistance and/or compensation. 166. The distinction between squatter landlords and encroachers and other categories of PAPs in the RPF nevertheless represents an implementation risk. Under the RPF, (a) each RP is required to list all PAPs, and would have to show the solution for each PAP, including any squatter landlords and encroachers that may exist at the project site, and (b) each RP is required to go through a consultation process and as a result the information about and fairness of the solutions will be public knowledge. Each

RP will require the World Bank’s review and no-objection, and the World Bank can and will review the process to arrive at individual assistance to PAPs, including to squatter landlords and encroachers where these categories exist.

8.3 Resettlement Plans (RPs) 167. All project sites will be screened for PAPs. Works under the project is sequenced to allow for activities at sites without PAPs to proceed first. Efforts have been made, and are continuing to be made, to minimize the number of PAPs (see Section 5.5). Where PAPs are identified and cannot be avoided, an RP will be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the RPF. The RPs will identify affected people and lay out the framework for compensating and restoring the livelihoods of entitled households with a clear and agreed timeline between the PAPs and DKI Jakarta. All RPs must be approved by the Bank, publicly disclosed and must be implemented (except elements in the RPs related to post-resettlement activities) prior to any works commencing at the associated site. 168. Preliminary RPs. Preliminary censuses were carried out in parallel with the preparation of the RPF and the DEDs at the seven sites initially identified as PAP sites (see Section 5.5.1). As the first stage in the preparation of site specific RPs, or prior to entering the subproject site to carry out the census survey, initial socialization of the project was done with the local levels of government / community leaders (mainly kelurahan, RT / RW) either59 by group meetings at the kelurahan offices or by multiple small meetings moving from one RT / RW to other RT / RW. With the agreement of local leaders and

communities, preliminary census surveys60 were carried out of the individuals / households that may, depending on proxy of the subproject impact areas (at that time DEDs were simultaneously being prepared), need to be resettled. In total, 2,369 persons were interviewed in these seven sites. Based on these preliminary censuses, preliminary drafts RPs have been prepared61.

59 After consulting the local government and taking into account the local situation. 60 Census survey obtained information on social-economic characteristics, impacted assets, perception and aspiration of PAPs. Records on each PAP include photographs of the individual, affected assets, and photocopy of ID card. The affected asset was numbered and associated with the individual owners. 61 Preparation of these census and preliminary RPs were supported by consultants retained by the PMU to assist DKI Jakarta.

66

8.3.1 Census Updates and Finalization of RPs 169. The preliminary census and consultations, while they provide valuable and necessary data, also provided feedback on expectations and concerns. The relevant concerns, aspirations and expectations of the communities that should be addressed during construction will be included in the bidding documents and works contracts. With the finalization and disclosure of the RPF, DKI Jakarta will proceed with the further development and preparation of the preliminary RPs in the currently identified PAP sites62. The RPs will be completed63, subjected to World Bank review and no-objection, disclosed and implemented prior to the commencement of the associated (Phase 2) works.

8.3.2 Database for PAPs 170. DKI Jakarta intends to develop a database for PAPs, which will be gradually expanded to cover PAPs beyond the JUFMP. The information in the database will be used as a reference by DKI Jakarta in the case that in the future it has to resettle people from sites of other projects, to avoid giving compensation to the same individuals. DKI Jakarta expected that the project could facilitate and assist the establishment of the database.

8.3.3 Funding for RPF and RPs

171. The RPF and the stipulations set forth in this document will be funded jointly by DKI Jakarta and the project (managed by PMU):

DKI Jakarta will provide funding from their budget for financing the: (a) the Project Implementation Unit (PIU)64, (b) the resettlement compensation, resettlement assistance and rehabilitation support, (c) establishing and placing the GRS, and (d) the mobile-Government system and website hosting location. Budget for resettlement compensation, assistance, and rehabilitation support will be allocated in relevant provincial agencies. For instance, budget for compensation for structures and for building rental apartments will be provided under the Housing Agency; budget for rehabilitation support would be allocated by Social Agency, Trade and Cooperative Agency, etc., depending on the type activities.

The Project will finance the independent consultant who will carry out the external monitoring and evaluation, supervision consultants who will oversee the implementation of this RPF, consultants and experts who will manage the GRS.

172. Trust funds grants (as and if available) will be used to complement the funding of the above activities. 

62 Which have been reduced from seven to six sites after further efforts to adopt engineering designs and selection of works methodology to minimize impact (see section 5.5.1 for details). 63 This will be expected to require update censuses, announcements of cut-off dates, and consultations with PAPs including on options for compensations, assistance and rehabilitation of livelihoods, timelines for implementation, etc. 64 Including the working groups described in Section 3.8.

67

9 Consultations 173. Overall, the project has been prepared adopting a process of meaningful and participatory consultations with potentially affected people, groups and other stakeholders. The process for consultations is also an integral part of the project’s communications, which is discussed in more detail in Chapter 10. The consultative process for this project has been exhaustive and widespread and has occurred at multiple levels depending on the target stakeholder group and on the issues being discussed. The discussion here will focus on the consultative process with respect to the AMDAL documents, the RPF and the RPs, and with the potentially affected communities in all the project sites.

9.1 Consultations during AMDAL 174. The project consultations occurred over a two year time horizon mostly in 2009 and 2010. They took the form of public meetings and were recorded as annexes in the respective AMDAL documents approved by the DKI BPLHD. Public consultations during AMDAL preparation for Phase 1 project sites were done before the completion of the DEDs. Focus Group Discussions were done for all project sites in parallel with the preparation of DEDs and AMDAL for Phase 2 sites, as well as in initial preparation of RPs for the PAPs sites. Interviews with samples of community members (up to 10% of households) were undertaken to complement the information on the environmental and social baseline, community aspirations and concerns on project implementation obtained in the consultations during the AMDAL preparation. The main aspirations, issues and concerns raised by the participants across all project sites obtained through consultations and interviews during AMDALs preparations were: (a) the support and recognition that the outcome of the project will reduce floods but there will be short to medium term disturbances during construction; (b) recognition that flow capacity of canals have been reduced due to sedimentation, improper garbage disposal, and encroachment and buildings on water bodies and surroundings; (c) the wish to have more details about the project, including the time table; (d) the wish that construction must be done properly, including handling of spillage of dredged materials during transportation, noise, dusts; (e) compensation types and levels that will be given if resettlement takes place; (f) opportunities for local employment and businesses; (g) the wish for having meaningful consultations, particularly during construction; and (h) the willingness to participate in solid waste management activities.

175. With respect to the Ancol CDF, consultations started in 2005/2006 when the first AMDAL for Ancol CDF was prepared. The first Ancol CDF AMDAL was approved in 2006 for reclamation using mainly sand as fill material and as it pre-dated JUFMP, it did not consider the JUFMP project at all. The public consultation in 2005 included several meetings to consider the draft AMDAL with minutes of the meeting highlighting issues raised, including those with social / community implications. The Updated RKL/RPL of Ancol CDF was based on the same general arrangement and principles as in the earlier AMDAL, but the update was done specifically to allow for the use of JUFMP dredged material as fill material and to increase the channel width between existing shoreline and the fill area from approximately 80m to approximately 200m. An additional public consultation process was held during the update process as per the statutory requirements of Government Regulation (PP) No: 27/199965.

176. Table 9-1 summarizes the key issues that arose during the AMDALs consultations processes and the action taken to address these issues. 65 See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the Indonesian environmental legislation.

68

Table 9-1 Issues raised with respect to the Phase 1 AMDAL and Ancol CDF consultation

Issues raised and Discussed

(Thematically)

Summary of responses of those consulted

Summary of Action Taken by Project to address these concerns

Phase 1 AMDAL Consultation

Project Objectives, Components, Institutional and arrangements.

Generally supportive feedback for flood mitigation activities.

Project design to continue to maximize opportunities for flood alleviation through selection of key drains and waduks.

Information about the sub-project areas

Providing history of area (general information)

Resettlement and people moving back in

Floods also occur from tidal intrusion

Suggesting engineering requirements

Provided useful technical information for project design.

Methods instituted for ensuring resettled areas remain free

Scope of project remains emergency dredging and tidal factors will be considered in design

Accounted for by design engineers if appropriate

Information on the Project

Timetables, boundaries, methods of construction, future consultation, etc.

FGDs in more than 60 villages undertaken and continued consultations to be conducted throughout.

Resettlement issues

Will I be resettled When will I know if am to be

resettled When will resettlement occur What compensation / entitlements

will I get Entitlements should be at market

values If resettlement occurs, other people

not move back in Proper compensation does not

always occur After census no more property

transfer for speculators One case of traders insisted that their

legal representatives must be present for census

A few said happy to move, most willing to move with appropriate compensation

Some prefer to make their own arrangement for resettlement, including housing

All points associated with resettlement are addressed in the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and considerations to the issues raised were integrated – people were made aware of the development of livelihoods compensation in the RPF

On speculators, it was suggested that boundaries are fixed as soon as possible

Census questions are not enforced on people in order to avoid conflict

Concerns about effects

Biggest concern is with spillage of material from trucks

Minimize disturbances and noise Don’t leave dredged materials

behind on the dredging site

RKL/RPL is embedded in the contract and enforces no spillage of trucks, reducing noise and odor concerns, and ensuring proper management and cleanliness of site

Implementation arrangements

Community is confused about where complaints should be filed and

Site-based POSKO will provide venue to encourage community involvement,

69

addressed. participation, and integration of concerns.

Additional project information, dissemination (e.g. brochures) will be provided.

Wish for ongoing consultation and involvement

Common expression from the communities that they would like to continually be involved through consultation processes during project implementation as well

Site-based POSKO will provide venue to encourage community involvement, participation, and integration of concerns.

Ancol CDF Consultation

Project Objectives, Components, Institutional and arrangements.

Generally supportive (per Updated Ancol RKL/RPL 2009) as it is part of the JUFMP flood mitigation.

PT. PJA is ready to cooperate with the JUFMP to ensure that the construction and operation of confined disposal facility fulfills requirement that is applied in JUFMP project.

Information about the project

Timetables, boundaries, methods of construction, future consultation, etc

Positive impact of the Ancol CDF project to community.

Assigning Public Relations Division to liaise between PT. PJA and the community / agencies. Through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) program, two junior high schools (SMP) at Kelurahan Pademangan Barat and Kelurahan Ancol were constructed. PT. PJA and local kelurahan started and continues to support the “Ancol Loves the Environment” program.

Disseminating plan to community / public agencies.

Establishing communication forum and coordination with other activities / agencies in the area.

Monitoring measures included reporting on frequency of communication forum meetings.

Social issue beyond the resettlement

General, all respondents expected that the implementation of project work could absorb manpower and open up business opportunities for the residents of Kelurahan Ancol and that the potential negative impacts would be managed well by PT. Pembangunan Jaya Ancol, Tbk.

About 15% of respondents interviewed during the AMDAL process did not approve of the project because of negative impacts they might suffer, such as the disturbance to the areas where they looked for fish, prawn and crabs.

PT. PJA has been in cooperation with the local community that keeps them informed with any labor recruitment that prioritizing the local workers.

Fishing grounds at the vicinity of Ancol CDF area has been assessed to be not feasible as the water is continuously received pollutant from the urban drainages of Jakarta city.

Concerns about effects

AMDAL Commission at the DKI BPLHD expressed their biggest concern if the sediment is found to be hazardous waste (B3 waste).

Pollution of sea water.

The PMU has developed set of testing procedure to prevent B3 waste entering Ancol CDF.

Updated RKL/RPL requires PT. PJA to construct confined disposal facility, to be

70

Disturbances and noise. Spillage of mud (from JUFMP

trucks) at the surrounding Ancol area and road damage.

Offsite impact (if the JUFMP dredged material is not enough to fill all the CDF space, where is the other filling material source?).

completed before disposal from the Project begins.

RKL/RPL is embedded in the contract and enforces no spillage of trucks, reducing noise and odor concerns, and ensuring proper management and cleanliness of site.

PT. PJA is required (as per the Memorandum of Agreement with DKI Jakarta) to provide car wash before the JUFMP trucks leave Ancol CDF. Contractor is also required to deposit some amount of cash that will be used if road damage due to its vehicle is nor repaired by the contractor.

PT. PJA will ensure that the source of filling material other than the dredged material is to be from legitimate source that has an environmental permit (e.g. AMDAL).

Implementation arrangements

Coordination with JUFMP (who doing what and responsibility).

Implementation schedule (when the dike is ready).

PT. PJA has been actively participating in any discussion related to JUFMP preparation.

PT. PJA will ensure, and the World Bank will confirm, that the disposal facilities are properly confined prior to disposal of dredged material.

Wish for ongoing consultation and involvement

Common expression as for Phase 1 AMDAL, in which the communities expects there are employment and business opportunities.

Assigning Public Relations Division to liaise continuously between PT. PJA and the community / agencies.

Establishing communication forum and coordination with other activities / agencies in the area.

Monitoring measures included reporting on frequency of communication forum meetings.

9.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) 177. In addition to public consultations carried out during the AMDALs preparation, the project has also conducted FGDs in 57 kelurahans (i.e. urban village) in four municipalities during June – September 2010 where the project sites are located. These further informed the preparation of the RPF and preliminary RPs. Each FGD was led and guided by a consultant team retained by the PMU. The purposes of the meetings were to (i) update communities on the current status of the project, particularly for Phase 1 sites where AMDAL-related consultations were completed prior to the of end 2009 and where there have been some changes to project scope and timing since then as DEDs became available, and (ii) continue to obtain feedback from the communities and their aspirations. Participants comprised of representatives from the kelurahan offices, Board of Trustees of the kelurahans, Community Guidance Officers (Babinsa), Head of Family Welfare Program (PKK), community leaders, Heads of community neighborhoods (RT and RW), and representatives of the communities of the project sites. A total of 1,051 participants attended the various meetings (each meeting was attended by between 11-28 participants).

71

Women participation across kelurahans ranged from 0 – 71% of the total participants. Information obtained from the FGDs in the PAPs sites, located in 31 out of these 57 kelurahans, were also taken into account in the preparation of preliminary RPs. The FGD meetings in these PAPs sites kelurahans were attended by 599 participants. 178. The FGDs revealed that communities had several key concerns, i.e., that: (i) should they need to be resettled, they will be given improper compensations and provided relocation sites far from their employment; (ii) they cannot access job opportunities during construction; (iii) they will not have communication with the project and contractor; (iv) they will not be provided with accessible and nearby facilities to lodge any complaint; (v) they are not well-informed in advance of the project, prior the commencement of and during construction; and (vi) the construction would disturb their livelihoods. Further, communities were concerned (i) about the potential poor management of the dredged materials in the temporary sites located in their neighborhoods; (ii) of transportation for the dredged materials that would lead to increasing traffic congestion, odor and damage to local roads; and, (iii) about the dredging methodology that could damage plants and structures. Communities would like to (i) participate in the monitoring of construction activities, and solid waste management particularly in sorting garbage that have economic value prior to the transportation of the garbage to the final disposal site; (ii) have good communications with project management and contractors; and, (iii) have the Posko as close as possible in their neighborhood that will function as on-site complaint handling centers as well as a place to meet and coordinate with the project management and contractors. 179. The FGD report66 for each sub-project site will be made available with the AMDAL reports to the construction contractors and the Supervision Consultant. The bidding document for civil works specifies activities to address most of the above-mentioned communities’ concerns and suggestions as part of the construction activities. Meaningful public consultations will be continued throughout project implementation (including during the preparation of the final RPs) to ensure that the above concerns are addressed properly.

9.3 Consultations on the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) 180. A series of workshops and dialogues were carried out with provincial and municipality government officials specifically to support the preparation of the RPF. These guided the preparation of the RPF. Two consultation sessions were carried out on the draft RPF, and were followed by a further consultation aimed to strengthen the capacity of relevant agencies and municipality local governments in implementing the RPF. A summary of these consultations are as follows:

An ‘internal’ consultation - comprising 126 participants, ranging from central government (Ministry of Public Works), and DKI Jakarta to the lowest level (representatives of the mayors from all four DKI municipalities, relevant DKI agencies and bureaus, and sub-local governments down to the level of kecamatan/kelurahan). The objective of this consultation was to disseminate and get support from wider DKI Jakarta officials for the draft RPF. Some participants conveyed their concerns or suggestions on the following main issues: (a) there is a need to socialize and consult the RPF to the wider public; (b) implementation of the RPF particularly with the current available legal basis that does not allow to compensate the PAPs

66 FGD Report for each site is available in the project files.

72

who occupy the government land; (c) mechanisms to define the compensation level for illegal occupiers and financial accountability for the expenses for such compensation; (d) confirmation that the DKI Jakarta does not provide rent-to-own public housing but only rental public housing; (e) budget for compensation should be available in timely manner; (f) dissemination and disclosure of the RPF may create expectation and would lead to increased encroachers; (g) readiness of DKI Jakarta to implement the RPF because development in the field is quite dynamic and fast; (h) applicability of the RPF for PAPs who had been evicted and compensated prior to the project preparation given that DKI Jakarta does not have a data base for evictees, compensation provided to them under JUFMP would lead to audit problems; (i) compensation should be given directly to the PAPs to avoid potential distrust; and (j) should there be complaints, the site-based complaint handling unit - based in the project site offices (POSKO) - will have to follow-up them properly and timely.

An ‘external‘ consultation – comprising 77 participants, including 26 participants from NGOs active on various issues in Jakarta, representatives from various Indonesian universities and technical experts. The summary of the questions, concerns and inputs from the participants of the meeting were as follows: (i) appreciation of the new thinking of DKI Jakarta on handling resettlement with the RPF which is in line with the expectation of the NGOs; however, there was a concern on its implementation process (including the time that is needed to complete the process) on the ground, and its potential to trigger the appearance of “middlemen” acting as brokers who would affect the resettlement process; (ii) DKI Jakarta to dredge canals without resettlement if possible, if not then minimize resettlement67; (iii) DKI Jakarta is expected to work with the community and/or NGOs who have experienced or are currently working with resettling squatters; (iv) RPF needs to be socialized more widely and down to the project affected persons (PAPs) using a better approach and not a one-way dissemination; (v) complaint handling mechanisms need to be clear and the RPF should also include the Law No. 2/2005 pertaining the rights of people on social, economic and cultural life. On other aspects not related to RPF, participants were concerned on why DKI Jakarta has to borrow for this project while it cannot spend its own budget in timely manner; and warning that the project needs to ensure that the Ancol CDF adheres to its AMDAL requirements (as NGOs are filing a class action on the reclamation of the sea along North Jakarta). Participants also stated that flood management should also be accompanied by the improvement of the drainage system and solid waste (not only through dredging), and transportation of sludge should be in the evening to avoid traffic.

A third consultation was carried out in February 10, 2011 and attended by 60 representatives from all four DKI municipalities, sub-local governments (kecamatans) where the project sites are located, relevant DKI agencies and bureaus, the Ancol authority, head of PMU, PIU of Cipta Karya. The main purpose of this consultation was to get the same understanding among stakeholder officials in DKI on the RPF, and discuss the plan to proceed with the preparation of the Resettlement Plans (RPs). Discussion on the RP included understanding and implementation of the principles, eligibility and entitlements, the organizational arrangements of the preparation and implementation of the RP on the ground, as well as the approach in defining the value of the assets and availability of rental public housing/apartments. Funding needs for preparing RPs was also discussed. The discussion also raised the issue on the needs

67 This is already one of the principles specified in the RPF.

73

to set up a site-based complaint handling unit - based in the project site offices (POSKOs) - and to have operational guidelines to implement the RPF and to prepare RPs on the ground. The progress of the RP consultants on the census survey, the need to update and verify the information prior to the cut-off date, and that need to decide quickly on the cut-off date were also discussed.

181. DKI Jakarta, led by the Office of the Assistant for Development and Environment, had incorporated relevant suggestions from the participants during the first two consultations in the RPF. Concerns from participants in the first consultation meetings were followed up in the third consultation through a more detailed explanation by the PIU DKI Jakarta and officials from DKI’s Assistant for Development and Environment. During the third consultation, some of the principles and policies of RPF were reiterated to confirm the new DKI Jakarta’s approach to handling resettlement and how it would be adopted in the preparation of the RPs.

9.4 Consultations during the preparation of Resettlement Plans (RPs) 182. The FGDs were carried out in parallel with the initial preparation of the RPs, and therefore information obtained from the discussions was used to improve the design of the census survey including questionnaires and field survey approach. The consultation process to prepare the preliminary RPs has been discussed in section 8.3. 183. As further development of site specific RPs progresses, DKI Jakarta now carrying out consultations of the RPF and preliminary RPs at the various municipalities where PAP sites are located i.e., West Jakarta, East Jakarta, North Jakarta and Central Jakarta. These consultations are aimed at strengthening the support of the municipalities towards the completion and implementation of the RPs68. 184. DKI Jakarta is planning to start carrying out consultations with the PAPs after the cut-off dates are announced, among others to confirm the lists of the PAPs and affected assets, discuss and agree on compensation options, dismantling and relocation schedules, etc., as part of the RP preparation. Consultations with the PAPs will be done either in groups or plenary, depending on the specific situation in each site, led by a DKI Jakarta RP team and assisted by the consultant team.

10 Grievance Redress System (GRS)   185. DKI Jakarta will establish an integrated Grievance Redress System (GRS) to ensure that complainants are provided a space to file complaints and convey their aspirations related to the project in a politically and psychologically free-speaking environment that ensures voices are heard, recorded and responded in a satisfactory, objective and timely manner agreed by complainant and DKI Jakarta. The details of the GRS are included in the project RPF. 186. The GRS will apply for all complaints that are associated with the project (not only social-related issues, but also environmental, technical issues and others). The GRS will follow the following key principles:

68 To date, consultations have been completed in West and East Jakarta in April 2011. Consultations with North and Central Jakarta are planned for May and June 2011.

74

Complainants can file complaints at no costs, through different alternative media, addressed to

complaint handling units set up at different levels and/or to a contact addresses and website dedicated specially for complaint handling for JUFMP;

Complainants will be given an accessible, non-threatening, equal, and fair treatment for complaint follow-up and for dispute resolution, regardless of origins, religion, citizenship status, social and economic background;

Complaints or disputes will be preferably resolved at the earliest time at the sub-project site. Only in the case that follow-up on complaints and disputes are unresolved at the lower level, the cases will be brought to the attention of the higher levels of the government structure;

Follow-up on complaints and resolution of any disputes will be made based on agreements reached among all involved parties through a well-informed consultation processes with facilitation by a competent, trustworthy and credible team;

The complaint handling system will maintain the objectivity, transparency, and fairness principles by having an Independent Advisory Team who will be available to assist the complainants at all complaint-handling units;

Complaints and disputes, as well as follow-up actions and resolutions will be recorded in real time through a web-based system and disclosed to the public;

Socialization, dissemination, and disclosure of the complaint handling system/procedures as well as of the complaints and follow-up actions and dispute resolution will be done continuously at the sub-project site, municipality and provincial levels.

187. A site-based Complaint Handling Unit is to be located on each site to manage and process complaints. This unit will be based in the project site offices (POSKOs). It is expected that the closer and easier the instruments for filing complaints, the more likely complaints could be solved on site in a relatively short time period. Socialization on the availability of the complaint services of the project to the communities, especially the PAPs, is the key to reduce potential social unrest and disappointment. There will be similar complaint handling units at the municipality and provincial levels, to receive and respond to complaints that cannot be solved at the POSKO level. The RPF socialization has included socialization of the GRS. 188. The GRS includes database and information systems management that will monitor and disseminate information on any complaints. The information generated by the GRS will provide the ability to track common issues in project implementation. The system will use a real-time flow of information of complaints and follow-up. An Advisory Team will be set up as an alternative body to provide services to complainants and to DKI Jakarta to come to agreed solutions or follow-up to complaints. The Supervision Consultant (SC) team is tasked with assisting DKI Jakarta in setting up the GRS system, including the development of the Standard Operating Procedures, and supporting DKI Jakarta to manage the system during the project implementation period.

11 Project Communications 189. Flood incidences are perennial occurrences in Jakarta and have been increasing in severity during the past decade. Disastrous floods in January 1996, February 2002, and February 2007 were especially devastating. The 2007 event inundated 235 km2 (about 36%) of the city69, by up to seven meters in some

69 Flood extent map, DKI Jakarta (Dinas-PU)

75

areas. The 2007 floods affected more than 2.6 million people and forced 340,000 people to flee their homes. Over 70 people died and outbreaks of disease affected over 200,000 people. The estimated financial and economic losses from the 2007 floods amounted to US$900 million70. In 2008, a flood event closed the airport toll road, cancelling over 1,000 flights and causing severe disruption for the city. Floods in 2009 also occurred at high intensity and have continued into 2010. Inundations continue to occur under any sustained rainfall condition.

External communications

190. Throughout the project preparation period, the consultation processes related to the environmental and social safeguards of the project (to date, over a three year period of 2009-2011) have been one of the key avenue for information dissemination of the details of the project (these are described in Chapter 9) to the public, particularly to communities and in locations close to the project area. All the safeguards related consultation processes (and in particular consultations in project areas related to social safeguards) have included the dissemination of the latest project design, scope and status. It should be noted that consultation processes have generally recorded positive support for the project and its floods mitigation aims.

191. These safeguards related consultations have been coupled with information dissemination by DKI Jakarta through various channels71 positioning JUFMP as a key piece of its near term strategy to mitigate floods in Jakarta. Given the background of recent events, floods have become both an urgent and topical issue in the city. Thus, DKI’s dissemination efforts have generally been picked up by the local media. Consequently, public awareness of the JUFMP project (both at the community level as well as the city level) has increased over the period of project preparation.

192. Media monitoring and audits carried out for the period of January 2010 to January 2011 pointed to sustained and increasing media exposure of the project72, mainly through online news portals, community blogs and the print media, and to a lesser extent through electronic broadcast media and government and NGO websites. It should be noted that these media exposures highlighted not only the project’s plans and design to reduce the incidences of floods in Jakarta, but a majority of them discussed and reported on the more complex issues of environmental and social safeguards challenges faced during project preparation. The tone of media discussions on floods mitigation efforts in Jakarta runs the gamut of negative to neutral to positive, but significantly, this tone has evolved more and more towards the positive over the audit period.

193. External communications efforts are expected to continue during project implementation. Social safeguards related consultations will continue throughout the preparation and implementation of site-specific RPs. At the community level, the public information center based in the project site offices (POSKO) which will be maintained at each JUFMP project site will play a critical role, where project information (including the latest implementation status) will be available and easily accessible to the public. Although as a whole external communications of DKI Jakarta will need improvements, the JUFMP has already provided momentum on coordinating the dissemination of DKI Jakarta’s flood mitigation plans that has been heavily covered by media. These efforts will continue into project

70 Estimated by Bappenas (the National Development Planning Agency) 71 Including prominent pronouncements from the Governor of DKI 72 Averaging over 10 media articles per month spread out over the period

76

implementation. On its own part, the World Bank is preparing a project website on which the latest project information can be made available during implementation.

Internal communications

194. Inter-agency communications. The periodic Joint Steering Committee meetings (see section 3.6.1) have been instrumental in providing the platform for inter-agency communications and information sharing of the latest developments and status of the project. This is the only venue where all government agency stakeholders are represented simultaneously.

195. Internal DKI Jakarta communications. As the local government with the mandate for city development, management and administration, DKI Jakarta is naturally seen by the public as the main agency responsible for floods management in the city73. DKI Jakarta has made use of the opportunity of the consultation processes related to the social safeguards of the project as a key avenue for information dissemination of other details of the project (these are described in Chapter 9 – see especially Section 9.3) within DKI Jakarta to the lowest level (representatives of the mayors from all four DKI municipalities, relevant DKI agencies and bureaus, and sub-local governments down to the level of sub-district and kelurahan). The socialization across DKI offices at provincial government level has mainly been in the form of workshops, “mentoring” approach / transfer knowledge method which is considered the most appropriate approach for DKI officials at the sub-district and kelurahan level.

196. Internal communications efforts are expected to continue during project implementation. The Joint Steering Committee platform will remain, as the committee will continue to meet periodically during project implementation to provide high level oversight. DKI Jakarta has also assigned its Bureau for Infrastructure Development (Biro Prasarkot) with the task of coordinating and communicating the project across the relevant DKI Jakarta and other government agencies. The Biro Prasarkot will also form the communications bridge between the project institutional establishment and the DKI Jakarta institutional establishment – see Figure 11-1. Biro Prasarkot’s activities are directly reviewed by DKI Jakarta’s Assistant for Development and Environmental Affairs, who in turn reports to the Governor of DKI. The Assistant is also a member of the Joint Steering Committee. This setup will allow for coordination vertically through the DKI Jakarta chain of command as well as across all agencies and also connects the project institutional structure to the required coordination and communication to implement a sustainable flood mitigation program.

73 This is further confirmed by the media audits described above. Amongst the findings of these audits, the majority of media reports linked DKI Jakarta as the institution most closely associated with the floods.

77

Figure 11-1 Communications between agencies

12 Reputational Risks 197. This section summarizes two key areas related to the project’s environment and social management issues that may pose a risk to the reputation of the JUFMP and/or the World Bank during the implementation of the project, and describes the measures intended to be taken to manage and minimize these risks74. It should be noted that the measures taken by the project to address these reputational risks will not completely remove these risks. But they do present a tangible way of reducing them or otherwise managing them to acceptable levels.

198. As described in the earlier chapters this report, project preparation has undergone a fairly comprehensive and exhaustive environmental and social assessment process. This was aimed first at improving the sustainability of the project activities and outcomes, and second at ensuring compliance with the Government of Indonesia’s requirements and the World Bank’s own Environmental and Social Safeguards Policies. Notwithstanding all these actions, plans and implementation and institutional arrangements, environmental and social safeguards specific risks that can be associated with this project remain. These will be monitored, managed and minimized throughout project implementation. However, there are three key areas of activities that are not directly in the implementation responsibility of the project implementation entities that may nevertheless pose a risk to the reputation of the JUFMP and/or the World Bank during the implementation. These are discussed below.

74 This section does not summarize the Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) for the project as a whole. The ORAF [which forms part of the Project Appraisal Document (PAD)] presents the broader risk assessment framework for the project.

78

Risks associated with non-project activities in or close to project sites

199. The JUFMP project activities are taking place in very densely populated urban areas of Jakarta. The project has a clearly defined objective, scope and boundaries. Nevertheless, in the highly dense urban setting, it is very likely that development projects and other activities that are not related to the project will occur within or in close proximity to some project sites during the project implementation period75. Examples of these activities may include dredging and other works in canals that are not linked to the project, or greening activities which could involve hard and soft landscaping.

200. These non-project activities may have different standards and processes for due diligence for the works and for social benefits to potentially affected people compared to those applicable to the project. There is a risk that close physical proximity of any given non-JUFMP activities may be wrongly associated to JUFMP by the public and other stakeholders. On the one hand, this may lead to the wrong expectations of the application of project-specific environmental and social safeguards measures, including project-specific entitlements and benefits to affected people. On the other hand, any potentially poor environmental and social management measures being carried out in these non-project related activities may be wrongly attributed to JUFMP and/or the World Bank.

201. Various actions will be undertaken to mitigate and reduce these risks:

Effective communications will be put in place. In particular, a public information center based in the project site offices (POSKO) will be maintained at each project site. These will serve as a primary means to disseminate detailed project information to the local community;

Signs (in Bahasa Indonesia) will be posted in appropriate locations at project sites detailing the project boundaries, project-related activities and contact information;

Where feasible, temporary fencing and other methods will be put in place to delineate project boundaries;

The site-based Complaint Handling Unit in the POSKO will serve as a front line of the project grievance redress system76, providing an on-site avenue for the public to lodge complaints, and if possible for any misunderstandings and/or grievances to be addressed quickly and locally;

The SC is also tasked with regular monitoring of project linked sites as well as sites adjacent to JUFMP sites, and reporting any relevant signs of activities. These would provide prior / advance notice to the PIU, PMU and the World Bank to allow for coordination and actions to prevent any communications misunderstanding and inadvertent wrong associations to JUFMP.

Risks associated with activities at the Ancol CDF site

202. As the main dredge material disposal site, the Ancol CDF is an integral part of the JUFMP project. The responsibility for building and operating the Ancol CDF site lies with PT. PJA, which is not a JUFMP project implementation entity. Not all Ancol CDF activities are directly connected to the JUFMP. For example, while JUFMP works is expected to contribute about 3.4 million m3 of fill material for the Ancol CDF, a further approximately 8.6 million m3 of fill material and about 400,000 m3 of

75 It should be noted especially that DKI Jakarta’s mandates and priorities include the following: (i) expand its overall infrastructure development plans that may require the utilization of government and/or the acquisition of private land, (ii) enforce its land use plans consistently, which consequently could lead to the resettlement of informal occupiers of government land (including riverbanks) and those who do not have building permit, and (iii) expand Jakarta’s green space from the current 9% to achieve the minimum standards of 20% of its total administrative area. 76 The Supervision Consultant is tasked with developing, operating and administering the on-site complaint-handling unit (i.e., the Posko) in each works site. The provision of the Posko facilities (e.g., portable office space) is included into the contractors’ works contract.

79

laterite material will be obtained from non-JUFMP sources (see Section 5.3). Nevertheless, the public and other stakeholders may directly associate any problems that may arise at Ancol CDF with the JUFMP. Consequently, arrangements have been made for the Supervision Consultant to have access to the Ancol CDF and all it offsite locations (including source locations for the sand and laterite fill material) for the purposes of monitoring and supervision – see section 3.7.2 for a description of the institutional arrangements for the Ancol CDF site. During project implementation, the World Bank will also work with DKI BPLHD to conduct joint supervision and site inspections of the Ancol CDF. These monitoring and supervision activities will allow for actions to be formulated and taken to address any implementation shortcomings, and is expected to reduce the potential reputational risk to the PIU, PMU and/or the World Bank.

203. A specific consideration is the potential for adverse offsite impact at the non-JUFMP sources of fill material (sand and laterite), since any such impact would occur outside the confines of the Ancol CDF itself. With respect to the sand, the impacts associated with sea mining for sand could be disturbance of biota (particularly benthic organism) due to scouring of the sea floor, deterioration in water quality at these locations and disturbance of other marine species that may be present. With regards the land based sourcing of laterite soils, the impacts may be associated with removal of top soil vegetation, erosion and sediment transportation and deposition downstream, water logging in abandoned and unrehabilitated quarry areas leading to breeding ground for mosquito’s and other disease vectors, and slope stability safety concerns if sources are in hilly or high relief terrain. The risk is that if these impacts are severe enough, they may be associated with the project (when on the other hand, the JUFMP project itself has reduced the potential offsite impact by contributing the otherwise low value 3.4 million m3 of non-hazardous dredge material thus significantly reducing the amount of sand material otherwise needed for the filling of the Ancol CDF). The AMDAL process for the Ancol CDF includes consideration of potential offsite impact and the AMDAL documents confirm the location of sand source which already has the associated approved environmental permit (see Section 5.3). The laterite material required is stipulated to be obtained from land based sources near Bekasi, West Java that is also operating under environmental permits. The SC will play a key role to help mitigate risks against improper sourcing of fill material. The SC will review and confirm that fill material suppliers have the necessary approvals. In particular, the laterite material will only be utilized much later - at the time of the final capping of the Ancol CDF reclamation. The SC will ascertain at that time that the laterite source has the appropriate environmental permit. The SC will also monitor the sand and laterite mining locations that would supply the Ancol CDF, and develop a mechanism to verify these materials are actually coming from these locations. The project will work closely with the DKI BPLHD to address any issues that arise.

Risks associated with the larger reclamation activities in Jakarta 204. As noted in Section 2.6.1, the Ancol CDF site is a specific and relatively small reclamation area set within a larger and ongoing long term reclamation process in the Ancol area of north Jakarta that started in the early 1960’s. PT. PJA has carried out some of these reclamation activities in the past (Ancol CDF the fourth phase PT. PJA reclamation effort in the Ancol area). Besides contributing dredge material to the specific Ancol CDF reclamation, the JUFMP does not finance nor is it related to any other reclamation efforts in the Ancol area. Apart from contributing to reducing the need for sand material as described in the foregoing paragraph, JUFMP in cooperation with PT. PJA is also introducing improved

80

environmental practices for the handling and disposal of dredge material for reclamation (e.g., through the use of a confined disposal facility) and has put in place appropriate monitoring and supervision arrangements for the Ancol CDF. There is a risk that JUFMP may be wrongly associated by the public and other stakeholders as being responsible over other reclamation projects e.g., those that have occurred in the past or potentially may occur in the future77. The project documents and information dissemination efforts will aim to emphasize and make clear that the extent of JUFMP’s linkage in this regard is confined to the Ancol CDF.

77 It is expected that any future projects will be subjected to their own AMDAL processes.

81

Annex 1

Project MAP

[IBRD 38461]

82

Annex 2

Case Studies

Eviction in Kemiri, Tambora VI and Tambora VIII Sites.

1. Kemiri, Tambora VI and Tambora VIII are two locations adjacent to JUFMP sites. The evictions took place for traders conducting activities along the road shoulder in front of Cengkareng drain nearby the Kemiri market, and along the shoulders of Tambora VI and VIII roads (associated with Pakin-Kali Besar-Jelakeng site). Evictions in these sites have been long requested by the Municipality of West Jakarta. Kemiri market forced eviction (initial plan was in 2007, eviction in December 2008) was due to traffic congestions and unhealthy competition among customers in the “formal” Kemiri market and informal traders who were doing businesses along the roads on the side of the riverbanks. The eviction at Tambora VI (initial plan was in September 2007, eviction in December 2008) took place to enforce public order control for illegal businesses, and restore the function of the riverbanks and road shoulder to their original conditions. The eviction at Tambora VIII in February 2009 occurred after the annual permits for traders were expired and for reducing traffic congestion. 2. Process and impacts of the eviction nearby the Kemiri Market. Before the eviction, there were a total of 250 structures including 80 street vendor stalls occupying the road shoulders / riverbanks in and along the inspection road for Cengkareng drain. Some had apparently occupied the riverbanks. These illegal structures and trading activities had developed from 25 structures in 2000, and become the competitors of the traders of the Kemiri Market located across from the evicted site. Since then, the West Jakarta Municipality has persuaded the traders to move out from the site to four alternative markets (with six months free rents), but the number of them had been growing through time. Traffic conditions along this road had been worsened, and traders of the Kemiri market had increasingly complained that they were losing customers who preferred to go to the informal market. Unmanaged solid waste entered the drainage system. Preparation for eviction started in 2007, and more than three notifications letters were issued during the process. After the consultative processes with the traders reached a deadlock situation, the eviction was finally undertaken in December 2008 by the Public Safety Officers (Satpol PP) and was assisted by the police. No compensation was provided. In many cases, vendors participated in dismantling their structures to salvage building materials. About two months after eviction, activities in front of the Kemiri Market returned to the pre-eviction conditions. Most of the evictees (about 80%) have returned to the site and gradually has become an informal market, selling goods without tents and stands. New vendors also join the evicted vendors. The activities were of similar nature as those before eviction but there has been increasing variety of goods sold in the informal market. This market was also open at night, as without tents trading activities cannot take place during the hottest part of the day. Despite this development, interviewed traders claimed that their income have been significantly declined after eviction. 3. Process and impacts of the evictions at Tambora VI and Tambora VIII roads. These sites, situated on the road shoulders/ riverbanks of Jelakeng canal, started to develop in 1974 when six people from Banten (Formerly in West Java province, now is belonged to Banten province) established wood-

83

packing businesses. Since then, more traders have come to these sites including those from other parts of West Java and Central Java. Until the eviction in December 2008 and February 2009, there were 125 wood packing and steel traders, chicken butchers, food stall, phone credits vendors, etc. in these two sites. Most traders, particularly those who occupied Tambora VIII, had permits that were expired in February 2009. Some traders also lived in the stalls. The West Jakarta Municipality has notified the traders since 2007 to move out from the sites for the purpose to return the function of the riverbanks, roads and rearrange the land use as mandated in the spatial development plan. Interviews with some of the evicted traders met in the sites revealed that prior to eviction they had been offered to relocate to two markets, of which they refused because these markets are not suitable for selling woods and steels, even though they are located in a relatively close distance to these sites. They were not given any compensation, and consultations were considered very limited. Field visits during post-eviction showed that around 35% of the traders continued doing businesses at Tambora VI road, but across their original sites. Turnover or income from business was significantly declined immediately after the eviction. Some interviewees claimed that turnovers dropped to 20% because of the loss of customers and not enough space to do businesses in the new site across the original site. Since then, more traders returned, although they built temporary tents/shacks to protect their merchandizes. Their businesses have been directed towards made-to-order sales due to limited space. New traders also joined the evicted traders in the new sites.

84

Annex 3

List of Key Reference Documents in the Project Files

Project Environmental and Social Safeguards Package of Documents

1. Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), June 2011 2. Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF), December 2010 3. Environmental Impact Assessment, Management Plan and Monitoring Plan (together referred to

as the AMDAL) for the Dredging of Floodways/Drainage Canals and Waduks Phase 1 JUFMP, February / March 2010

4. JUFMP Phase 1 Environmental and Social Management Supplementary Report, June 2011 5. Updated Environment Management Plan (RKL) and Environment Monitoring Plan (RPL) for the

Development of West Ancol Eastern Side of ± 119 ha, March 2009 6. Ancol Updated RKL/RPL Supplementary Report, June 2011

Other Key Reference Documents

7. JEDI / JUFMP Sediment Quality Consolidated Report, August 2010 8. Preliminary Assessment of Sediment Quality (ERM), October 2008 9. Pilot Dredging Project: Technical Note on Evaluation of the sediment and water sampling result

(DHV), May 2008 10. Metals and Trace Organic Compounds in Sediments and Waters of Jakarta Bay and the Pulau

Seribu Complex, Indonesia, March 2000 11. Mission Report: JEDI Environmental Assessment (USACE), October 2008 12. Tracer Study at Tambora VI and Tambora VIII (for evictions in December 2008 and February

2009) 13. Case Study Eviction Cengkareng Drain Inspection Road 14. JEDI / JUFMP Community Consultation Consolidated Report, August 2010 15. Cooperation Agreement between DKI Jakarta and PT PJA on sludge disposal from the results of

the dredging of rivers, retention basins and channels on the waters of the eastern part of West Ancol with an area of +/- 120 Ha (approximately one hundred twenty hectares) located in Kelurahan Ancol, Kecamatan Pademangan, North Jakarta, December 2010