SOLOMON ISLANDS DOMESTIC MARITIME SUPPORT PROJECT SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX D2

Transcription

SOLOMON ISLANDS DOMESTIC MARITIME SUPPORT PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX D2
SAMPLE SUBPROJECT DOCUMENTATION: SIOTA
A.
SUMMARY FACT SHEET
Province
Island
Location
Project
Population Estimates
Existing structure type
Existing condition
Annual traffic (2008)
Potential traffic (2008)
Estimated traffic growth rate
Type of improvement
Estimated construction cost
Estimated construction cost per head of
population who benefit from reconstructed
wharf.
Environmental Category
Major Environmental Issues
Land Acquisition Required
Central
Nggela Pile, Florida Islands
Siota
Wharf Reconstruction
3,500 (Consultant’s estimate for 2008), in the
Wards of North East Gela and North West Gela.
Coral rock causeway and concrete wharf deck
slab supported on coral gabions.
Not in a useable condition
None (not useable)
(Consultant’s estimate for 2010)
3,372pax + 746 tonnes of cargo
Pax: 3.9% p.a.
Cargo: 4.3% to 6% (p.a to 2019)
Demolition of existing wharf structure and
associated debris
Construction of new wharf based on Standard
Wharf Design
$788,000
$225
B
None (refer to IEE)
None (refer to text)
2
B.
Supplementary Appendix D2
INTRODUCTION
Below is presented a set of sample sub-project documentation for the sector grant to be made
in respect of investment in wharf reconstruction/rehabilitation. The sample documentation
refers to the proposed wharf site at Siota and includes:
•
Description of the sub-project;
•
Social and Poverty Assessment
•
Economic assessment
The Environmental Assessment is presented in Section F of this document.
C.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SIOTA SUB-PROJECT
1. Site Specific Features
This site is located at the northern tip of Nggela Pile Island at the northern end of Mboli Passage
in the Florida Islands of Central Province. Siota is located at:
•
Longitude
60° 18’ 33” E
•
Latitude
9° 3’ 17” S
This location has been selected for in-depth assessment.
A site visit was made on 31 May 2008, by boat from Honiara. A further site visit was made on 11
June 2008.
Tides at Siota are reported (marine chart 1713) to be:
•
MHHW 1.4m
•
MHLW 1.1m
•
MLHW 0.8m
•
MLLW 0.6m
and are semi-diurnal. The tide was low during the first site
visit, and high during the second site visit. It should be
noted that, even at low tides, available depth is well above
the measured LAT depths.
The NTP places a HIGH Indicative Works Priority on this
site.
There is an existing jetty structure, comprising a coral rock
causeway and concrete wharf deck slab supported on
coral gabions. The causeway is severely eroded and
collapsed, almost to sea level, and is only barely
trafficable by foot. The coral gabions are badly collapsed and the wharf deck slab has settled
and tilted towards its outer edge. The corners of the deck are broken. A small amount of coral
boulders have spilled from the gabions and compromise water depth in front of the wharf. This
causeway and wharf deck are in an unserviceable condition and are unsafe. To provide a clear
site for construction of a new wharf structure, the existing causeway material, the wharf
concrete deck and the underlying coral rock gabions will need to be demolished and removed.
3
The demolished materials can readily be placed in a designated disposal ground in deep water
within a reasonable distance from the site.
The site is sheltered from waves from both the south-east and north-west quadrants. In
particular, a barrier reef less than one nautical mile offshore from Siota to the north and northwest provides protection from waves from the north and north-west. The entrance to the harbour
is about 600m wide and 14m deep, which is expected to be effective in attenuating incoming
waves from the north-west. Very good shelter from south-easterly winds is provided by land
mass up to 135m high. Shelter from north-westerly winds is not, however, available.
The area enclosed by the barrier reef and the
northern end of Mboli Passage includes quite
deep channels, due primarily to scour effects
from the tidal currents flowing along the Passage
at every turn of the tide. The marine chart shows
depths of up to 18m. However, distinct channels
exist on both the east and west sides of the
harbour, with a large shallow triangular expanse
of shoal and dry ground occurring in the central
area of the harbour. The east and west channels
have a minimum width of about 60m on the west
side (as measured from the aerial photograph),
and at least 140m wide on the east side south of
Siota. These channels are well delineated by non-lit navigation beacons. A pair of lead
marks/lights previously existed to identify the alignment of the entrance channel (as shown on
Chart 1713), and these will be reinstated within the forthcoming MIP2 Aids to Navigation
contract.
A series of soundings were taken during the second site visit, in the vicinity of the existing wharf,
to assess the availability of adequate water depth at the wharf and on the northern and southern
approaches to the wharf. At the front of the wharf, the depth of water was measured at 2.0m
and continuing to rapidly deepen further out from the wharf. At 10m directly off the wharf, depth
is 4.4m, and continues to deepen to 12m. North of the wharf, the water is typically shallow,
rising gradually to the inside fringe of the main reef. Conversely, south of the wharf the depth of
water starts at 3.8m deepening to 5.4m and more at a point about 20m south of the structure.
This strongly suggests that the present alignment of the front of the wharf, approximately
parallel to the beach and on a bearing of about due north, is not ideal, and a new structure
should be aligned with the wharf face perhaps 20 degrees to the west of north. This would
provide an improved approach/departure line for the design vessels, keeping in mind that
vessels departing in a northerly direction need to steer to port immediately on leaving the wharf
to navigate the main channel and avoid the inner fringe of the main reef.
As demonstrated by the soundings taken during the second site visit, adequate depth for the
design vessel will be readily available at this site probably no further than about 25m offshore
from the high tide mark.
This location has good shelter from both the south-east and the north-west, adequate depth and
ease of access and navigability. Tidal currents flow through the Mboli Passage, possibly at 1 to
2 knots. These currents are unlikely to interfere with normal shipping operations into Siota.
The configuration for a new wharf at Siota would follow the standard wharf design of a T-head
structure of concrete deck on steel H piles, with a piled deck approach structure about 30 m in
length. Mooring piles north and south of the wharf on the shore will provide for safe mooring of
the Design Vessel. Erosion protection to the approach abutment will be needed, and Seabees
4
would be appropriate for this, if correctly designed and installed. Coral rock is not adequate for
erosion protection in this instance.
An existing copra shed, which is in very good condition, is located at Talihesosoga, about 500m
south of Siota. This shed would also be suitable for temporary storage of other cargo.
Improvements to the existing access between Siota and Talihesosoga is probably needed to
facilitate access to this shed, and local labor could be engaged for this task. A new copra/cargo
shed at Siota is therefore not required.
Members of the local Siota community have suggested constructing the new wharf at
Talihesosoga instead of Siota. This site was inspected during the second site visit, and was
found to be unsuitable because of the need to remove large numbers of trees and mangroves
from the potential wharf site.
Consideration has also been given to siting the new wharf at Mboromole, on the western shore
of the harbour directly across from Siota. This area includes a large village, and is understood to
be earmarked for a new market shelter within the Community Sector Project. There is a
collapsed wharf structure at Mboromole, and this was briefly inspected during the site visits.
This wharf site has a number of shortcomings, which make it less suitable than Siota for a new
wharf, including:
•
Access to the wharf from the land side is poor, and to improve this would require
the removal of a number of mature palm trees and mangroves; and
•
Tidal currents flowing through the channel directly in front of this wharf are
considerably stronger than at Siota, and are likely to interfere with safe berthing
of the design vessel.
For these reasons, Mboromole is considered to be less suitable than Siota as a site for the new
wharf, based specifically on engineering considerations.
Siota is considered to be a suitable candidate for selection as a preferred subproject and
warrants further study.
2. Engineering Design for Maritime Infrastructure Subprojects
This section is identical to the corresponding section of Appendix D1, and is not repeated here.
D.
Social And Poverty Assessment
1. Demographic Profile
On July 31st 2008, a Social Poverty Impact Assessment Survey was carried out in Central
Province to determine what possible impacts the rehabilitation of Siota wharf would have on
local communities. The survey was carried out in two target groups living close to the wharf site:
Siota Provincial Secondary school and Mboromole village.
Siota is located on Nggela Pile (Small Gela). It is the only Provincial Secondary school in the
Central Islands Province. The population of Siota school comprises 159 students and 17 staff.
While more than 80% of the students attending Siota Secondary School come from within the
Central Islands Province, a small minority come from other provinces. Some of the main villages
surrounding Siota on Nggela Pile are Belaga and Salisapa. The school is also about a kilometre
away from the CEMA copra buying centre at Niumara. There is a footpath that connects Siota to
5
these nearby villages; Salisapa is about an hour’s walk from the school, Belaga, about half an
hour and Niumara is just 10 minutes’ walk away.
Mboromole is located on the opposite side of the channel from Siota. The village is spread
along a one kilometre of white sandy beach on Nggela Sule (Big Nggela). It is one of seven
villages in Boli District and part of the North Nggela ward as Siota. Boli District has a population
of 5000 people. The population of Mboromole is reported to have reached 1,000. This is about
20% of the total population of Boli District. The dominant religion is Anglican.
Out of the 96 households in Mboromole, 82 are leaf houses, of which 10 have timber walls and
only four have corrugated iron roofing. In Siota, however, all of the houses, classrooms,
dormitories, staff houses, kitchen and dining hall are modern style buildings with corrugated iron
roofs.
As a school, Siota has a different status from Mboromole. The school receives public funds from
the National Government and aid donors to finance all its development, operations and activities
to enable students to receive an education. Mboromole, in contrast, is a rural village where the
people are responsible for their own livelihoods.
2. Economic Environment
The rural communities around Siota are largely subsistence farmers. Their main forms of
livelihood are agriculture and fishing, and every household is engaged in these livelihoods.
Villagers grow mainly root crops, bananas, pineapples, ngali nut, vegetables and fruit trees
including betel nuts largely for their own consumption, and surplus produce is sold for cash.
Selling surplus from their garden produce is becoming an important source of family income.
Cash crops are also grown, the main ones being coconuts and cocoa.
A few families also raise pigs and chickens for sale and home consumption.
Mboromole villagers also identified small-scale timber milling as an important income earner for
a few families.
Like most coastal dwellers, Mboromole villagers rely heavily on marine resources to supplement
income from garden produce. Marine resources such as trochus and other shells used to
produce certain body ornaments and the popular Malaitan shell money have proved to bring in
much needed incomes for families. Fishing too is an important activity. Fish is an important
source of protein in people’s diets and a high demand market item.
Copra is the most important cash crop in North Nggela and the area around Mboromole is a
leader in copra production on Nggela, with about 80% of families surveyed saying they were
involved in copra production. Before the collapse of CEMA in 2001-2002, villagers sold their
copra to the CEMA buying centre in Niumara, which is about 20 minutes by canoe from the
village. However, since the closure of CEMA most producers take their copra to Honiara for sale
to private exporters.
Cocoa is ranked second to copra as an important cash crop. Villages along the Siota passage
are important cocoa producing areas. Like copra, cocoa is sold to private exporters in Honiara.
Communities around Siota have access to forest land which provides them with timber for sale.
Seven out of the 96 households in Mboromole process timber for sale in Honiara. Timber
production has an uncertain future, however, because the small size of the islands makes their
forests commercially non-viable. The forests can only support small scale sawmilling and
traditional uses of the forests.
6
In terms of retail businesses, there are three families that own home canteens, selling mostly
food items. They get their cargoes from Honiara and these are transported by ships. One family
in the village has a fuel business, selling petrol and kerosene.
The majority of the working population is engaged in unpaid work in the subsistence agricultural
sector. There are 13 people in formal employment who reside in Mboromole. Nine are in the
private sector, one in government service and three are employed by NGOs. In Siota school,
there are 17 teaching staff whose salaries are paid for by the National Government. The
majority of people in formal employment in the surveyed communities work in the service sector.
In summary, the sale of fresh and cooked food and betel nut are ranked first by Mboromole
residents in terms of importance. Second are the cash crops, copra and cocoa. These are
exported to Honiara by ship. Marine products and timber are lower down the scale, but marine
products may increase with reliable markets as demand for this is likely to increase.
Table D2.1: Summary of main source of income for families in Mboromole
Item
Sale of cooked food
Fresh fruit, vegetables & other garden produce
Betel nut
Copra
Cocoa
Other marine products
Timber
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
No of families engaging
in activity (%)
100
95
85
80
70
30
20
Source: Consultant
3. Service Delivery
The people of Central Islands Province have a comparative advantage in terms of its close
proximity to the national capital, Honiara. Services which are not available in the province are
accessible in Honiara, such as banks, postal services, telephones, retail and wholesale shops,
hardware stores, and police and justice matters. Women reported that access to the Central
Market in Honiara is the main advantage for them. They can earn a bigger profit for their farm
produce in Honiara compared to what they would earn at the village market or other markets in
Siota school and Tulagi. For men, it is the ability to sell their copra and cocoa for higher profits
to private exporters in Honiara as a real bonus. Freight costs too are comparatively lower
because of the shorter distance between Siota and Honiara. Most of these services are also
available in the provincial capital, so people have a choice of where they want to go, depending
on cost and convenience factors. Many residents of Siota, Mboromole and surrounding villages
make regular twice weekly trips to Honiara.
4. Key Issues
Markets
Women value the several market outlets available to them. For the village market,
Mboromole women plan to have a proper market shed built so that they have a suitable
place to display their sale items.
The most common items for sale are cooked food, including bakery items. Villagers also
sometimes sell seasonal root crops, vegetables and fruit, betel nut and fish.
7
Water Supply and Sanitation
Water supply and sanitation are both major problems in Siota and Mboromole village.
The school and village rely on rainwater tanks for drinking. Out of the 96 households in
Mboromole, only one household has a water tank and the same household has access
to a private toilet. The rest of the villagers use the sea as a toilet. There are only three
standpipes in the village where villagers go to collect water for other household needs. In
Siota, there are several water tanks around the school but during long drought periods,
they can also run out of water. There are two latrines over the sea which the students
use, one for boys and the other for girls. Every staff house has a private toilet.
Copra and Cocoa Buying Centre
What is currently practiced is that all copra and cocoa are exported to Honiara. These
are transported by ships. The cost of freight for a bag of copra or cocoa is $55/bag.
Access to Education
All villagers report easy access to primary education. There is a primary school both in
Belaga and Mboromole. For secondary education, access is less easy, with
approximately 80% of respondents reporting access to junior secondary levels and 40%
to senior secondary level. Of the students that are able to move up to secondary schools
from these communities, about 90% attend Siota Provincial Secondary School. These
students board in the school for the rest of the school term and only go home during the
official term breaks, in June and December. Belaga also has a community high school
where students go to school in the morning and return home after class in the
afternoons.
The ability of schools to retain students is poor and completion rates are very low.
Students either drop out or get “pushed” out of the system. The greatest barrier to
retention is cost. The high fees imposed by schools have forced some to quit school
because they cannot afford the fees. Other students are merely not interested to stay in
school. This may be the result of the poor quality of education provided in many rural
areas, where resourcing is a major issue; the low level of support from parents and
guardians may be another factor. Others have merely been pushed out of the
competitive system of education. At class 6 (end of Primary), Forms 3, 5, 6 and 7,
students have to compete with others for a place in the next level. Many students fail to
achieve the required standards imposed by the selection process. Space availability at
Forms 6 and 7 levels are very limited, and this is a major contributing factor to low
retention rates at the higher secondary levels.
Health services
Basic health facilities are accessible in the area. There is a Nurse Aid Post in Mboromole
village. This is staffed by a single registered nurse. Other health services are close by,
for example, the Area Health Clinic in Boronihaba which is accessible by road or canoe.
It takes villagers one and a half hours to walk to this clinic or 20 minutes by canoe with
outboard motor (OBM). In Salisapa, a Provincial Health Clinic is located there. This is
also accessible by road (1 hour’s walk from Siota) or 30 minutes by OBM. In the
provincial capital, Tulagi, there is a mini hospital. Tulagi is reachable by OBM and takes
about an hour to reach.
However, the presence of clinics has not guaranteed much needed health services.
Service provision is poor. Factors that affect these services include lack of resources
8
and funds, and a chronic shortage of trained and qualified health staff. For example, the
hospital in Tulagi does not have a doctor. It is difficult to attract qualified nurses and
doctors to work in these centres because of poor resources and lack of facilities.
Respondents surveyed reported that they consider the health of their communities and
children as average. Common health problems are the high incidence of malaria, acute
cases of respiratory diseases, and diarrhoea. These are likely to be caused by lack of
proper sanitation, inadequate water supply and lack of education on health and hygiene
of communities.
Transport
•
Road: Road connectivity from one village to the other is limited. There is a road
network from Mboromole to Boronihaba (Clinic) and from Siota to Niumara, Belaga
and Salisapa, but the roads are in poor condition.
•
Air: there are no operational airstrips in Central Province. Anyone wishing to use air
transport is obliged to travel first to Honiara.
•
Sea: The main form of transport is by sea. For travel to Tulagi, OBMs are commonly
used. To travel to Honiara, people have the option of traveling by OBM or by ship.
Most people prefer to travel by ship because it is cheaper (compared to the cost of
fuel for OBMs), safer, and has plenty of space for carrying produce.
The sea traffic between Honiara and Siota or Mboromole is very busy. Ships operating
services between Honiara and Malaita often call in at Siota or Mboromole to drop off/pick
up cargoes and passengers. North Nggela people are well served by ships which often
make stopovers in three different places, Niumara, Siota and Mboromole.
5. Existing Wharf
Both Mboromole and Siota have wharves that are completely derelict. Residents in these areas
said that both wharves did not last very long, only two or three years at the most. They
deteriorated very quickly because they were located in places which were exposed to strong
currents. The design of the wharves was another contributing factor, according to local
residents, making them susceptible to erosion caused by strong currents in the channel.
6. Local Demand for Wharf
All those surveyed expressed a high demand for a wharf. There are three available wharf sites
that communities have identified: Siota school wharf, Mboromole village wharf and Niumara.
These three sites are within reach of one another, Siota and Niumara on the same side of the
channel about 10 minutes walk from each other and Mboromole, on the opposite side of the
channel about 15 minutes by canoe. Mboromole and Siota are existing wharves although
neither are any longer in use. Niumara has not had a wharf before, but there is a copra shed on
the site built by CEMA which is no longer used. The building of a wharf here would require
clearing of some bushes which may pose some environmental challenges. In terms of shipping,
all three sites are used as ports of call.
Although there is no strong opposition to any particular site, Mboromole villagers prefer the
wharf to be on their side of the channel, while Siota school staff and students and surrounding
communities expressed an interest to have the wharf on their side, but located outside of the
school boundary, i.e. at Niumara. The main reason is that public access to the wharf may be
limited because it is within the school boundary. Inflow of people to the wharf may also cause
disturbance to the school and pose risks to school properties.
9
However, this does not mean that the Siota site is ruled out completely. If the subproject finds
the Siota site to be the best from an engineering or environmental point of view, then informants
said they would have no strong objections to this location and would accept the decision. The
most important priority here is to rebuild a wharf for North Nggela and where it is located does
not really matter, as the sites are very close to each other.
Informants expressed the view that having a wharf is a sign of positive development and
national progress, and government and donors must therefore give priority to such infrastructure
development. In particular, they saw the presence of a wharf as enhancing rural livelihoods and
sustainability.
From their past experience of the two previous wharves, informants observed that use of these
wharves lasted only about two or three years. This time the communities want to see a wharf
that will last and that people can enjoy using for many years. They want to be assured that the
design of the wharf will be of international standard.
7. Local Demand for Shipping Services
There is a high demand for shipping services, particularly for the route between Honiara and
Siota. The close proximity of Central Province to Honiara makes daily commuting possible. The
main commuters are market vendors, copra and cocoa producers, timber producers and other
people wishing to visit friends and relatives who work or attend school in Honiara. Social visits
are gaining momentum, especially among women. Traveling to school, seeking medical
attention, and attending religious events and sporting activities are also important reasons for
using shipping services. One of the key informants in Mboromole village reported that for every
trip the MV Renbel makes to Mboromole, the number of passengers boarding the ship is no less
than 50.
8. Existing Shipping Services
The communities rated the frequency of current shipping services as very good. Three ships
calling in per week is more than adequate to serve their existing needs and demands.
In terms of reliability of services, the number of people who said that current services are
reliable is significantly more than those who disagreed (60% to 40%). In the final analysis, it is
possible to say that some ships serving the areas have reliable schedules.
The major concerns with the existing services are the cost of freights and fares and to some
extent the safety of ships. In comparison to Malaita passengers, Siota or Mboromole
passengers pay $80 for fares and Auki passengers pay $100. This is a major source of
dissatisfaction. It was felt that the Honiara–Siota distance is too short to justify the amount of
$80. On the other hand they said that the Auki fare is small compared to the distance from
Honiara–Siota–Auki. Shipping service users want to see this reviewed under the current
subproject. The second major concern with cost is to do with the practice of charging freight for
personal belongings. Freight charges such as $20 per bag of rice and $10 for a carton of mixed
goods are deemed to be a huge cost burden for passengers.
The safety of vessels is another concern. Informants reported that most of the time ships are
overcrowded to the point where moving around is impossible. The conditions too are often filthy.
No one seems to be responsible for general cleaning and maintenance of facilities on board,
especially the toilets.
10
In terms of speed there is one ship that is regarded as too slow. Most ships make the journey
between Honiara and Siota within four hours, but MV H Noda takes seven hours to travel the
same distance. This is regarded as slow. But to compensate for the slowness, the H Noda
offers slightly cheaper fares, $70 compared to $80 for others.
9. Willingness to Pay
The communities surveyed expressed their willingness to pay increased fares if shipping
services are improved to be reliable and safe. Value for money is an important consideration.
10. Expected Benefits and Impacts to the Poor
It is estimated that the population that would benefit from the rehabilitation of the wharf is
around 6,000 people. This comprises farmers, fishermen, business people, those in formal
employment, market traders, people visiting relatives in Honiara and those attending a variety of
religious, recreational and sporting activities. Informants expressed the view that the numbers of
people who would make use of the wharf would increase significantly over time with increased
economic development, partly stimulated by the presence of the wharf.
The consultations reveal a number of benefits which communities expect to receive from the
wharf:
(i)
Increased opportunities for generating incomes for families. This can happen in a
number of ways:
•
Farmers will be motivated to increase copra, cocoa and timber production;
•
Access to more market outlets, from the village market, Siota school market,
Tulagi and Honiara central market;
•
People in the community can also earn income through casual employment such
as assisting schools to load/unload cargoes;
•
During the reconstruction stage, people in Mboromole, Siota and surrounding
areas within the entire district can seek employment with the construction
company. They have clearly expressed the view that labor should be recruited
locally unless there are jobs that local people are not able to do. There are four
people from this area who were former employees of the company that built the
main wharf in Honiara. These people have expressed strong interest in being
recruited again. There is also preference for both men and women to be
employed during construction or maintenance. There is no strong opinion
whether employment contracts should be awarded to groups or individuals; the
thinking is that the nature of the job will determine which is the best approach to
take, but awarding employment contracts to groups would benefit more people
than individuals, so wherever possible this option should be given first priority;
and
•
All of the above will have direct benefits for everybody, including the poor. These
opportunities will create increased income. A healthy income can potentially
improve living standards of poor and vulnerable groups.
(ii)
11
Other benefits will include safer handling of cargo. Cargo losses and damage is one of
the major problems resulting from a lack of wharf infrastructure. The method of using
small boats to load/unload cargoes and passengers is risky and uncomfortable. Having a
wharf would reduce risks of injury to people and damage/losses to cargo. It would also
reduce the risk of injury of those engaged in the difficult job of loading/unloading heavy
cargo from small craft onto ships – a task that can be highly hazardous in rough seas.
(iii) Using a wharf would make loading/unloading cargo and boarding/disembarking from
ships faster and more efficient, helping to reduce travel time.
(iv) Increased shipping services will encourage more inter-island movement of people.
Women’s mobility will increase for social and economic reasons. Currently men’s use of
shipping services is higher than women’s and more oriented towards business activities.
But as shipping services continue to improve, women’s needs to move around will
correspondingly increase.
(v)
Another benefit of the subproject would be the participation of communities in national
development. Communities would directly participate through contributing resources,
labor and time to the construction of the wharf. Community participation is paramount in
enhancing a sense of community ownership. The communities in Mboromole and Siota
have pledged that they can contribute such resources as timber, white sand and white
gravel. They expressed strong interest in contributing unskilled labor as well as some
skilled labor such as brick layers, welders and pile and crane operators.
11. Potential Negative Impacts and Risks
The communities in Mboromole and Siota unanimously agreed that the benefits of having a
wharf outweigh any potential negative impacts.
A problem highlighted during the discussion is the fact that communities close to the wharf site
would be more exposed to social problems like youth drinking, prostitution, teenage pregnancy
and the risk of STDs and HIV/AIDS.
The other concern is with the location of the wharf within the school boundary. The security of
school property and students is the major issue here, especially with the likely increase in
people traffic. Excessive noise levels are also a concern.
There is also the fear that public access to the wharf may be limited. This will be seen as unfair
to the general public. Therefore villagers suggest that if the wharf is designed for semicommercial operations, then an alternative site should be looked at outside of the school
boundary.
The community in Siota wants to maintain the beach that has formed alongside the wharf area.
That beach has served as landing site for canoes and for recreational purposes.
Another issue is that without proper road network and storage facilities, the proposed wharf will
be under-utilized. Thus the communities have recorded their interest for the subproject to look at
putting in place support infrastructures such as roads and storage sheds. These would
maximize use of the wharf to full capacity. A wharf without these supporting facilities cannot
realize its full potential until these are in place. Some cargo owners have expressed concern
with the current practice of using private homes to shelter cargoes from wet weather. This often
causes overcrowding and interferes with private space for families.
12
12. Community Strategies for Mitigating Possible Problems
Some ways which the communities have identified to mitigate the problems and concerns
expressed are:

To relocate the wharf outside of the school boundary. The alternative site
suggested is Niumara which is 10 minutes’ walk from Siota school boundary.
There is a road network linking Niumara to the school and to Belaga and
Salisapa. Water is also available in Niumara.

Another suggestion is to put a fence around the school so that the public may not
wander into the school compound.

With social problems, it is acknowledged that these are difficult to manage. But in
every village there are committees made up of chiefs and village elders who are
responsible for overseeing the peace and order in communities. These
committees have been identified as possible forums for addressing
problems/issues should they arise in the course of wharf reconstruction or in the
post construction period. Rules and regulations can be devised to guide behavior
of people. These village committees should look into come up with certain
regulations to control people’s behavior.

Environmental impacts should be managed by an Environmental Management
and Monitoring Plan which will be devised by the sub-project. The design of the
wharf should ensure that the existing beach adjoining the derelict wharf at Siota
is maintained as people specially requested this. Siota and Mboromole have
beautiful seafronts which must be protected as they can become potential tourist
destinations in the future.

Another social control measure is to restrict the employment of laborers on the
construction of the wharf to local residents only. This would have the added
advantage of locals earning income and control the number of outsiders entering
into the communities. Outside employment would be restricted to technical skilled
jobs only that cannot be filled by locals.

Communities must also seek assistance from NGOs and other civil society
groups to conduct HIV/AIDS prevention and other health awareness programs in
communities. This will hopefully minimize health risks and inform people of
preventative measures.

Communiites agreed to the use of MOUs for ensuring community support in
terms of site access, resource contribution and recruitment issues.
13. Resettlement and Land Issues
In the Siota and Mboromole areas, there are no settlers. The villages are located on customary
land that is communally owned so every resident has an attachment to the land. The three
proposed wharf sites are located on land that are owned by family groups and where these
families have given permission for putting a wharf. In all three sites, there will be no new land
acquisition required. Siota and Mboromole already have wharves. Niumara has a CEMA copra
shed. The only requirement is for renewed negotiations to be conducted with identified
13
landowners. The communities have agreed to establish MOUs for land agreement and
participation in construction work. In every case there are no disputes over ownership as
everyone is clear about who owns these land. In the case of Siota, the land is leased by the
Provincial Government for the school.
Resources will also have to be negotiated with landowners. These negotiations are necessary
to avoid any potential disputes, but communities have given their full support for the
construction of a wharf in whatever site is deemed suitable by the subproject. Communities
have pledged their assurance that they will do their best to facilitate the smooth running of
construction work.
With regards to the issue of relocation, the community does not see a need for any relocation of
families to happen as no one is living close to the proposed sites.
14. Conclusions
The subproject will bring about a number of potential benefits to the population of more than
6,000 people in North Nggela ward. These benefits are very similar for the other subproject sites
in the other provinces which include potential to:

Stimulate economic growth and business activities in North Nggela communities;

Increase income earning activities for families through the provision of increased
market opportunities;

Improve inter island shipping services;

Make handling of cargo more efficient with the resultant benefits of cost and time
saving;

Enable safer, faster and more comfortable boarding and disembarking of
passenger which will particularly benefit the sick, elderly and disabled, pregnant
women and young children;

Engage in direct employment for local people in wharf rehabilitation and
maintenance activities; and

Improve access to shipping services for communities which will stimulate mobility
for social and religious purposes.
Key social issues that will need to be considered during subproject design and implementation
include negotiations with landowners of the wharf site and resource owners, and to negotiate
agreements in the form of MOUs with landowners so that work can progress undisturbed.
HIV/AIDS prevention and general STD awareness strategies are important to mitigate potential
risks associated with greater exposure resulting from increased traffic through the area.
Assistance to deal with awareness strategies will be sought from NGOs and other civil society
groups.
In relation to shipping services, improvements in reliability, comfort and safety were ranked most
highly by the community. A review of fares and charges, particularly of charges on personal
cargo, would be welcomed. At the same time, the community expressed willingness to pay
increased fares if the quality of service was significantly improved.
14
E.
ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE AT SIOTA
1. Introduction
Many of the wharves used by domestic maritime transport in the Solomon Islands are in poor
condition or unusable. While domestic maritime transport can generally function without fixed
infrastructure, significant penalties in operational efficiency and safety apply in such conditions.
Furthermore, the deteriorated state of the existing infrastructure and the efficiency losses
entailed preclude a more consistent servicing of the wharf. As a result, economic development
from increased commerce is constrained and the natural and labor resources of wharf’s
hinterland are underutilised.
In the specific case of Siota, the wharf has been unusable for some years, and cargo handling is
by lighterage. In this context, “lighterage” refers to the practice of using canoes and/or dinghies
to transfer goods and passengers between ship and shore.
2. Methodology and Approach
This Appendix presents the economic analyses for the representative subproject in Siota,
Nggela Pile Island in the Central Province. The analysis undertaken is accordance with the
Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects (1997).
The economic analyses of the subproject components include the following (where appropriate):
•
Demand of shipping services analysis based on historic trends and traffic
forecast;
•
Estimated subproject cost analysis, in economic prices, based upon a standard
design, unit prices, and quantities for all the subprojects in overall Project,
inclusive of mobilization and demobilization costs, and cost contingencies;
•
Determine the economic feasibility of the representative subproject, i.e. whether
the subproject’s economic internal rate of return (EIRR) exceeds the economic
opportunity cost of capital (EOCC);
•
Sensitivity analysis to determine the subproject components’ sensitivity to
adverse changes in conditions; and
•
Distribution of subproject costs and benefits to determine the poverty impact ratio
of the subproject.
3. Analysis General Assumptions
The following general assumptions were used in the analysis:
•
All costs are expressed in 2008 constant prices;
•
An average exchange rate of SD$7.7011 per US$1.00 is employed when
converting foreign exchange costs to local currency equivalent;
•
Economic costs of capital works and annual operation and maintenance are
calculated from the financial cost estimates of the technical team, adjusted to
allow for transfer payments and to correct for any other market distortions;
•
Price contingencies and interest during construction, as a result of any debt
financing, are excluded, but physical contingencies are included because they
represent real consumption of resources;
15
•
Taxes and duties are excluded because they represent transfer payments;
•
The Standard Conversion Factor is assumed to 1.0, hence, it is equal to the
Shadow Exchange Rate Factor.
•
The economic opportunity cost of capital (EOCC) is assumed at 12% in real
terms; and
•
The subproject is assumed to have useful engineering design life of 50 years;
however, given that extreme length of time and potential socio-economic
uncertainties, the analysis period has been limited to 30 years.
4. Nggela Profile and Framing the Analysis
Central Province consists of three geographically separate parts: the Russell Islands, the island
of Savo and the Nggela, sometimes spent Gela, and also known as the Florida Islands. The
proposed wharf at Siota would benefit only parts of Nggela. Siota is situated at the northern end
of the Mboli Passage, which separates the islands of Nggela Pile and Nggela Sule. It is at the
site of Siota Provincial Secondary School, in Nggela Pile, and immediately opposite the village
of Mboromole, in Nggela Sule.
Discussion with shipowners has revealed that the ports served by ships passing through the
Mboli passage are Siota, Mboromole and Taroaniara. The proposed wharf is expected to
replace the lighterage operations at both Siota and Mboromole.
The wharf is expected to benefit people living on or near both sides of the Mboli passage, in
parts of the wards of North West Gela (sic) and North East Gela. People living in South West
Gela and South East Gela may also benefit, but they are generally closer to the Church of
Melanesia shipyard and wharf at Taroaniara.
Table D2.1 displays the 1999 populations in the expected beneficiary wards. This totaled just
nearly 3,000 people in 1999, and can be estimated to have increased to around 3,500 by 2008.
Table D2.1: North East and North West Gela: Population by Ward 1999
Ward
North East Gela
North West Gela
Total
1999 Pop
1,567
1,375
2,942
Source: 1999 Census
The main town and government of Central Province is located on the island of Tulagi, in Nggela,
which is accessible by OBM and has an agency of the Bank of the South Pacific, an ANZ ATM
and various other services. Honiara is also quite close, is accessible by OBM during good
weather and also by shipping services, and offers a much wider range of services and access to
Central Government.
Proximity to Honiara provides the population of this area with a significant comparative
advantage in respect of marketing of fresh or perishable foodstuffs such as fish, leaf vegetables
and betel nuts, although the lack of a wharf is an significant impediment.
Useful information is provided in the Solomon Islands Smallholder Agriculture Study1. It is
reported that:
1
Solomon Islands Smallholder Agriculture Study, Ausaid, January 2006.
16
•
The principle staples grown are pana, sweet potato and yam;
•
For people with good access to Honiara, the marketing of fresh produce is of
equal or greater importance than copra production as the main source of income;
•
Land use intensity for subsistence gardening is low, implying that there is land
available for agricultural expansion;
•
Attempts to introduce rice production have not been successful;
•
Smallholder cocoa production takes place in the Mboli passage, where there are
two or three fermentaries and drying units; and
•
Chainsaw milled timber is sold by small producers on both sides of the Mboli
passage. Production is said to be about 3 m3 per household per year.
5. Economic Costs
For the economic analysis, the financial costs of wharf construction have been estimated based
on the engineering design and realized costs for similar recently constructed structures in the
Solomon Islands.
The economic costs of the project have been assessed by removing duties and other taxes on
imported materials, and on construction, operations, and maintenance activities from the
financial costs. All costs are in the domestic currency, Solomon Islands Dollars (SI$) and are in
2008 constant dollars.
In theory, the shadow exchange rate (SER) should be applied as a means to transform financial
prices into economic prices. The SER can be calculated by applying the shadow exchange rate
factor (SERF) to the official exchange rate (OER), and in an environment where taxes are the
only distortions to the exchange rate, the SERF can be approximated using the following
formula:
SERF = 1 + Net trade taxes = 1 + (import taxes – export taxes)
Total trade
(value of imports + value of exports)
According to official data on Solomon Islands in 2007, the revenue from export taxes on logs
was approximately equal to the total revenue from import taxes, giving a SERF of very close to
unity. Thus, a SERF of unity has been assumed, which reflects an undistorted currency
exchange market.
Since the cost of unskilled labour is only a very small component of the total capital cost of a
representative wharf; a shadow wage rate factor has not been applied to unskilled labor.
The effect of the above capital cost assumptions makes the economic cost of wharf construction
equal to the financial cost.
The estimated capital cost of implementing this subproject is SI$ 6,069,656, exclusive of
contingencies. The cost breakdown is given in Table D2.1.
17
Table D2.1: Capital Cost Breakdown (SI$)
Component
Preliminaries
Civil Works
Environmental
Social
Total
Economic Cost
Foreign
Local
Total
2,290,478
574,411
2,864,889
2,020,653
1,121,198
3,141,851
13,477
34,655
48,132
0
14,784
14,784
4,324,608
1,745,048
6,069,656
Source: Consultant’s calculation
The Preliminaries cost component entails many of the financial costs of tendering, mobilizing,
and demobilizing an international contractor to the Solomon Islands to undertake the
implementation works, as well as moving such equipment within the country from site to site.
This cost component on a per subproject basis could be reduced if more subprojects are
actually implemented than are initially planned2.
The Civil Works component is inclusive of the materials, equipment, and labor required for
implementing a representative subproject as per the preliminary engineering design. The cost to
accommodate design measures to allow for sea level rise are minimal, expected to amount to
about SI$ 13,000 per subproject, and has already been included in the costing.
The Environmental Cost is the cost of monitoring as described in Supplementary Appendix I.
The Social Cost is the cost of social measures as shown in Appendix 4. As the Consultant is
aware of the availability of a copra storage shed close to the wharf site, it is assumed that no
additional infrastructure is provided.
Each subproject is estimated to require approximately one month for mobilisation and two
months of construction time, once initial mobilization of the contractor to the Solomon Islands
has commenced.
The subprojects have been intentionally designed to minimize required wharf structure
maintenance and associated costs. However, it is acknowledged that no structure will be
maintenance free. Therefore, the following maintenance costs have been estimated and
included the economic analysis of the thirty-year project life as illustrated in Table D2.2 below.
It has been estimated that such costs will be incurred at ten-year intervals, namely Year 10 and
Year 20.
Table D2.2: Maintenance Costs (SI $)
Component
Fenders
Bollards
Deck Concrete
Pile Screens
Total
Economic Cost
138,250
9,240
37,347
13,983
198,820
Source: Consultant’s calculation
2
Initial calculations have envisaged that a total of nine subproject wharves will be constructed over a twenty-month
duration.
18
Other forms of maintenance to the shoreline or the causeway are assumed to be the
responsibility of the local community stakeholders or provincial government. Such work, if
necessary, should only require local materials and labor and should be of low cost and easy to
repair.
6. Traffic Forecast and Benefit Estimation
The benefit of restoring the wharf at Siota will take the form of:
•
savings in ship time and cargo handling costs,
•
claims arising from cargo damage,
•
reduction in accidents and injuries from boarding and discharging passengers as
well as cargo through current “lighterage” types of operations,
•
induced economic activity from greater access to shipping from the wharf and
more consistent and frequent calls by interisland shipping services; and
•
socio-economic benefits associated with greater access to health and
educational facilities.
As briefly noted above, Siota lies on Mboli passage, a narrow protected channel between
Nggela Pile and Nggela Sule. The most direct route between Honiara and Auki, the capital of
Solomon Islands’ most populous province is through the said passage, and as a result a large
number of ships pass through. As a result a large number of ships pass close to Siota. Ships
which have been mentioned in this context include: Belama, belonging to Malaita outer islands
shipping: Salia, belonging to Maofaita Shipping; Renbel, belonging to RenBel province; various
small wooden ships belonging based in Langa Langa, Malaita; the Southern Cross, belonging to
the Church of Melanesia; and various smaller ships.
Estimating the volume of traffic is difficult, both because of the large number of ships with the
opportunity to pick up cargo and passengers while passing, and also because, at least when the
weather is good, Honiara is accessible by OBM (canoe with outboard motor). Nevertheless, the
consultants have estimated that some 3 ships going in each direction per week stop at Siota or
Mboromole to discharge or load passengers and/or cargo, and have assumed that a wharf
constructed at either location would capture the whole of the traffic. Furthermore, the typical
volume and composition of cargo and passengers handled has been estimated based on
interviews with shipowners.
Unusually, our base year shows an imbalance between inward and outward passengers. This
occurs because Siota is easily from Honiara by OBM. Thus passengers may travel to Honiara
by ship, in order to accompany their cargo, but after selling their cargo, may choose to take the
first available OBM ride back home.
Table D2.1: Siota/Mboromole Traffic, 2008
Import cargo/yr (tonnes)
234
Export cargo/yr (tonnes)
515
Inward Passengers/yr
1,872
Outward Passengers/yr
3,120
Source: Consultant
Note: Import cargo is cargo imported into Siota/Mboromole, and export cargo is exported from
Siota/Mboromole. Use of these terms does not imply international movements. Similarly inward
passengers are disembarking at Siota/Mboromole and outward passengers are disembarking.
19
The number of passengers may seem high in relation to the region’s population, but it should be
noted that Siota has a major secondary school and that the distance to Honiara, the nations
capital, offering many services and a good market, is relatively short.
The basis for projected traffic passenger volumes is projected growth in population and per
capita GDP. Using the following relationship:
Vx = V0 x (Px/P0) x (Gx/ G0)e
Where:
Vx and V0 are passenger volumes in years x and 0 respectively;
Px and P0 are populations volumes in years x and 0 respectively;
Gx and G0 are per capita GDP in years x and 0 respectively; and
e is the elasticity of demand for passenger transport.
In practice:
(Px/P0) = (1+ΔP)x where ΔP is the annual population growth rate; and
(Gx/G0) = (1+ΔP)x where ΔG is the rate of growth in per capita GDP.
Passenger transport has been assumed to be a superior good, with an elasticity of greater than
unity, and a value of 1.1 has been assumed.
Given the recent conflicts and state of affairs in the country, no official up to date population
forecasts have been ascertained. However, the most frequently quoted national population
growth rate is 2.8% per year, and this rate has been assumed for the next decade.
There are various figures for national annual GDP growth rates, ranging from 10% in 2007,
which has been generally recognized as being attributable to an unsustainable rate of logging,
to predictions of a decline in per capita GDP growth, implying a national GDP growth rate of less
than 2.8%, in the near future. In consideration of this range and the various figures, a low
biased conservative median national GDP growth rate of 4.5% per year has been assumed,
implying a per capita GDP growth rate of 1.65% per year.
For the purposes of Nggela cargo projections, a population growth rate of 2.1% per annum has
been adopted. Applying the said population growth rate to the estimated per capita GDP growth
rate of 1.65% per annum gives a local GDP growth rate of 3.78%.
With respect to cargo imports, an elasticity of demand to GDP of 1.00 has been assumed.
Thus, the rate of import cargo traffic growth has been assumed to be equal to the rate of local
GDP growth.
Given the very low volumes of cargo currently being handled, and the undoubted benefit of
having a wharf provided, it has been assumed that having a wharf to facilitate the shipping of
products will enable the volume of export products, other than timber, to double over the decade
following construction of the wharf.
Table D2.5 illustrates the resulting forecast of traffic through the proposed Siota wharf, before
consideration of any capacity constraints.
20
Table D2.2: Forecast Traffic between Honiara and Siota, 2010- 2029
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
Year
2036
2037
2038
2039
Passengers
Inward Outward
1,872
3,120
1,946
3,243
2,023
3,372
2,103
3,505
2,186
3,644
2,273
3,788
2,362
3,937
2,456
4,093
2,553
4,255
2,654
4,423
2,759
4,598
2,868
4,780
2,981
4,969
3,099
5,166
3,222
5,370
3,349
5,582
3,482
5,803
3,620
6,033
3,763
6,271
3,911
6,519
4,066
6,777
4,227
7,045
4,394
7,324
4,568
7,613
4,749
7,914
4,936
8,227
5,132
8,553
5,334
8,891
Passengers
Inward Outward
5,545
9,242
5,765
9,608
5,993
9,988
6,230
10,383
Cargo
Imports Exports
234
515
243
515
252
551
262
587
271
622
282
658
292
694
303
730
315
766
327
802
339
838
352
874
365
874
379
874
393
874
408
874
424
874
440
874
456
874
474
874
491
874
510
874
529
874
549
874
570
874
592
874
614
874
637
874
Cargo
Imports
Exports
661
874
686
874
712
874
739
874
Source: Consultant
Note: “Inward” or “Imports” denotes movement from Honiara to Siota.
“Exports” denotes movement from Siota to Honiara.
Outward” or
With respect to cargo handling costs and time alongside, the key inputs are cargo handling
rates and ship time costs. In this regard, the authors of the STABEX Report produced a useful
table, shown below. This has been reviewed in concert with the STABEX data, and the cargo
handling rates have been accepted as valid and updated to 2008 operating costs. For the
purposes of updating, a 10% inflation rate has been assumed between early 2007, the date of
the STABEX data, and mid-2008. An exception to this rate has been made in the case of
generator fuel, where today’s diesel price has been inserted.
21
Table D2.3: Cargo Handling Rates and Ship Time Costs, 2007
Assumed Cargo Handling Rates
Copra handling Tonnes/hr - without wharf
General goods handling Tonnes/hr - without wharf
Copra handling Tonnes/hr - with wharf
General goods handling Tonnes/hr - with wharf
5.4
4.0
7.8
8.0
Representative Ship
Name Neptune Gale
LoA 56 metres
Crane 5 Tons SWL
Yearly estimated maintenance costs – SI$ 228.000
Dry dock every 4 years – SI$ 190.000
Capital cost – SI$ 2.850.000
Cost of Ship's Time (SI$)
Salaries/day
Generator Cons: 100 litre/day
Food: ten crew
Lubricating oil: 20 litres/day
Water: 250
litres/day
Administration costs/day
Maintenance costs/day
Capital amortisation cost
Interest costs
Overheads
Daily cost in Port
STABEX
2007
800
500
200
420
Consultant
2008
880
1,200
220
460
50
250
755
781
937
500
55
275
830
859
1,031
550
5,193
6,360
Source: STABEX (Annexe 4.8) and Consultant
It is understood that Dreamtime Shipping, operating on the Makira – Honiara route, incurs a cost
of SI$250,000 per year in paying for lost and damaged cargo on approximately 100 round trips
per year. This is equivalent to some SI$19.20 per tonne of cargo carried. While not all such
costs are due to lighterage, it seems certain that lighterage is the cause of the most significant
cargo losses. Taking this further, it has been assumed that 90% of these losses would be
saved, giving a saving per tonne of cargo carried of SI$17.30. It has further been assumed that
the same per tonnage saving can be applied to other routes on which lighterage is currently
practiced and where a wharf is assumed to be built, including the route to Siota.
The authors of the STABEX report identified savings in cargo handling costs resulting from use
of a wharf. However, the main ship owner serving Makira Province, Dreamtime Shipping, uses
the ships’ crews to handle goods between the ship and the beach, and it seems unlikely that the
cost of moving goods from the beach to a vehicle or warehouse is greatly different from that of
moving goods from a wharf. Therefore, it has been assumed that cargo handling cost savings,
22
to be taken up in the ship time savings, already include crew cost. The same assumption has
been applied in respect of Siota.
The calculation of subproject ship operations benefits under the above assumptions is
presented below. Additionally, it should be noted that:
•
In calculating time alongside, an assumed working day of 12 hours has been
applied. Thus, the daily tonnage handled equals the hourly cargo handling rate
multiplied by 12; and
•
A maximum berth utilisation of 70%, or equivalent to 256 days/year, is assumed.
Achievement of this level of utilisation with a single berth would require some
degree of coordination between ship owners, or a single ship owner owning most
or all of the ships using the berth.
In practice, the wharf utilization at siota is projected to be very low, so the above capacity
constraint does not apply.
Table D2.4 below illustrates the calculation of subproject ship operations related benefits under
the above assumptions.
Table D2.4: Estimation of Net Shipping Operations Related Benefits
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Cargo
Claims
(SI$/yr)
12,384
14,915
15,087
15,299
15,491
15,702
15,932
16,163
16,393
16,643
16,892
17,161
17,430
17,718
18,025
18,332
18,639
18,985
19,311
19,676
20,041
20,425
20,828
21,251
Before Induced Ag
Without Wharf
Time
Cargo
Alongside Time Cost Total Cost Claims
(days/yr)
(SI$/yr)
(SI$/yr)
(SI$/yr)
11
71,962
84,346
1,238
13
85,242
100,157
1,492
14
86,434
101,521
1,509
14
87,892
103,191
1,530
14
89,217
104,708
1,549
14
90,674
106,376
1,570
15
92,264
108,196
1,593
15
93,854
110,017
1,616
15
95,444
111,837
1,639
15
97,167
113,810
1,664
16
98,889
115,781
1,689
16
100,744
117,905
1,716
16
102,599
120,029
1,743
16
104,587
122,305
1,772
17
106,707
124,732
1,803
17
108,827
127,159
1,833
17
110,947
129,586
1,864
18
113,332
132,317
1,899
18
115,584
134,895
1,931
19
118,102
137,778
1,968
19
120,619
140,660
2,004
19
123,269
143,694
2,043
20
126,052
146,880
2,083
20
128,967
150,218
2,125
With Wharf
Time
Alongside Time Cost
(days/yr)
(SI$/yr)
7
43,399
8
52,338
8
52,934
8
53,663
9
54,325
9
55,054
9
55,849
9
56,644
9
57,439
9
58,300
9
59,161
9
60,089
10
61,016
10
62,010
10
63,070
10
64,130
10
65,190
10
66,383
11
67,509
11
68,768
11
70,026
11
71,351
11
72,743
12
74,200
Total
Cost
(SI$/yr)
44,637
53,830
54,443
55,193
55,874
56,624
57,442
58,260
59,078
59,964
60,850
61,805
62,759
63,782
64,873
65,963
67,054
68,282
69,440
70,736
72,030
73,394
74,826
76,325
Net
Maritime
Benefit
(SI$/yr)
39,709
46,327
47,078
47,998
48,834
49,752
50,754
51,757
52,759
53,846
54,931
56,100
57,270
58,523
59,859
61,196
62,532
64,035
65,455
67,042
68,630
70,300
72,054
73,893
Year
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
Before Induced Ag
Cargo
Claims
(SI$/yr)
21,673
22,115
22,575
23,055
23,555
24,073
Without Wharf
Time
Alongside Time Cost Total Cost
(days/yr)
(SI$/yr)
(SI$/yr)
21
131,882
153,555
21
134,929
157,044
22
138,109
160,684
22
141,422
164,477
23
144,867
168,422
23
148,444
172,517
Cargo
Claims
(SI$/yr)
2,167
2,212
2,258
2,306
2,356
2,407
With Wharf
Time
Alongside Time Cost
(days/yr)
(SI$/yr)
12
75,658
12
77,181
12
78,771
13
80,428
13
82,150
13
83,939
Total
Cost
(SI$/yr)
77,825
79,393
81,029
82,734
84,506
86,346
23
Net
Maritime
Benefit
(SI$/yr)
75,730
77,651
79,655
81,743
83,916
86,171
Source: Consultant
Note: All monetary values are at 2008 prices
In the Consultant’s opinion, the main area in which provision of a wharf is likely to generate
traffic is in respect of induced productive activity, leading to increased export cargo. Such
induced activity has been taken into the traffic forecasts above, and the resulting economic
benefit is valued below. Therefore, no further generated traffic is considered.
Induced Agricultural and Fishing Activity:
As noted above, it is realistically assumed that provision of a wharf would lead to a doubling of
the volume of export products, other than timber, over the decade following construction of the
wharf. The volume of timber has been assumed to be unchanged both because timber is not
perishable and because supplies are understood to be limited.
The consultant’s best estimate of the current composition of export cargo is shown in Table
D2.5, below:
Table D2.5: Current Composition of Export Cargo
Commodity
Copra
Veg/fish/betelnut
Cocoa
Timber
Volume
Induced
Volume
after 10 yrs.
Value
(Tonnes/yr)
(Tonnes/yr)
(SI$/tonne)
Net Benefit
from
Induced
Activity
(SI$/tonne)
109.2
187.2
62.4
156
514.8
109.2
187.2
62.4
0
358.8
4,500
20,000
13,500
n.a
n.a
2,250
10,000
6,750
n.a
n.a
Total Net
Benefit
(SI$'000)
245.7
1,872.0
421.2
0
2,538.9
Source: Consultant
Note: All monetary values are at 2008 prices
Table D2.5 goes on to give the revenue earned per tonne of each commodity. Copra and
Cocoa, being single commodities, no further explanation is required in respect of them.
However, the third item brings together vegetables, fish and betel nuts, and even within those
groups, it will be appreciated that there are many kinds of vegetables and many kinds of fish.
Nevertheless, given the importance of betel nuts in Solomon Islands, it is reasonable to assume
that a large part of this volume will be betel nuts. Further, knowing that fish is generally much
more expensive than betel nuts, an d that leafy vegetables are cheaper, it seems reasonable to
24
take the betel nut price of SI$20 per Kg (= SI$20,000 per tonne) as being representative of the
whole group.
From discussions with local people, the consultant understands that the main inputs to both
copra and cocoa production are land and labor. Furthermore, as both land and labor are
underemployed, it can be assumed that 50% of the value of these two crops is a net gain to the
national economy. A similar assumption has been made in respect of the vegetables, fish and
betel nuts group.
Value of Time Saved for Passengers
Although the value of time saved has been considered from the perspective of the shipping
service provider, it should also be considered from the context of the consumer of the shipping
services. In this sense, there are imposed additional time costs to the consumer from the
current supply of shipping services provided and use of the wharf facilities at Siota. That is,
there are unexpected time delays aside from the known time to transit from origin to destination
once embarking on the vessel. These delays take the form of three notable combinations:
•
Given the current structure of the inter-island transport services, in many cases,
the ship simply fails to appear when scheduled to take on passengers and cargo;
•
Even should a ship arrive as scheduled, due to adverse weather conditions and
resultant wave actions in concert with a damaged wharf not directly connected to
the mainland, lighterage operations cannot be undertaken until the seas calm;
and
•
Due to delayed ship arrival times, the loading of passengers and cargo cannot be
accomplished in the same day as originally scheduled due to the arrival of night
when lighterage operations are halted for safety concerns.
Overall, regardless of the specific reason, from these three scenarios, it has been elicited from
stakeholders that approximately four out of ten scheduled ship departures are delayed, i.e.,
40%. While usual delay times can be counted in the number of days, for simplicity it is assumed
that each delay is simply one day in duration. Based on an understanding of current conditions,
or at least the sentiment of stakeholders, these parameters would appear to conservative in
nature.
Concerning the parameters on income and the value of time; the core assumptions of the
analysis is that all able-bodied people of working age in the study area are productive, engaged
in either, or a combination, of the following activities: (i) cash cropping and fishing for market
sale; (ii) retailing of goods and services (limited); (iii) wage earning (limited); (iv) subsistence
agriculture, gathering, and fishing for own consumption; and (v) providing and maintaining
housing and essential household services to family members including children and the elderly.
Given real per capita national income of approximately US$600 per annum, the average income
from all sources of including in-kind and subsistence per head of the working population is
approximately SI$8350, which is equivalent to an hourly value of working time of SI$4.353.
Working persons are assumed to work eight hours per day, five days per week, and forty-eight
3
Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2005/6, National Report (Part One), Solomon Islands Statistics Office,
Department of Finance and Treasury, September 2006.
25
weeks per year. Valuing leisure time at 25% of this rate results in an average daily value of
potential income (all sources including leisure) of SI $52.23 per working age person.
Safety Benefits
It is undoubtedly the case that use of a wharf would benefit passengers as well as shippers of
cargo in terms of safety and prevention of accidents while embarking or disembarking for
passengers and in the process of loading and unloading cargo, respectively. However, while
anecdotal information suggests that injuries are fairly frequent and that the current method of
lightering passengers, particularly those that are sick, elderly, disabled, pregnant, or with young
children, poses major risks to health and safety substantive data is lacking to approximate any
quantitative estimate.
Socio-economic Health and Education Benefits
Further in terms of similar qualitative socio-economic benefits are those pertaining to the more
general health and education of the community at large, serviced by the wharf and the
associated shipping. This can be thought of in terms of greater access to health and
educational facilities. While the Florida islands, have a small hospital, at Tulagi and while Siota
itself has a secondary school, the populace continues to be affected. For instance, the staffing
of the school is problematic since under the current transport regime, staff are uncertain over
return-ability or when taking leave for holidays and vacation. Additionally, given the uncertainty
of transport availability and time of transit required, during school breaks many of the students
choose to remain in the area rather than going to their hometowns due to the potential inability
to return in time once courses commence. Hence, the results of infrequent, inconsistent, and
non-direct passages via the transport services likely poses a social cost to the community in
reducing the quality of health and education facilities. Table D2.9 shows the calculation of the
EIRR, of 23%, corresponding to a NPV of SI$8,207,000 at a 12% discount rate.
26
Table D2.6: Discounted Cash Flow (SI$ ‘000)
Year
Capital
Costs
2009
6,070
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
NPV @ 12% DR
IRR
O&M
Costs
199
199
Cargo
Damage
Savings
11
13
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
22
Ship's PAX Time Induced
Time
Saved
Ag.
Savings
29
33
34
34
35
36
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
51
52
53
55
56
58
59
61
63
65
71
74
77
80
83
86
89
93
97
100
104
109
113
117
122
127
132
137
142
148
154
160
166
173
180
187
194
202
210
218
Source: Consultant
7. Sensitivity Analysis
Table D2.1 below shows a sensitivity analysis of Siota Wharf.
254
508
762
1,016
1,269
1,523
1,777
2,031
2,285
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
Total
Net
Benefits Incremental
Benefits
0
-6,070
364
364
628
628
885
885
1,143
1,143
1,401
1,401
1,659
1,659
1,917
1,917
2,176
2,176
2,434
2,434
2,693
2,494
2,698
2,698
2,704
2,704
2,709
2,709
2,715
2,715
2,721
2,721
2,727
2,727
2,733
2,733
2,740
2,740
2,747
2,747
2,754
2,555
2,761
2,761
2,769
2,769
2,777
2,777
2,786
2,786
2,794
2,794
2,803
2,803
2,813
2,813
2,822
2,822
2,833
2,833
2,843
2,843
7,736
22.01%
27
Table D2.1: Sensitivity Analysis: Siota Wharf
Change
NPV
(SI$'000)
Base Case
Capital Cost +40%
Cargo Damage Savings -20%
Ship's Time Savings -20%
PAX Time Savings -20%
Induced Ag -20%
Total Benefits -20%
7,736
5,309
7,713
7,676
7,579
5,200
4,958
IRR
Switching
Value
22.0%
17.4%
22.0%
21.9%
21.8%
19.2%
18.8%
+128%
See Note
See Note
See Note
-61%
-56%
Source: Consultants
Note: In respect of Cargo Damage Savings, Ship's Time Savings and Passenger Time Savings,
reduction of each individual class of benefit to zero does not reduce the NPV below zero.
Distribution of Project Effects
Table D2.2 below shows a distributional analysis of Siota Wharf.
Benefits
Cargo Damage
savings
Ships' Time
Savings
Passenger Time
Savings
Induced Ag/ Fish
benefits
Net
Gov/
Economy
Ag/Fish
Producers
Passengers
Ship
Exporters
Importers
Economic –
Financial
Item
Economic
Present Value
Financial
Present Value
Table D2.2: Distributional Analysis: Siota Wharf (SI$ ‘000)
117
117
59
59
0
0
304
304
152
152
0
0
786
786
12,683
12,683
Capital Cost
O&M Cost
-6,070
-85
-6,070
-85
0
0
Net Present
Value
-6,154
7,736
13,891
Gains and Losses
Proportion of the Poor (%)
Net Benefits for the Poor
786
12,683
-6,070
-85
211
211
0
211
50%
105
211
50%
105
0
0
786
12,683
0
786
12,683
-6,154
50%
50%
10%
393
6,341
-615
Poverty Impact Ratio
7,736
6,330
0.818
Source: Consultants
In preparing the above analysis, the Consultant has made the following assumptions:

As already stated, the proportion of unskilled labor in the wharf construction has
been assumed to be zero;
28

Also in line with assumptions already made, shadow prices have not been
applied to the capital cost, that is economic costs are equivalent to financial
costs;

Savings from cargo damage reductions and ships time savings are assumed to
be handed over in full from ship owners to cargo owners and from cargo owners,
whether importers or exporters and that the latter also pass on the savings to
consumers and producers respectively. This seems reasonable as ship owners,
shop owners and product buyers all operate in competitive or contestable
markets where their ability to earn super-normal profits is related to competitive
conditions, not to their cost levels;

Cargo damage savings and ships' time savings are both assumed to be divided
equally between importers and exporters;

The poor are assumed to consume 50% of imports, produce 50% of exports, and
to comprise 50% of passengers and produce 50% of agricultural production; and

The poor’s share of government expenditure is assumed to be 10%.
F.
INITIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
REHABILITATION
EXAMINATION
FOR
THE
SIOTA
29
WHARF
1. Introduction
Purpose of the Report
This Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) was prepared for the proposed rehabilitation of the
Siota Wharf in behalf of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development (MID) of the Solomon
Islands to primarily identify and assess the impacts of the Subproject to the surrounding
environment (physical, ecological, and social); identify mitigation measures to minimize the
same impacts; and ensure that ensuing activities during construction implementation and
operation will take into account environmental considerations consistent with the country’s
environmental requirements and that of the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
The proposed Siota Wharf rehabilitation will be designed and implemented as a standard T-type
Pre-cast Deck Pile Wharf adopting the design prepared for the Gizo Wharf in the Western
Province. It will have three major components, namely: causeway, approach and wharf head. It
is located in Siota, North East Gela of the Central Province in the Solomon Islands. Siota hosts
a Provincial Secondary School with dormitories, faculty housing and a church.
The Siota Wharf is one of the Subproject wharves for consideration under the Domestic
Maritime Support Project and Technical Support Programme (DMSP & TSP) or the Project, an
ADB funded Technical Assistance to the domestic maritime sector (interisland shipping) in the
country with two main components as follows: Project Preparatory Component (Component 1)
and Advisory Component (Component 2).
Component 1 will be the main activity during the first six months of the Project and will prepare
an ensuing project, the DMSP, which is expected to include an infrastructure component and an
institutional development component. The DMSP will be jointly financed by the Government of
Solomon Islands (the Government), ADB, and the EU. More specifically, the DMSP is expected
to: prepare a project for the rehabilitation of rural wharves; and establish a mechanism to
support shipping services to remote outer islands.
The Advisory Component (Component 2) will be of one and one-half years duration and will
strengthen the capability of the MID for analysis asset management, community participation
and implementation. The output will include an asset management system, a technical resource
centre, an improved quality assurance function, and training for staff and private sector
stakeholders.
Extent of the IEE Study
This IEE was prepared to meet both the requirements of the ADB’s Environmental Assessment
Guidelines for sector projects, and that of the country’s environmental management and
protection system requirements discussed separately below. Its preparation was undertaken
from May to June 2008 after its selection for the assessment was presented during the
Inception Report Workshop on June 5, 2008.
An initial ground level reconnaissance was conducted earlier on May 31, 2008 after consultation
with the MID Staff assigned to the project. A second visit to the site was conducted on June 12,
2008 together with the conduct of the consultation which was communicated to the Central
Province’ leadership and villagers over the radio and through official letters of communication
facilitated by the MID.
30
The methodology for the preparation of this IEE includes:

Gathering, review, and analysis of existing baseline data (including all available
environmental legislation and guidelines) and relevant reports from previous
similar efforts in the Solomon Islands and in the region;

Meetings and discussions with local experts from the ECD and staff of MID, as
well as experts from other existing projects in the Solomon Islands;

Undertaking field trips (reconnaissance and during consultation) to assess
prevailing environmental conditions and to understand the type and magnitude of
potential impacts during the rehabilitation works;

Informal interactions and discussion during the reconnaissance visit on May 31,
200 with local key informants from the area (local teachers and Preacher);

Review of the National Transport Plan (NTP), engineering information and
designs from parallel efforts funded by other agencies, field notes and aerial
photographs of the area to identify the various environmental issues that may be
involved; and

Preparation of a preliminary Environmental Management Plan and monitoring
program which will be updated by the selected civil works Contractor prior to
construction with guidance from the MID and Construction Supervision
consultant that maybe hired for the purpose.
This IEE was prepared by GHD Pty, Ltd. in association with Meyrick and Associates, both
Australian consultancy firms. It utilizes published and unpublished information from the various
government agencies such as the Environment Conservation Division (ECD) of the Ministry of
Environment, Conservation and Meteorology (MECM), Ministry of Infrastructure Development
(MID), National Statistics Office, etc; and foreign-assisted projects in the Solomon Islands such
as the Solomon Islands Road Improvement Project (SIRIP) funded by the Asian Development
Bank; and the Community Sector Project (CSP) funded by the AusAid.
Country Environmental Management and Protection System
The Environment Act 1998
The country’s fundamental policy on the environment is anchored on the Environmental Act of
1998 which provides for an integrated system of development control, environmental impact
assessment (EIA) and pollution control, including;

Prevention, control and monitoring of pollution, including regulating discharge of
pollutants to air, water or land and reducing risks to human health, and
prevention of degradation of the environment;

Regulating the transport, collection, treatment, storage and disposal of waste and
promoting recycling, re-use and recovery or materials in an economically viable
manner; and

Complying with, and giving effect to, regional and international conventions and
obligations relating to the environment.
Article 4 (1) vests the Environmental Act with considerable power which states that in the event
of conflict between the Environment Act and other legislation, the provisions of the Environment
Act shall prevail. Recent reviews however, noted inconsistencies within the law and how it
31
relates to other legislative platforms (ADB, 2005). The country suffers from a lack of capacity to
implement it as there are shortcomings in instituted decision-making and enforcement systems.
Regulations under the Act are currently being drafted and will cover detailed requirements for
environmental impact assessment (EIA). The existing Solomon Islands EIA Guidelines for
Planners and Developers (May 1996) pre-date the Environment Act and are not legally binding.
In the Second Schedule, the Act lists prescribed developments for which consent, accompanied
by an EIA, are required.
All prescribed projects require a simple assessment through a “screening” or “scoping”, to see
what form of additional assessment is required. Most prescribed projects require a Public
Environmental Report (PER), while many major projects such as logging, large agricultural
developments, mining, large scale tourism developments, and infrastructure projects will also
need a second stage of appraisal (in an environmental impact assessment) which includes
technical, economic, environmental and social investigations. All of these are to be presented in
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The Town and Country Planning Act 1979
The Town and country planning Act has potential to provide for the consideration of
environment sector for conservation of cultural and biodiversity areas. The objective of the Act is
to ensure that land is developed and used in accordance with proper polices and a high
consideration of the people’s welfare. An important limitation of the Act however is that it affects
only non-customary land, the physical planning office responsible for enforcing the Act can only
advice when it comes to customary land but are not required to follow the mechanism of the Act.
Provincial Government Act 1997
The Provincial Government Act of 1997 provides power to the provinces to create their own
legislation in respect of environment and conservation. Its Schedule 3 provides a list of activities
for which the provinces have responsibility and have the power to pass ordinances:

Cultural and Environment Matters - Protection of wild creatures, coastal and
lagoon shipping

Rivers and Water - Control and use of river waters, pollution of water

Local Matters - Waste disposal

Corporate or Statutory Bodies - Establishment of corporate or statutory bodies for
provincial services including economic activity. (Provincial services include
"Conservation of the Environment" and "Fishing")

Agriculture and Fishing - Protection, improvement and maintenance of freshwater and reef fisheries

Land and Land Use - Codification and amendment of existing customary law
about land. Registration of customary rights in respect of land including
customary fishing rights. Physical planning except within a local planning area

Trade and Industry - Local licensing of professions, trades and businesses, local
marketing
According to the country’s draft 2008 State of the Environment (SOE), a total of eight (8)
provincial ordinances related to environmental and natural resources management had already
32
been passed. But these ordinances were passed by five (5) provinces only. Isabel Province
passed the most number of ordinances with 3, followed by Malaita Province with 2, and one
each for Guadalcanal, Makira, and Temotu. The Central Province has yet to have ordinances
that will be relevant to the protection and conservation of its environment and natural resources.
Other Relevant Country-based Legislations
The country has a number of other legislations which has implications for resource development
and management but regulations have not been promulgated under many of these Acts and
therefore their implementation is not yet entirely effective. The draft version of the State of the
Environment (2008) identified some of these Acts and is presented in this document as follows:
Table D2.13: Relevant Resource Management Legislation
Act
Date
River Waters
1973
National Parks
1978
Wild Birds Protection
1978
Town and Country
Planning
1979
Agriculture and Livestock
1982
Lands and Titles
1988
Forest Resource and
Timber Utilization
1991
Mines and Minerals
1996
Wildlife Management and
Protection
1998
Fisheries
1998
Main Objectives
Control of river waters for equitable and beneficial use; establishes
activities for which permits are required.
Establishes national parks and prohibits fishing and hunting in
same without permit; establishes restrictions on activities
undertaken within national parks; provides for appointment of park
rangers.
Lists scheduled birds (incl. eggs and nests) for protection from
being killed, wounded, taken or sold (including skin or plumage);
establishes several bird sanctuaries; establishes strict hunting
seasons for certain birds.
Applies to urban areas (capital city and provincial towns); covers
the management of land incl. crown land; specifies urban and rural
management and planning functions and incl. controlling
development.
Provides for protection and advancement of agriculture and livestock
industries; defines noxious weeds and provides for control of same.
Covers the management of land, defines “customary” land, and
sets out procedures for land acquisition. This Act is being reviewed
and a new draft bill is being circulated for consultation.
Governs licensing of felling of trees and sawmills, and timber
agreements on customary land; deals with forest declared as State
Forest and Forest Reserves and establishes restrictions in same.
Forestry Bill 2004 seeks to replace the Act and various
amendments. The Bill provides for conservation of forests and
improved forest management including establishment of national
forests.
Establishes system for mining applications and licensing; establishes
Minerals Board; regulates and controls mining activities; includes
alluvial mining
Provides for the protection, conservation and management of wildlife
by regulating the export and import of certain animals and plants;
and to comply with obligations under the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
Framework for fisheries management and development incl.
licensing of fishing vessels and processing plants, listing prohibited
fishing methods; provides for establishment of Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs) and coastal management plans.
Source: Commonwealth Secretariat (May 2007) as reported in the 2008 Draft SOE
33
International Agreements and Treaties
Based from the 2008 draft State of the Environment, Solomon Islands is a party to a number of
international and regional Multi-lateral Environment Agreements. These MEAs have been
instrumental in the development of national environment management strategies to address
major environment issues. The country is currently developing major national strategies under
the Rio Conventions. This includes the National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan (NBSAP), the
National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA) and the National Action Plan to Address Land
Degradation (NAP). Annex A shows most of the MEAs in which Solomon Island is a party to.
Environmental Management in the Transport Sector
The National Transport Plan (2007-2026) prepared by the Transport Policy and Planning Unit
(TPPU) of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development (MID) in June 2006 acknowledged the
importance of the environment as the key to the country’s economic development, and that “the
development of the transport sector needs to be planned and implemented in such a way that
minimises adverse impacts on the environment”.
The NTP further identifies a number of potential adverse impacts on the environment as follows:

Marine pollution from shipping;

Land degradation and pollution of water courses resulting from poor
infrastructure design;

Destruction of landscapes as a result of poor operating practices at quarries and
construction sites;

Air pollution from both road traffic and air transport; and

Land degradation as a result of inadequate facilities for the disposal of transportrelated waste.
The NTP adopts four policy interventions to minimise negative environmental impacts
associated with development of the transport network as follows:

Government agencies will review infrastructure design standards and contract
specifications to ensure high standards of environmental protection measures
including drainage design, management of water courses, slope stabilization,
construction camp operation, and borrow pit management;

Government agencies will work with local businesses to identify appropriate
mechanisms for the disposal of transport related waste including mechanisms for
funding environmental clean-up programs;

Government agencies will work with ship owners to identify suitable facilities for
the breaking of wrecks and unusable ships; and

Vehicle testing standards will be strengthened to incorporate more stringent
emissions standards particularly targeting gross polluters.
ADB Environment Policy
The environment assessment requirements of the DMSP & TSP under the project preparation
phase is required to adhere to the ADB’s Environment Policy supported by a set of procedural
guidelines and various sections of the Operations Manual (OM). All ADB investments are
34
subject to categorization to determine the level of environmental assessment required.
According to OM 20 – Environmental Categorization the ADB projects are classified as follows:

Category A (OM 20): Projects with potential for significant adverse environmental
impacts. An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is required to address
significant impacts.

Category B (OM 20): Projects judged to have some adverse environmental
impacts, but of lesser degree and/or significance than those for category A
projects. An initial environmental examination (IEE) is required to determine
whether or not significant environmental impacts warranting an EIA are likely. If
an EIA is not needed, the IEE is regarded as the final environmental assessment
report.

Category C (OM 20): Projects unlikely to have adverse environmental impacts.
No EIA or IEE is required, although environmental implications are still reviewed.

Category FI (OM 20): Projects are classified as category FI if they involve a credit
line through a financial intermediary or an equity investment in a financial
intermediary. The financial intermediary must apply an environmental
management system, unless all subprojects will result in insignificant impacts.
The categorization of this Subproject has been guided by the above category descriptions.
2. Description of the Project
Type of Project
The proposed Siota Wharf is a small rural wharf serving as a port of call north of Nggella Pile,
Central Province.
Category of Project
The proposed Siota Wharf Rehabilitation has been determined to be a Category B Project under
the ADB categorization requirements using the Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA)
Checklist for Ports and Harbors (Please refer to Annex C in this document).
Need for Project
The Solomon Islands is an archipelago highly dependent on inter-island shipping for both social
and economic development. Shipping services provide access between and within the six main
islands and, in some cases, some of the smaller island groups. These shipping services are
utilized for passenger travel, and social, educational, health and commercial purposes as well
as commercial movement of goods and services both from the outer islands into the core at
Honiara for inter-provincial trade and export as well as inter-island importation of consumer
goods, building materials and fuel.
Without the shipping services, many of the islands’ inhabitants would be almost totally isolated
from economic and social opportunities. Other options of inter-island transportation are simply
not available, financially inaccessible (as in the case of air services) or severely limited in their
application (for example canoe and longboats). There are approximately 86 small wharves and
jetties and 28 anchorages located across the country (Solomon Islands Ministry for
Infrastructure and Development, 2006). Most of existing ones are in poor condition or due to
age and neglect of maintenance.
35
In the case of the Siota Wharf, it was learned during the consultation that North Nggella (where
it is located) is the most populated ward in the Central Province; economically, it produces
majority of the copra and cocoa, marine products, and market produce; it has shops that
purchase cargo from Honiara; and is claimed to be the most literate part in the island.
Location
Siota Wharf is located in Siota, North Nggela, Florida Islands of the Central Province in the
Solomon Islands (See Figure D2.1). Siota hosts a Provincial Secondary School with dormitories,
faculty housing and a church that are all immediately adjacent to the wharf. The proposed
rehabilitation works shall be located on the same location as the existing site to minimize
adverse environmental impacts and avoid uncertain involuntary resettlement concerns that
might delay its implementation.
Proposed Schedule for Implementation
The Subproject shall be implemented over a period of no more than four (4) months.
Figure D2.1: Siota Wharf Location
36
Description of the Project
The proposed Siota Wharf rehabilitation will be designed and implemented as a standard T-type
Pre-cast Deck Pile Wharf adopting the basic design prepared for the Gizo Wharf in the Western
Province with modifications such as the avoidance of the use of sheet piles, and the adoption of
H Piles instead of tubes. It will have three major components, namely: causeway, approach and
wharf head as shown in Figure D2.2.
The project engineering report recommended that the M.V.Temotu be adopted as the Design
Passenger Vessel and the Neptune be adopted as the Design Cargo Vessel out of the four
mentioned there. The M.V. Temotu has a gross tonnage of 380 tonnes and passenger capacity
of 310 with a draft of 3.3 meters. The Neptune on the other hand has a gross tonnage of 518
tonnes with a draft of 3.9 meters. According to the report, it may not be possible to
accommodate these four vessels for reasons of lack of adequate water depth, limited space for
manoeuvering vessels or other constraints.
The height of the deck for the standard wharf design needs to be set to suit both the freeboard
of all vessels operating at the wharf and to take into account the tidal range at the site. Vessel
freeboard (the height of the main deck above the waterline) varies both from vessel to vessel,
and for each vessel, depending on its laden state. Typically, cargo vessels such as the Neptune
have a higher freeboard than passenger ferries such as the M.V. Temotu. In normal trim, the
Neptune has a freeboard of about 1.2 m, while the M.V. Temotu has a freeboard of about 1.0 m.
The main area of the wharf shall be a T-head at the outer end of the approach jetty. The T-head
should be 12 m in length and 5 m wide. This suits a pile grid spacing of 4 m by 4.5 m. The
approach jetty should be 4 m wide and comprise one or more 4.5 m length modules. The
number of modules will need to be selected on the basis of the distance needed to locate the
front face of the T-head in adequate water depth. For the purpose of determining the estimated
cost of the Standard Wharf Design, four modules of 4.5 m length have been assumed, which
places the front face of the wharf about 23 m out from the causeway abutment.
A small causeway which has its front edge at a relatively high level on the foreshore shall be
provided instead of a steel sheet pile vertical wall that was previously adopted in earlier wharf
design in the Solomon Islands. This will then avoid most of the erosion forces from wave action
causing damage to the causeway fill. By extending the approach jetty further onto the foreshore,
the whole arrangement provides a stable combination which should not deteriorate over time.
Erosion of the front face of the causeway abutment should be suitably protected in any case,
using A-Jacks or Seabee coastal protection devices, to absorb any remnant wave energy. Flat
slopes will also assist in absorbing the wave energy and hence reducing the onset of erosion of
the fill.
The existing Siota Wharf had deteriorated due to poor quality construction and sustained
exposure to the weather elements and can no longer be safely and effectively used. Under its
dilapidated condition, the causeway which was made of coral debris and stones can be seen
already broken down extending beyond the shoreline but before reaching the deeper part of the
shore where it is connected to a concrete deck.
The rehabilitation works considered appropriate for the location is to remove the causeway
debris and concrete deck for replacement of a structure meeting new design requirements. The
causeway debris will be scattered in the right side of the shoreline (facing the channel waters)
that is presently rocky while the concrete deck may be recovered possibly as concrete flooring
37
for another small wharf shed or disposed offshore provided the disposal area is at least 6
meters deep at low tide; being cleared of main navigation channels to prevent hazard to
navigation; having a plain sandy bed with no reef structure in the immediate vicinity which could
be damaged; and being within reasonable distance of the wharf site (Engineering Report, this
project). Offshore disposal will create a suitable new habitat for benthic development, thereby
enhancing, rather than degrading the local environment. Annex B shows the photos of the wharf
condition.
Although the community is willing to make available white beach sand and other locallyavailable materials, it is not certain if such materials would pass materials testing requirements
for the project. It is therefore expected that most of the materials will be sourced from Honiara
and shipped to the Siota Wharf Site. Concrete pre-casting requirements will likewise be done
before hand in Honiara. The major activities that will be undertaken in the Wharf Site shall
include: removal of the causeway and concrete deck, clearing of the area, pile driving for the
approach and wharf head, construction of a short causeway to connect the structure to the
shoreland, and assembly of the pre-cast components. No dredging works is planned for the
development.
Alternative Sites
Aside from Siota, the Mboromole and Niumara sites were also considered as alternative sites in
the context of providing the area with an operational wharf. Mboromole is located in an open
coast expose to strong currents. Construction of wharf abutments and embankments at
Mboromole will have a high chance of being exposed to possible scouring and erosion because
of the strong current. With some structural measures, this problem can be mitigated but requires
additional costs. This site can be considered for later construction when needed and if it will
meet the selection process and criteria. Niumara is located at an old CEMA copra buying point.
This is a totally new site without a previous wharf. Construction works will therefore result in the
removal of some terrestrial vegetation as well as sparse sea-grass beds. It will also require a
new access road. This site will surely need land acquisition and may also be open to land
dispute because no land acquisition had taken place in the past for an infrastructure.
Evaluation of the three sites revealed that the Siota site is preferable to the other two sites. It
was selected because (i) the wharf is an existing structure built in the 1960s, (ii) possible
scouring and erosion at wharf site due to strong currents can be avoided since it is more
sheltered than the sites at Mboromole and Niumara, (iii) land acquisition and/or involuntary
resettlement will not be required since it is an existing facility, (iv) environmental impacts will be
minimized because potential impacts on coastal and marine biota is unlikely, and (v)
construction of a new access road, an additional project cost, will not be needed.
3. Description of the Environment
Physical Environment
The description of the receiving environment in the succeeding sections is based on secondary
information/data culled from documents gathered from relevant agencies of the Government
and previous studies of other related projects. Baseline surveys were not conducted for this
purpose.
Location and Physiography
38
The Solomon Islands are the Northern Group of a huge arc of islands delimiting the Coral Seas
and is situated in the Western Pacific. The Main Group Archipelago, MGA oriented northwest to
southeast stretches about 1,700 kilometers between Bougainville at the eastern tip of Papua
New Guinea (PNG) to the northernmost islands of Vanuatu. The central archipelago of islands
lies between latitudes 5oS and 12oS and longitudes 152oE and 163oE (See Figure D2.3).
It comprises a double chain of six large islands (Choisuel, Santa Isabel, New Georgia,
Guadalcanal, Malaita and Makira) as well as many smaller ones (Florida Islands, Rennell
Bellona, and Temotu) making a total of 997 islands. The country has a total land area of 28,785
km2 and an exclusive economic (EEZ) which covers 1,340,000 km2.
The Subproject is located in the Central Province which is composed of the Florida Islands,
Savo, and the Russell Islands. The Florida Islands group has a total land area of about 391.0
square kilometres and consists of the four main islands of Nggela Pile (Small Nggela), Nggela
Sule (Big Nggela), Olevuga, and Vatilau (Sandfly/Buenavista). There are also some fifty smaller
uninhabited islands that form the Florida Islands. The islands have hilly interiors with dark grey
boulders along the southwestern coastal areas. The narrow, isolated flatlands along the coast
are generally backed by swampy fluvial areas inland and some patches of grassland. These
make them unsuitable for large-scale commercial cultivation of crops. The general vicinity of
Siota Wharf which is located in Nggela Pile is generally composed of small strip of flat
topography exclusively built up for the school structures, dormitories and faculty housing before
connecting to hilly and mountainous terrain that are cultivated to coconut and other crops. There
are no other settlement structures in the vicinity of the wharf except the ones identified above
and the vegetation are largely undergrowths of shrubs, grass, and ornamental plants. A few
large trees dot the landscape of the school complex (Refer to Annex C, Photos of the Wharf
Vicinity). Savo is a small circular active volcano. The island has a total land area of 31 square
kilometres and a diameter of only 5 kilometres. It is 35 kilometres by sea from Tulagi, the
provincial administrative centre of Central Province. The island is mountainous and has steep
features and a rugged terrain with very little flat lands even along the coastal areas. There is
limited agricultural land though the soil is composed of fertile volcanic ash. Hot, thermal springs
and wells are found throughout the island and offshore and it is still subject to considerable
environmental change. Savo is well known for its megapode egg and the local pear-like fruit
called gaviga.
Figure D2.2: Standard Wharf Design
39
Figure D2.3: Map of Solomon Island
The Russell Islands of Pavuvu and Mbanika are eroded volcanic cones with ridges inland that
form radial patterns. The northern coastal areas are swampy. To the north and east are many
small islands. The islands has a total land area of about 210 square kilometres and are located
approximately 105 kilometres from Tulagi.
Geology and Geomorphology
The Solomon Islands (excluding the Santa Cruz group) are divided into three geological
provinces: a pacific province, a central province and a volcanic province (Falvey et al. 1991).
Islands with recent extinct volcano which included the northwestern tip of Guadalcanal, the
Russell Islands, Shortlands and Savo are found in this province. The volcanic geological
province is much younger and consists of Late Miocene to Holocene volcanics, which are only
five to six million years old.
The islands, formed by fertile volcanic rock, are believed to have erupted from the seabed some
25 million years ago, and were covered by subsequent coral growth. Tectonic activity (known as
the Pacific Ring of Fire) continues. The islands comprised of a complex collage of crustal units
or terrains formed and accreted within an intra-oceanic environment since Cretaceous times.
Predominantly Cretaceous basaltic basement sequences are divided into three major terrains:

A plume-related Ontong Java Plateau terrain (OJPT) which includes Malaita,
Ulawa, and northern Santa Isabel;

A ‘normal' ocean ridge related South Solomon MORB terrain (SSMT) which
includes Choiseul and Guadalcanal; and

A hybrid ‘Makira terrain' which has both MORB and plume/plateau affinities. The
OJPT formed as an integral part of the massive Ontong Java Plateau (OJP), at c.
122 Ma and 90 Ma, respectively, was subsequently affected by Eocene–
Oligocene alkaline and alnoitic magmatic, and was unaffected by subsequent arc
development.
There are two distinct stages of arc growth, which basically formed the Solomon block from the
Eocene to the Early Miocene. The first stage arc growth created the basement of the central
part of the Solomon block (the Central Solomon terrain, CST), which includes the Shortlands,
40
Florida and Isabel islands. The second stage arc growth led to crustal growth in the west and
south (the New Georgia terrain), which includes Savo, and the New Georgia and Russell
islands. Both stages of arc growth also added new material to pre-existing crustal units within
other terrains. The present-day highly oblique collision between the Pacific and Australian plates
has resulted in the formation of rhombohedral intra- and back-arc basins.
According to the 1990 UNDP Preliminary Survey and Proposal for Further Hydrogeological
Investigations for Siota Provincial Secondary School Water Supply Project Report, the bedrock
of all the small hills scattered around the school consists of undifferentiated ultramafic rocks as
serpentines, serpentinised gabbros, gabbros, pegmatitic gabbros and basaltic dykes which are
covered by laterite. Further east, the bedrock consists of the Siota Beds Member: massive
volcanoclastic siltstones and arsenites with rare rudites. The bottom of the valley is filled by
recent sediments of clay, sandy or gravel alluviums; coralline deposit; and mangrove and saline
swamp.
Soils
There are twenty-seven (27) soil types based on the U.S. soil classification scheme in the
Solomon Islands as mapped by Hansell and Wall (1976). They showed close association with
geological and landform conditions.
Soils in the alluvial areas are physically good, well drained and moderately deep for tree root
penetration. Most other soils have textures consistent with high clay content and inadequately
developed structures. Soil fertility varies widely between and within the islands, ranging from
quite infertile and mildly toxic soils, to highly fertile soils in limited areas derived from volcanic
ash and alluvial deposits. Most upland soils have good structures, but either lack one or more
major nutrients or have a strong nutrient imbalance. Potassium deficiency is commonly
associated with calcareous and limestone parent material, while phosphorus deficiency is
frequent over volcanic rocks.
The most fertile soils are found on the floodplains of northern Guadalcanal and these therefore
are the most significant agriculturally. They are rich in nitrogen, phosphorous and organic
carbon, but relatively deficient in potassium and magnesium. Pockets of good soil fertility are
evident also in the New Georgia group, Santa Isabel and Choiseul Provinces.
Uncontrolled land clearing through logging, intensive agriculture and to a lesser extent the
extension of subsistence farming as a result of increasing population places extreme pressures
on the soil resources. Most of the accessible soils have fertility and/or micronutrient deficiencies
and increased exposure results in soil leaching and erosion.
Climate
There are two (2) climatic systems that influence the Solomon Islands. These are the
Southeasterly Trade Winds from May to October and the Northeasterly Trade Monsoon Winds
that predominate from December until March. From April to November, the country has fine,
sunny and calm weather. Due to its proximity to the equator, air temperature variation is not
considerable. Mean daily temperature throughout the year range from a minimum of 23oC
usually during the early mornings of the Easterly Trades and a daily maximum of 30oC.
Precipitation ranges are from 3,000-5,000 mm annually with the highest during the wet
monsoons.
The climate in the Central Province is tropical with distinct wet and dry seasons. Generally, the
weather between March and November is dry and humid followed by a wet season from
December to April. The wet season also coincides with the cyclone season. The islands are
generally dryer and hotter than the nearby large, mountainous islands such as Guadalcanal and
41
Malaita. Table D2.14 shows the Monthly Rainfall from 1975-2007 based from data recorded
from the Henderson Airfield and Figure D2.4 presents the Total Annual Rainfall for the same
period. Tables D2.15 and D2.16 present the Monthly Minimum and Maximum Temperatures for
the period 1975-2007, respectively. Maximum average temperatures range from 29.8 to 32.3
degrees Celsius with a mean of 31.0 degrees Celsius while minimum temperatures average
between 21.3 and 23.3 degrees Celsius with a mean of 22.5 degrees Centigrade. Figures D2.5
and D2.6 present the Annual Minimum and Maximum temperatures, respectively. The figures
indicate different degrees of variabilities.
Table D2.14: Monthly Rainfall (Mm), Henderson Airport, Guadalcanal, 1975-2007
Station: Henderson Airport, Guadalcanal
Latitude: 09o25’s
Latitude: 160o03’e
Elevation: 7.9 Meters
Period Covered: 1975-2007
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Ave
Min
Max
Ent
Jan
257
832
300
125
352
170
294
361
121
212
260
205
23
238
357
281
200
86
37
259
106
161
185
255
321
191
104
109
191
95
210
354
71
231
23
832
31
Feb
117
470
230
179
615
442
222
209
284
169
184
274
293
337
422
101
239
431
221
346
74
199
242
220
609
187
421
254
29
281
147
377
135
274
29
615
31
Mar
345
426
331
68
54
405
68
334
159
280
462
342
137
166
206
181
201
101
125
244
312
321
564
333
133
331
186
198
253
235
53
327
224
247
53
564
31
Apr
94
275
98
153
126
31
108
317
138
272
99
200
53
184
318
112
149
75
133
177
111
175
186
86
75
294
159
101
93
197
222
92
100
161
31
458
31
May
190
55
120
119
47
74
36
201
148
174
99
455
92
27
159
171
170
30
47
139
167
102
14
165
228
140
86
30
50
72
109
82
119
14
455
30
Jun
41
95
139
25
142
87
16
79
51
49
52
22
1
37
72
35
126
26
98
238
26
91
27
46
60
107
118
61
174
118
48
109
194
79
1
238
31
Jul
105
132
167
100
82
64
103
123
108
60
120
74
69
106
22
93
114
60
89
92
64
46
13
21
77
53
87
223
Aug
96
102
113
77
25
84
176
314
70
31
124
105
22
137
24
40
139
42
76
70
89
173
83
97
236
87
23
74
Sep
52
91
254
114
43
114
75
146
163
69
44
138
50
101
63
117
162
42
41
24
73
69
148
195
248
53
66
136
Oct
129
137
61
54
52
29
107
123
74
165
123
7
52
209
39
19
129
59
42
43
217
169
39
26
114
83
231
245
92
70
125
70
88
13
223
30
33
69
105
138
96
22
314
30
34
86
10
88
97
24
254
30
220
117
233
46
106
7
245
30
Nov
264
134
268
133
186
105
52
20
107
267
333
224
138
384
44
59
80
112
60
12
17
146
55
249
180
265
97
190
204
Dec
245
95
52
125
171
90
189
118
251
279
330
79
264
712
102
333
43
109
225
28
71
517
37
410
206
373
226
57
76
137
144
225
153
12
384
30
171
116
178
196
28
712
30
Source: Meteorology Division, Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology, June 2008
Annual
1937
2845
2132
1272
1896
1695
1446
2346
1675
2028
2231
2124
1195
2639
1828
1542
1752
1174
1195
1671
1327
2169
1591
2101
2487
2023
1857
1734
1049
1356
1400
2100
1550
1799
1049
2845
30
42
For example, the graph for rainfall indicates that the amount of rainfall from 1991 onwards have
become less compared with those in 1989 coming from a peak in 1975. Temperature have also
risen in more recent years compared with the 1980s.
Predicted tides at the subproject site is difficult to determine from available information. While
the marine charts provide estimates of the high and low tides at selected stations throughout the
country, these estimates are not necessarily accurate. For example, tide tables prepared by the
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology for Honiara for 2008 show differences of up to
0.3m compared to the tide range shown on the Honiara Harbour marine chart (Engineering
Report, this project).
Figure D2.4: Annual Rainfall (mm), Henderson Airport, Guadalcanal, 1975 – 2007
The 2008 Draft State of the Environment provides a short note on climate change for the
country indicating extreme weather events had already hit the country in recent years. Some
examples included the serious drought that affected the country in 2004, causing food
shortages in Temotu province and Category 5 cyclone that hit Tikopia Island in the same year.
Climate change also poses risks to natural ecosystems such as the coastal and marine
environments, fisheries, agriculture, water resources, health, biodiversity, infrastructure and
industry.
The ADB Pacific Region Environmental Strategy 2005-2009, Volume 1: Strategy Document
pointed out that in 2001, SPREP commissioned a report by regional experts that restated the
IPCC conclusions specifically relevant to Pacific Island countries among others as follows:

“…. The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century
by about 0.6o C. Sea levels in the tropical Pacific have risen by approximately 2
mm/year, but trends in short sea-level records in the tropical Pacific are
complicated by El Niño and La Niña events.

Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC
scenarios: global mean temperatures are expected to rise between 1.4°C and
5.8°C and global mean sea-level changes are expected to be between 9 cm and
88 cm over the next 100 years.
43
The best current projections of future climate change for the Pacific islands
indicates the region is likely to warm at a slightly slower rate than the global
average, but at a rate that is still substantial and likely to have significant impacts.
Confidence in rainfall changes is lower because of the strong difficulty of
simulating these with low-resolution models. However, the coupled models
suggest increased precipitation along the equatorial belt from the dateline
eastward, and a likelihood of decreases in the southwest Pacific.”

Table D2.15: Monthly Minimum Temperature (oC), Henderson Airport, Guadalcanal, 19752007
Latitude: 09o25’S
Latitude: 160o03’E
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Mean
Low
High
Entries
Jan
23.1
22.9
23.4
22.9
23.0
23.2
23.6
23.6
23.2
22.8
22.9
23.6
23.3
23.7
22.6
22.8
23.5
22.5
21.7
23.3
23.6
23.3
23.4
24.2
23.6
23.3
23.3
23.5
23.3
23.2
23.7
23.4
23.7
23.3
21.7
24.2
33
Feb
22.5
22.7
23.2
23.1
23.1
23.4
23.5
22.9
23.3
23.1
23.4
23.1
23.6
24.0
22.4
21.3
22.9
22.9
23.0
22.6
23.5
23.3
23.6
24.2
23.4
22.7
23.6
23.8
23.3
23.9
23.6
23.3
23.7
23.2
21.3
24.2
33
Mar
22.6
22.4
22.6
23.0
23.0
22.9
22.3
23.1
23.3
23.1
23.3
23.1
23.3
23.7
21.8
22.8
22.5
22.6
22.2
22.5
23.5
23.3
23.5
24.0
22.8
23.0
23.4
23.9
23.6
23.8
23.4
23.5
23.5
23.1
21.8
24.0
33
Apr
22.4
22.7
22.8
22.5
22.8
22.9
22.9
22.9
22.7
22.9
23.0
23.1
22.8
23.1
22.4
21.8
22.4
22.3
22.7
22.8
23.4
22.9
23.0
23.4
23.1
22.7
22.9
23.4
22.8
23.4
23.6
23.3
23.3
22.9
21.8
23.6
33
May
22.2
22.0
22.4
22.8
22.5
22.5
22.3
22.7
22.7
22.8
22.6
22.8
22.5
23.2
21.6
21.7
22.2
22.2
22.6
22.8
22.7
22.6
21.9
23.5
22.8
23.2
23.4
22.9
22.6
23.0
23.0
22.7
22.6
21.6
23.5
33
Jun
21.4
21.6
22.2
21.9
22.4
22.1
22.0
21.9
21.7
22.0
22.1
22.2
21.1
22.3
21.2
21.2
21.4
22.3
22.4
22.2
22.2
22.3
21.2
22.7
22.2
22.5
22.5
22.7
22.7
22.4
21.9
22.6
22.5
22.1
21.2
22.7
33
Jul
21.0
21.8
22.3
21.2
21.7
22.2
21.9
21.2
21.1
21.1
21.7
20.8
21.4
21.7
21.1
20.2
20.5
21.8
21.2
22.0
21.7
22.1
21.6
21.2
22.1
22.0
22.5
22.5
22.3
21.9
22.2
22.2
22.3
21.7
21.0
22.5
33
Aug
21.3
21.4
22.0
21.4
21.2
21.7
21.7
21.6
20.8
21.2
21.8
22.0
19.9
21.6
20.2
20.9
21.5
21.5
20.8
22.2
22.2
21.9
21.5
21.9
21.6
22.0
21.6
21.9
22.0
22.3
22.1
22.5
22.0
21.6
20.2
22.5
33
Sep
21.3
21.6
21.9
21.6
21.3
22.6
22.4
21.3
21.2
22.3
22.1
22.5
22.3
21.7
21.1
21.8
21.9
20.9
21.3
21.4
22.2
22.4
20.9
22.3
22.0
21.6
22.0
22.3
21.7
22.0
22.6
22.2
22.5
21.9
21.1
22.6
33
Oct
21.7
22.0
21.9
21.6
22.7
22.0
22.5
20.6
22.4
22.7
22.1
21.9
22.8
21.9
22.1
21.8
22.3
21.6
21.1
21.6
22.6
22.5
20.7
22.3
22.3
22.5
22.8
22.8
22.6
23.0
22.3
22.9
22.0
22.1
20.6
23.0
33
Nov
22.4
22.6
22.3
22.2
22.8
22.9
22.7
20.9
22.6
23.0
23.1
23.0
23.4
22.5
22.4
22.1
21.8
22.2
22.4
21.8
23.2
22.7
21.8
23.2
22.5
23.0
23.3
23.3
23.2
23.1
23.2
23.1
23.0
22.7
20.9
23.4
33
Dec
22.3
22.6
22.5
22.7
22.7
23.2
23.5
23.1
23.1
23.2
23.3
23.2
23.6
22.3
23.1
23.0
22.4
22.7
23.3
22.7
22.9
23.2
23.2
23.6
23.1
23.4
23.1
23.8
23.4
23.4
23.3
23.1
23.1
22.3
23.8
33
Average
22.1
22.3
22.4
22.3
22.5
22.6
22.4
22.2
22.4
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.2
21.8
21.9
22.1
22.1
22.2
22.6
22.8
22.4
22.6
22.8
22.6
22.8
23.0
23.0
22.9
22.9
22.9
22.9
20.9
22.5
21.3
23.3
44
Table D2.16: Monthly Maximum Temperatures (oC), Henderson Airport, Guadalcanal,
1975-2007
Latitude: 09o25’S
Latitude: 160o03’E
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Mean
Low
High
Entries
Jan
29.9
29.8
30.2
31.2
30.6
30.5
30.8
30.4
31.4
30.8
30.7
31.1
31.7
31.0
30.4
31.1
31.5
31.2
31.2
31.2
31.8
31.1
31.4
31.2
31.0
31.2
32.3
31.8
31.8
32.6
32.0
31.6
32.4
30.5
31.2
29.8
32.6
34
Feb
30.1
29.1
31.0
30.3
30.0
30.1
30.3
30.3
30.4
31.1
31.3
30.7
31.3
30.8
29.7
31.5
31.1
30.5
30.9
30.9
31.2
31.5
31.2
31.3
29.7
31.4
31.5
31.7
32.5
32.0
32.0
31.7
31.9
31.2
30.9
29.1
32.5
34
Mar
29.9
29.9
30.3
30.9
30.8
29.9
31.3
30.6
30.6
30.0
30.3
31.0
30.7
31.7
30.6
31.1
31.3
31.0
31.3
31.3
30.3
30.9
31.1
31.1
31.6
31.0
32.3
31.8
31.5
31.9
32.8
31.2
31.5
31.2
31.0
29.9
32.8
34
Apr
30.5
30.0
30.7
30.4
31.3
31.1
30.9
30.4
30.9
30.5
31.1
30.4
30.7
31.1
30.5
31.4
31.5
31.2
30.6
30.6
31.3
31.2
31.0
31.5
31.2
31.2
32.0
32.1
32.0
31.5
31.3
31.8
31.8
May
30.5
30.8
30.2
30.8
31.0
30.9
31.2
31.0
31.0
30.5
30.5
30.4
30.7
31.5
30.6
31.8
31.1
31.3
30.7
30.7
31.2
31.0
31.3
31.1
31.1
31.5
32.0
32.5
31.8
31.6
32.1
31.8
Jun
30.5
30.1
29.9
30.7
30.9
30.1
31.0
30.4
30.8
30.4
30.6
30.9
31.2
31.1
31.1
30.9
30.9
31.2
30.2
30.2
31.4
31.0
30.7
31.4
30.8
31.1
31.5
31.2
31.7
31.1
31.5
31.6
31.5
Jul
30.1
30.0
29.8
30.0
30.3
30.1
30.6
29.3
30.2
30.3
30.0
30.7
30.1
30.6
30.9
31.0
30.7
30.9
29.9
29.9
31.6
31.3
32.0
31.9
31.0
31.1
31.0
30.9
31.3
30.9
31.3
31.3
31.2
Aug
30.1
29.6
30.0
30.6
30.7
30.4
30.2
29.3
30.1
30.7
30.6
30.5
30.6
31.0
31.4
31.0
31.0
31.4
30.5
30.5
31.5
31.3
30.0
31.2
31.1
31.4
31.6
30.5
31.4
31.2
31.5
30.5
30.2
Sep
30.3
29.7
29.8
30.6
31.4
29.8
30.6
29.9
30.9
31.1
31.3
30.2
31.5
31.2
31.5
31.2
30.3
31.0
30.5
30.5
31.5
31.3
30.2
31.6
31.2
31.2
32.6
30.8
32.7
31.9
31.5
31.9
31.6
Oct
30.8
31.0
30.5
30.6
32.1
30.6
31.2
29.9
30.6
30.6
30.8
32.1
31.7
30.9
31.7
31.7
30.5
31.3
31.5
31.5
31.7
31.5
29.9
32.1
31.5
31.5
32.0
31.0
32.3
31.5
32.0
30.8
31.9
Nov
30.0
30.9
30.3
31.3
30.8
30.4
31.3
30.9
30.8
30.2
30.7
31.2
31.5
30.8
32.0
31.7
30.6
30.9
31.5
31.5
32.5
31.8
30.8
31.3
31.2
31.5
32.3
31.6
31.7
31.0
31.3
31.8
31.6
Dec
30.3
30.7
31.2
30.6
30.3
31.5
31.0
31.1
30.6
30.7
30.9
31.3
30.8
30.0
30.8
31.0
31.3
31.3
31.5
31.5
31.6
31.5
31.8
31.3
31.6
31.5
32.5
32.0
31.7
31.1
31.6
32.1
31.6
Average
30.3
30.1
30.3
30.7
30.9
30.5
30.9
30.3
30.7
30.6
30.7
30.9
31.0
31.0
30.9
31.3
31.0
31.1
30.9
30.9
31.5
31.3
31.0
31.4
31.1
31.3
31.9
31.5
31.9
31.5
31.7
31.5
31.6
31.1
30.0
32.1
33
31.1
30.2
32.5
32
30.9
29.9
31.7
33
30.7
29.3
32.0
33
30.7
29.3
31.6
33
31.0
29.7
32.7
33
31.3
29.9
32.3
33
31.2
30.0
32.5
33
31.2
30.0
32.5
33
31.0
29.8
32.3
45
Figure D2.5: Annual Average Minimum Temperature (oC), Henderson Airport,
Guadalcanal, 1975 – 2007
Figure D2.6: Annual Average Maximum Temperature (oC), Henderson Airport,
Guadalcanal, 1975 – 2007
Land Use
In the Solomon Islands, 80-85% of the land and marine resources is customarily owned by
family groups and clans. A tribal property rights usually extend from forested inland areas to the
outer extremity of the coral reefs. Land ownership and Customary Marine Tenure (CMT)
embraces far more than just resources (inclusive of fishing rights) and their functions range
beyond the organization of the economic activities. CMT forms part of the framework that
regulates social and political relationships and defines cultural identities. The land and marine
46
tenure system dictates that family groups or clans legally have strong rights to ownership of and
decision making for their forest and inshore marine resources.
The total land area of the Central Islands Province is 615 square kilometres. Most of the
traditional land is used for subsistence agriculture. Settlements are found mainly along the
coastal fringes. These are surrounded by coconut plantations as well as gardens of sweet
potatoes, yam, pana with banana planted inland, mainly in the hills. One outstanding feature of
the islands, especially the Florida group and Tulagi Island, is the presence of native forest.
These places are still used as hunting grounds. Tulagi and Taroniara Point on Nggela Sule have
some alienated land that was used for commercial purposes by the Russell Islands Plantation
Estate Limited (RIPEL), the copra and cocoa plantation company based at Yandina in the
Russell Islands. There are two small tourist resorts in the Nggela group: one at Maravagi on
Olevuga Island and the other the Anuha Resort on Ghavutu.
The Sasape company slipway in Tulagi is used for the maintenance and servicing of coastal
vessels. The Japanese cannery firm, Solomon Taiyo (Soltai), was formally based at Tulagi but
has been relocated to Noro in the Western Province. The former colonial town of Tulagi also
has a number of historical sites, such as the former gallows site and the cliffs cut by Malaitan
prisoners jailed for participation in the Ma’asina Ruru movement in the 1940s.
There are six community high schools and 35 primary schools as well as a mini-hospital and 33
health care facilities in the province. The province has four fisheries collection and distribution
centres at Semege on Sandfly Island, Yandina on Russell Island, Salesapa on Nggela Sule and
at Tulagi. The province formerly had a branch of the National Bank of the Solomon Islands
located at Tulagi, “but its lack of profitability has resulted in it being downgraded to an agency”
(Central Province Development Profile, 2001).
The land use of the immediate vicinity of the wharf site can be considered institutional
exclusively devoted to the use of the Provincial Secondary School. There are no permanent
commercial establishments in the area and during the two site visits in the area, only a few
itinerant vendors selling bananas, watermelon and betel nuts were noticed. Most of the time, the
business is conducted either in the small shed of the Siota Wharf or on the school grounds. The
school complex is less than 50 meters away from the wharf.
Biological Environment
Vegetation
Solomon Islands are dominated by lowland tropical rainforest and woody vegetation. The flora
has strongest affinities with that of Papua New Guinea but with lesser families, genera and
species. There is a low level of plant endemism compared to the faunal communities. A major
constraint to environmental planning for forestry and agriculture is the lack of recent information
on vegetation. There has been neither assessment of rare and endangered species in the
Solomon Islands nor any assessment of the impact of invasive species. Table D2.17 presents
the major vegetation types found in the Solomon Islands.
Table D2.17. Major Vegetation Types in the Solomon Islands
Vegetation
type
Components
Tall forest dominated
by Rhizophora sp.&
Brugueria sp
Coastal Strand
Vegetation
(mangroves)
Low forest dominated
by Rhizophora
apiculata
Camphosperma
Brevipetiolatai
dominated
Freshwater
Swamps/
Riverine
Forest
Closed canopy
Terminalia brassi
dominated
Low open canopied
- pandanus
Mixed swamp forest
Lowland beach forest
Lowland forest
Major Species
Rhizophora sp.& Brugueria
sp. dominated Impoea,
Spinifex, Canavalia,
Thuarea,
Cyperus, Scaevola,
Hibiscus,
Pandanus, Tournefor tia,
Cerbera, Calophyllum,
Barringtonia, Terminalian
and Casuarina
Rhizophora apiculata
dominated Impoea,
Spinifex, Canavalia,
Thuarea,
Cyperus, Scaevola,
Hibiscus,
Pandanus, Tournefor tia,
Cerbera, Calophyllum,
Barringtonia, Terminalian
and Casuarina
Campnosperma
breviopetiolata Inocarpus
fagiferus, Eugenia
tierneyana, Barringtonia
spp., Calophyllum vexans,
Pterocarpus indicus
Terminalia brassi,
Inocarpus
fagiferus, Eugenia
Eugenia tierneyana,
Inocarpus fagiferus,
Er ythrina orientalis and
Pandanus
Inocarpus fagifer,
Syzygium tierneyana,
Intsia bijuga, Barrington
racemosa, Callophyllum
vexans, Pterocarpus
indicus, Campnosperma
brevipetiolata, Terminalia
brassi
Ipomoea pescaprae,
Canavalia rosea, Virna
marina, Wollastonia biflora,
Barringtonia asiatica,
Callophyllum inophyllum,
Cerbera manghas,
Heritiera littoralis, Intsia
bijuga, Terminalia catappa,
Casuarina equisetifolia
Locations
Isabel, New Georgia,
Malaita, Makira,
Eastern Guadalcanal
Isabel, New Georgia,
Malaita, Makira,
Eastern Guadalcanal
Widespread in most
islands, New Georgia
Widespread in most
islands, New
Georgia
Widespread in most
islands, New
Georgia
Widespread in most
islands, New
Georgia
Widespread
47
48
Vegetation
type
Components
Major Species
Locations
Lowland forest - mixed
sp.
Calophyllum kajewski,
Callophyllum vitiense,
Eleocarpus sphaericus,
Enospermum
meddulossum, Gmelina
molucana, Maranthes
cor ymbosa, Parinari
solomnensis, Pometia
pinnata, Dillenia
salmononensis,
Schizomeria
serrata,Terminalia
calamansanai
Widespread
Camphosperma
dominated lowland
forest
Camphosperma
Breviopetiolatu
Widespread
Source: Draft State of the Environment Report, Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology, June 2008
Coastal strand vegetation (saline swamps) are found on lands subject to inter-tidal flooding,
such as estuaries and foreshores. These are primarily mangrove areas that occur on 2.3% of
Solomon Islands land area and are poor in species diversity (dominated by Bruguiera spp. and
Rhizophora spp.). Extensive areas of this vegetation type are found on Isabel, New Georgia,
Malaita, Marovo lagoon, Makira and east Guadalcanal. Saline swamps play critical roles as food
and cultural resources for rural communities.
Riverine forests (freshwater swamps) are characterized by mixed herbaceous species, palms,
Pandanus spp. and other wetland or wet ground species such as sago and rosewood. Such
areas are particularly sensitive to soil compaction from logging. Lauvi lagoon area of
Guadalcanal and west-central Makira are notable areas of this vegetation type.
Lowland forest including hill forest is the climax vegetation and most common forest type in the
country. This flora has close affinity to Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, and PNG although
there are fewer genera and species and trees are smaller. There are 60 major tree species,
twelve of which form the canopy layer. Hill forest is lowland forest found on higher slopes and
well-drained sites. It has a Pometia dominated canopy. Lowland forest forms the bulk of
commercial forest in Solomon Islands, while the lower slopes of Mt. Maetambe in Choiseul are a
good example of lowland hill forest.
Marine Resources
Solomon Islands reefs displays diverse and interesting reef types; from narrow fringing reefs
that border high Island shorelines to rare double barrier reefs, patch reefs and atolls (Sulu et al.
2000). Some of the most beautiful and largest coral reefs occur in the Western Province where
the close proximity of complex lagoon systems, raised coral and volcanic islands serves as an
ideal protective barrier. There is a substantial fish resource in the country’s EEZ and the
biologically sustainable annual catch level (120,000 tons) has never been attained. Fisheries
and agriculture are key contributors to GDP, but subsistence agriculture is the dominant
economic activity.
49
There are a number of lagoons in the Solomon Islands that has a high significance to the
marine environment. Some of the major lagoons in the Western Province are the Marovo and
Roviana lagoons. Marovo Lagoon is the world’s largest and has the best-defined double barrier
enclosed lagoon system. A result of geo-tectonic, reef building and island arc system
processes, the double barrier lagoon is a result of volcanic processes of the Pliocene and later
Pleistocene, with volcanic activity continuing at Kavachi. The lagoon is bounded to the north and
east by a string of barrier islands that has formed from elevated reefs 15 to 25 m above sea
level. In the southern end, these islands form a double chain separated by water up to 80 m
deep. Comprising sand cay complexes, estuarine complexes and barrier islands as its major
habitats, the result is internationally significant world-class marine biodiversity.
With a total sea area of approx. 1.6 million km2 and a coastline extending over 4,023 km,
Solomon Islands is amongst the countries having a bigger share of the ocean space, thus the
diversity of potential resources. Marine resources have been an important component of the
socio-economic livelihood of the people. The marine resource of Solomon Island is also the
most extensively researched and studies resources. This because of a majority of Solomon
Islanders lives on coastal areas and is heavily dependent on marine resources. The country
marine resources are also important commercially and are a significant contributor to the
national economy.
Algae is a major marine flora that play a very important role in coral reefs, especially as primary
producers, in cementing coral reefs and as shade for coral benthos during sunny weather
(Wilkinson and Buddemeier 1994). The most common edible seaweed Caulerpa racemosa
(Ime-pronounced eeme) can still been seen in fish markets in the Solomon Islands.
In terms of pelagic fisheries in Solomon Islands, skipjack, island bonito, yellow fin, albacore and
big eye tuna are the more important commercial species, with skipjack being the most abundant
and economically important species. The richest tuna fishing grounds, the waters of the Main
Group Archipelago, which includes the Island Group of New Georgia, have been declared as an
exclusive reserve for pole-and-line vessels although it is known that other commercial vessels
regularly poach in these waters. Pole and line, purse seining, and long lining methods of fishing
commonly catch tuna. Although pole-and-line fishing is generally regarded as more
environmentally friendly than other methods, it still can cause adverse impacts. Solomon Islands
label produces a “dolphin-free” catch, which can be marketed at a premium as compared to
tuna caught by other methods.
Commercial vessels entering near shore waters to capture baitfish have been blamed for
depleting baitfish resources and causing damage to reefs, especially around Marovo and
Roviana Lagoons in the Western Province.
Marine resources information specific to the site are not available at the time of the impact
assessment.
Forestry Resources
There is continuous forest destruction mainly through shifting cultivation and commercial
logging. Up till 1997, logging has accounted for about 45-55% of the total foreign exchange and
20-30% of government revenue. The annual rate of extraction is about 750,000m3, which is
essentially triple, the sustainable level. Presently, the government policy is aimed at restoring
the logging rate to sustainable levels. Table D2.18 presents Summary of Current Forest Areas
in Solomon Islands, URS 2006.
50
Table D2.18: Summary of Current Forest Areas in Solomon Islands, URS 2006
Province
Guadalcanal
WESTERN
Isabel
Malaita
Choiseul
Makira
Temotu
Rennell
Central
TOTAL (HA)
TOTAL (%)
Non
Commercial
Forest And
Cleared Land
460,600
359,500
297,000
373,200
228,300
295,400
63,100
41,900
55,100
2,174,000
77%
Unlogged
Commercial
Natural Forest
40,200
49,500
56,700
28,900
82,900
17,400
19,900
24,000
5,700
325,200
12%
Logged Over
Commercial
Natural Forest
37,600
120,700
68,800
18,600
18,600
9,000
1,500
0
3,600
278,400
10%
Plantation
Total Area
300
21,800
300
1,300
400
100
3,200
0
100
27,600
1%
538,700
551,500
422,800
422,000
330,200
321,900
87,700
65,900
64,500
2,805,200
100%
Source: Draft State of the Environment Report, Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology, June 2008
The biggest users of customary land at present are the logging companies. Western Province
has both the largest area of commercial forest and the highest number of logging operations in
the country, with logging taking place on both alienated and customary-owned land. Many of
the logging licensing arrangements and actual operations reputedly fails to conform to the
relevant regulatory requirements.
Economic Development
Agriculture
Most of the province’s economic activities are within the primary industry sector. Two major
components of the agriculture sector practised in the province are plantation estates and
smallholder farming. RIPEL, the major plantation estate, is based on the Russell Islands. The
major crop produced on the Russell Islands group is copra. The province was the major copra
producing area in the country. The largest plantation areas are at Yandina, Sandfly, Nggela Pile
and Nggela Sule and South Savo.
Coconut. CEMA, the copra export and marketing authority in the Solomon Islands, in
conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture, originally set up three copra-buying centres at
Niumara on Nggela; Leboni and Kuila, Savo. CEMA also planned to set up two other centres
but only one, located at Vilanimara, was completed. The other copra-buying centre was to be on
Buenavista Island. The CEMA buying centres collapsed in 2001-2002 but the authority
continues as a licensing agency.
Copra production has fluctuated mainly as a result of a “slump in international commodity
prices” (Central Province Development Profile, 2001:19). In addition to the plantation estates
that produce copra, 46 percent of rural households also participated in the production of copra
for cash. It has also been reported smallholders have greatly reduced their copra production
since 2001. This is thought to be mainly because of low purchase prices from CEMA and high
production costs.
In an effort to improve the quality of copra processing, the provincial agriculture division of the
province has installed 41 kukum driers. Funded by the European Union through the Farmer
51
Support Program (FSP) this resulted in an increase of copra production. However, CEMA was
unable to buy all the produce and consequent production declined. Copra production is
important to the communities, especially to small households as a means of generating income.
Cocoa. Major cocoa producing areas in the province are Yandina on the Russell Islands,
Nggela Pile and Sule and along the Siota Passage between Nggella Pile and Nggela Sule. Soil
type and flat land in these areas are suitable for cocoa growing and growers sell their cocoa to
private exporters based in Honiara. It has been reported that there is greater potential for
production, but the lack of local markets and transportation is detrimental to increased
development of the industry.
Spices. No information is available for the production of spices in the province. Nevertheless,
one can find samples of spices being sold by Central Islanders in the central market in Honiara.
Ginger, in particular is widely used by local people to flavour their food.
Rice. The potential to grow rice both commercially and for home consumption was originally
considered for Savo, with its rich volcanic soil. The island is also free of rice pests. The
province had been very supportive of this project but there is no market for locally grown rice at
present. The people originally involved in rice cultivation lost interest because they did not see
any economic benefits attached to the industry.
Livestock. Various livestock projects have been funded by the Farmers Support Program (FSP)
between 1999 and early 2000. Goat, piggery, broilers and layer chicken and duck projects were
all promoted. All, except the goat projects based at Yandina and Hakam and the duck projects,
failed. The major cattle farm operated by RIPEL had to be curtailed due to industrial action by
workers. All the small livestock projects failed because of the lack of basic management skills,
limited understanding of budgeting and financial control and lack of training in animal
husbandry. Furthermore, no refrigeration or butchery facilities exist at Tulagi. Even RIPEL with
2000 head of cattle on its plantations did not have an abattoir. Difficulties related to the high
cost of transporting product to Honiara have also contributed to the loss of interest in these
projects.
Honey. Sixteen honey production projects were also funded by FSP in the province. None of
them have survived. The major contributing factor to the failure of the honey industry is a lack
of local and overseas markets.
Forestry
The small size of the islands makes their forests commercially unviable. Only small-scale
sawmilling operations and traditional use of the forests are undertaken. In the Russell Islands,
Mavin Bros Ltd has already logged the native forest. Although the logging operations of the
Tropical Resources Development Company, in the western area of Nggela Sule, generated
revenues for the province, the company failed to establish a reforestation program. The
women, especially those of Nggela Sule who were interviewed for this report, said they are very
much against logging as it causes major soil erosion to the gardening, the depletion of general
firewood trees and the drying up of natural spring water, used for domestic consumption.
Fishing
People in the Central Islands Province undertake fishing for both home consumption and
commercial sale in the local and central markets. The industry has considerable potential for
further development. There were four fisheries collection and distribution centres in the region.
One was at Semege on Sandfly Island, one at Yandina on the Russell Islands, one at Salesapa
52
in Nggela Pile and one at Tulagi. Currently, none of these fisheries centres is operating. The
problems faced by the fishery centres can included a lack of financial and logistical support,
poor management and political interference.
The establishment of these fisheries collection and distribution centres was done in phases
funded by the European Union (EU). At first, the centres were used for training fishermen and
then the centres became the bases for the collection of revenue. The provincial government
then used this revenue for other purposes. As there were no back up services, essential for the
survival of the centres, when equipment became old and maintenance was required, there was
no one available to service them. When the buildings required repairs there was no money
available. The EU then extended funding to the centres as a third phase of their donor
assistance package. Again the centres were allowed to fall into disrepair. In addition, in the
third phase of the project, fishermen had to pay for the use of centre facilities and equipment,
improve the management of the centre, and assist in its marketing role. The aim was to
privatize the centres eventually.
It appears that the features of phase three of the program failed to be implemented successfully
because other problems developed. There was a critical lack of back-up services and the
management staff was essentially just revenue collectors with no skills in fishery management.
The Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) also extended help to the province by
providing two generators and one ice making machine and so one centre was making ice but
had no access to a fish market. After the generator broke down, there was no one to service it
and no money to get it fixed.
During a meeting with Divisional Heads at Tulagi, it was apparent that political interests at both
national and provincial levels play a major role in blocking many development projects and
hinders much needed improvements in service delivery in the province.
Industry
The Central Islands Province used to have some of the major commercial economic activities in
the country. These were the: RIPEL plantation, Taiyo Tuna Cannery and the Sasape Marine
Limited. The economy of the Province suffered when the cannery relocated to Noro in Western
Province in 1988 and the plantation closed in 2005. There are no manufacturing industries in
the province. There are prospects for jewellery making from sea shells, black coral and trochus
found in the sea around the islands.
Financial Institutions
The National Bank of the Solomon Islands used to operate a branch at Tulagi. This was burnt
down in 2003 during the Tensions. As a result, the bank has been downgraded to an agency
located in the Church of Melanesia headquarters. The post office has agents on Tulagi and the
Russell Islands. Some local credit unions operate in the province (Central Province
Development Profile) but there is little formal financial assistance available to provincial
residents.
Subsistence/Informal Economy
Approximately 85 percent of Solomon Islanders still practise subsistence horticulture. They
grow root crops, bananas, pineapple, ngali nut, fruit trees and harvest coconut primarily for
home consumption, and sell the surplus for cash. In the Central Island Province, 80 percent of
people are subsistence agriculturalists. Proximity to the central market in Honiara means that
people from the Central Province are theoretically in a good position to be able to sell perishable
53
commodities such as fish, lobsters, fruit, chickens and crabs. However, transport to the markets
is poor and there is no collective buying organization that can assist isolated communities with
marketing strategies.
Services
Businesses operating in the province include the National Fisheries Limited, Sasape Marina
Ltd., RIPEL plantation, Taroniara Shipyard, Aviavi Slipway, Maravagi Resort and Vanita Rest
House. The Mothers’ Union and Women’s Resource Centre in Tulagi, built by CSP in 2003, is a
new development that offers accommodation and a conference room for hire. People in the
province have expressed a desire for a full-time business advisor to help with the establishment
of small businesses, to teach management and simple budgeting and book-keeping skills.
Tourism
The Solomon Island government acknowledges the need to develop a viable tourism industry in
the Central Islands Province capitalizing on a number of positive factors. Central Islands
Province is located close to Honiara City with its hotel and airport infrastructure. The natural
beauty of the sea and islands in and around Iron bottom Sound is an attraction as are the sites
of numerous World War II shipwrecks and relics. There are also good, safe dive sites off Tulagi
and the Nggelas. There is volcanic activity on Savo and unusual wildlife and hot springs.
Coconut crabs are available on the Russell Islands. As well there is still a dynamic, rich cultural
life among the local communities in the region. However, the level of service is low, staff are
largely untrained and infrastructure, such as transport, hotels, restaurants and roads, is secondclass. Furthermore the region competes with much more developed areas such as Vanuatu, Fiji
and north Queensland.
Five resorts had been developed in the province (Map 6). These included Maravagi and Anuha
on Nggela, Lengalau on Savo, the Plantation Resort on the Russell Islands and the Guest
House on Tulagi. Lengalau has been closed since it was destroyed during the Tensions. The
Plantation Resort has been closed since the strike on the islands. The small Government Rest
House in Tulagi has also been closed due to disrepair. However the new Mothers’ Union rest
house provides accommodation for casual visitors. Maravagi is the only major resort
development that is still operational. It is particularly popular with the expatriate community of
Honiara as it is close and therefore easily accessible by boat and provides a clean and
comfortable place to relax away from town.
It has been reported that a group of local people are “establishing an association to develop
tourist attraction based on the heritage of the province” (Central Province Development Profile,
2001:25).
Trade
There are no records available to show that the province has established trade links with any
offshore country, though it has numerous small businesses, like trade stores and canteens in all
the islands. These small businesses often fail because of the poor financial and management
skill of the operators. The small businesses are treated like subsistence crops: owners and their
families use the resources and profits for daily activities such as food and other domestic needs.
There is generally little understanding of concepts such as forward planning, long-term saving or
bookkeeping techniques.
The province has a central business unit, the Central Province Development Authority,
established under provincial legislation in the 1990s. However, although the Board members
54
were appointed, the organization was not effective. There is little information available on its
current activities.
Employment and Income Distribution
Only 28.4 percent of the people in the province are engaged in paid employment. About 6
percent of the working age population are actively seeking paid employment. This also reflects
the lack of opportunities available for residents in the province. In formal terms, 71.5 percent of
the working age population can be stated as dependants. They rely on the 28.5 percent in paid
employment for financial assistance. However, those not engaged in paid employment,
especially the 33.6 percent engaged in subsistence activities actively support families with
garden foods or fish and may market foods locally for cash.
Although only a small proportion of the population receives some sort of regular, formal salary,
many people who are not engaged in paid employment receive income through the informal
economy. The problem for the Solomon Islands, and the province itself, is that only the formal
sector pay direct taxes. While this dual economic structure supports the foundations of the
national economy, it cannot contribute towards major economic development without
dependence on foreign aid and donor country support.
Table D2.19: Central Islands Province Employment Structure
Category
Male
Female
Total
Unemployed (seeking
work
Employed in paid work
Not working (engaged in
subsistence activities)
Not working (at school or
retired)
Not stated
Total
503
260
763
Percentage of
population
5.8 %
2,686
1,741
1,054
2,688
3,760
4,429
28.5 %
33.6 %
1,833
2,262
4,095
31.1 %
68
6,831
72
6,336
140
13,167
1.0 %
100 %
Infrastructure
Roads. The province has a limited road network. The whole province has a total of 127
kilometres of road built primarily to provide better services to the rural people. Roads built on
Savo and the Nggela islands were meant to provide better services to rural people in order to
foster rural development. These roads are mainly tractor trails. Through observation, it was
apparent that only two vehicles were using the roads on Tulagi. The roads are generally not in
good condition and serviceability.
Savo has a road running around the whole island. Mbanika, in the Russell Islands, is well
served with a road system that links all the copra estates on the island. Both Nggela and the
Russell Islands also have some serviceable logging roads. All roads currently require
maintenance and repair simply because these have been overgrown with vegetation for lack of
using vehicles. The roads were meant to provide easy access to villages for the transportation
of their small-holder copra and root crop production to the nearest wharf.
Air Transport. Although there were two airstrips in the province, both have been closed. The
one at Yandina on the Russell Islands has been closed due to industrial dispute when RIPEL
55
workers went on strike; and the airstrip at Anuha off Nggela. The Anuha Resort has been closed
since the 1980s. It was a means of income to the land owners and for the province.
Sea Transport. For the three island groups, the main transport is by sea. Three different
shipping companies including Sasape Marine Limited, the Florida Shipping Company and the
Wings Shipping Company service Nggela and the Russell groups. The people of Savo depend
entirely on the use of outboard motorboats (OBMs) to travel to and from Honiara and other
centres. The communities on the Russell Islands and on the Nggela Islands also use OBMs for
almost all their travel round the islands and to and from Honiara.
Sasape Marine Limited operates a service three times a week between Honiara and Tulagi for
passengers and cargo supplies. The Church of Melanesia also provides regular shipping
services between Honiara and Taroniara on Nggela Sule. In addition, the Florida Shipping
Company, with its one ship, provides a weekly service between Honiara and the different parts
of Nggela. The Wings Shipping Company serves the Russell Islands on its weekly trip to the
Western Province.
The people of Savo, who are not served by any shipping company, are totally dependent on
outboard motor boats (OBMs) to travel to Honiara and other provincial centres. The
communities on the Russell Islands and on the Nggela Islands also use OBMs for almost all
their travel around the islands and to and from Honiara. Tulagi has substantial boat traffic and a
number of wharves. The National Fisheries Department has two wharves on the island.
Overseas shipping companies and the other by local shipping firms uses one. A state-owned
enterprise has three wharves at Tulagi: Base 1 is the marine base for Solomon Island
government; Base 2 is the companies’ base; and Base 3 is the main headquarters. There are
other jetties and wharves throughout the province. These are located at Leitongo on
Sandfly/Buenavista Island; at M’Boromole on Nggela Sule, at Siota on Nggela Pile, and at
Hakama on Nggela Pile.
In the Russell Islands, the Yandina wharf formerly served as an international port for overseas
ships. The wharf now belongs to RIPEL and was well maintained until the recent dispute
between the company management and the employees over pay and conditions. There was
another wharf at Nukufero but that has not been used since 1998 due to disrepair. Although the
Central Island Province was well supplied by infrastructure, much of it is now in disrepair.
Outboard motorboats and even village-built canoes have limited space for carrying products for
export and for sale at the Honiara market. The cost for hiring local transport is very high.
Therefore, though people from the province have the comparative advantage of being closer to
Honiara, they are still disadvantaged by the poor transportation services.
Telecommunication
The provincial capital at Tulagi has a telephone exchange. Other telephone services are
available at Aviavi and Yandina on the Russell Islands and at Taroniara on Nggela Sule. Radio
VHF two-way systems are used wherever Telekom facilities are unavailable. These systems
are used mainly in clinics, fisheries centres and the provincial sub-stations at Dede, Salesapa,
Semege, Leitongo, and Maravagi (all on Nggela) and at Panueli on Savo. There are only two
post offices in the whole province: one at Tulagi and one at Yandina (Central Province
Development Profile, August 2001: 14-15).
Energy
There are no fast flowing rivers on any of the islands that are suitable for mini hydro-power
generators. Though solar power is a viable option, this has not been widely used. In the rural
56
areas, the major sources of energy are firewood including coconut husks, kerosene and, in a
few cases, bottled gas. On some small islands, like the Russell Islands and Savo, and on the
more closely populated small islands of Nggela, people have to go far inland to get firewood and
the sources of good firewood are being exhausted.
The following table shows the sites of diesel generators used for private and public electricity
generation.
Table D2.20: Sources of Energy in the Central Islands Province
Site
Tulagi
Yandina
Taroniara
Siota
Maravagi
Aviavi
Type of Power
Diesel Generator
Diesel Generator
Diesel Generator
Diesel Generator
Diesel Generator
Diesel Generator
Ownership
Provincial Government
RIPEL Plantation
Church of Melanesia
Siota Secondary School
Maravagi Tourist Resort
Markworth Company
Social and Cultural Environment
Social Groups – Tribes/Sub-tribes
Most people who live in the Central Islands are Melanesians. Similarly to the people of
Guadalcanal, Central Islanders inherit land through matrilineal descent. They also practice
general Melanesian cultural traits such as respect for the bigman system of authority. Men,
women, boys and girls all have their specific gender roles to play within the family and the
community. Linkages to common ancestors and to the clan and tribal lands play significant
roles in how people relate to each other.
Each tribal group knows the legends that detail their people’s origin and the nature of the
discovery of the islands that they inhabit. These legends are passed down through the
generations. The tribes also know the importance of their totems and their places of customary
worship. These two items, plus an in-depth knowledge of clan and tribal genealogy, are
essential elements in any potential land disputes. A clan that is able to trace their genealogy
and can show the place where the platform for sacrificial worship of their ancestors was located
will be able to demonstrate strong evidence of land ownership.
A person from one tribe would normally marry into another tribe. The marriage bond between
the two tribes has strong land rights tied to it. For example, a woman marrying into another clan
will gain land use rights for her children on her husband’s tribal land. Her daughters however
will be the ones to inherit her tribal lands. Inheriting land or land use rights from both parents is
an advantage to children in terms of modern development. It gives all members a say in the
future use of their tribal lands. Some people continue to use traditional healing and herbal
medicines. Herbal medicine, properly regulated, may be a potential source of cash to people in
the communities.
Clan and Language Mapping
Different languages are spoken on the three island groups. Gela is spoken on the Florida
Islands (Nggela group), on Savo and on parts of north Guadalcanal. Lavukaleve, Laube and
Lavukal are spoken on the Russell Islands but Savosavo is spoken only on Savo. The people
of the Nggela islands all speak the same language, which linguistically belongs to the proto-
57
Oceanic, Austronesian languages. The languages spoken by the indigenous people of Savo
and the Russell Islands are non-Austronesian.
Population
Fifty-seven percent of young people aged between 5–19 years are still in school. The cost of
supporting children in school, paying fees, purchasing uniforms and other necessary items is
too high for most rural households with limited sources of cash income. In terms of literacy, the
province is doing better than most of the country with 72 percent of the population, aged 15 and
over, reporting as literate.
Table D2.21: Key Indicators for Central Islands Province
Indicator
Total population
Intercensal annual growth rate
Sex ratio (male per 100 females)
Life expectancy at birth
Males
Females
Crude Birth Rate 1999
(births per thousand population)
Crude Death Rate 1999
(deaths per thousand population)
Rate of natural increase 1999 (per thousand)
Total Fertility Rate
Number of households
Average household size
Self-reported literacy, population 15 and over
Males
Females
Children 5 – 19 years of age attending school
Males
Females
Disabled population
Population using mosquito nets
Population displaced due to the Tensions
(1999), enumerated in province
Household amenities
Access to modern toilet facility
Access to SIWA/RWSS water supply
Household with electricity
21,577
2.0 percent
108
61.0
62.1
34
10
24
4.9
3,625
6.0
72 percent
82 percent
62 percent
57 percent
60 percent
53 percent
2.5 percent
59 percent
486
11 percent
61 percent
14 percent
41 percent
Churches
In earlier, colonial days, and especially in the rural areas, the churches were influential in
people’s lives. They administered and staffed the primary schools and each of the five main
churches continues to run secondary schools in the region.
In the Central Island Province, the dominant church is the Church of Melanesia (COM)
(Anglican). Eighty-three point three percent of people are members of the COM. Ten and a half
percent of the population belongs to the Roman Catholic Church and only 4.6 percent to the
predominantly Malaitan-based South Seas Evangelical Church. St Joseph’s Secondary School
on Guadalcanal accepts a certain percentage of students from the Central Islands Province with
most students coming from the Russell Islands and from Savo.
58
All these churches have women’s clubs and youth groups that are active in church organized
activities. Currently, each of the five Solomon Island Christian Association (SICA) churches
also has a youth group that is separate from the main church youth groups. A principal goal of
church youth groups is to help the young focus on activities that stress Christian principles and
teachings and enforce good family values and social mores. The church activities are also
designed to redirect the youth away from criminal behaviour. During the Tensions many young
people became deeply involved in civil disobedience and took sides in the fighting. The
churches contribute extensively to social services in the country. In the absence of national
health and welfare programs, the churches fulfill many needs.
Provincial Services
Water supply and sanitation. Water supply systems were previously the responsibility of the
Ministry of Health under the Rural Water Supply Services (RWSS) but have subsequently been
funded by donor agency assistance. The province then introduced a policy where 10 percent of
the total cost of provision of water supply was to be met by the community concerned. Since
then, no progress on maintenance and servicing has occurred. The province was meeting 40
percent of the cost of maintenance materials.
The main problems with water supplies and sanitation services as recorded in the Central
Province Development Profile still prevail. These include inadequate water supplies and
sanitation facilities, the disrepair of many constructed water supply facilities and the consequent
low (only 29.9 percent of the total population) delivery of safe water supplies. The percentage
of the rural households serviced with sanitation toilets is therefore also low. Furthermore,
AusAID, an organization that has contributed financially to the provision of rural water supply
services in the past, has currently suspended its assistance program to the RWSS.
Water supply and sanitation are both major problems in local communities. Some preliminary
foundations for water and toilet facilities were seen in one village but many households fail to
complete the construction of either water supply systems or toilet facilities for their own use.
Although World Vision has provided toilet bowls the people are responsible for the construction
of the toilet and shed and little progress has been made.
There are two important factors that contribute to these problems. One is the absence of village
handymen who will agree to do repairs and maintenance to the community water supply
systems. The sustainability of projects is a major problem. When one travels to many villages
in the region, one can see water taps and other supplies standing uninstalled. Secondly, there
seems to be a lack of awareness regarding the necessity of having proper toilet systems.
Currently, people continue to use the bushes, beaches and river sides.
Education. The province has 35 primary schools, six community high schools and one
provincial high school but no national secondary or vocational schools. The provincial
government runs all these schools with financial assistance from the national government. The
total number of students is approximately 7,000, one third of the total provincial population. Out
of this total, 4,000 are primary school students, 2,200 are community high school students and
500 are provincial secondary school students. There are 250 teachers with a teacher to pupil
ratio of 1:28. All teachers have been seconded from the national public service (Central
Province Development Profile).
There are a number of problems faced by the provincial education authorities:

Since the Tensions many older students have returned to school.
added further strain to the already limited resources and facilities.
This has
59

There is a lack of trained and qualified teachers. Sixty-six percent of the
teachers are untrained teacher’s aides while only 34 percent are fully qualified.

The teacher/student ratio is increasing as the population of school aged children
increases.

The percentage of unplaced pupils at Form 5 level is high.

There are no rural training centres or vocational colleges to absorb the unplaced
pupils.

There is gender disparity in school attendance. Fifty nine percent of students are
males and 41 percent females. This gap increases as the students progress to
the senior secondary forms and then on to tertiary level.

The percentage of children attending school at early ages is very low due to the
lack of early childhood education facilities.
The above list documents the poor state of education in the Central Islands Province. The
problems caused by the lack of qualified teachers cannot be overemphasized. This probably
contributes to the high percentage of unplaced students especially at Form 5 level.
Training and upgrading skills for teachers is urgently needed. More young people from the
province need to be educated at teacher training institutions such as the Solomon Islands
College of Higher Education (SICHE) in Honiara, the University of the South Pacific in Fiji and
the University of Goroka in Papua New Guinea. Although the School of Education at SICHE
can only absorb 400 new enrolments every year, they receive over 6,000 applications for the
900 places available in all their schools. Selection is strictly based on merit. If students from
the Central Islands Province are taught by untrained or even partly trained teachers who lack indepth knowledge and understanding of the contents of the secondary school syllabus, then the
local students are disadvantaged when applying for the limited number of tertiary places.
The gender disparity issue is deeply rooted in culture. Many rural people still consider that the
proper place for girls is in the home looking after the children and the gardens and caring for the
animals. Girls are usually the first to be taken out of school if there are family problems or
financial difficulties, especially those related to the cost of keeping children in school. As girls
move on to senior, even to tertiary level, their attrition rates increase.
Health. The province has 10 clinics and one village aid post. Five of the clinics belong to the
provincial government; two to churches and three are managed by employers. In addition the
only mini-hospital has no doctor and there are acute cases of respiratory infection, malaria and
diarrhoea. It is difficult to attract doctors to mini-hospitals due to their poor resources and lack
of facilities.
Most health services in Yandina had been provided by the Russell Islands Plantation Estate
Limited (RIPEL). When the RIPEL employees went on strike, all activities in the clinic ceased.
The clinic is currently no longer functional. There are no medical supplies available and no
freshwater is supplied to the clinic. No proper patient diagnosis can be done because of a lack
of proper equipment. Medical advice and supplies are given on the basis of experience and
assumption. There is no logistical support and no infrastructure maintenance undertaken and
women are forced to deliver their babies at home.
The main work of the Health Education Department is the conduct of awareness programs in
order to prevent the breakout of such common illnesses as malaria, dysentery and
communicable diseases. Due to a lack of logistical support health department officials no
longer visit communities in the region. The exact nature of the national government’s health
60
grants to provinces is uncertain. If the grants were sent, then they do not seem to be reaching
the departments concerned.
The contributing factors to the health problems of the province are therefore:

Poor housing

Lack of proper sanitation

Inadequate water supply

Less than adequate health infrastructure

Few trained and qualified health staff

High incidence of malaria
Major Settlement
In all three-island groups, most villages are found along the coasts. This enables easy access to
coastal transport, to fishing grounds and to other products. The sea also serves for washing,
sanitation and recreation. Settlements are generally spread evenly around the islands. The
Central Province has a population density of 34 people per square kilometre: one of the highest
in the country. Some attributing factors are settlers from other provinces including large
numbers of Malaitans who have settled in Nggela and RIPEL employees who have decided to
settle permanently in Pavuvu. In the past there had also been government schemes to resettle
people to the Russell Islands to work on the plantations and there has been considerable
inbound and outward migration in the province: Savo people have also moved to the Russell
Islands and Nggela.
The most populated parts of the province are on Sandfly/Buenavista Island, on southwest
Nggela, on west Nggela, at Banika in the Russell Islands and on Savo. The latter is overpopulated due to the limited land available on the island. Most indigenous Russell Islanders live
on small offshore islands in the western and northwestern parts of Pavuvu. There is
considerable resource conflict between indigenous Russell Islanders and settlers. Anecdotal
evidence indicates that Savo has high levels of temporary outward migration by people who go
to work in Honiara for a short period and then return to the island (Solomon Islands Sustainable
Rural Livelihood, and Broad/Based Growth Strategy, 2004, Vol.2).
Government Structure and Processes
Until 1974 the islands of Rennell and Bellona to the south, as well as Savo, the Florida Islands
of Nggela Pile, Nggela Sule, Olevuga and Vatilau (the Sandfly/Buenavista Islands) and the
Russell Islands were administered by separate area councils. All these islands were then
amalgamated into the Central Islands Province. In 1992, the southern islands of Rennell and
Bellona became the Rennell-Bellona Province.
Provincial Government Structure
The administrative headquarters of the Central Province is Tulagi which, until its destruction in
the Second World War, had also been the colonial capital of the British Solomon Islands
Protectorate. During the period of British administration the Florida and Russell islands had
been part of the Guadalcanal and Central Islands District. The islands that now comprise
Central Province are physically and culturally dispersed. Administration and communication
links and service delivery are difficult for the chronically under-resourced provincial government.
61
The provincial political structure is currently unable to deliver services to the people. The
structure is costly for a small, isolated, financially constrained, local government. There are five
electoral zones in the Florida group (including Tulagi) as well as two each in Savo and the
Russell Islands. The elected members choose the Premier who is the political head of the
province. The Premier then chooses the executives responsible for ministerial portfolios.
Currently, there are nine members who form the provincial assembly, but of that nine, five form
the executive group and four constitute the opposition (Central Province Development Profile,
2001: 7). As in other provinces, there is a Provincial Secretary who is accountable to the
Premier and the Executive but who is a member of the national civil service.
The Central Province depends totally on the national government for finances to fund services
to the people. The national government provides monthly grants to help the administration
perform these services and also pays the salaries of the teachers, nurses and police officers
working in the province.
Substations are significant components of the provincial government structure. They are the
focal points of services to the village people because of their location at a central place within
the population catchment areas. The abolition of the Area Councils, initially considered a
substantial cost saving measure, has left a major gap in communication between the village
people and the national and provincial governments.
Customary Modes of Government
As in Guadalcanal, the most culturally influential people in the province are the bigmen,
although they are more commonly referred to as Chiefs these days. The bigman structure is a
traditional political organization that existed before colonial times. These men played an
important role in managing local political situations, in negotiating inter-tribal agreements, and in
resolving conflicts and other disputes. They are now responsible for overseeing the village
justice system and are still regarded as the formal representatives of the people in the public
domain. They endeavour to uphold and enforce traditional cultural practices in the communities.
Harmonious village living has become especially difficult following the recent Tensions when
traditional authority no longer commanded respect. This respect formed a fundamental aspect
of social stability and was the basis for the strong bonds that existed between elders and youth.
One key indication of the strength of social bonds was apparent when young people were seen
not speaking in front of elders. It will take some time for traditional values to be strengthened
again.
4. Screening of Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The environmental quality of the project site could be affected from project activities during each
phase of project development (pre-construction, construction and operation phases) if
environmental management measures are not properly followed. This section provides an
assessment of the positive and negative impacts on the physical environment in the immediate
vicinity of the study area resulting from the development of the project, and the corresponding
mitigation and enhancement measures to mitigate such negative impacts. Based on the
description of the proposed project, its probable impacts have been identified, predicted and
evaluated.
Screening of potential environmental impacts was done using the ADB Rapid Environmental
Assessment (REA) Checklist for Ports and Harbors, in lieu of a specific REA Checklist for
Wharves (See Annex D). The outcome of the screening process was used to determine the
impacts of the scope of work associated with the construction and operation of the Subproject.
62
The screening process found that environmental impacts arising from the proposed
rehabilitation of the Siota Wharf are not significant and can be managed. Table D2.22 presents
the matrix reflecting a summary of environmental impacts and significance for the various works
associated with the construction and operation of the wharf
Based from the description of the proposed Subproject, its probable impacts have been
identified, predicted and evaluated.
Table D2.22: Summary of Impacts
Project/
Activity
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Level with
Mitigation
DESIGN / PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Site clearing for
temporary camp
for offsite skilled
workers and
admin office
• Vegetation removal
• Solid and sanitary
waste generation
• Noise and dust
generation
• Negotiate with landowners for camp site
that has no trees
• Provision of camp sanitary facilities and
solid waste bins
• Hiring preference to local workers
• works limited only to day time (8:00AM –
5:00PM)
•
•
•
Insignificant
Insignificant
insignificant
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Removal of old
wharf head and
causeway
debris
• Sediment
resuspension
• careful removal of debris
•
Insignificant
Disposal of old
wharf head and
causeway
debris
• Improper debris
disposal
• causeway debris will be spread in the
right side of the shoreline; concrete deck
will be reused as far as possible as
flooring for a small wharf shed
•
•
Insignificant
Pile driving
• Noise generation
• Third party inspection of equipment in
Honiara before deployment;
• Installation of noise shields on
equipment, provision of noise protection
ear muffs to construction workers; works
limited only to day time
•
•
Insignificant
Insignificant
Installation of
causeway and
deck-piled wharf
• Minor Increase in
turbidity
• Construction debris
generation
• Visual monitoring and regular
housekeeping in the work area; accurate
estimates of required construction
materials to avoid wastage
•
Insignificant
Use of fuel and
other hazardous
materials
• Risk of
contamination of land
and water body due
to leaks and
spillages
• Provision of properly contained areas for
fuel and other hazardous materials in
land or barge; oil and grease traps will
be installed in drainage systems of the
following areas: workshops, vehicle and
equipment maintenance, and fuel
storage.
•
Insignificant
Employment of
workers
• Workers from other
places may take
jobopportunities
• Employment and
livelihood
opportunities for local
population
• Giving hiring preference to local skilled
workers and employing local workers for
unskilled positions;
• Locals will be encouraged to develop
small enterprises to cater to
requirements of the workers
•
Insignificant
OPERATION PHASE
Project/
Activity
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Port operations
• Risk of water
contamination from
discharges of
vessels
• Disposal of solid
wastes from vessels
• Employment
opportunities for local
population
• Vessels will not be allowed to discharge
liquid and solid wastes at the port;
enforcement of MARPOL 73/78 for
berthing vessels
• Locals may develop small shops/
enterprises to cater to requirements of
the workers
63
Significance
Level with
Mitigation
•
•
Insignificant
Insignificant
Impacts and Mitigation During the Pre-construction Phase
Landform/Geology/Geo-Hazards
During the pre-construction phase of project implementation, it is projected that activities
attendant to the development will have no impact on the landform and geologic processes
(floods, erosion and deposition). The implementation of these activities would not result to the
modification of regime, land transformation and construction.
Soils
Site preparation works during the pre-construction stage of the project would involve the
establishment of temporary camp for workers and minor clearing works in the old wharf site.
The scale of these works is relatively minor and will have no significant impact to the receiving
environment because no earthmoving works will be required during the establishment of the
camp.
Water Quality
Potential contamination of the marine waters may occur as a result of the establishment of the
temporary workers facilities and the minor clearing works in the old wharf site. Domestic
wastewater and solid waste from the camps may inadvertently be discharged/ dumped into the
surrounding waters. It is also projected that an increase in turbidity levels of the waters in the
old wharf site may occur resulting from minor clearing works that will be involved. This impact is
temporary in nature and insignificant in scale and any slight increase can be immediately
dispersed by the active wave and tidal movements in the channel.
The temporary camps shall be provided with sanitary disposal facilities that will address the
generation of domestic wastewater and proper solid waste management practices shall be
institutionalized in the work camp. Silt traps shall be established around areas identified for
clearing to prevent siltation of the surrounding waters.
Air Quality
The establishment of the temporary camps and the minor clearing works in the immediate
vicinity of the old wharf may cause temporary increases in the concentration levels of Total
Suspended Particulates (TSP). The generation of SO2, NO2 and other gaseous materials is an
unavoidable impact of the pre-construction and construction works, which is a direct result of the
64
operation of fossil fuel burning equipment, vehicles and machineries. The projected duration of
this impact is short-term and is insignificant in scale. Air pollutant concentration can be easily
dispersed by the active wind movement, and dense vegetation in the surrounding area.
The clearing works shall only be undertaken when necessary and will be limited only to the
required areas. Dust generation will be minimized and controlled by regular water spraying of
exposed areas. This will also minimize the risk of the workers contracting upper respiratory
diseases as a result of excessive inhalation of dust particles. All vehicles, equipment and
appurtenant facilities that will be mobilized into the site shall be inspected by third parties who
will certify their worthiness for the job. These shall likewise be properly maintained during the
progress of the Works.
Ambient Noise
The activities during the pre-construction phase of project implementation may cause an
increase in noise levels in the vicinity of the development works primarily due to the operation of
machineries, equipment and vehicles.
All equipment, machineries and vehicles shall be properly maintained and installed with
mufflers. Works shall be limited only during day time (8:00AM – 5:00PM) to minimize nuisance
to the nearby secondary school. In addition, the work area shall be fenced off with appropriate
materials that will act as barrier and absorbent of noise to tolerable levels. Access of
unauthorized personnel to the work areas shall be prevented to avoid exposure to risk of high
noise levels. Workers and staff working on areas with high noise levels shall be provided with
ear muffs or plugs.
Terrestrial Environment
Temporary camp for worker housing may have localized impacts to the terrestrial ecology of the
project area since they will have to be necessarily sited away from the immediate vicinity of the
wharf and the secondary school. These facilities will require clearing of terrestrial vegetation.
The site for temporary housing shall be carefully selected to be limited only to areas grown
mostly with grass and shrubs and the contractor will negotiate with landowners for a location
that has no trees. Cutting of trees associated with this activity shall be prohibited. To further
minimize clearing of wide areas, hiring from the nearby communities shall be done so that the
need for temporary housing is greatly reduced.
Impacts and Mitigation During Construction
Construction activities of this subproject are expected not to generate significant environmental
impacts due to the following: (i) it is a small rural wharf, (ii) it is a replacement work for an
existing dilapidated wharf, (iii) concrete pre-casting will be done in Honiara, (iv) no dredging,
and (v) short construction period of only four (4) months.
Landform/Geology/Geo-Hazards
During the construction phase of project implementation, the Subproject will not cause negative
impacts on the immediate geologic environment and landform of the site because the works will
not involve cutting, or dredging in the vicinity of the site. But due to the stone/boulder
requirements for the short causeway construction, negative impacts to the geologic environment
and landform of areas outside of the wharf site will be likely experienced. Existing quarries in
Honiara will be utilized for the purpose and these materials shall be barged to Siota. Nearer
alternative sites maybe identified but will be limited only in locations that have previously been
65
quarried with government consent to localize the impact. The required volume shall be
determined during the detailed engineering design phase of the project following findings and
recommendations from required field surveys that will be undertaken as recommended in the
Engineering Report of this project.
Soils
There is a potential for soil erosion and siltation of the surrounding marine waters during the
clearing works especially when accompanied with rainfall; and during the construction of the
short causeway. Exposed areas will be re-vegetated and soil erosion control/stabilization
measures shall be established to reduce such impacts. In addition, construction shall strictly
follow the alignment of the wharf elements established during the detailed engineering design to
avoid affecting the coastal dynamics.
Water Quality
Loose soil and debris during the works may affect water quality through siltation/sedimentation,
and increased turbidity of the surrounding channel waters. The operation of heavy equipment
will likewise contribute to sediment generation at the project site especially when erosion and
sedimentation rates are exacerbated by accompanying rainfall. Other potential sources of
negative impacts include contaminants from fuel and lubricating oil (from heavy equipment,
other vehicles and machineries), and the washing of mixers and other vehicles and
machineries.
Proper management, handling and disposition of spoils and unsuitable materials will be
practiced during the project implementation to prevent siltation and sedimentation of the channel
waters. Removal of causeway debris and old wharfhead can cause sediment resuspension if
not carefully done. Proper storage and handling of petroleum products shall at all times be
practiced in the work areas. All hazardous materials, including fuel, required during construction
will be kept in a bermed area on land or in a sealed area on the barge. In addition, oil and
grease traps will be installed in drainage systems of the following areas: workshops, vehicle and
equipment maintenance, and fuel storage.
Camps, offices and appurtenant facilities will require ample water supply both for drinking and
processing. During the construction phase of the project, adequate supply of potable water will
be utilized for both domestic purposes.
Unsanitary discharge of sewage and other effluents from active Work Areas may potentially
cause contamination of nearby water bodies. Mitigation measures shall include provision of onsite sanitary facilities either through construction of septic tanks or provision of temporary toilet
facilities and strict implementation of proper sanitation practices among the workers.
The proposed development will not have any adverse impact on the hydrodynamic regime and
natural patterns of littoral drift in the area. The Proposed Wharf will be a T-Type Pre-Cast DeckPiled wharf with a very short causeway, mainly to connect the structure to land, and deck-piles
shall be designed not to impede the flow of water and prevent accretion/sedimentation in the
area.
Air Quality
Air quality in the immediate vicinity of the construction area may be affected by the increased
activities during project implementation. There will be temporary elevated levels in the
66
concentrations of TSP, SO2, and NO2 as a result of the development in the area due to the use
of diesel fed equipment and dust.
Human and vehicular activity in the work areas will invariably increase, which would trigger an
increase in the level of air contaminants, specifically SO2 and NO2. However, the increase is not
expected to cause concentrations that will be detrimental to human health. The works to be
undertaken in the work site are expected to contribute to dust generation resulting in increase
levels of Total Suspended Particulates (TSP). These identified impacts are transient, temporary
and short-term, thus considered insignificant. The expected adverse impact on the air quality in
the area is minimal.
Dust generation will be minimized and controlled by regular water spraying of exposed areas to
prevent the occurrence of accidents due to limited visibility in work areas. This would also
minimize the risk of the workers contracting upper respiratory diseases as a result of excessive
inhalation of dust particles.
Moreover, site preparation works such as clearing/scraping of topsoil and removal of vegetative
cover will only be undertaken when necessary and only in identified areas. The generation of
SO2, NO2 and other gaseous materials is an unavoidable impact of the construction works,
which is a direct result of the operation of fossil fuel burning equipment and machineries. The
operation of vehicles is also a contributory element in the production of these gases.
All vehicles, heavy equipment and appurtenant facilities will be properly maintained during all
the Works. Appurtenant facilities will be sited in areas where nuisance to settlement and
institutional areas will be minimal. Appropriate methods and equipment will be utilized for the
collection; disposal and prevention of dust as a result of the operation of these facilities.
Ambient Noise
The construction works would inadvertently result in increased noise levels in the area. During
the Works, the operation of heavy equipment and various construction machineries are primary
noise generators. It is projected that noise levels could reach from 65 to 80 dB (A) at peak
times.
Noise generation is another negative and unavoidable impact of the project, albeit temporary in
nature. Construction work shall be undertaken only during daytime (8:00 AM to 5:00 PM). Only
in extreme instances will work beyond these hours be allowed. Proper information and
notification of the concerned community will be conducted to prevent disturbance and nuisance
to nearby areas.
The operation of heavy equipment and other appurtenant facilities will likewise be limited during
daytime. In case operation beyond these hours is required, proper notification and information
of the concerned community will have to be conducted to prevent disturbance and nuisance to
nearby settlement areas.
Vehicles, heavy equipment and other machineries will, at all times be properly maintained and
fitted with noise abatement accessories to the extent possible, to minimize excessive noise
generation. Whenever possible, buffers and other noise abatement measures will be
established in work areas and campsites to minimize, or if at all possible, eliminate nuisance to
nearby communities.
Marine Environment
There are no obvious occurrence of coastal and marine flora and fauna in the site and
surrounding areas that may be affected by the subproject’s construction and operation. Site’s
67
sea bottom consists of sands and rubbles and lacks sea bottom vegetation such as sea-grass
or algae as can be observed clearly since seawater is very clear. The wharf’s immediate vicinity
where the replacement structure will be situated has also no noticeable marine flora and fauna
that could be affected during construction. As the wharf location has been intensively used by
boat and located in a built-up area (settlement and school), there are no apparent marine biota
(sea-grass, algae, coral reef, etc) or coastal vegetation (mangrove, swamp, etc) of significant
value. The closest marine biota is sparse sea-grass beds located about a kilometer away.
Some 3 to 4 km away from the wharf is a long stretch of reef fringe and sand bank protecting
the inner waters where the wharf is located. Some mangroves located about 4 km from the
wharf site will not be affected also by wharf construction.
Terrestrial Environment
The development works shall be undertaken in the old wharf site, which is already a cleared
area, as such minimal disturbance to the terrestrial ecology of the area is expected once
Construction Works commences. Clearing of vegetative cover be undertaken only when
necessary so as to minimize, or if at all possible, eliminate loss of habitat of faunal communities.
Disposal of Construction Debris
The works would entail the construction of a new wharf which would result in the generation of
construction debris. The causeway debris shall be properly distributed over the rocky part of the
beach if these cannot be appropriately reused for the same causeway structure.
Socio-Economic Environment
The Subproject will not involve any involuntary resettlement. The rehabilitation works will be
located in the same site as the dilapidated structure. It is possible that transient workers from
other areas or neighboring centers may increase as a result of the development in the work
sites. Furthermore, if the skills required are not locally available, workers from other areas may
be employed creating a demand for additional housing. However, the contractor will be required
to avoid creating social problems with the schools and surrounding communities. Workers will
not be allowed to wander into the school compound and some kind of community policing will
have to be put in place to prevent trespassing. Community members appointed by the
community elders and endorsed by the Provincial Government will form part of the policing
team.
The Contractor shall give qualified local residents priority in construction employment. Workers
from other places that will be hired for the project shall be provided with transportation or
housing facilities. After all Works have been completed, the Contactor shall ensure that
unauthorized occupants in the work area, because of their participation in the works, return to
their original places of residence.
Impacts Due To Operation
Water Quality
As a result of the operation of the Siota Wharf it is projected that contamination of the
surrounding marine waters may occur. This contamination will come from bilge and ballast
water of vessels berthing in the Siota Wharf.
68
MARPOL 73/78 regulations and stipulations shall be strictly enforced during the operation of the
wharf. As required by the convention, vessels of 400 gross tons or more are required to (1) have
an approved and operational oil and water separator on board to treat bilge/ballast water before
discharge and the oil content of the effluent should not be more than 15ppm, (2) have a holding
tank of adequate capacity for the ship’s operational needs to retain on board oily mixtures and
oil residues, and save-alls or gutters around oil appliances and should be provided with means
for transferring the contents of the tank to shore reception facilities and (3) where the
alternatives 1 and 2 above are not reasonable and practicable, arrangements comprising simple
oily-water separating equipment should be provided. Under the convention, vessels shall only
discharge clean and segregated ballast within 50 nautical miles from land area.
Moreover, vessels (400 gross tons or more or carrying 15 passengers or more) are required to
have on board an Oil Record Book and a Solid Waste Management Plan. Disposal of plastics
into the sea is strictly prohibited under MARPOL. These requirements shall be inspected by the
appropriate port authorities prior to registration/renewal of registration, and spot checked by the
port authorities for compliance. Wastes from the vessels shall not be allowed to be dumped at
the wharf and surrounding waters.
Air Quality
During the operation of the Siota Wharf, it is projected that vessel and pedestrian traffic shall
increase. However, the increase is not expected to cause concentrations that will be detrimental
to human health. Equipment and vessels attendant to the operation of the Wharf are expected
to be properly maintained and in good running condition always.
Noise
Another unavoidable consequence of the operation of the Wharf is the increase in noise levels
in the area. This impact is however insignificant. Mufflers shall be installed in all equipment and
vessels that will be used in the operation of the wharf. Proper maintenance of these equipment
and vessels shall at all times be ensured. Vegetation buffering maybe considered to attenuate
noise from vessels during wharf operation.
Socio-Economic
The rehabilitation of the Siota Wharf is projected to have a very positive impact on the socioeconomic environment of the area. It is envisaged that with better access to domestic shipping
transport, the residents shall be able to have access to health, education and other basic
services in Honiara and the other Islands. It is also projected that with the construction of the
Wharf, economic development will be spurred and provision of employment and livelihood
opportunities shall consequently be created.
Siota Wharf has been used to transport students, goods, and people of 6 catchments villages.
Improvement of the wharf will facilitate transportation, but not expected to increase the number
of passengers and quantity of cargo. Therefore, the level of disturbance during operation is not
expected to substantially increase. However, mitigation measures have been prescribed such
as (i) making arrangements with the shipping company to schedule vessel arrivals and
departures as far as possible to coincide with off-class schedules, (ii) vessels will be advised not
to sell liquor during the journey to Siota Wharf to avoid unexpected problems, (iii) community will
be asked to commit policing assignments and properly mandated by the Provincial Government
to deter unruly behavior in the area, and (iv) selling of intoxicating drinks in the area will be
prohibited at all times.
69
5. Institutional Requirements and Environmental Monitoring Plan
This part of the report illustrates the Subproject’ environmental management organizational
structure and describes the institutional arrangements for its implementation. In addition, the
environmental management plan described in the succeeding discussion also identifies the
impacts to be monitored, and when and where monitoring activities will be carried out as shown
in the accompanying table for guidance. Responsibilities are likewise defined and distributed to
those who will carry them out. And finally, the environmental management and monitoring costs
has been described and quantified.
Institutional Requirements
Organization Structure
The Subproject’s organizational structure for environmental management shall be as shown in
Figure D2.7 shown below:
Figure D2.7: Subproject Organization Structure
70
Roles and Responsibilities
Ministry of Infrastructure Development (MID). The MID shall have overall responsibility for
the interagency coordination, preparation, implementation and financing of the environmental
management and monitoring tasks required of the project. It shall assign a staff who will be
responsible for the monitoring tasks as defined in the environmental management and
monitoring plan.
Environment & Conservation Division. The ECD will review the IEE of this Subproject and
will issue the necessary approvals required by law. During construction, the MID will have ongoing consultation with ECD and may be asked to provide expert assistance where necessary
during the implementation of the EMP to make ensure that on-site environmental management
practices and mitigation measures applied to particular cases are undertaken to acceptable
standards.
Provincial Administration and Villages. Provincial Administration and Village leaders and
organizations will be involved in the monitoring to ensure that proper environmental
management practices shall be followed during construction, and to also ensure high quality
construction results. In addition, they will assist in arranging meetings, facilitating consultation,
and providing information about communities that maybe inadvertently affected by adverse
environmental impacts in spite of cautious implementation. During operation, the local
leadership shall actively participate in the monitoring of the condition of the wharf and report any
maintenance requirements to ensure longevity of the structure.
Contractor. The civil works contractor will be responsible for the preparation of a detailed (site
specific) environmental management plan that will be followed during the Subproject’s
implementation. It will also be responsible for implementing all environmental, health and safety
activities incorporated in the EMP and compliance requirements in the procurement documents.
The Contractor shall be also responsible for the appointment of an Environmental Management
Officer in its construction organizational chart to ensure better coordination with MID, ECD,
Provincial and Village Leaders, and other stakeholders (in this case the school authorities) who
may have environmental concerns associated with the Subproject’s implementation.
Considering the level of work for environmental management for this project, the safety officer
or one of the contractor’s engineers (to be determined) will be assigned to also be responsible
for environmental management of the Project.
Environmental Management Plan
This section covers the formulation and discussion of the proposed Environmental Management
Plan (EMP), and environmental monitoring plan for the Subproject consistent with the
requirements of the Government and of the ADB. The EMP (Table D2.10) describes the
impacts, the appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures, and institutional mechanisms
for implementing the proposed measures. The monitoring plan (Table D2.11) describes the
parameters of the affected condition to be monitored, the location, frequency and the cost of
monitoring activity.
Environmental Management Plan
The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is formulated to ensure that the mitigating
measures recommended to prevent or control the negative impacts of the different aspects of
Subproject implementation are properly managed.
71
During construction, EMP implementation will be the responsibility of the contractor with
supervision by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development (MID) through the Construction
Supervision Consultants (CSC) within the project management unit (PMU) During the
Operation Phase of the Project, relevant Government agencies will be responsible for the
implementation of the EMP. The EMP will serve as a guidance for incorporating
environmental measures to be carried out by the Contractors as supervised by the MID and
other parties concerned with mitigating possible impacts associated with the development.
The environmental objectives of the EMP include the following:

To promote environmental protection and social enhancement;

To comply with legal environmental requirements;

To ensure transparency
management; and

To measure and report on the environmental performance of the project.
and
community
involvement
in
environmental
In line with these objectives, the EMP is formulated as a means of managing environmental
performance. This will enable the identification of critical environmental issues; the development
of action plans to address these issues, the establishment of environmental performance
indicators, and raising environmental awareness among the stakeholders including the
Contractors.
The following issues have been included in the EMP:

Temporary facilities for workers including sanitation and waste disposal;

Pollution control;

General housekeeping;

Provision for Safety Measures/Precautions of Construction Workers;

Contingency/Emergency Response Plan; and

Demobilization
Contractors’ Environmental Management Plan
All contractors that will be hired for the project shall be properly oriented by the MID on the basic
principles of environmental management and monitoring and advised on the pertinent
environmental requirements and covenants of the Government.
The Contractors will be required to prepare individual updated EMP specific to their awarded
contract area based on the IEE. This shall be submitted to the MID for review, concurrence and
approval.
Temporary Facilities for Workers including Sanitation and Waste Disposal
Temporary housing for workers in the construction site including sanitation facilities will be made
available. Waste disposal receptacles will be located in strategic places for wastes generated
from the daily personal and construction activities. These receptacles will be emptied and
cleaned regularly. All efforts will be undertaken to minimize, reclaim or recycle wastes. All
residual waste will be coordinated with local officials for final disposition. The Contractor will
72
prepare a plan to address solid waste management specific to the awarded contract area and
submit the same to MID before commencement of works.
Pollution Control
The Contractor will avoid discharging hazardous chemicals on site or to the storm water system.
Dust pollution from excavation and other dust generating activities will be kept to a minimum by
using dust suppression techniques, such as spraying of water in the affected area. The
Contractor will also take into consideration to avoid construction in the night time especially the
use of noise generating equipment. In this respect, the Contractor will maintain equipment in
excellent condition to minimize the generation of excess fumes.
Emergency Response and Contingency
Fire. All employees that will be hired for during the Subproject construction will undergo fire and
safety orientation prior to deployment to the site. Work areas will be provided with the required
number of fire extinguishers meeting both local and national fire codes. These areas will be
provided with a diagram of the escape route in the event fire does occur. In addition, all project
employees will familiarize themselves with the route for evacuation, location of fire
extinguishers, alarms, first aid kits and communication facilities.
A fire prevention manual will be developed for the project and a Safety Officer will be designated
responsible for this fire prevention policies. The manual will spell out policies on the handling,
storage, and use of combustible materials. Campsite Monitor may be assigned in a concurrent
responsibility that will be assigned by the Safety Officer to a senior employee of the facility.
Accidental Spill of Waste and Toxic Materials. Spilled materials and substances will be
immediately neutralized with appropriate agents that are less environmentally-degrading such
as water, coco-based detergents, etc. Toxic materials that may have to be used in the
construction activities must be accompanied by neutralizing agents to disrupt its negative effects
to the environment. The Contractor will be instructed to purchase materials from reputable
sources who can provide advice on the matter. Warehousing procedures for these kinds of
materials will take into account product specifications on the proper handling of the materials.
The Safety Officer of the Contractor will ensure that employees handling such materials get the
necessary training and possibly certified by a qualified firm.
Industrial-grade waste materials such as used oils and lubricants must be stored in secured and
leak-free containers while awaiting disposal pick-up. These containers must be provided with
tight lids or covers and must be regularly checked for leaks while still in storage.
Accidents. The Contractor will provide its own medical kits necessary to treat first-aid cases but
at the same time keeping a hotline with the nearest hospital in Honiara that will deal with the
emergency cases. A canoe will be immediately dispatched to move patients quickly to the
nearest medical facility in Honiara during emergencies requiring tertiary health care facilities.
The Contractor will be required to provide its employees with accident and health insurance
policies to cover the employees’ needs during these circumstances.
Seismic Activity. The Contractor can refer to existing disaster preparedness manuals if any
with the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) in Honiara to address disaster
preparedness and mitigation in cases of seismic activities. The Contractor will be required to
observe irregular water recession that might signal impending danger in which case, all will be
alerted to immediately move to higher ground.
73
Flooding/Storm Surges. The Proponent will require Contractor to keep track of weather
bulletins issued by the Meteorological Office to make sure that work crews and equipment will
be always kept safe during stormy weather. Equipment will be immediately moved to safer and
higher grounds at impending arrivals of storms. Work stoppage will be also immediately initiated
to keep construction workers away from the flood zone.
Table D2.23: Environmental Management Plan (EMP) of Siota Wharf
Project
/Activity
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation
Measures
Locations
• Negotiate with
landowners for
camp site that
has no trees
• Provision of
camp sanitary
facilities and
solid waste
bins;
• Hiring
preference to
local workers
not requiring
temporary
housing
• works limited
only to day time
(8:00AM –
5:00PM)
Camp site
near wharf
Estimated
Mitigation
Costs
Implementation
Responsibility
Supervision
Site clearing and
establishment of
workers’ camp
• Vegetation
removal
• Solid and
sanitary waste
generation
• Excessive
noise
generation
Part of
mobilization
cost
contractor
PMU/MID
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Removal of old
wharf head and
causeway debris
• Sediment
resuspension
• careful removal
of debris
Old wharf
site
Part of
constructi
on cost
contractor
PMU/MID
Disposal of old
wharf head and
causeway debris
• Improper
debris
disposal
• causeway
debris will be
scattered in the
right side of the
shoreline
(facing the
channel
waters);
concrete deck
will be reused
as flooring for a
small wharf
shed
Old wharf
site
Part of
constructi
on cost
contractor
PMU/MID
Pile driving
• Emission of
fumes from
equipment
• Excessive
noise
generation
• Third party
inspection of
equipment in
Honiara before
deployment;
preventive
equipment
maintenance
• Installation of
noise shields
Old wharf
site
Part of
constructi
on cost
contractor
PMU/MID
74
Project
/Activity
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation
Measures
Locations
Estimated
Mitigation
Costs
Implementation
Responsibility
Supervision
on equipment,
provision of
noise
protection ear
muffs to
construction
workers
Installation of
causeway and
deck-piled wharf
• Construction
debris
generation
• Regular
housekeeping
in the work
area; accurate
estimates of
required
construction
materials to
avoid wastage
Old wharf
site
Part of
constructi
on cost
contractor
PMU/MID
Use of fuel and
other hazardous
materials
• Contamination
of land and
water body
due to leaks
and spillages
• Provision of
properly
contained
areas for fuel
and other
hazardous
materials in
land or barge;
oil and grease
traps will be
installed in
drainage
systems of the
following areas:
workshops,
vehicle and
equipment
maintenance,
and fuel
storage.
Work sites
Part of
constructi
on cost
contractor
PMU/MID
Employment of
workers
• Influx of
workers from
other places
• Employment
and livelihood
opportunities
for local
population
• Giving hiring
preference to
local skilled
workers and
employing local
workers for
unskilled
positions;
• Locals will be
encouraged to
develop small
enterprises to
cater to
requirements of
the workers
Work sites
Part of
constructi
on cost
contractor
PMU/MID
• Vessels will not
be allowed to
discharge liquid
and solid
Port area
and
surroundings
Part of
port
operation
cost
MID
MID/MECM
OPERATION PHASE
Port operations
• Contamination
of port waters
from
discharges of
Project
/Activity
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation
Measures
vessels
• Disposal of
solid wastes
from vessels
• Employment
and livelihood
opportunities
for local
population
wastes at the
port; strict
enforcement of
MARPOL 73/78
for berthing
vessels
• Locals will be
encouraged to
develop small
enterprises to
cater to
requirements of
the workers
Locations
Estimated
Mitigation
Costs
Implementation
Responsibility
75
Supervision
General Housekeeping
The Contractor will ensure that the camps (Contractor’s and Workers) and work areas are kept
clean and tidy at all times. This will ensure the health of its workers and facilitate operations.
Provision for Safety Measures/Precautions of Construction Workers. To ensure the health
and well being of its workers, the Contractor will be required to provide their workers with the
necessary safety measures and provisions such as hard hats, gloves, dust/gas masks, overall,
etc. Provisions for adequate signage will be placed in strategic locations to avoid accidents. All
construction activities will be restricted to working areas designated on the drawings and/or
demarcated and approved by the MID. Materials including spoil will be stockpiled in designated
areas and coordinated with the proper authorities for disposition.
Contingency/Emergency Response Plan. The Contingency and Emergency Plan (CEP)
should be prepared by the Contractor, which will mainly focus on the construction works that
they will undertake in their specific areas of concern and the attendant potential risks and
hazards. In particular, emergencies with potential adverse impact to the environment such as
fuel delivery/receiving accidents resulting in spills or fires will be addressed in a rapid, deliberate
manner that protects human lives above everything.
Contingency risk planning is necessary for impacts predicted as a result of accidental events.
The main components of a contingency plan include measures to prevent accidents that would
result in predicted impacts; methods for response and clean-up in the event of an accident;
organization and training of personnel to implement preventive measures and respond in the
event of an accident. The contingency plan will specify the following:

Description of the project and its appurtenant facilities

Name of persons accountable for contingency plan on accidental occurrences
that could have an impact on the environment

Facilities operation

Emergency response planning

Safety procedures

Security

Inspections and records
76
This set of procedures should be formally documented and approved by the MID. It will be
organized clearly and logically, covering both common and extreme solutions that might
require quick response.
Waste Management Plan. The project recognizes the need to effectively manage all the
wastes generated from the activities during the pre-construction, construction and operation of
the project to address potential sources of environmental degradation and health risk. The
basic principles in waste management that should be followed by Contractor are outlined
below:

Domestic wastes will be segregated from the source i.e. from the workplaces and
offices of the contractors, sub-contractors and employees. Sufficient number of
garbage containers will be provided and will be located in designated areas,
marked, duly labeled and covered for protection from wind, rain and animals.

Hazardous wastes should be marked, labeled and stored in a covered area with
appropriate spill protection. Under no circumstances, hazardous wastes such as
used oil, vegetable oil, batteries, waste paint and solvents are to be disposed of
with regular garbage.

Regular monitoring and inspection will be conducted to ensure that no improperly
dumped wastes are found within the project site. Appropriate mitigation
measures will address disposal of these wastes.

Open burning of wastes will be strictly prohibited at anytime.
Demobilization. The Contractor will be responsible for the removal of all the debris and waste
material from the site upon completion of the Works. It shall be the responsibility of the
Contractor to repatriate all transient workers to their original place of settlement.
Environmental Monitoring Plan
An integral part of the environmental protection is the continuous monitoring of the condition of
the receiving environment to determine if any undesirable changes are occurring as a result of
the project. The effects to the living receptors are received mainly through the water, air and
surrounding area. Environmental monitoring principally requires measurements of the amount
of pollutants present in the environmental media.
The Government (MECM) has not established environmental standards for water quality, air
quality and ambient noise levels. Available standard (such as Australian or New Zealand
standard) will be used in the absent of Government environmental standard.
The monitoring program will determine the extent of variations and changes in the levels of
pollutants in the environment and other parameters and indicators considering the
implementation or operation of the project. The monitoring program will have the following
objectives:

Monitor implementation of mitigation measures

Monitor compliance with available air, noise and water quality standards

Monitor other relevant parameters and indicators for socio-economics and health.
The implementation of the monitoring plan will be the responsibility of the contractor and to be
supervised by MID, through the CSC of the PMU, during the construction period of the project.
The relevant government agency, particularly the MECM will be responsible for the
environmental monitoring during the operation phase of the development.
77
Table D2.24: Environmental Monitoring Plan of Siota Wharf
Project
/ Activity
Mitigation Measures
Locations
Monitoring
Parameter
Monitoring
Frequency
Number of
workers;
sanitary
facilities and
bins;
noise level
Monthly
during
construction
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Cost
Site clearing and
establishment of
workers’ camp
•
•
•
•
Negotiate with
landowners for
camp site that
has no trees
Provision of
camp sanitary
facilities and
solid waste bins;
solid waste
management
plan
Hiring preference
to local workers
not requiring
temporary
housing
works limited
only to day time
(8:00AM –
5:00PM)
Camp site
near wharf
Noise
monitoring at
nearby school
and wharf site
Contractor;
oversight by
PMU/MID
Part of
construction
cost
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Removal of old
wharf head and
causeway debris
•
careful removal
of debris
Old wharf site
Visual check
of sediment
resuspension
Monthly
during
construction
Contractor;
oversight by
PMU/MID
Part of
construction
cost
Disposal of old
wharf head and
causeway debris
•
causeway debris
will be scattered
in the right side
of the shoreline
(facing the
channel waters);
concrete deck
will be reused as
flooring for a
small wharf shed
Old wharf site
Debris
volume
Monthly
during
construction
Contractor;
oversight by
MID
Part of
construction
cost
Pile driving
•
Third party
inspection of
equipment in
Honiara before
deployment;
preventive
equipment
maintenance
Installation of
noise shields on
equipment,
provision of
noise protection
ear muffs to
construction
workers
works limited
only to day time
(8:00AM –
5:00PM)
Old wharf site
TSP; noise
levels
Monthly
during
construction
Contractor;
oversight by
PMU/MID
Part of
construction
cost
•
•
Noise
monitoring at
nearby school
and wharf site
78
Project
/ Activity
Mitigation Measures
Locations
Monitoring
Parameter
Monitoring
Frequency
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Cost
Installation of
causeway and
deck-piled wharf
•
Regular
housekeeping in
the work area;
accurate
estimates of
required
construction
materials to
avoid wastage
Old wharf site
Debris
volume
Monthly
during
construction
Contractor;
oversight by
PMU/MID
Part of
construction
cost
Use of fuel and
other hazardous
materials
•
Provision of
properly
contained areas
for fuel and other
hazardous
materials in land
or barge; oil and
grease traps will
be installed in
drainage
systems of the
following areas:
workshops,
vehicle and
equipment
maintenance,
and fuel storage.
Work sites
Leaks and
spillages
Daily
inspection
Contractor;
oversight by
PMU/MID
Part of
construction
cost
Employment of
workers
•
Giving hiring
preference to
local skilled
workers and
employing local
workers for
unskilled
positions;
Locals will be
encouraged to
develop small
enterprises to
cater to
requirements of
the workers
Work sites
Number of
local workers
Monthly
during
construction
Contractor;
oversight by
PMU/MID
No cost
Vessels will not
be allowed to
discharge liquid
and solid wastes
at the port; strict
enforcement of
MARPOL 73/78
for berthing
vessels
Port area and
surroundings
Illegal
discharges
Daily when
vessels are
in port
MID/MECM
Part of
MID/MECM
operating
cost
•
OPERATION PHASE
Port operations
•
79
6. Public Consultation and Information Disclosure
Process of Public Involvement
As soon as a decision was made on the inclusion of the Siota Wharf rehabilitation for
assessment during the project preparation phase of the DMSP, letters of communication were
sent to the Provincial Premier and community letters for their information of upcoming visits from
the consultant team. A brief public announcement material was also prepared for broadcasting
over the Solomon Island Broadcasting (SBIC) Radio to inform the community in Siota and other
selected communities about the conduct of a public consultation to present project information
as well as gather community information on their views and concerns about the project among
other important things. The public consultation was held on June 12, 2008 at the Siota
Provincial Secondary School which was attended by a cross section of residents in the
communities invited for the purpose.
Consultation Activities Undertaken
Consultation has been undertaken with stakeholders including the provincial leadership, and
several national government agencies, and selected communities likely to be affected by and
benefit from the Subproject. Siota was visited twice during the preparation of the IEE. First,
during the reconnaissance visit to conduct close ground observations, and second during the
public consultation.
During the preparation of the initial environmental examination, the following were conducted:

Consultation with MID, including consultants working on projects in the transport
sector, on activities and practices in respect of environmental, consultation and
disclosure on other and similar projects;

Consultation with ECD and local authorities prior to the field visit to the project
site to identify issues related to subproject environmental assessment and
approval procedures; and

Consultation with the community residents in selected villages having access to
the existing wharf; informal interviews and discussions with stakeholders in the
area.
Public Consultation Results
A total of 42 persons were involved during the consultation process. Of this number, the
composition are as follows: 9 farmers; 7 teachers/educators; 2 landowners; 4 Village Chiefs; I
Provincial Official; 8 villagers; and others combined (student, employee, church
representatives). The consultation highlights are enumerated below and the record of public
consultation is provided in Annex E.
Community Acceptability

The community unanimously agreed that the current design be maintained so
that deposition of sediments will remain given the beach is currently being used.

The population wants the wharf because they have been without a wharf for the
last 20 years. The Siota passage is one of the busiest in Nggela.

Without a proper wharf, loading and unloading is very difficult and dangerous.
The community has had incidences where canoes sunk loaded with copra and
80
cocoa during loading into boats destined for Honiara. A wharf will mean good
facilities to properly load the community’s goods.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for land agreement and participation in
construction work would be sufficient and agreed.

The community can provide local materials if the wharf will be constructed. The
following were mentioned: white sand, white gravel, timber, skilled labour such as
brick layers, welders, and pile driver/crane operator.
Security and Nuisance Concerns

There was a concern raised about the security of the school property and
students in relation to the likely increase in traffic (people) if the wharf is built.
Disturbance from people who are drunk and those using the wharf is a real
concern. If the wharf is designed for semi-commercial type operations, it was
requested that another site be chosen. Siota site should have a wharf which is
designed only to serve the school.

The concern was not entirely agreed because according to one; such
disturbances can be managed using other strategies.
Alternative Locations

There was a request if the Mboromole wharf site can be considered as an
alternative site. Mboromole has a productive population, producing copra, cocoa
and timber.

Two (2) other alternative sites were identified: (1) Neumara; and (2) Mboromole.
Neumara is an Old CEMA copra buying point. There is a footpath linking it to
Salisapa (Provincial leased area and a substation).

According to one informant, Salisapa land is leased from the landowners and
water depth was indicated to be available for vessels. The site itself is adequate
for domestic and commercial sized wharf, if constructed, as there is adequate
water depth. A market can also be built at that site because land space is
adequate for that purpose and the site is central to all the catchment villages
within that Ward. Neumara is 10 minutes or 1 km away from the Siota PSS.

Salisapa is also an administrative centre for the Province. It has a hospital,
fisheries and agriculture office, and community policing. This is an important link
to the proposed wharf development. Salisapa is 1-hour walk away from Siota.

With the proposed Federal government system, the development of Salisapa is
an important one to take note of. Donors should consider the construction of a
wharf as an important priority.

The wharf is expected to stimulate development if it is going to be a semicommercial wharf. North Nggella produced the highest amount of copra and
cocoa in Central Province.

Evaluation of the alternative sites showed preference for the Siota site (as
discussed in Section 2.7: Alternative Sites)
Planning and Development Concerns

What the design life of the wharf would be.
81

What criteria were used to select the wharfs?

How will the community ensure that they do get a wharf?

What time frame is being looked at before construction would start?

A suggestion came up that a storage shed should be constructed next to the
wharf site. This is important because cargoes have gone missing and/or
damaged by rain in the past because of lack of secure storage shed.
Strategic Location
There should be a wharf in Siota because:

North Nggella is the most populated ward;

Economically, it produces majority of the copra and cocoa, marine products,
market produce;

It has shops that purchase cargo from Honiara; and

North Nggella is the most literate part of the island
Public Disclosure
Future information disclosure will be coursed through the Provincial Officials following the
procedures successfully adopted prior to the public consultation. Information can be also done
through the airwaves, and to some extent through the local newspapers in the Solomon Islands.
The community will be likewise told of the availability of such information in the ADB website for
those who have access to the internet.
7. Findings and Recommendations
The Siota wharf is a dilapidated structure requiring rehabilitation to ensure safe embarkation
and disembarkation of passengers to and from vessels making port of calls in the area. It is
located in a physically disturbed environment and away from protected areas or areas of
conservation value, including primary forests, terrestrial reserves or community managed
marine protected areas. Given the small size of the wharf, its rehabilitation work will not cause
significant environmental impacts, and will not lead to residual negative effect.
The Subproject will not also create any impacts on cultural or heritage (tambu) sites and it is not
located in a densely populated community or an area subject to heavy development. The
housing requirements are at present limited only to the school population. The proposed
subproject will not create conflicts with natural resource allocation. The effects of the Subproject
are spatially limited on existing location and therefore will not have any impacts on the rare or
endangered species in the Central Province.
It is recommended that:

This IEE be considered for approval by the ADB and the Environment
Conservation Division of the Ministry of Environment Conservation and
Meteorology;

The procurement contract will include provisions for environmental protection
referring to the IEE for relevant parameters to be given importance for
compliance;
82

The Contractor that will be selected to undertake the construction works be
required to prepare its own Contractor’ EMP with guidance provided by the
environmental consultant of the PMU; and

Subproject monitoring is sustained by the stakeholders identified in the
environmental monitoring plan to ensure compliance by the Contractor.
8. Conclusions
The Subproject is confirmed as Category B under ADB’s environmental categorization and will
not require further detailed environmental impact assessment. It has very high social
acceptability as demonstrated during the consultation and will significantly contribute to the
improvement of the welfare of the direct and indirect beneficiaries consisting of secondary
students and residents of outlying areas, respectively.
The rehabilitation works will be limited only to the existing dilapidated wharf structure and will
not cause adverse impacts to environmentally-sensitive areas such as mangroves, corals,
seabeds, buffer zone and any other areas classified as environmentally-sensitive by the country
and the ADB. Subproject impacts during construction are either moderate or low but are of
short-term duration and co-terminus with construction. These impacts together with those
associated with the operation and use of the wharf can all be appropriately mitigated using
available methods. Therefore further detailed environmental impact assessment study is not
warranted.
Annexes
Annex A - Multi-Lateral Agreements - Solomon Islands
Conventions/
Instruments
Regional MEAs
i) Waigani Convention
Status
Ratified
7/10/1998
ii) Pollution Protocol for
Dumping
Ratified
10/9/1989
iii) Pollution Protocol
for Emergencies
Ratified
10/9/1989
iv) Natural Resources and
Environment of South Pacific
(SPREP Convention)
Ratified
10/9/1989
Chemicals, Wastes and Marine Pollution
i) Liability for Oil
Ratified
Pollution Damage
ii)
Marine
Pollution
Convention (London)
Ratified
iii)
POPs
(Stockholm)
Acceded
28/7/2004
Convention
Purpose/Aim
Agency Responsible &
Related Projects
Ban the importation of into
Forum Island Countries of
hazardous and radioactive
wastes and to control the
transboundary movement and
management of hazardous
wastes within the South
Pacific region.
Prevention of pollution of the
South Pacific region by
dumping.
Cooperation in combating
pollution emergencies in the
South Pacific region.
Protection of natural resources
and environment of the South
Pacific Region in terms of
management
and
development of the marine
and coastal environment in the
South Pacific region.
ECD
Strict liability of a ship owner
for pollution damage to a
coastal state within a certain
amount.
Prevention of marine pollution
by dumping of wastes and
other matter.
Protection of human health
and
environment
from
persistent organic pollutants.
Marine Div
Agriculture Div/ECD
Project: National Action
Plan
on
Land
Degradation and Drought;
National Capacity Self
Assessment (NCSA)
ECD
Project:
National
Biosafety Framework
Biodiversity
i) Desertification
(UNCCD)
Acceded
16/41999
Agreement
to
combat
desertification and mitigate the
effects of drought in countries
experiencing
drought
or
desertification.
ii) Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety
Acceded
26/10/2004
Protection of human health
and the environment from
possible adverse effects of the
products
of
modern
biotechnology, especially the
living modified organisms
(LMO) while maximizing its
Marine Div/ECD
Marine Div/ECD
Project:
National
Pollution Prevention Plan
ECD
ECD/Foreign Affairs
ECD/Environmental
Health Div
Project:
National
Implementation
Plan
(NIP)
84
Conventions/
Instruments
Status
iii) Convention on
Biological Diversity
(UNCBD)
Ratified
3/10/1995
iv) CITES
Instrument
of
ratification
being
prepared
Acceded
10/6/1992
Regulation and restriction of
trade in specimens of wild
animals and plants through a
certification system for imports
and exports.
The protection of sites of
Outstanding Universal Value.
Solomon Islands currently
have East Rennell as World
Heritage site.
Ratified
13/3/2003
Reduce greenhouse gases
especially carbon dioxide for
the 39 industrial/ developed by
an average of 5.2 % by 2012.
Sets an overall framework for
intergovernmental efforts to
tackle the challenge posed by
climate change.
v) World Heritage
Convention
Climate
i) Kyoto Protocol
ii) Climate Change
(UNFCCC)
Ratified
28/12/1994
iii) Montreal Protocol
Acceded
17/6/1993
iv) Ozone Layer
Convention (Vienna)
Acceded
17/6/1993
Source: Draft State of the Environment 2008
Purpose/Aim
benefit.
Conserve biological diversity
through the sustainable use of
its components and the fair
and equitable sharing of the
benefits arising out of utilizing
genetic resources.
Allows
phase
out
of
substances that deplete the
ozone layer according a fixed
schedule.
Protection of the ozone layer
through
intergovernmental
cooperation
on
research,
systematic observation of the
ozone layer and monitoring of
chlorofluorocarbons(CFC)
production
Agency Responsible &
Related Projects
ECD
Project:
National
Capacity
Self
Assessment
(NCSA);
National
Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan
(NBSAP);
International
Waters
Programme
(IWP);
3rd
National
Report.
ECD
Museum/ECD
Project:
Meteorology Div
Meteorology Div/ECD
Project:
National
Adaptation Plan of Action
(NAPA); Second National
Communication
on
Climate Change; National
Capacity
Self
Assessment (NCSA)
ECD/Energy Div
ECD/Energy
Annex B – Photos of Siota Wharf Condition
85
86
Annex C – Vicinity Photographs
87
88
Annex D – Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) Checklist
Ports and Harbors
Country/Project Title:
Solomon Islands/ADB TA 4980 SOL: Preparing the Domestic
Maritime Support Project and Technical Support Programme
Siota Wharf, North Nggella, Nggella Pile, Florida Islands,
Central Province
Sector Division:
SCREENING QUESTIONS
A. Project Siting
Is the Project area adjacent to or within any of
the following environmentally sensitive areas?
Yes
No
REMARKS
Existing dilapidated wharf is adjacent
to a provincial secondary school
complex (with student dormitories,
faculty housing and church). But it is
not adjacent to or within
environmentally sensitive areas.
Although dense mangrove vegetation
can be seen along the channel (Siota
Passage) leading to the site, no
mangroves can be observed in the
wharf’s immediate vicinity.

Cultural heritage site
X

Protected Area
X

Wetland
X

Mangrove
X

Estuarine
X

Buffer zone of protected area
X

Special area for protecting biodiversity
X
SCREENING QUESTIONS
B. Potential Environmental Impacts
Will the Project cause…
encroachment on precious ecology resulting
in loss or damage to fisheries and fragile
coastal habitats such as coral reefs,
mangroves, and seagrass beds?

Yes
X
short-term increase in turbidity and sunlight
penetration as well as changes in sediment
pattern and flows at dredging site?
X
removal and disturbance of aquatic flora
and fauna at dredging site?
deterioration of water quality due to silt
runoff and sanitary wastes from workerbased camps and chemicals used in
construction?
alteration of bottom surface and
modifications to bathymetry, causing
changes in tidal bore, river circulation,
species diversity, and salinity?
No
X
X
X
REMARKS
There will be no encroachment on
precious ecology. The footprint of the
site will be limited to the same size
and location. There are no coral reefs
mangroves, and seagrass beds in the
immediate vicinity of the wharf.
No dredging operations will be
involved during the reconstruction
works. Short-term increase in turbidity
limited only during pile driving and
construction of the jetty.
No removal and disturbance of
aquatic flora and fauna. Dredging
operations will not be involved during
the reconstruction works.
If contractor is not allowed properlylocated camps and no chemical
control plan will be required by the
SIG.
No alteration of bottom surface will be
involved since the reconstruction work
will be limited on the same wharf
footprint.

SCREENING QUESTIONS
changes in sediment pattern and littoral drift
that may cause beach erosion of
neighboring areas?
Yes
No
X
modification of terrestrial habitat by upland
disposal of dredged material or covering of
potential archaeological sites with dredge
spoil?
short-term air quality degradation due to
dredging-related operations?
X

noise and vibration due to blasting and
other civil works?

dislocation or involuntary resettlement of
people?
other social concerns relating to
inconveniences in living conditions in the
project areas?
X
X
social conflicts if construction depletes local
fishery resources on which communities
depend for subsistence?
poor sanitation and solid waste disposal in
construction camps and work sites, and
possible transmission of communicable
diseases from workers to local populations?
social concerns relating to local
inconveniences associated with port
operation (e.g. increased volume of port
traffic, greater risk of accidents,
communicable disease transmission)?
deterioration of water quality due to ship
(e.g. ballast water, oil waste, lubricant and
fuel spills, and sewage) and waterfront
industry discharges?
increased noise and air pollution resulting
from airborne emissions (e.g. gas, smoke,
fumes) from maneuvering and berthing
REMARKS
Wharf configuration will be almost the
same as the former structure to
maintain the same pattern of beach
sand accretion to the northern part of
the wharf.
The reconstruction works will not
involve dredging activities.
X
X

89
X
X
X
X
X
Noise and vibration will be limited only
to short-term pile driving activities;
and the breaking off of the concrete
deck into manageable pieces for
disposal in the deeper part of the
channel but away from the usual
navigation lane. No blasting will be
required.
There are no existing residential
structures and households in or
around the immediate vicinity of the
existing wharf that will be affected by
the reconstruction.
Increased boat traffic and frequency
might also result in frequent
movement of people causing
disturbances and student attention
distractions in the predominantly
school environment.
The wharf’s surrounding waters is not
known as a main source of fishery
resources in the area. Construction
period is very short and planned not
to exceed four (4) months.
If contractor will not provide sanitation
facilities; will not hire most of the local
labor requirements; and the
communities will not allow any solid
waste disposal site in the area.
Some school teachers expressed
concern that regular and increased
ship arrivals resulting from improved
wharf could disturb classes.
If the SIG will not improve on its
performance to strictly enforce the
provisions of MARPOL 73/78 which
mitigates the discharge of
contaminants and solid waste from
ships.
The number of ship calls is expected
to increase but any noise and
airborne emissions from maneuvering
90
SCREENING QUESTIONS
ships and the waterfront industry?
Yes
No
REMARKS
and berthing ships can be dispersed
immediately by the active wind
movement in the bay. Water front
industry is not likely to take hold in the
area because the area is dedicated to
a school. Development other than the
present scale of the wharf will most
likely be opposed by school
authorities.
Annex E - Public Consultation and Information Disclosure
A.
Introduction
The ADB Environmental Policy 2002 requires that an effective public consultation must be
conducted and information disclosed as part of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process.
However, the Solomon Islands’ Environmental Act of 1998 does not clearly spell out this
requirement. In this case, the ADB guidelines had been used to ensure the requirements of both
SIG and ADB are met.
This is a record of the actual consultation and information disclosure process that was carried
out to fulfill the requirement. The public consultation was conducted on June 12, 2008 for Siota
in North Nggela, Nggela Pile of the Florida Islands in Central Province.
B.
Consultation Process
Approach
The key steps that were undertaken were as follows:

Key stakeholders were identified. Identification was important because there are
parties who would have either direct and/or indirect interests on the Subproject.

Preparation of official communication letters informing the relevant Government
Ministries and Provincial Government of the project and its objectives; and the
requirements that needs to be fulfilled within the given timeframe. Letters were
sent as part of the process prior to arrangements made for meetings.

Meetings were held with relevant Government departments, firstly out of
courtesy, and secondly to brief them on the project IEE requirements and
processes. A separate meeting with the Environment and Conservation Division
(ECD) of the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Meteorology (MECM)
was requested to confirm if the project is in compliance with SIG Environmental
regulations. Meetings were also orchestrated to collect relevant information and
documents, and to generate discussion, and feedback/response if any.

A meeting with an NGO organization was carried because a lot of NGOs worked
in the Provinces, especially in the communities, on projects which includes
research work and studies. Their work provided vital information for the
preparation of the IEE.

Courtesy visit was made to the Provincial Office. Persons met include the
Provincial Executive members. They were briefed of the project and the
91
occasion was a means of sharing and disclosing information. It was vital that
their views and concerns were heard because of their role in the Province and
governance jurisdiction over the communities. One of the key members reached
and heard was the ward member who is part of the provincial government and is
also the representative of the people. He was consulted before the communities
out of respect for his status and role.

Holding of the actual Public Consultation Meeting at the proposed sites with the
public, NGOs, communities and interested persons to hear the views and
concerns of those who would most probably be directly impacted by the project.
This was a very important session because issues relating to the environment
were not only raised but also those relating to social, economics and
engineering.
Key Stakeholder Identification
The following were identified and consulted in the process:

Relevant Government Ministries such as Environment, Conservation and
Meteorology; Fisheries, Lands (Mapping Section), Mines and Energy and Water
Resources, Marine Division

Relevant donor projects such as: Community Sector Programme (AusAID),
Marine Infrastructure Project Phase 2 (EU)

Provincial Governments – Key persons such as the Premier, Provincial
Secretary, Minister for Works, Ward Member for the selected site

Chiefs, Elders, Church Leaders and Communities which are within the catchment
of the wharf: Siota (Boromole, Siota, Belaga, Niumara, Salisapa communities)

NGOs:
-

The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
World Fish Center (WFC)
World Wide Fund (WWF)
Foundation of South Pacific International (FSPI)
Businesses
Official Letters
An official letter was drafted, and signed off by the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of
Infrastructure Development (MID). This was sent to the Director of the Ministry of Environment,
Conservation and Meteorology (MECM) as required. An Official letter was also sent to the
Provincial Secretary of Central Province headquartered in Tulagi to advise him of the
forthcoming visit, the project background, and purpose. He was expected to convene members
of the Provincial Office to attend the meeting.
Official and Public Meetings
Meetings referred to as official meetings are those held with key public officers such as the
Director of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology, and other government officers from the
Lands Department, Geology, Water Resources, Mapping Division (Mines and Energy), Solomon
Islands Water Authority (SIWA); Provincial Officials and NGOs.
92
These meeting were held to get relevant project secondary data or information. Meetings with
Provincial government representatives were organised to pay courtesy and share information
and to get responses and feedbacks on the project.
Public meeting on the other hand, refers to consultation conducted at the selected site attended
by the public: interested persons, farmers, business owners, church representatives, community
chiefs and elders and members. The Public meeting in Siota was discursive in nature whereby
every person was given the opportunity to make a statement, voice his/her views, perceptions,
and/or concerns. A question and answer session was provided as a means to clarify issues
which were not well understood so that these cannot become potential conflict issues. Both
processes were facilitated by one of the Team members conducting the meeting.
The public meeting was organised prior to the arrival of the Team to the community. They were
informed of the organised date and time of the proposed meeting through a service message
that was sent over the radio, in this case the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC))
at around 7:30 pm in the evening. The message was read only once a few days before the
proposed meeting was held. Prior to the message being put out, contact was made to the
Provincial head office via the telephone to ensure the same message is sent to the Ward
member of that area. This was very important because he was their official provincial
government representative. The Ward Member would normally go out of his way to inform his
people and was expected to be present at the meeting.
Apart from the service message broadcasted over the radio, a public notice was sent by
facsimile transmission to the Provincial Office to be put up on a Public Notice Board for public
information. This was conducted so that the wider community and public are made aware of the
project.
Team Composition
The team that went to the Central Province was composed of the following:

Doug Oldfield - Civil Engineer

Sally Rynveld - Social and Poverty Specialist

Mr Felix Noel A. Pascua - Environmental Specialist

Joselito P. Losaria - Environmental Specialist

Antoinette Wickham - Environmental Analyst

Rose Wale - Social and Poverty Analyst
Minutes of the Meeting held at the Provincial Executive Meeting HouseTulagi, Florida
Islands, Central Province, June 12, 200810:00 am to 10:30 am

Words of Welcome Premier Central Province
The Premier of Central Province, Hon Patrick Vasuni, welcomed the team to the
Province and gave a brief background about the Province, its infrastructure,
people, plans, and aspirations.

Introduction and Project Briefing by Visiting team
Individual team members introduced themselves and then Mr. Pascua briefed the
Executive about the Domestic Maritime Support Project and Technical
Assistance Programme, an ADB-funded project. He also explained the purpose
of the public consultation and visit to the site. Mr. Pascua explained that under
93
the ADB IEE (Initial Environmental Examination) process, there must be a public
consultation held with those who have interest in the project. This is the reason
why a public meeting was organized. In saying this Mr. Pascua also mentioned
that other members of the team were there to also conduct assessments within
their respective fields of expertise to fulfill their respective Terms of Reference.
Mr. Doug Oldfield explained that he is there to look mainly at the engineering
suitability of the site. This includes: depth of water, site protection, turning circle,
etc.
Dr. Sally Rynveld on the other hand mentioned that community participation is an
important process given that communities are often the ones directly or indirectly
affected by the project. It is therefore fundamentally important that their issues,
interests, views, concerns will be heard.

Provincial Executives’ Response
The team asked whether the Provincial Executive has any views, opinions,
perceptions about the Subproject. These are their comments as recorded on
that day.
o
o

Siota Site
-
Provincial Government has no objections with the proposed Siota
wharf development
-
That site is central to northern Nggella communities
-
It is sheltered
-
It is situated right next to a Provincial Secondary School
-
Rebuilding of the wharf will be beneficial to the local economy and its
people
-
Landownership is common, but because the wharf will benefit the
people, they do not see that the response will be negative.
Mboromole Site (Alternative)
-
Mboromole is another site located opposite Siota but it is exposed to
strong currents and therefore the wharf causeway is often exposed to
rapid erosion. This is what happened to the old wharf which has now
collapsed.
-
Site slightly exposed to strong currents, although it is reasonably
sheltered.
-
Copra, cocoa, and timber are produced around this area.
Words of Thanks and Meeting Closed 10:30 am
Premier thanked the team, and the team reciprocated their appreciation for the
short meeting.
Minutes of the Public Consultation/Meeting held at the Provincial Secondary School
Siota, North Nggela, Nggela Pile, Florida Islands, Central Province, June 12, 2008
The team was accompanied to the site by the Deputy Premier and a Works Officer.
94

Meeting convened at 1: 00 pm

Opening Word of Prayer

Words of welcome and short briefing by Hon. Fred Samora

Introductory words and welcome by Miss Antoinette Wickham in Pidjin (Facilitator
of the Public Consultation). Team was introduced and role in the project.

Project Briefing by Mr. Felix Pascua.
Mr. Pascua briefed the people about the Domestic Maritime Support Project and Technical
Support Programme (DMSP & TSP). Mr. Pascua also explained that under the ADB IEE (Initial
Environmental Examination) process, there must be a public consultation held with those who
have an interest in the project. This is the reason for the public meeting. Mr. Pascua also
mentioned that other members of the team were also there to conduct assessments within their
respective specialised fields to fulfill their ToR as prescribed by the ADB.
He went on to explain how choice of a wharf design can also influence the formation or the
erosion of shorelines. Such an impact can be mitigated through the implementation of proper
Environmental Management Plans and Monitoring Plans. These documents will be produced to
assist in ensuring impacts are managed by both the community who lives next to the wharf, and
the government so as to minimize their negative effects.
These are later translated in Pidjin by Miss Wickham.

Comments, Views, Issues and Concerns raised by Attendees
-
Mr. Pascua asked what people thinks on the current status of the foreshore and
whether the current beach front has to be retained. The community unanimously
agreed that the current design be maintained so that deposition of sediments will
remain given the beach is currently being used by canoes and people for
recreation purposes.
-
John Mara (Siota PSS English Teacher) – we want a wharf, in fact we have been
without a wharf for the last 20 years. This water way is one of the busiest in
Nggella.
-
Charles Pule (Chief Vatapura Village) – without a proper wharf, loading and
unloading is very difficult and dangerous. We have had few incidences where
canoes have sunk with all our copra and cocoa during the event of loading into
boats destined for Honiara. A wharf will mean good facilities to properly load our
goods.
-
Dr. Rynveld and Ms. Wale explained that any development as such will create an
impact on the lives of the people around the area such as: security issues
especially for the school, increased people traffic, economic opportunities, and
women having opportunity to sell their goods, land disputes and so on.
Therefore the team needs to hear the communities’ views or concerns on these
matters.
-
Alfred (Teacher Siota PSS) – I am a bit concerned about the security of the
school property and students in relation to the likely increase in people traffic if
the wharf is built. Disturbance from people who are drunk and those using the
wharf is a real concern. If the wharf is designed for semi-commercial type
operations then I will request that another site be picked. Siota site should have a
wharf which is designed only to serve the school and those living within its
vicinity.
95
-
John Mara (Siota PSS Teacher) – I do not entirely agree, such disturbance can
be managed using other strategies. But we are so worried about these issues
then may I suggest 2 other alternative sites: (1) Niumara; and (2) Mboromole.
Niumara is an Old CEMA copra buying point. There is a foot path linking it to
Siota and Salisapa (Provincial leased area and a substation)
-
Daniel Maeke (Rice Farmer) – Niumara is linked to Salisapa, a Provincial substation for the North Nggella ward, via a footpath. Salisapa land is leased from
the Landowners. Water is available at Niumara for vessels. The site itself is
adequate for domestic and commercial sized wharf. There is adequate water
depth. A market can also be built at that site because land space is adequate for
that purpose and the site is central to all the catchment villages within that ward.
Niumara is only 10 minutes or 1 km away from Siota Provincial Secondary
School.
-
Hon. Fred Samora (Deputy Premier, Ward Member) – Salisapa is an
administrative centre for the Province; it has a hospital, Fisheries and Agriculture
Office, and Community Policing. This is an important link to the proposed wharf
development. Salisapa is 1hour walk away from Siota.
-
Alfred Letona (Siota PSS Teacher) - the wharf will stimulate additional
developments, if it is a semi-commercial wharf. North Nggella produced the
highest amount of copra and cocoa in Central Province.
-
The communities were asked by Dr. Rynveld if the use of an MOU for land
agreement and participation in construction work would be agreed to. They
agreed that it is sufficient.
-
Dr. Rynveld further asked if there would be people available to assist in future
surveys to be conducted. Some suggested such groups as Teachers and
Mother Union, etc. can assist with survey work; however, teachers are busy
people.
-
The team also asked the community as to what local materials can the
community provide, if the wharf is constructed. The following were mentioned:
white sand, white gravel, Timber, skilled labours such as brick layers, welders,
and piler/crane operator (identified as Mr. Mostyn Eka).
-
John Mara (Siota PSS Teacher) – he asked what the design life cycle of the
wharf would be? Doug clarified that wharf design life is around 30 years; it will be
built to international standard, and most probably by an International Contractor.
-
There was a questioned asked about what criteria was used to select the
wharves. Doug mentioned that some of the criteria are as follows: engineering
(e.g. shelter, depth, turning circle); social (landownership, population, etc),
Economic (copra, cocoa, market); environmental (sensitivity of area,
environmental significance etc).
-
Daniel Maeke (Community Elder Chairman) - he asked how the community will
ensure that they do get a wharf. Sally replied that the information received from
the community will assist in building a case for justification of a wharf there. The
report will be prepared by the TA members which will be submitted to ADB.
Therefore, the more information provided by the community, the better the case
built.
96
C.
-
Someone requested that there should be a storage shed constructed next to the
wharf site. Cargoes have gone missing and/or damaged by rain in the past
because of lack of secure storage shed.
-
Thomas Peo (Belaga Primary School Chairman) – What time frame are we
looking at before construction would start? Doug explained that because the
projects follow ADB timeframe approval process, it may take around 2 years
before any construction would actually take place.
-
Alfred Tangi (Self Employed) – can I request if Mboromole wharf site can be
considered as an alternative site. Mboromole has a productive population,
producing copra, cocoa and timber.
-
Alfred Manele (Principle Belaga CHS) – with the proposed Federal government
system, the development of Salisapa is an important one to take note of. Donors
should consider the construction of a wharf as an important priority.
-
John Mara (Siota PSS English Teacher) – I would like to justify why there should
be a wharf in Siota in closing. It is as follows:
o North Nggella is the most densely populated ward
o Economically , it produces majority of the copra and cocoa, marine products,
market produce
o It has shops that purchase cargo from Honiara
o North Nggella is the most literate part of the island
-
Words of thanks from Mr. John Mara on behalf of the Chiefs, Elders and
communities in and around Siota.
-
Words of thanks in closing from the Team.
-
Meeting Closed at 2: 30 pm
Attendance Sheets
1. Provincial Executive Assembly, Central Province
NAME
Hon Patrick Vasuni
Hon.Patteson Mae
Hon Stanley Manetiva
Hon Augustine Rose
Hon Fred Samora
POSITION IN EXECUTIVE
Premier
Minister
Minister
Minister
Deputy Premier
2. Siota Public Consultation: (Siota, Boromole, Belaga, Niumara, Vatupura Communities)
NAME
1. John F Mara
2. James Ira
3. Eddie Varron
4. Charles Pule
5. Samson Vunagi
6.John Sara
POSITION IN COMMUNITY
Head of English (Siota PSS)
Deputy Principal (Siota PSS)
Siota PSS resident
Chief, Vatupura Village
Landowner (Niumara/Siota)
Landowner (Siota/Boromole)
NAME
7. Ishmael Tarika
8. Robert Voli
9. Alfred Selwyn Manele
10. Andrew Vata
11. George Bobo
12. John Sapi
13. Fred Guru
14. Ishmael Tarika
15. Robert Dauasi
16. Susan Bese
17. Daniel Maeke
18. Thomas Peo
19. Hon F Samora
20. Mostyn Eka
21. Adamson Tarai
22. John Kulasi
23. Robert Tumu
24. Mathias Lee
25. Clement Natei
26. Daniel Maeke
27. Alfred Tangi
28. Mason Vuvea
29. John Tavai
30. Joseph Hangi
31. Edwin Lulua
32. Charles Parahu
33. Peter Voli
34. Allen Noko
35. Robert Manebona
36. John Legeti
37. Edwin Mapena
POSITION IN COMMUNITY
Chief, Boromole Village
Villager, Boromole
Principal, Belaga CHS
Chief/Elder, Belaga Community
Boromole , resident
Hanunavine, resident
Boromole, resident
Chief, Boromole
School Driver, Siota PSS
Mothers Union Representative
Community elder Chairman
Belaga Primary School Teacher
Provincial Member for North Gela
Reader, Anglican Church
Boromole, resident
Belaga, resident
Belaga, resident
Teacher
Farmer
Rice Farmer
Self Employed
Cocoa Farmer
Cocoa Farmer
Teacher
Farmer
Student
Fisherman
Farmer
Teacher
Farmer
Farmer
97
98
Annex F – Photographs During Public Consultation