E4720 v2

Initial Environmental Examination (ADB)

Environmental and Social Management Plan
(ESMP)

January 2015

FIJI:
Transport Infrastructure Investment Sector Project

Sigatoka Valley Road – Bridge Rehabilitation

 CONTENTS
Page
ABBREVIATIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I
A. INTRODUCTION 1
B. POLICY, LEGAL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK 2
1. Fiji Legislation and Environmental Guidelines 2
2. Common Safeguards Approach 4
C. DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBPROJECTS 4
1. Narata Bridge 5
2. Matewale Crossing 7
D. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 11
1. Narata Bridge 11
2. Matewale Crossing 12
E. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL CONTEXT (BASELINE DATA) 14
1. Overview of Sigatoka Valley 14
2. Narata Bridge Subproject Area 15
3. Matewale Crossing Subproject Area 17
F. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 19
1. Design and Pre-construction impacts 19
a) Impacts on Physical Resources 19
b) Impacts on Ecological Resources 20
c) Impacts on Socio-economic Resources 21
2. Construction Impacts 21
a) Impacts on Physical Resources 21
b) Impacts on Ecological Resources 24
c) Impacts on Socio-economic Resources 25
3. Operation Impacts 29
a) Impacts on Physical Resources 29
b) Impacts on Ecological Resources 29
c) Impacts on Socio-economic Resources 29
G. CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE 30
H. GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM 31
1. During Construction 33
2. During Operation 34
I. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 35
1. Introduction 35
2. Institutional Arrangements, Roles and Responsibilities 36
3. Monitoring and Reporting 38
J. Summary and Conclusion 48
Appendices
 ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank

CESMP Construction Environmental and Social Management Plan
COEP Codes of Environmental Practice
CPP Consultation and Participation Plan (for the project)
CSS Country Safeguard System
Department of Environment (within Ministry of Local Government, Urban
DOE
Development, Housing and Environment)
DSC Design and Supervision Consultant
EHSG Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ESMP Environmental And Social Management Plan
EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction
ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework
ESS Environment Safeguards Specialist (in DSC team)
FRA Fiji Roads Authority
GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism
LARP Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan
LARF Land Acquisition and Resettlement Framework
NSS National Safeguards Specialist (in DSC team)
OP Operational Policy (of the World Bank)
PSA Poverty and Social Assessment
SPS Safeguards Policy Statement 2009
SSS Social Safeguards/Resettlement Specialist (in DSC team)
WB World Bank
 i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Introduction. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank (WB) have been
asked to provide assistance to the Fiji government to support its transport sector planning and
management with the over-arching objective to improve accessibility to socio-economic
opportunities by improving land and sea transport infrastructure. The support being provided will
result in a 20-year national transport sector plan and the preparation and implementation of a
sector project; Transport Infrastructure Investment Sector Project (the project). The project
comprises physical works including new infrastructure and/or the upgrading, renewal,
rehabilitation, repair of roads, bridges, and/or rural maritime infrastructure in Fiji. The project
also includes non-physical works such as institutional strengthening and capacity building within
the transport sector. The project will deliver two outputs: (i) rehabilitated, climate resilient land
and maritime transport infrastructure; and (ii) efficient project management support and
institutional strengthening.
2. This environmental impact assessment (EIA)1 covers two subprojects drawn from the Fiji
Road Authority’s (FRA) ten-year Asset Management Plan. The EIA has been prepared by EIA
consultants registered with the Fiji Department of Environment (DOE).
3. The subprojects involve the repair or replacement of two existing crossings, Narata
Bridge and Matewale Crossing, both located on Sigatoka Valley Road. The existing crossings
have suffered from deterioration and flood damage and are in poor condition. There are safety
concerns due to the narrow breadth of the structures and lack of guardrails (particularly on the
Narata Bridge). The proposed works will rehabilitate the crossings to provide for more reliable
and safer access across the waterways.
4. Policy, legal and administrative framework. The project will comply with Fiji’s country
safeguards system with additional elements as required in order to also comply with the
requirements of ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement 2009 (SPS) and WB’s Operational Policy
(OP) 4.01.
5. The Environmental Management Act 2005 requires an EIA must be undertaken for
developments that involve the dredging or excavating of a river bed, or which require an
environmental assessment as a condition of finance by an international or local development
finance institution. The EIA is undertaken by an EIA consultant registered with the DOE on
behalf of the project proponent and clearance obtained from the DOE as approving authority.
The environmental clearance and development consent (and other permits) must be obtained
before any works commence.
6. The objectives of the EIA are to: (i) describe the existing environmental conditions; (ii)
identify potential environmental impacts; (iii) carry-out public consultations to document any

1
This environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with Fiji’s Environmental Management
Act 2005 plus the additional elements required to also comply with the ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS)
2009 and WB’s Operational Policy (OP) 4.01 on Environmental Assessment. The Environmental and Social
Management Plan from this IEE will be included as part of the contractual obligations of the winning contractor (as
per WB requirements for OP 4.01). It is referred to as an environmental impact assessment (EIA) as per Fiji’s
Environmental Management Act 2005 but it is not equivalent to EIA in ADB’s SPS or WB’s OP 4.01. Within the
parameters of SPS it is equivalent to an initial environmental examination as appropriate for a category B project.
All subprojects under the Transport Infrastructure Investment Sector Project will be category B or C projects, and
will follow the process for screening, assessment, review and implementation as set out in the environmental and
social management framework prepared for the project. Category A projects are not eligible for financing under
the project.
ii

issues/concerns and to ensure that such concerns are addressed in the project design; (iv)
evaluate and determine the significance of the impacts; and (v) develop an ESMP detailing
mitigation measures, monitoring activities, reporting requirements, institutional responsibilities
and cost estimates to address adverse environmental impacts.
7. The EIA is based on field inspection, review of existing information on the physical,
ecological and socio-economic resources of the subproject sites, and information gathered
through discussions with key government agencies and stakeholder consultations. This EIA is
submitted to ADB and WB by FRA as the implementing agency. The final EIA report will be
disclosed to the public by providing the EIA and an Environmental and Social Management Plan
(ESMP) to the government’s approving authority – DOE- as well as being uploaded to FRA,
ADB and WB websites.
8. Description of subprojects. The subprojects are located in the Nadroga/Navosa
province on Viti Levu, one of the two largest islands in Fiji. The subprojects comprise: (i) Narata
bridge - repair or replacement of the existing bridge in the same location or directly adjacent
with a two lane high level bridge including footpaths, handrails and guardrails. Replacement
would involve demolition of the existing structure; and (ii) Matewale crossing – replacement of
the existing Irish crossing (culverted low-level causeway) with either a new Irish crossing or a
higher level bridge at the same location or the construction of a high level bridge on a new road
approach alignment upstream. The existing structure would be demolished.
9. The exact works to be undertaken at each site, and even the selected subprojects
themselves, have not yet been confirmed and so this assessment considers all the potential
options for the rehabilitation of the two crossings. Should these two crossings be selected for
funding under the project then the options considered in this assessment will be refined and the
EIA and ESMP updated based on detailed design of the preferred option for each site.
10. Assessment of impacts. The proposed works are assessed as having minor adverse
and site-specific environmental impacts in areas that are already modified, and most impacts
are temporary and relate to the construction phase. Repair works will not involve any piling,
significant earthworks, land acquisition or vegetation removal. Replacement works will be either
in the same footprint as existing structures (in the case of Narata bridge) or directly adjacent. An
exception is a potential new bridge site and minor road realignment approximately 130m
upstream of Matewale crossing.
11. The subproject will not require physical displacement of people. It will however need to
acquire approximately 1.6 hectares of land (0.8 hectares per bridge based on estimates by the
bridge design consultants as to how much land is part of the existing road corridor, and how
much should be used as part of the Right of Way for the approach to each of the bridge sites).
12. In addition, there are a total of 251 persons (Narata Village – 133; Matawale:
Vatubalevu Village – 118) who as mataqali members claim customary ownership of the land to
be acquired, but not all use the land in the local area of the two sites. However, only 101
households of displaced people (DPs)2 will lose access to land they are using for productive
purposes. Their loss is less than 10 percent of their total livelihood.
13. A Land Acquisition and Resettlement Framework (LARF) was prepared to address any land
changes or impacts to livelihoods that might occur as a result of involuntary acquisition of assets and/or
change in land use, including provision for compensation and rehabilitation assistance which may occur
throughout the life of the project.. A Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan (LARP) was prepared for

2
Terms of affected persons (APs) and DPs are used in this document interchangeably. APs/DPs are mainly those in
the project context who will lose part of their land or assets on land (experiencing economic displacement),
although they are not expected to be physically displaced.
 iii

the two Year 1 sub-projects. For subsequent sub-project preparation involving land acquisition or
resettlement, the Government will be responsible for preparing a land acquisition and resettlement plan
(LARP) to help guide the implementation process and serve as documentation for compensation.
14. The main potential impacts of the subprojects will be on water quality and potential
runoff of exposed surfaces or increased turbidity from piling and earthworks. There are positive
impacts associated with increased safety (particularly for pedestrians) and improved access
providing more reliability for users of the Sigatoka Valley Road. This is expected to have flow on
positive economic and social benefits for the villages up the Sigatoka Valley.
15. Environmental and social management plan. Although the impacts of the subprojects
are not considered to be significant, an ESMP is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts
including through erosion and sedimentation control, materials sourcing and spoil management,
waste management, minimization of habitat disturbance, and worker and community health and
safety.
16. The plan also outlines environmental and social monitoring and capacity development
for the design, construction and operation phases of the subprojects. The design and
supervision consultant (DSC) and contractor will be tasked with finalizing the detailed design
and compilation of an updated ESMP and the contractor will be responsible for implementing
the ESMP. The ESMP will form part of the construction contract documents and the contractor
will be required to prepare a site-specific Construction Environmental and Social Management
plan (CESMP) based on the contract ESMP. The contractor will submit the CESMP to FRA’s
environment manager for approval prior to commencement of works.
17. Consultation and information disclosure. The consultation process included
discussions with relevant government agencies such as DOE, the Nadroga/Navosa Rural Local
Authority, Department of Lands, and iTaukei Lands Trust Board. The subprojects were
discussed at these initial meetings as well as the process for the environmental and social
assessments. The community consultations were confirmed.
18. Consultation with local government stakeholders including the Keiyasi Agricultural
District Office, Provincial Office, and district health nurse as well as village meetings were
undertaken to discuss the subprojects and gather information relevant to the EIA (such as
existing uses of the site, any particular resources of significance, and socio-economic
information).
19. The process also gathered information on relevant concerns of the local community for
the project so as to address these in the project design and implementation stages. No
significant environmental and social concerns were raised during consultations and the local
communities were happy for the project to go ahead so that they could benefit from safer and
more reliable water crossings.
20. The EIA will be disclosed according to the provisions of ADB Public Communications
Policy 2011 and requirements of the laws of Fiji.
21. Grievance redress mechanism. A grievance redress mechanism (GRM) was
developed for the project to receive, evaluate and facilitate the resolution of affected people’s
concerns, complaints and grievances about the environmental and social performance of the
subprojects. The GRM is based on accepted practices in Fiji and provides an accessible, time-
bound and transparent mechanism for the affected persons to voice and resolve social and
environmental concerns linked to the project. The GRM is described in detail in the LARP and
the Poverty and Social Assessment (PSA) prepared for the project.
iv

22. Institutional arrangements. FRA will include an environmental manager to oversee the
tasks undertaken by the DSC and monitor compliance by the contractor in implementing the
measures in the ESMP and approved CESMP. The DSC will include international and national
environmental and social safeguards specialists, at least the national specialist will be required
to be registered as an EIA consultant with the DOE. FRA’s environment and social manager and
DSC specialists will together provide training and build capacity of FRA, and contractors in
safeguards.
23. Conclusion. The potential environmental and social impacts arising from design,
construction, operation and maintenance of the subprojects will be minor, site-specific and
readily mitigated provided that the measures set out in the ESMP are implemented properly.
The ESMP will be updated by the contractor in the construction phase and a CESMP prepared
for approval by FRA’s environment and social manager. Supervision of CESMP implementation
will be by FRA which will report regularly to the ADB, WB, and DOE.
24. The project will create positive impacts associated with increased safety (particularly for
pedestrians), improved access providing more reliability for users of the Sigatoka Valley Road
and access to socio-economic opportunities.
 1

A. INTRODUCTION

1. Fiji is located in Melanesia in the South Pacific Ocean about 2,000 km northeast of
New Zealand's North Island. Its closest neighbors are Vanuatu to the west, Tonga to the
east, and Tuvalu to the north. The country comprises an archipelago of more than 332
islands, of which 110 are permanently inhabited, and more than 500 islets, amounting to a
total land area of about 18,300 square kilometers (km 2). The two major islands, Viti Levu and
Vanua Levu (Figure 1), account for 87% of the population of almost 860,000. The capital and
largest city, Suva, is on Viti Levu. About three-quarters of Fijians live on the coastal plains of
Viti Levu, either in Suva – the country’s capital - or in smaller urban centers like Nadi or
Lautoka.
Figure 1 – Location Map

2. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank (WB) have been asked to
provide assistance to the Fiji government to support its transport sector planning and
management with the over-arching objective to improve accessibility to socio-economic
opportunities by improving land and sea transport infrastructure. The support being provided
will result in a 20-year national transport sector plan and preparation and implementation of
a sector project.
3. The project comprises physical works including new infrastructure and/or the
upgrading, renewal, rehabilitation, repair of roads, bridges, and/or rural maritime
infrastructure in Fiji. The project also includes non-physical works such as institutional
strengthening and capacity building within the transport sector. The project will deliver two
outputs: (i) rehabilitated, climate resilient land and maritime transport infrastructure; and (ii)
efficient project management support and institutional strengthening.
2

4. The Ministry of Finance will be the executing agency for the project and the Fiji
Roads Authority (FRA) will be the implementing agency.
5. The subprojects considered in this environmental assessment include the repair and
replacement of two crossings on Sigatoka Valley Road, an important transportation link
between Sigatoka town and the upper Sigatoka Valley. They are the Narata Bridge and
Matewale Crossing, both located within the Nadroga/Navosa province. The two crossings
are in a state of disrepair and have safety issues for existing users. It is considered that the
two subprojects are therefore good representative examples of the likely works to be
undertaken under the project.
6. The subprojects are categorized as environmental category B in accordance with the
ADB Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS) 2009. Pursuant to Section 28 (4) of the Environment
Management Act 2005 this assessment has been prepared by accredited consultants
registered with the Department of Environment (DOE).

B. POLICY, LEGAL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

1. Fiji Legislation and Environmental Guidelines

7. Environmental Management Act. The main legislation governing development

activities in Fiji is the Environmental Management Act 2005 (the Act). The Act provides a
framework for national coordination and planning in relation to environmental matters and
control of environmentally harmful activities through a process of development consent and
environmental impact assessment (EIA). The DOE has the mandate to implement the Act.
8. Section 4 of the Act requires that any proposed development activity that is likely to
cause significant impact on the environment to undergo an assessment process which
includes screening, scoping, preparation, reviewing and decision-making. In context of the
Act, "environment" is taken to include all aspects of the natural and human environment.
Section 32 of the Act states that a condition of any approved EIA must be that proponents
are required to prepare and implement an environmental management plan (ESMP),
monitoring program, protection plan or mitigation measure, which may be subject to
inspection by the DOE.
9. The Act (Schedule 2, Part 1) requires developments that involve the dredging or
excavating of a river bed, or which require an environmental assessment as a condition of
finance by an international or local development finance institution, be processed by the
DOE. As the subprojects may involve the sourcing of material from the river bed (gravel) and
are also to be funded by the ADB and WB, an environmental assessment is required as part
of the environmental safeguards for the project. This EIA 3 will therefore be processed by the
DOE and will also be cleared by ADB and WB.

3
This environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with Fiji’s Environmental
Management Act 2005 plus the additional elements required to also comply with the ADB’s Safeguard Policy
Statement (SPS) 2009 and WB’s Operational Policy (OP) 4.01 on Environmental Assessment. The
Environmental and Social Management Plan from this IEE will be included as part of the contractual
obligations of the winning contractor (as per WB requirements for OP 4.01). It is referred to as an
environmental impact assessment (EIA) as per Fiji’s Environmental Management Act 2005 but it is not
equivalent to EIA in ADB’s SPS or WB’s OP 4.01. Within the parameters of SPS it is equivalent to an initial
environmental examination as appropriate for a category B project. All subprojects under the project will be
category B or C projects, and will follow the process for screening, assessment, review and implementation
as set out in the environmental and social management framework prepared for the project. Category A
projects are not eligible for financing under the project.
 3

10. Part 5 of the Act establishes a waste and pollution permit system that aims to protect
the environment by controlling the release of solid and liquid wastes, the emission of
polluting gases, smoke and dust, and the handling, storage and disposal of waste and
hazardous substances.
11. The Environment Management (Waste Disposal and Recycling) Regulations 2007
gives the Waste and Pollution Control Administrator power to issue permits for solid and
liquid waste discharge and air discharges.
12. Section 8 (1) of the regulations states:
"8. - (1) A solid or liquid waste permit may relate to either construction or operation of
a facility or any premises.
(2) A construction waste permit -
(a) relates to solid or liquid waste and pollutants generated during
construction or demolition of premises of a facility; and
(b) lapses upon completion of the construction or demolition work"
13. It is likely that the construction of new bridges will generate waste construction
materials as existing structures will need to be demolished. A solid waste permit may be
required to dispose of construction materials. This will be confirmed during detailed design.
14. Town Planning Act 1978. The Town Planning Act 1978 establishes the tools and
processes for the planning, restriction and approval of development across the country. The
different parts of the Town Planning Act establish the scope and key facets of the planning
system.
15. Part I - establishes the role of the Director of Town and Country Planning, who is
responsible for implementing the Town Planning Act and the Subdivision of Land Act. Part II
– describes Town Planning Schemes, which provide planning tools and regulations for
development within local areas. Part III – outlines the functions of city, town councils and
rural local authorities which have powers to prepare, implement and enforce planning
schemes.
16. Part III of the Town Planning Act states that local councils are responsible for the
implementation of town planning schemes, subdivision of land and building development in
urban areas, whereas rural local authorities manage subdivision of land and building
developments within their districts. The subproject locations are outside of urban areas and
are therefore within the jurisdiction of the rural local authority. Both sites are classified as
rural agricultural land and are located within the Nadroga/Navosa Rural Authority area.
17. As Narata and Matewale are without an approved town planning scheme, the local
authority is the receiving agent for applications for development permission, but does not
have the capacity to grant approval. All applications are forwarded to the Department of
Town and Country Planning for consideration and a decision. A development application is
required where earthworks, building, removing large trees or changing the use of a site or
building is proposed. Given the subprojects will involve earthworks and the construction of
new structures, and one of the options for Matewale crossing will involve the removal of
large trees, a development application is a necessary approval.
18. Crown Lands Act 1978. The beds of all rivers and streams are crown land. As the
subprojects involve development on crown land they will require a lease, obtained from the
Director of Lands.
19. Codes of Environmental Practice. The Fiji Codes of Environmental Practice
(COEP) sets out minimum environmental standards to be met and that appropriate
procedures are undertaken to reduce the environmental impact of various activities related
to road works and services. Many of these procedures are carried through into the ESMP.
4

2. Common Safeguards Approach

20. The ADB and WB have developed a common safeguards approach for the project
that is based on the safeguard policy requirements of both agencies and also meets the
requirements of the Environmental Management Act. The common safeguards approach has
been detailed in the environmental and social framework (ESMF) prepared for the project.
The ESMF sets out the process for screening, assessment, clearance and implementation
for all subprojects prepared under the project.
21. The ESMF provides a guide to the preparation of environmental assessment of
subprojects that is based on the requirements of Fiji legislation but supplemented with
additional aspects required by the common safeguards approach. Additional aspects include
identification and consideration of habitat type, specifications for information disclosure,
establishment of a grievance redress mechanism, and clear identification of
institutional/organizational arrangements for ESMP implementation and safeguards
monitoring.
22. All subprojects under the project will be category B or C for environment, and will
follow the process for screening, assessment, review and implementation as set out in the
ESMF prepared for the project. Category A projects are not eligible for financing under the
project.4

C. DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBPROJECTS

23. The subprojects are located within the Nadroga/Navosa province, Western Division.
Both subprojects are located on Sigatoka Valley Road, an important transportation link from
Sigatoka town to the upper valley. The proposed subprojects will replace and/or repair two
selected water crossings on the existing Sigatoka Valley Road. The subprojects will provide
more reliable and safer all-weather access to the highland hinterland, markets, employment
opportunities and social facilities contributing to economic growth and poverty reduction.
24. Sigatoka Valley is the most intensively farmed area of Fiji. The area is a major
supplier of produce for much of Viti Levu, including nearby tourist resorts along the Coral
Coast, and there are several farmer associations which export vegetables to Australia, New
Zealand and Canada. Sigatoka Valley Road is also one of the main access routes to the
Highlands. The upper parts of the valley have potential for intensive agricultural
development, plantation forestry and tourism. The current condition of the upper sections of
the road and, in particular, its waterway crossings is a detriment to current activities and an
impediment to development. The crossings in general are subject to occasional flooding
from cyclones and some are prone to seasonal flooding.
25. The subprojects comprise: (i) Narata Bridge - repair or replacement of the existing
bridge in the same location or directly adjacent with a two lane high level bridge including
footpaths, handrails and guardrails. Replacement would involve demolition of the existing
structure; and (ii) Matewale Crossing – replacement of the existing Irish crossing (culverted
low-level causeway) with either a new Irish crossing or a higher level bridge at the same
location or the construction of a high level bridge on a new road approach alignment
upstream. The existing structure would be demolished.

4
Projects are classified as category A if they are likely to have significant adverse impacts that are
irreversible, diverse, or unprecedented. These impacts may affect an area larger than the sites or facilities
subject to physical works. Category B projects have impacts that are less adverse than category A, and the
impacts are site-specific, few if any are irreversible, and in most cases mitigation measures can be readily
designed. Category C projects have minimal or no adverse environmental impacts.
 5

1. Narata Bridge

26. Narata Bridge is within Waicoba tikina and located across the Nagalitala Creek, a
tributary of the Sigatoka River (Figure 2). The existing bridge is a three span, 26.3m long,
3.4m wide structure, with a concrete deck on steel girder resting on concrete pile caps and
abutments and concrete pile foundations.
27. The Narata Bridge provides the sole vehicular access to the entire west bank of the
Sigatoka River valley above this point, a population catchment of around 9,800 people. It
also provides access to several schools and other community facilities. The bridge carries
about 440 vehicles per day, including rural bus services to the upper Sigatoka valley and
heavy trucks carrying produce and logs. The bridge also provides access for farm stock and
agricultural tractors, pedestrians and horses which are a common form of local transport in
the valley.
28. The deck, pilecaps, piles and abutments of the bridge have suffered damage from
past flood debris impacts, in particular logs (Plate 1). The existing bridge poses a road
safety risk due to its narrow width, the lack of guard railing, footpath, end markers or
protection. There is a risk that further damage or deterioration could cause the bridge to be
load-limited or possibly closed to traffic.
Figure 2 - Location of Narata Bridge, Sigatoka Valley Road
6

Plate 1: Narata Bridge looking west. Note the narrow width, damaged kerb, scour of abutments
and accumulation of logs and debris from floods.

29. Repair option. The repair of the bridge would involve the addition of kerbs and
guardrails to improve safety and repair to the mortar on the deck and on the pier-caps where
spalling has occurred. It would be necessary to close the bridge to traffic during any period
of repairs to the bridge deck, however, the bridge could potentially remain open while repairs
are being made to the substructure and abutments (depending on the nature of the work
involved).
30. No land acquisition, vegetation removal, or river bed disturbance (such as pile
driving) would be required as part of repairs to the existing bridge. Repair works are
estimated as taking only three to four months in total to complete.
31. Replacement option. The complete replacement of the Narata Bridge would involve
either the construction of a new two lane bridge 31m long on the upstream side of the
existing bridge (the existing bridge would be demolished), or the construction of a new two
lane bridge in the existing bridge location (see drawings in Annex 1).
32. A new bridge on the upstream side of the existing would be single span with steel
welded plate I girders and a composite concrete deck. It would have two 3.5m wide lanes,
0.6m shoulders and a 1.7m footway in accordance with FRA standards. This gives a total
bridge width of 7.6.m. The new bridge deck level would be raised by approximately 1m so
that it is accessible under more commonly occurring flood conditions. The bridge will still get
submerged during extreme flood events but it is noted that most of Sigatoka Valley will be
impassable at these times.
33. Construction methodology would be confirmed by the contractor but it is assumed
that the piles would be constructed with a piling rig from the bank without the need for
temporary trestles or embankment in the river. The beams would then be lifted into position
using a mobile crane and the bridge deck constructed. The deck could be either cast insitu
concrete or precast in segments, craned into position and stitched together with concrete
pour strips.
 7

34. A new bridge would necessitate the relocation of existing powerlines on the upstream
side of the bridge and a small amount of land acquisition for the minor road realignment (see
drawings in Annex 1).
35. Only minor vegetation removal immediately adjacent to the road approaches would
be required with this option and there are no notable species. Excavation and disposal of
about 2,000 m3 of spoil is likely to be required for embankments.
36. The alternative to constructing a new structure adjacent to the existing bridge is to
construct a temporary single span Bailey Bridge or equivalent alongside the structure. The
existing bridge would then be demolished and a new structure as described above
constructed whilst traffic is diverted to the temporary structure. This option would also
involve the acquisition of a small amount of land to accommodate a minor road realignment
to direct traffic over the temporary structure (see drawings in Annex 1).
37. The type of plant likely to be required for replacement works at Narata (and
depending on the construction methodology used by the contractor and which option is
implemented) includes:
 A piling rig (for construction of piles)
 Mobile crane (for lifting beams, deck pieces into place)
 Digger
 Trucks for carting aggregate
 Roller (for compaction)
 Concrete batching plant (for screening and crushing aggregate)
 Screening plant
 Crushing plant (depending on the nature of source material)
 Transporters (for precast beams made offsite, etc.)
 Pump (for extracting water, drainage, etc.).
 Jackhammer and compressor (for demolition)
38. The design and construction supervision will be undertaken by FRA or its
consultants. The road will be constructed by contractors. It is expected that approximately
75% of the required labor for construction works can be sourced locally. The remainder is
expected to be skilled labor resources not available locally such as specialist machinery
operators, contract managers, etc. Replacement works are expected to take between six
and nine months for the above options.

2. Matewale Crossing

39. Matewale crossing is within the Noikoro tikina, located across the Wema Creek, a
tributary of the Sigatoka River (Figure 3). The Matewale crossing is located approximately
57.6km from Sigatoka town, and is a single lane Irish Crossing on a gravel road. It is 22.8m
long and 4.3m wide and approximately 2m above the bed level (see drawings in Annex 1).
40. The original crossing has suffered serious damage from flood scouring beneath it
and has settled significantly, with a rotation of the whole crossing of about 200mm upstream
being evident. The end 6m on one side has collapsed completely and an embankment has
been constructed to maintain access (Plate 2). It is likely that in a significant flood in the near
future the crossing will become impassable thus cutting off all traffic to the upper Sigatoka
valley above this point, until a temporary crossing or ford is constructed. Several villages
upstream of this location, including villages on the eastern bank of the Sigatoka via the
Draubuta Crossing, rely on the Matewale Crossing for access.
8

Figure 3 - Location of Matewale Crossing, Sigatoka Valley Road

Plate 2: Matewale Crossing. Note the fill in the foreground for temporary repair.

41. A number of causeways are believed to have been built and washed out in the past
at this crossing. Under flood conditions the crossing is regularly overtopped by up to 1.2m of
water. The existing causeway is not economically repairable, so would be either replaced
with a new structure consisting of either another low level structure of improved design or a
higher level bridge at the same location, or a bridge about 130m upstream of the present
location with modified road approaches.
 9

42. Replacement crossing. A replacement Irish crossing would be constructed adjacent

to the existing crossing on the downstream side, and then the existing crossing demolished.
This may require the acquisition of a very small area of additional property depending on
where the road reserve boundaries are located (see drawings in Annex 1). The existing
crossing would be used as the temporary crossing during construction works.
43. The replacement Irish crossing would be provided with extensive aprons to protect
against scour. Upstream sloping walls would also be provided to help shed flood debris (and
minimize past debris related structural problems) during high flows.
44. Although the construction methodology would be confirmed by the contractor, it is
likely the crossing would be constructed from precast concrete components, stitched
together on site with concrete pours. The replacement crossing would be 23m long
comprising seven barrels and approximately 2m overall depth (see drawings in Annex 1).
The minor road realignment to access the new or temporary structure built alongside of the
existing Irish crossing would require the removal of some minor vegetation from the banks of
the creek.
45. Construction time is expected to be in the order of six months and work would need
to be carried out in the drier months of the year.
46. Replacement by bridge at existing location. The alternative to a replacement Irish
crossing is the construction of a new 44m long single lane bridge on the downstream side of
the existing crossing. The existing structure would then be demolished (see drawings in
Annex 1). This would require the acquisition of some additional property, but a similar area
of the existing road area can be released back at the end of construction following road
realignment.
47. The new bridge would be provided with sufficient flood opening and deck elevation to
carry a 100year flood in accordance with current FRA standards.
48. The new bridge has been assumed to be two spans, with steel welded plate I girders
and a composite concrete deck. These would be carried by a concrete central piercap and
concrete abutment beams, all supported on driven or bored concrete piles (see drawings in
Annex 1). The piles in the river can be constructed from a rig working on a small
embankment in the river, accessed off the existing crossing, during periods of low flow. The
beams could then be lifted into position using a mobile crane and the bridge deck
constructed. As for Narata the deck could be either cast insitu concrete or precast in
segments, craned into position and stitched together with concrete pour strips. Construction
time is estimated to take approximately 8 to 10 months in total.
49. Replacement by bridge at alternative location. Another option for the Matewale
crossing is to construct a new bridge at an alternative location approximately 130m upstream
of the existing crossing. This option has been suggested by FRA as it would allow an
improved road alignment (see drawings in Annex 1).
50. A bridge in this location would be about 44m length. The new alignment is
approximately 250m long and would require significant earthworks to allow construction of a
road with gradients not exceeding the 13%, which currently exists for the adjacent road. It
requires extensive land acquisition and significant earthworks (approximately 30,000 cubic
meters) and vegetation clearance along a 20m wide corridor (Figure 4) on the southern side.
Construction would take approximately nine months to one year.
10

Figure 4 - Location of existing Matewale crossing and potential new bridge location

Earthworks required to
create a 5m high
embankment for the
high level bridge

Vegetation clearance
(20 m wide corridor)

51. The type of plant likely to be required for replacement works at Matewale (and
depending on the construction methodology used by the contractor and what option is
implemented) includes:
 A piling rig (for construction of bridge piles)
 Mobile crane (for lifting beams, deck pieces into place)
 Digger and bulldozer (for earthworks)
 Trucks for carting aggregate
 Roller (for compaction)
 Concrete batching plant (for screening and crushing aggregate)
 Screening plant
 Crushing plant (depending on nature of source material)
 Transporters (for precast beams made offsite, etc.)
 Pump (for extracting water, drainage, etc.).
 Jackhammer with a compressor (for demolition works)
52. The design and construction supervision will be undertaken by FRA or its
consultants. The crossings will be constructed by contractors. It is expected that
approximately 75% of the required labor for construction works can be sourced locally. The
remainder is expected to be skilled labor resources not available locally such as specialist
machinery operators, contract managers etc.
 11

D. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

53. The alternatives considered below are the various options for each of the sites to
remedy existing problems with safe and reliable access. As the Narata Bridge and Matewale
crossing are sample subprojects under the project consideration of other bridges has not
been included here (as these may well form subprojects themselves in the future).

1. Narata Bridge

54. The main options for Narata Bridge include repair of the existing structure,
replacement with a similar structure, replacement with an improved bridge/Irish crossing and
do nothing.
55. Physical resources. The options for Narata Bridge will have varying impacts on the
physical resources of the site. Potential impacts will be limited to the water and land
resources as all options will not impact on the topography, geology or soils of the area. It is
noted that the physical resources (such as water quality and land) are already modified in
the subproject area by agriculture and the existing road and bridge.
56. The do nothing and repair options will have no impact on the physical resources of
the site but do not provide for future climate change impacts such as an increased frequency
of extreme flood events. This may result in the crossing suffering from severe damage and
failure in the future.
57. The option of replacement with a similar structure or low level Irish crossing may
have some minor impacts on water quality during construction works (and associated
sediment disturbance and runoff) but will have no impact on the surrounding land. These
options will also not provide for future climate change impacts as discussed under the do
nothing and repair options above.
58. The replacement of the existing structure with an improved bridge may have impacts
on water quality during construction but these are expected to be minor. This option will
provide the ability to adapt to future climate change impacts as the new structure will have
an improved design to better mitigate the effects of more frequent and extreme flood events
(such as a raised bridge deck level and less piles to allow for more flood debris to pass
under unimpeded).
59. Ecological resources. All options are likely to have only minor impacts on ecological
resources. This is because the site is already heavily modified with the surrounding
agricultural land uses (and associated pesticide and fertilizer runoff), village developments
upstream (that are on septic for waste water disposal) and the existing road and bridge
crossing.
60. However, the do nothing and repair options will involve the least modification to
existing terrestrial vegetation and will result in no disturbance of aquatic ecology as there will
be no works in the bed of the creek and no earthworks that could result in sediment runoff.
61. Socio-economic resources. In the case of the Narata Bridge the option of doing
nothing is not considered a feasible long term option as the bridge is in a state of disrepair
and may soon be rendered unusable by local people who are reliant upon it for access to
schools, medical facilities, etc. It is also a health and safety hazard due to the narrow width
and absence of guardrails, which is a concern given the high volume of pedestrian traffic,
including school children, who regularly use the bridge.
62. The option of replacing Narata Bridge with a similar design of bridge would remedy
the existing structural concerns but would not provide for the safety of pedestrians utilizing
the structure and the high volumes of traffic (due to the narrow width).
12

63. The replacement of the existing bridge with a lower level Irish crossing would be a
less costly option than a bridge, but it is likely to result in the structure being unusable during
floods and may have an impact on people’s livelihoods (if they can’t access schools, medical
facilities, work places).
64. The replacement of the existing bridge with a new bridge of improved design to
provide two lanes and a footpath for pedestrians will require some land acquisition for a
minor realignment of road approaches but in the long term will have positive impacts on
people’s ability to safely cross the creek as well as improve people’s livelihoods through the
provision of more reliable access.
65. Summary. It is considered that the replacement of the existing structure with a new
bridge of improved design that provides two lanes, a footpath, handrail and guardrails is the
best option to meet the safety and reliability objectives of the project. Although this option
would have the greatest potential for impacts on ecological and physical resources (as it
involves the greatest amount of construction work), the positive social and economic impacts
outweigh any minor adverse impacts.

2. Matewale Crossing

66. The options considered for the Matewale crossing is repair, replacement of the
existing Irish crossing with either a new Irish crossing or a high level bridge, the construction
of a new bridge in a new location or do nothing.
67. Physical resources. The options for Matewale crossing will have varying impacts on
the physical resources of the site. The subproject location is modified by the existing road
and Irish crossing and upstream agriculture (currently planted in watermelon).
68. The do nothing and repair of the existing crossing options will have the least impact
on physical resources as they will not involve works within the streambed (and will have no
sediment runoff or turbidity issues) and will not modify the topography or geology of the area.
However, these options will not account for future climate change and the predicted increase
in frequency of extreme flood events is likely to result in severe damage to the existing
structure so that it fails completely in the future. Even in the absence of climate change
impacts, the structure is likely to continue to suffer damage from existing floods and require
replacement in the short term.
69. The option of replacing the existing Irish crossing with a new Irish crossing of
improved design will have minor impacts on water quality as there will be works within the
creek associated with constructing the new structure. Although the improved design of a new
Irish crossing will provide for the impacts of existing flood impacts, it is noted that the
structure will be subject to an increased frequency of severe flood events as a result of
climate change and will likely require more maintenance, and potentially more frequent
repairs/replacement in the future.
70. The option of constructing a new bridge at the existing location will also have minor
impacts on water resources but negligible impact on land resources (topography, geology,
soils). A high level bridge in this location will better mitigate any future climate change impact
as it will better withstand an increased frequency of flood events.
71. The option of constructing a high level bridge in a new location upstream of the
existing structure will result in the modification of the topography of the area through the
significant amount of earthworks required to create embankments for the new road
approaches to the bridge. The bridge itself would be approximately 45m long and
embankments 5m high would need to be constructed on the northern side. It will also have
a greater potential to impact on water resources through increased sediment runoff from
exposed surfaces associated with the large volume of earthworks and vegetation clearance
required to provide a new road corridor.
 13

72. As above, it is expected that a high level bridge will better mitigate any future climate
change impact as it will better withstand an increased frequency of flood events.
73. Ecological resources. The do nothing and repair options will have negligible impact
on ecological resources as no earthworks, vegetation clearance and works within the creek
bed will be required.
74. The replacement of the existing low level crossing with either a new low level
crossing or a high level bridge will require some minor roadside vegetation clearance and
earthworks to allow for a minor realignment of the road approaches as well as some works
within the creek bed. There may therefore be some minor adverse impacts on terrestrial
ecology and aquatic ecology (although nothing of significance is present).
75. The option of constructing a high level bridge in a new location upstream of the
existing structure is likely to have the greatest impact of all options on terrestrial ecology.
This is because, although there are no protected areas, critical natural habitat or forests,
there will be clearance of previously unmodified vegetation to provide for the new road
corridor. It will also have a greater potential to impact on aquatic ecology through the larger
volume of earthworks required and therefore increased potential for turbidity in the
watercourse.
76. Socio-economic resources. In the case of the Matewale crossing the option of do
nothing is not considered feasible as it is likely that the crossing will continue to suffer flood
damage and scouring that will make the structure unusable in the near future. As the
structure provides access to a number of villages further up the valley it is likely to have a
significant impact on people’s livelihoods (access to medical facilities, work places, etc.) if it
is unusable.
77. The repair of the existing structure is also not considered feasible as the existing
damage is so significant that repairs would not remedy the existing issues and the crossing
would likely fail within the next five years, impacting on peoples livelihoods.
78. The replacement of the existing structure with a new Irish crossing of improved
design would extend the life of the crossing, remedy existing structural issues and improve
the safety of users. However, it is possible that over time the crossing will need to be
repaired or replaced as the existing crossing has, according to local people, already been
damaged by floods and replaced many times before. The local communities have raised
concerns during consultation that another Irish crossing will suffer the same damage as the
existing structure. This may impact on people’s livelihoods if they cannot reliably access
medical facilities and their places of work/worship, etc. in the future. The need for continuous
repairs/replacements of the low level structure would also come with an economic cost as
ongoing repairs/replacements are likely to be more frequently required.
79. The new high level bridge at an upstream location would require a larger amount of
land acquisition than all other options. However, the land is currently planted in watermelon
and has parts that are very steep (and is considered low economic value as it not able to be
used for agriculture) and so is not considered to be a significant socio-economic impact.
80. Summary. Overall the higher level bridge in the same location as the existing low
level crossing is considered to be the option that offers the greatest potential positive socio-
economic impacts, whilst minimizing adverse impacts on physical, ecological and socio-
economic resources.
14

E. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL CONTEXT

(BASELINE DATA)

81. The following description of the existing environment and social context is derived
from field inspection, consultation with key stakeholders and the community. The area has
not been well researched in the past and existing information on the physical, ecological and
socio-economic resources is limited. Household surveys were conducted to gather
information for the socio-economic baseline but no other technical investigations were
undertaken as part of the collation of background information. However, the probability of
significant ecosystems or resources being present is considered low as the sites are already
modified.

1. Overview of Sigatoka Valley

82. The subproject area is located in the western climatic zone of Viti Levu, which is
characterized by a dry season from June through to October. The annual rainfall is about
1900mm a year and the prevailing wind is from the southeast.
83. The soils found on the lower valley river flats are deep fertile alluvial soils. These
soils are capable of supporting intensive agricultural use. The Sigatoka valley is known as
the ‘salad bowl’ of Fiji for the intensive cropping and agricultural use of the area. The lower
parts of the valley have crops including pawpaw, maize, eggplant, passion fruit, cassava,
cabbage, sweet corn, okra, tomatoes and cabbage. Further up Sigatoka Valley root crops
and cassava are the more predominant agricultural crops. A household survey undertaken in
nearby villages has shown that the majority of those who are economically active are
farmers. Some farmers are semi-commercial and sell their produce locally at the Sigatoka
markets or at Suva.
84. The total population of the west Sigatoka valley is estimated to be around 9,850 of
which some 76% live beyond the end of the sealed section of road. The population of the
project area is 7,740, males comprise 51% of the population and females comprise 49%.
Based on the 2007 population census enumeration area data and allowing for growth of
3.8% between 2007 and 2014, the catchment above Tuvu is estimated to be 4,750 and
above the Namada River a further 2,500 people.
Table 1: Population of Upper Sigatoka Valley
Total Male Female
Indicators of the population
(no.) (no.) (no.)
Total population 7740 3919 3821
Under 25 years 659 345 314
Education
Primary 2277 1191 1086
Secondary 4023 2032 1992
Tertiary 229 527 140
Other 1141 537 604
Employment
Paid-work 978 709 269
Paid work & sale of produce 354 295 59
Subsistence only 635 270 365
Unemployed and subsistence 680 370 310
Not economically active 266 146 120
 15

Unemployed and looking for work 3037 1965 1072

Economically active 4437 1808 2629
85. Indigenous Fijians (iTaukei) account for 5,403 or nearly 70% of the valley population,
and Indo-Fijians account for 2,282 or 29%, with a few Rotuman and others making up the
remaining 1%. Most of the Indo-Fijians live on leased or freehold land in the lower part of
the valley, typically on their farms or in settlements, while iTaukei live in villages.
86. There are 15 primary and secondary schools in the middle and upper Sigatoka
valley, some serving villages on both west and east banks.
87. The subprojects will provide safe and reliable access directly to the villages, schools
and farming settlements up the Sigatoka Valley. No other practical access is available in the
event that the water crossings which are the subject of this assessment are closed or reach
a state of disrepair that they have to be load restricted.

2. Narata Bridge Subproject Area

a) Physical Resources
88. The topography of the area is generally flat. The Nagalitala Creek is approximately
15m wide and 1m deep at the crossing site. It extends from hill country, some 15km to the
north and meanders down to flow into the Sigatoka River approximately 5 km below the
bridge. The river bed is muddy silt with some gravel in the location of the bridge with more
pockets of gravel further up in the creek bed. The Nadroga/Navosa Rural Local Authority has
advised that there is an existing EIA study lodged with DOE for gravel extraction from the
creek in the vicinity of Narata Village. However a copy of the EIA was not available to
confirm details such as the exact location of the proposed extraction site, the quantity
required, and the timing.
89. The creek is low flowing during the dry season and it floods 3-4 times per year.
During floods, the creek would have an increased suspended sediment load and carry a lot
of debris, as evidenced by the trees and branches that have accumulated around the
existing bridge piles.
90. The road approach alignment is straight on either side of the bridge. The stream bed
is approximately 5 meters below the level of the road. The bridge does not carry any
services such as water pipelines or other conduits. There are powerlines supported on
pylons on the upstream side of the bridge, extending across the creek.
91. A side road access to Rararua Village is located approximately 300m east of the
bridge, and a side road access to Narata Village approximately 500m to the west of the
bridge. Wastewater from Narata Village is disposed of by septic systems (land based
discharge) and this has likely impacted on water quality of the creek.
b) Ecological Resources
92. The ecological character of the surrounding area is highly modified due to the
intensive agricultural use of the land. There is no vegetation with biodiversity or conservation
significance adjacent to the road approaches. There are no records of critical or natural
terrestrial habitats or forests within the subproject area. There are existing rain trees (Albizia
saman) located adjacent to the road/bridge but these have been introduced into Fiji and
have no special characteristics to merit their protection. There are many other rain trees
along this particular stretch of creek.
93. There are no records of critical or natural aquatic habitats at the subproject site.
Given the level of modification of the area, including upstream land disposal of wastewater
and the use of agricultural pesticides and fertilizers confirmed during consultation, the
aquatic ecology of the creek is not expected to have any species of significance or particular
16

sensitivity. The most common fish species in the creek is the introduced fish tilapia, which is
an invasive species.
c) Socio-economic Resources
94. There are three mataqali units (clan) in the subproject area: Nauwakula (Narata
Bridge land ownership unit), Leweidranu and Korololo. The Nauwakula own the land on
both sides of the Sigatoka River. 100% of the people in Narata Village are iTaukei Fijians.
95. The Narata village is further upstream from the Narata Bridge (Figure 5). It is
estimated that there are 200 people living in the village but approximately 400 overall (many
of the villagers stay on their farmlands nearer the main river, where there are several small
settlements). There is extensive market gardening along both banks of Nagalitala Creek
both upstream and downstream of the bridge. The surrounding land is iTaukei land.5 There
are no buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest downstream residence is
100-150m to the southeast (as shown on Figure 5).
Figure 5 – Location of Narata Village and Bridge

Narata Village

Narata Bridge

Nearest residence
to Narata Bridge

96. There is agricultural land on either side of the Nagalitala Creek. Vegetables provide a
fairly steady small income for farmers in the area, but prices are low in the dry season. The
other type of planting is tobacco. This is more profitable than vegetables and the first harvest
pays $3,000.00 (in four months from the time of planting).
97. The Rukuruku District School is located across the Nagalitala Creek from Narata
Village and children frequently cross the creek in low flow conditions to get to and from
school. When the creek is in flood the children utilize the Narata Bridge. Children from

5
Land in customary Fijian ownership
 17

outside of the immediate area come to Rukuruku school via land transport that uses the
bridge.
98. The people use the creek for washing and bathing and often fish in the vicinity of the
bridge. However most fishing is undertaken at Sigatoka River where the fish are bigger and
more plentiful. The Sigatoka River and its tributaries are utilized for irrigation purposes,
bathing and washing. Water supply for the villages is from a gravity feed system, however in
dry months the villages use creek water more often as a water supply. The Rural Local
Authority Public Health Department provides water as a drinking water supply for villages
during dry seasons to avoid waterborne illnesses. However, this is dependent on funding
grants (currently $7,000 per year).
99. According to the Museum of Fiji there are no sites of cultural or historic significance
in the vicinity of the subproject area.

3. Matewale Crossing Subproject Area

a) Physical Resources
100. The topography of the area is rolling to hilly. The Wema Creek is approximately 25m
wide and 0.5m deep at the crossing site (with some scour holes) and flows into the Sigatoka
River approximately 300m downstream of the crossing. About 1.5 km upstream there is a
junction where Tuwalu creek joins the Wema, both creeks being of roughly equal size. Both
creeks originate from further inland (approximately 10km) and are relatively steep in their
upper reaches. The upland valleys are mainly tree-clad with clearance along the ridgelines
and only limited cultivation.
101. The creek is very shallow during low flow conditions with many sand banks visible
both upstream and downstream. The water clarity is moderate and an area upstream of
Matewale crossing was noted during the field inspection as having poor flushing due to the
crossing being blocked and conditions appeared stagnant (with algae and surface scum).
102. During floods, the creek would have an increased suspended sediment load and
carry a lot of debris.
b) Ecological Resources
103. There is no record of protected sites or areas of critical natural habitat within the
study area. However the southern bank of the Wema Creek has extensive vegetation cover
(Plate 3a) that extends up to the road behind. Although the vegetation is well established in
this area, the species include common trees, palms and grasses, most of them introduced
(such as Para Grass, Brachiaria mutica) and some of them invasive (such as the African
Tulip – Spathodea Campanulata). There do not appear to be (from field inspection) any rare
or threatened species.
104. The northern bank of Wema creek is modified as it has been cleared and is currently
planted in watermelon (Plate 3b).
105. The common species of fish caught in the Wema creek include eels and the
introduced fish, tilapia.
18

Plate 3a: Vegetation on southern side of the creek Plate 3b: Modified northern side of the creek

c) Socio-economic Resources
106. There are four mataqali units in the vicinity in the subproject: Mata, Nagudruvolili,
Lawakilevu, and Tavalala. Nagudruvolili own the land near the Matewale Crossing. All of the
people in Wema and Vatubalavu villages are iTaukei Fijians.
107. The closest villages to the Matewale crossing are Wema and Vatubalava. It is
estimated that there are approximately 60 people living in the Wema village (15 households)
and a population of 355 (83 households) in Vatubalavu. 281 people live in the central
Vatubalavu village by the river, and 74 live in a nearby scattered settlement. The land
surrounding the subproject site is iTaukei land.
108. There are no buildings or other man-made structures in the immediate vicinity of the
site. The nearest buildings are to the south east and east at distances of 100m and 130m
respectively from the crossing itself and 75m and 15m respectively from the existing road
approaches. Beyond the nearest houses are scattered houses in a predominately rural
area.
109. Village people use the creek for washing and fishing, however villagers have noted
during consultation that most fishing is undertaken at Sigatoka River where they catch bigger
fish.
110. Vatubalavu Village people grow bananas, cassava, vegetables and a lot of citrus.
However, there are land shortages in this area, and few sources of income, so some
villagers have resorted to growing marijuana as a cash crop (although it is illegal).
111. According to the Museum of Fiji there are no sites of cultural or historic significance
within the subprojects area of influence. It was noted during consultation that there is some
significant caves further up the valley from the Matewale crossing but these are not within
the environmental study area.
 19

F. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS AND

MITIGATION MEASURES

112. The context for the assessment is that the crossings already exist and environmental
impacts would have occurred when they were first constructed. The environment consists of
habitat that has been highly modified by the structures, road, agriculture and other land uses
and the presence of the villages in the surrounding area.
113. The key environmental and social impacts relate to any proposed works that involve
the construction of a new or replacement structure and may be either positive or adverse.
The repair and maintenance of existing structures will have only minor impacts that can be
avoided through careful and adequate environmental mitigation measures during
construction. In this case the ESMP covers potential impacts.
114. The following discussion therefore relates to a consideration of options that involve
full replacement or construction of new structures.

1. Design and Pre-construction impacts

a) Impacts on Physical Resources

115. Physical impacts in the design and pre-construction stage relate to the consideration
of climate change and natural hazard impacts, impacts on topography, geology and soils
impacts as well as impacts that may arise through the course of the project due to
inadequate inclusion of mitigation measures in contract documents and capacity
enhancement/training of contractors at the outset of the project.
116. Impacts associated with inadequate inclusion of mitigation measures in contract
documents and lack of understanding of environmental and social issues can be addressed
through proper inclusion of the ESMP into tender documents and training of contractors in
the requirements of the ESMP, as well as ensuring the ESMP is updated as necessary
following the detailed design phase.
117. Mitigation measures include:
 Obtain lease and development consent for earthworks/structures within a
river/stream as specified in the Crown Lands Act and Town and Country
Planning Act
 ESMP and any conditions of the EIA, development consent and lease are
included in EPC tender documents and mitigation measures appropriately
budgeted for.
 Specify in tender documentation that the contractor shall engage
appropriately qualified and experienced staff to take responsibility for the
environmental and social management as well as safety issues at the working
level and to monitor the effectiveness and review mitigation measures as the
project proceeds.
 EPC contractor to submit a Construction Environmental and Social
Management Plan (CESMP) for approval by DSC (i.e., site clearance, site
drainage, waste and materials management, traffic, noise and dust
management etc.).
118. Climate Change/Natural Hazard Impacts. The subproject areas are located within
a catchment that has periodic flooding of the watercourses. Indeed, the condition of the
crossings is in part due to damage suffered during severe flood events. As both subprojects
are inland, the most significant climate change consideration is an increase in the frequency
of extreme flood events in the future.
20

119. The structures will need to accommodate stronger and faster water flows, which
could be achieved by increasing the height of the water crossings to accommodate
increased flood discharges and by having a single span bridge that will allow for debris
movement during flood (and minimize blockage risk). In addition, if a new low level crossing
is to be installed at Matewale, this should be designed to accommodate a greater level of
flood debris that will be possibly carried during more extreme flood events without causing
the structure to block, such as providing a sloping upstream buttress wall.
120. Mitigation measures include:
 Design criteria in respect of peak flood size and levels to be established
based on available climate change modelling data. In the absence of such
data, design criteria to be demonstrably conservative.
 The proposed works will be designed in accordance with the design criteria
so as to mitigate the future potential impact of climate change.
121. Topography, geology and soils. With the exception of the potential upstream bridge
at Matewale crossing, there are no significant earthworks that would impact on the existing
topography, geology and soils of the subproject sites. A new high level bridge upstream of
the Matewale crossing would require approximately 30,000m 3 of earthworks, including
embankments 5m high for road approaches. Despite this being a significant amount of
earthworks, the topography of the Matewale crossing area is already steep to rolling and so
the proposed earthworks would improve the terrain, particularly from a road user’s safety
perspective.
122. The embankments associated with crossings would be constructed using material cut
from the existing area and so the geology and soils of the subproject sites would not be
altered. No mitigation is considered necessary.
123. Scour/erosion. Structures within a watercourse have the potential to cause
scour/erosion by altering the current flows. This is particularly the case around piers and
piles which slow the current flow on the upstream side and accelerate it on the downstream
side (causing scour). The creeks where the subprojects are located have a very low flow
and slow current speeds when not in flood and so the expected impacts of the replaced
structures during these periods is considered to be minimal. During flood conditions, the
current speeds increase and correspondingly the scour potential. However, mitigation
measures are proposed as follows:
 Minimize the number of piles in bridge design
 Design structures to allow continued flow of water through or appropriate overtopping
in flood.
b) Impacts on Ecological Resources
124. The main ecological impacts that would arise from the design and pre-construction
phase relate to designs that would require significant vegetation clearance, such as new
road alignments through unmodified areas. The terrestrial ecology in the vicinity of the
subprojects is modified already through introduced, and often invasive, flora (such as the
African Tulip) and fauna (such as mongoose) as well as the agricultural crops and existing
road, crossings and villages. Although there is no specific information or studies of the
ecology of the site, there were not any species or habitats of significance (i.e. critical or
natural) observed during field inspection that may be impacted. There are no recorded
protected sites in the project area.
125. It was noted during field inspection that the area on the southern bank of the Wema
creek upstream of the Matewale crossing is densely vegetated and extends right up to the
road. Although an area of this vegetation 20m wide would need to be cleared to provide for
road approaches to a new bridge in this upstream location, it is not critical or natural habitat
and so impacts will be minor. However, mitigation should be provided as follows:
 Adjust alignment of access roads to minimize need for removing large trees.
 21

 Minimize the width of the vegetation clearance corridor for the realigned road
if the bridge upstream of Matewale crossing is implemented.
 Mark the boundary of vegetation clearance corridors with high visibility tape to
ensure construction workers are aware of clearance boundaries.
c) Impacts on Socio-economic Resources
126. Loss of high value land through land acquisition. There is potential for the loss of
valuable agricultural land through realignment of roads if good land is taken and
unproductive land is returned post-works. The requirement for land, especially land that is
considered high value due to the economic returns it offers the landowner, can have an
impact on the economic prosperity of locals. However, if only small parcels of land are
required, such is the case for the realignments associated with replacement crossings
adjacent to existing structures, the impacts will be minor.
127. The most significant impact would be associated with a new bridge structure
upstream of the Matewale Crossing. The land would be required on both sides of the creek.
Part of this land is heavily vegetated and is not currently used for economic gain. The
northern side of the creek in this location has a crop of watermelon which has just been
planted. Overall it is anticipated that the project shall acquire minimum or no land, and
provided appropriate compensation, as outlined in the LARF and the LARP that was
prepared for the Sigatoka Valley Year 1 sub-projects.
128. The impacts of land acquisition can be mitigated as follows:

 Design road realignments to take into account the value of land and to
minimize the area required.

 No physical displacement of people, either on an individual household basis

or through the acquisition of public properties such as schools, churches or
other community centers should occur.

 Stockpiles and construction camps to be located on lower value land or public

land.

 Loss of land is to be compensated through measures outlined in LARP.

2. Construction Impacts

a) Impacts on Physical Resources

129. Climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. There will be greenhouse gas
emissions from construction vehicles, although this will be temporary and is not expected to
be a significant contributor to overall greenhouse gases.
130. Fiji has emission and air quality standards which are provided in Schedule 5 (Part B),
Part 4 of the Environmental Management Regulations 2007. This regulation indicates that “a
point source of an air polluting substance should not, in isolation or combination with any
other source of that substance, cause a concentration of that substance in the ambient air to
exceed the emission standards set out.”
131. Since the impact on air quality is likely to be minimal and associated with
construction stage only and machinery will be maintained and serviced regularly to minimize
emissions, the standards are not expected to be exceeded.
22

132. Water quality. There is potential for an increased suspended sediment load in the
watercourse during construction works that are within the bed of the creek or from runoff
from surrounding earthworks. There is also the potential for oils and hydrocarbons from
machinery to impact on water quality during construction.
133. Significant sediment loads or contaminants from spills, for example, could be carried
downstream to eventually discharge into the Sigatoka River. The main potential sources of
discharge are any excavation works on slopes above the watercourse, fill works and
machinery movements within a stream bed, spills of hydrocarbons adjacent to watercourses,
sediment disturbance during piling and from runoff from spoil disposal or stockpile areas.
134. It is noted that potential impacts on water quality are temporary and relate to the
construction phase only. These impacts are expected to be no more significant than the
periodic flood conditions, when the level of suspended sediment in rivers naturally increases.
135. Earthworks as part of the subprojects will have roughly equal cut to fill and so it is not
expected that there will be excess materials or spoil to dispose of following construction
works. Earthworks are also not significant and therefore it is not considered necessary to
have a spoil management plan. Water quality impacts proposed works can be mitigated as
follows:
 Schedule excavation activities in the drier months (Jun - Oct)
 Minimize the width of vegetation clearance corridor for the realigned road if
the bridge upstream of Matewale crossing is implemented
 Immediately re-vegetate and/or stabilize exposed surfaces and stockpiles of
excavated material
 Implement effective construction site drainage such that runoff is directed to
sediment traps before discharge to water course
 Locate stockpiles away from watercourses
 Install cut-off drains above excavated areas on steep slopes to reduce
erosion
 Works in and around river to ensure there is no blockage of the waterway at
anytime
 Minimize any machinery movements within creek beds
 No machinery refueling to occur within 20 m of watercourses
 Install river bank protection measures (gabion baskets etc.) at bridge
abutments
 As far as possible ensure cut to fill balance.
 Effective construction supervision to ensure the above measures are
implemented.
136. Riverbed extraction. The construction materials for the upgrading of crossings will
be small quantities required for concrete aggregates. For example a replacement bridge of
the size of Narata would need about 200m3 for the bridge concrete and 300-400m 3 for the
approach roads. Materials are likely to be sourced from the Sigatoka River which can
accommodate small takes much better than smaller tributaries.
137. The river has been used for a long time as the source of road aggregate. We are
aware, through consultation with DOE, that there are a number of unauthorized gravel
extraction activities occurring in the Sigatoka River. There is no information on what has
been extracted or what is a sustainable extraction rate or the impacts of extraction.
 23

138. In the absence of a suitable alternative for construction materials the extraction of
river gravels will need to minimize the potential for any adverse effects. In this respect,
existing gravel supplies will be used where possible to minimize the requirement for
extraction.
139. If riverbed extraction is required the contractor will be required to prepare an
aggregate extraction plan and ensure that a gravel extraction permit is obtained, issued by
the Ministry of Lands and Mineral Resources either to a supplier or directly to the contractor
for the extraction of materials. The gravel extraction plan should be incorporated as part of a
CESMP to be developed by the contractor prior to works and that will be based on the EIA
and ESMP and the existing COEP. Extraction will not commence until Ministry of Lands and
Mineral Resources has issued the permit. The following mitigation measures are proposed:
 Investigate viable alternatives to river gravel
 Prepare a gravel extraction plan, including determining volumes required and
incorporate as part of a wider construction ESMP (CESMP).
 Riverbed gravel extraction permit obtained if required.
 No gravel extraction from the active river channel.
 Extraction spread out over a number of different extraction locations.
140. Waste storage and disposal. During construction waste will be generated by
construction workers (general waste and packaging), and through the replacement of
existing structures which will require old structures to be demolished. In most cases, much
of the demolished material may be reused in the construction of other structures under the
project or in the new structure itself. The remainder of the non-toxic material may be
provided to the local community (if useful) or will be taken offsite and disposed of to an
appropriate location (such as landfill). The impacts of solid waste storage and disposal will
be mitigated as follows:
 Prepare and implement a Waste Management Plan (WMP) as part of CESMP
before construction to cover all aspects of waste storage disposal and
accidental spills. The WMP is to be approved in writing by FRA’s environment
manager/DSC one month prior to starting works. Contractor to implement the
WMP provisions.
 Segregation of wastes shall be observed.
 Recyclables shall be recovered and either reused in other crossing
construction or sold to recyclers.
 Residual wastes shall be disposed of in disposal sites approved by local
authorities and not located within 500m of rivers or streams.
 Construction offices and facilities shall be provided with garbage bins
 Burning of construction and domestic wastes shall be prohibited.
 Disposal of solid wastes into drainage ditches and public areas shall be
prohibited.
 All general solid waste will be collected and removed from the work areas and
disposed in local waste disposal sites as identified by the waste management
plan.
141. Hazardous substances. The use and storage of hazardous substances during
construction can impact on physical soil and water resources if they accidentally spill or leak
into the environment and if hazardous materials are not properly disposed of.
24

142. Hazardous substances that will be stored as part of the construction of the
subprojects will be machinery fuels and oil. Hazardous waste in the form of used batteries,
fuel drums and oily wastes may require disposal as part of the construction works. To
mitigate the impacts of hazardous substance use the contractor will be required to
implement the following:
 Hydrocarbons and toxic material will be stored in adequately protected sites
consistent with international best practices to prevent soil and water
contamination.
 All areas intended for storage of hazardous materials will be quarantined and
provided with adequate facilities to combat emergency situations.
 Segregate hazardous wastes (oily wastes, used batteries, fuel drums) and
ensure that storage, transport and disposal shall not cause pollution and shall
be undertaken consistent with international best practice.
 Ensure all storage containers are in good condition with proper labeling.
 Regularly check containers for leakage and undertake necessary repair or
replacement.
 Store hazardous materials above possible flood level (although it is noted
construction works are to occur during dry season when floods are less
likely).
 Discharge of oil contaminated water shall be prohibited.
 Used oil and other toxic and hazardous materials shall be disposed of off-site
at a facility authorized by permit.
 Ensure availability of spill clean-up materials (e.g., absorbent pads, etc.)
specifically designed for petroleum products and other hazardous substances
where such materials are being stored.
 Spillage, if any, will be immediately cleared with utmost caution to leave no
traces.
 No refueling of vehicles within 20m of a watercourse.
b) Impacts on Ecological Resources
143. Aquatic ecology. The replacement or construction of new structures has the
potential to impact on aquatic ecology through decreased water quality, disturbance to
river/creek bed sediments and vibration from piling.
144. Although there is no technical information on the aquatic ecology in the vicinity of the
proposed works, it is likely to be typical of modified areas and have no species of
significance (e.g. native, endangered or rare) or critical or natural habitats that may be
impacted by the subprojects. Consultation with local village people has confirmed that the
types of fish species caught are representative of a modified environment (i.e. introduced
fish species such as tilapia).
145. Water quality impacts and appropriate mitigation measures has been discussed
under physical resources above. It is considered that with mitigation in the form of erosion
and sediment runoff control, appropriate hazardous substances storage and disposal,
minimization of vegetation clearance, and refueling of machinery at least 20m from
watercourses, the water quality will not be significantly degraded and aquatic ecology
impacts minor.
146. Piling causes vibration which may impact on aquatic species that cannot move away
from the noise source. Species that inhabit the riverbed sediments are also directly affected
 25

from piling. However, the new bridges will be single span, reducing the number of piles
required and there are no records of any critical or natural species or habitats that would be
at risk.
147. Terrestrial ecology. Terrestrial ecology may be impacted during construction through
noise, dust and vibration.
148. During construction noise and vibration may impact on fauna but will be limited to
those species that can’t move away from the disturbance. Given the works will be temporary,
there are not likely to be any endangered or rare species, and most species will be able to
move away from the source of the disturbance, it is not considered that there will be
significant adverse impacts on fauna. However, to limit the impacts the following will be
undertaken:
 Construction machinery will be maintained to a good standard and shall be
equipped with muffler silencers.
 Limit the use of machinery that causes vibrational impacts as far as
practicable.
149. Dust from construction vehicles and exposed soil can impact on adjacent vegetation
health and function. The dust will not be chemically active (such as highly alkaline limestone
a highly acidic dust) and so impacts are limited to physical impacts such as leaf surface
abrasion or blocking of the plants’ stomata and a reduction in photosynthetic abilities.
However, the subprojects are in an area where dust is already occurring from road surfaces
as they are currently unsealed and the volume of construction traffic is not expected to
significantly increase the dust loading vegetation currently receives. Dust impacts on
vegetation will therefore be minor and no mitigation is necessary.
c) Impacts on Socio-economic Resources
150. Construction camp, site offices and works yards/compounds. A construction
camp will not be required as the workforce is small and can be accommodated for the short
period of the works in existing lodgings in Sigatoka town. There will be the need to identify
and use (temporary basis) work sites and are or compound for storage of materials and
equipment. The presence of camps, site offices and works yards/compounds within a rural
community such as the subprojects can cause an adverse impact through the increased
disturbance, noise and waste generated by camps and work sites, especially if the sites are
located close to village areas and houses. The temporary sites/compounds can also be the
cause of conflict, especially if many workers are brought in from outside of the local area.
The impacts can be mitigated by:
 Locating the site office, facilities and storage site/compound in an area
agreed with the local community in association with the Turanga-ni-Koro
(elected administrative head of each village) and having the facilities
approved by FRA’s environment manager/DSC. The sites should be in
accordance with the protocols established in the CPP and GRM.
 Providing potable water, clean water for showers, hygienic sanitation
facilities/toilets with sufficient water supply, worker canteen/rest area and first
aid facilities onsite.
 Separate toilets shall be provided for male and female workers.
 Hiring and training as many local workers as possible for construction.
 Installing adequate toilet facilities and prohibiting open defecation. The use of
toilets will be encouraged by keeping toilet facilities clean at all times.
 All waste materials shall be removed and disposed to disposal sites approved
by local authorities.
26

 At the completion of the works contractor’s facilities area, sites and storage
compound area shall be rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the land owner,
and the area cleaned up to the satisfaction of FRA’s environment manager/
Turanga-ni-Koro after use.
151. Worker health and safety. A number of activities, plant and products can give rise to
health and safety impacts for workers during the construction phase. Most of these impacts
can be managed and/or mitigated. The potential impacts are (i) contamination of local water
supplies by potential contaminants such as sediments, fuel products and lubricants (ii) air
pollution from exhaust fumes and dust giving rise to respiratory conditions; (iii) risk of
accidents at work sites; and (iv) spread of communicable diseases.
152. To avoid these impacts contractors will observe general health and safety
requirements and as a minimum must be compliant with the Labour Act of 1978 and the
Safety at Work Act of 1996. The WB Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines will apply
to the project.
153. The contractor will provide personal protective equipment (PPE) to construction
workers suitable for civil work such as safety boots, helmets, gloves, high visibility vests,
protective clothes, goggles, and ear protection at no cost to the workers. The contractor will
also prepare a health and safety plan (HSP) instructing workers in health and safety matters.
This plan is to be approved in writing by FRA’s environment manager/DSC one month prior
to starting works. All workers will receive training from the contractor on the HSP as well as
general environmental, safety and environmental hygiene.
154. Mitigation measures are proposed as follows:
 Contractor to prepare a Health and Safety Plan (HSP) instructing workers in
health and safety matters. The HSP is to be approved in writing by FRA’s
environment manager/DSC one month prior to starting works. Contractor to
implement HSP provisions.
 Before construction commences the contractor will conduct training for all
workers on environment, safety and hygiene. The contractor will instruct
workers in health and safety matters as required by good engineering practice
and provide first aid facilities.
 Workers shall be provided (before they start work) with appropriate PPE
suitable for civil work such as safety boots, helmets, gloves, protective
clothes, goggles, and ear protection at no cost to the workers. Site
agents/foremen will follow up to see that the safety equipment is used and not
sold on.
 Fencing shall be installed on all areas of excavation greater than 1m deep
and at sides of temporary works.
 Provision of potable water supply in all work locations.
155. Community health and safety. Construction will involve a number of truck
movements within and around the subprojects sites, including large equipment transporters
and general construction traffic (workers transport, etc.). Most construction traffic will utilize
existing roads and crossings as haulage routes. The increase in vehicle movements has the
potential to place people using the area at risk, particularly children. This risk can be avoided
by ensuring specific measures are undertaken to protect the users of the crossing including
using traffic control such as stop/go men to control and regulate the movement of people
through construction areas and timing the works to avoid the periods when people are most
frequently using the crossing, such as the start and finish of the work/school day. The
provision of a temporary structure will also provide safe access through the area during
construction works.
 27

156. The presence of a construction crew at the location for extended periods can
increase the risk of spread of communicable diseases, including HIV, to the local community.
Mitigation measures are proposed including the following:
 Provide a temporary access across the watercourse to facilitate safe access
during construction.
 Timing of large scale construction works to occur outside of frequent use,
such as the start and finish of the work/school day.
 Include in HSP the use of barriers (e.g., temporary fence). These shall be
installed at construction areas to deter pedestrian access except at
designated crossing points.
 The general public/local residents shall not be allowed in high-risk areas
 Provide warning signs at periphery of site warning public not to enter
 Traffic control measures during construction shall be provided and included in
the CESMP. Traffic control shall include the use of stop/go men/women and
strict imposition of speed limits through the site.
 Implementation of communicable diseases (incl. STIs and HIV) awareness
and prevention measures.
157. Noise. The construction activities can lead to an increase in noise levels for users of
the road or nearby residences. The nearest residence to the Narata Bridge is 100-150m
away and the closest school is the Rukuruku District School upstream (across the creek
from Narata Village). The closest residence to Matewale is 100m away. It is considered that
any noise generated at the site of the existing crossings will not impact on these receptors
given their distance from the site. However, the potential new bridge upstream of the existing
Matewale crossing will require vegetation removal and earthworks associated with
realignment of the road adjacent to the residence to the east of the site. The potential
adverse impact of noise during construction can be mitigated as follows:
 Construction equipment and vehicles will be maintained to a good standard
and shall be provided with muffler silencers.
 No construction works between the hours of 1900 and 0700 every day.
 Monitor and investigate complaints; propose alternative mitigation measures.
158. Dust. Dust from the movement of construction vehicles can cause a nuisance for
neighboring property owners in regards to residences and crops. Dust is likely to already be
a nuisance to road users and residents of Sigatoka Valley Road in the vicinity of the
proposed works as the roads are currently unsealed. The potential for additional dust
generation during construction (from machinery movements and earthworks) can be
mitigated by:
 Using of a water cart in dry conditions.
 Limiting the area of soils exposed through earthworks that may be the source
of dust.
159. Disruption to existing road users. During construction works existing structures
may have to be closed off to the public. This could cause a disruption to road users and may
impact on the livelihood of those that depend on the road for access to work, school,
markets, etc. However, disruption to road users will be avoided through the provision of
alternative access during construction (either by utilizing the existing crossing while a new
structure is built or by constructing a temporary structure alongside the structure being
replaced) and traffic management in accordance with a construction environment
management plan developed for the works.
28

160. Construction works in the area have the potential to impact on the normal lives of
locals but this can also be minimized by arranging public consultation prior to construction
works commencing to advise affected communities of the scope and scheduling of the
subproject and to raise awareness within the communities of the likely phasing of events that
will occur within their boundaries.
161. The disruption to users of the road will be minor provided the following mitigation
measures are undertaken:
 Avoid closure of the crossing, particularly at high use times. Provide an
alternative crossing through the use of temporary structures.
 Communication to the public through public consultation and notice boards
regarding the scope and schedule of construction as well as certain
construction activities causing disruptions and access restrictions.
162. Relocation of electrical power lines. Exposed, faulty or relocation of electrical devices
can such as circuit breakers, panels, cables, cords and hand tools, can pose a serious risk
to workers. Overhead wires can be struck by metal devices, such as poles or ladders, and
by vehicles with metal booms. Vehicles or grounded metal objects brought into close
proximity with overhead wires can result in arcing between the wires and the object, without
actual contact. Recommended actions include:
· Marking all energized electrical devices and lines with warning signs
· Locking out (de-charging and leaving open with a controlled locking device) and tagging-
out (warning sign placed on the lock) devices during service or maintenance
· Checking all electrical cords, cables, and hand power tools for frayed or exposed cords and
following manufacturer recommendations for maximum permitted operating voltage of the
portable hand tools
· Double insulating / grounding all electrical equipment used in environments that are, or
may become, wet; using equipment with ground fault interrupter (GFI) protected circuits
· Protecting power cords and extension cords against damage from traffic by shielding or
suspending above traffic areas
· Appropriate labelling of service rooms housing high voltage equipment (‘electrical hazard’)
and where entry is controlled or prohibited (see also Section 3 on Planning, Siting, and
Design);
· Establishing “No Approach” zones around or under high voltage power lines in
conformance with Table 2.3.2
· Rubber tired construction or other vehicles that come into direct contact with, or arcing
between, high voltage wires may need to be taken out of service for periods of 48 hours and
have the tires replaced to prevent catastrophic tire and wheel assembly failure, potentially
causing serious injury or death;
· Conducting detailed identification and marking of all buried electrical wiring prior to any
excavation work

163. For the communities in the project areas, Electrocution Hazards most directly related
to power transmission and distribution lines and facilities occur as a result of electrocution
from direct contact with high-voltage electricity or from contact with tools, vehicles, ladders,
or other devices that are in contact with high-voltage electricity. Recommended techniques
to prevent these hazards include: · Use of signs, barriers (e.g. locks on doors, use of gates,
use of steel posts surrounding transmission towers, particularly in urban areas), and
education / public outreach to prevent public contact with potentially dangerous equipment; ·
Grounding conducting objects (e.g. fences or other metallic structures) installed near power
lines, to prevent shock.
 29

164. Sites of significance. Construction works and road realignments can cause an
impact on sites of significance such as cultural or historic sites, particularly where earthworks
are required. Although the Museum of Fiji has no records of sites of cultural or historic
significance within the area where earthworks and vegetation clearance is to occur for road
realignment and construction of new structures, it is possible that unidentified sites may be
uncovered during construction.
165. To avoid impacts on sites of significance, a discovery protocol is to be put in place
and contractors educated on its use. The discovery protocol will direct what actions are to be
taken in the event of uncovering a site of potential significance. This will avoid any impact on
the site and provide information on appropriate measures to be taken to preserve the site.

3. Operation Impacts

a) Impacts on Physical Resources

166. Greenhouse gas emissions. Once constructed, the subprojects will not significantly
increase vehicle emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases. Although more vehicles
may use the road if the crossings are improved as part of the project, the structures that are
two lanes will reduce the existing stopping and starting associated for waiting for other
vehicles to clear the crossing and so will reduce emissions. Mitigation measures are as
follows:
 Road alignments are designed to create consistent vehicle speeds as far as
practicable
 Two lane crossings provided to avoid stop/start associated with waiting for the
crossing to clear of traffic.
167. Water quality. Ongoing (post construction) impacts on water quality will be no
different to the existing structures as the proposed use of the structures will not change. In
addition, improvements to bridge abutments may limit the amount of scouring of stream
banks and reduce the amount of sediment entrained into the watercourse, improving the
water quality in the longer term. No mitigation is necessary.
b) Impacts on Ecological Resources
168. Impacts on flora and fauna are generally expected to be the same as previously as
the subproject sites were modified by roads and water crossings already and the indirect
impacts from traffic using the structures (noise, vibration, dust, and water quality) was
already occurring. No mitigation is necessary.
c) Impacts on Socio-economic Resources
169. Community health and safety. Upon completion the crossings will be significantly
improved from a safety perspective with the addition of footpaths and the provision of two
lanes for traffic.
170. Noise. Noise from vehicles using the upgraded or new structures is not considered to
warrant a noise barrier with nearby receptors because the noise will be no different to the
existing road environment.
171. Dust. On completion of the works, the new crossings will cause no on-going dust
issues, and may reduce dust if the road approaches are sealed.
172. Disruption to road users. Upon completion, crossings that are two lanes will
minimize disruption further by reducing the need for vehicles to wait until others have
passed.
30

G. CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE

173. Consultation in accordance with the Community Consultation Plan (CCP) developed
as part of the project was undertaken during the preparation of this EIA. Potentially affected
parties and key interest groups were identified and consulted in the early stages of the EIA.
These parties included the Nadroga/Navosa Rural Local Authority, DOE, FRA, local district
health nurse, the Keiyasi Agricultural District Office representative, Provincial Council,
Assistant District Officer (Nadroga/Navosa), local school principal (Rukuruku District School)
and local communities.
174. The subprojects were discussed at these meetings and questions were targeted at
identifying any particular values and uses of the sites and to gain an understanding of the
surrounding land uses and economic and social environment. It also allowed the project
team to gain information on any particular issues or concerns for the EIA to specifically
address.
175. Community consultations were undertaken between 23 and 25 July 2014. Meetings
on the subprojects were held with men and women and a sample survey on household
income, social conditions and transportation was conducted in the Sigatoka Valley Road
project area. Surveys in the four villages were undertaken, respondents included 42 males
and 36 females.
176. All persons consulted said they wanted the crossings to be upgraded and understood
the need for repair/replacement. Benefits of the project were seen to be:
(i) Sigatoka valley is one of the most productive parts of Fiji, and the
rehabilitation of the crossings would provide for continuity of access to
schools, markets, churches, residences.
(ii) The repairs/rehabilitation or replacements of the crossings would bring
significant economic benefits as it would continue to allow large trucks
carrying produce and tourism businesses to the area;
(iii) All weather access (i.e. during floods) would help everyone in the area. Bus
and other transport services avoided the area in flood conditions. This
prevented people from going to market to buy and sell, and children from
attending school. In the wet season accessing any kinds of services was a
problem.
 31

177. There were no specific environmental concerns raised in regards to the subprojects.
However, comments regarding the proposed options included: (i) concern (raised in
Vatubalava Village) that a replacement Irish crossing would suffer the same damage the
existing Irish crossing has experienced. A higher level bridge in this location was the
preference; and (ii) two lane crossings were preferred as a means to provide for vehicles as
well as pedestrians and horses.
178. No concerns were raised with impacts on fishing as consultation with local people
revealed most fish are caught in Sigatoka River rather than the creeks where works are to
occur.
179. Information disclosure. Project documents will be disclosed as per ADB Public
Communications Policy 2011. A copy of the EIA and ESMP will be provided to the key
stakeholders and local villagers as part of information disclosure. The public will have the
opportunity to review and comment on the EIA during the public submission phase (during
EIA review). The EIA and ESMP will also be disclosed in the WB InfoShop.
180. During project implementation, the contractor will provide a site office that people will
be able to get more information about the works. The contractor is also required to
communicate to the public, through public consultation and notice boards, the scope and
schedule of construction as well as certain construction activities that may cause disruptions
and access restrictions. Noticeboards and signs will provide information in English and Fijian
languages.

H. GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM

181. A grievance redress mechanism (GRM) was developed for the project. The GRM is
based on traditional systems for conflict and dispute resolution and will be used to resolve,
as far as possible, problems, concerns or grievances created by the project. The GRM is
also integrated the LARF and the LARP for this project.

59. Before the start of the project a sign will be erected at all sites providing the public with
updated project information and summarizing the grievance redress mechanism process
including contact details of FRA’s environmental and social impact manager. All corrective
actions and complaints responses carried out on site will be reported back to FRA. FRA will
include information from the complaints register and corrective actions/responses in its
progress reports to the ADB and WB.

60. In the whole process, relevant Fiji agencies (DOL, TLTB, etc.) will be always available
to review public complaints and advice on the FRA’s performance for grievance redress.

Steps of Grievance Redress Process

61. The following process is to be used and is based on the principle of dealing with
concerns as far as possible directly at subproject level as a first stage. Any APs or village
head/chief can take a grievance to the FRA or the contractor’s office

62. If this cannot be resolved then the grievance will be referred to the FRA’s environment
and social manager. On receipt of a complaint in any form (in person, telephone, written), In
general, for more complicated complaints, the project engineer will forward the
complaint to the FRA’s environment manager. FRA’s environment manager will have a
total of three weeks to investigate and convey a decision to the affected person to
resolve the complaint.
32

25. Depending on the type and stage of the complaint, the contractor and/or FRA’s
environmental and social impact manager for respective site/subproject will log the details in
a complaints register. The register will record complaints by date, name, contact address
and/or phone number if available, and reason for the complaint. If the complainant desires,
their identity may be kept anonymous but the nature of their concern should still be recorded.
A duplicate copy of the entry is given to the person making the complaint for their record at
the time of registering the complaint. The duplicate copy given to the complainant will also
show the procedure that will be followed in assessing the concern or complaint. For
straightforward grievances, the project engineer can make an on-the-spot determination to
resolve the issue.

63. FRA’s environmental and social impact manager will review and find a solution to the
problem within two weeks in consultation with village or traditional chief and relevant local
agencies. FRA’s environmental and social impact manager will report back the outcome of
the review to the village/traditional chief and affected persons within a week’s time. If the
complainant is dissatisfied with the, or have received no advice in the allotted time period, he
or she can take grievance to FRA CEO. The FRA CEO in coordination with relevant national
agency reviews and reports back to the DPs or chief about outcome. If unresolved, or at any
time complainant is not satisfied, he or she can take the matter to appropriate court. Both
successfully addressed complaints and non-responsive issues will be reported to the ADB
and WB by FRA.

64. Table below sets out the process to resolve any project related grievances.
Grievance Redress Process
Stage Process Duration
1 DP/village head or traditional chief takes grievance to Any time
FRA’s environment and social impact manager
2 FRA’s environment and social impact manager 2 weeks
reviews and finds solution to the problem in
consultation with village head or traditional chief and
relevant agencies
3 FRA’s environment and social impact manager 1 week
reports back an outcome to village/traditional chief/DP
If unresolved or not satisfied with the outcome by FRA’s social impact manager
4 DP/village head or traditional chief take grievance Within 2 weeks of receipt
FRA CEO. of decision in step 3
5 FRA CEO reviews and find a solution in coordination 4 weeks
with relevant agencies
6 FRA CEO reports back the solution/decision to 1 week
DP/village head or traditional chief
7 Should the person who made the complaint or raised 10 Days
the issue not be satisfied, the affected person may
take the complaint to DOE to review the complaint.
If unresolved or at any stage if DP is not satisfied
DP/village head or chief can take the matter to appropriate As per judicial system
court
 33

1. During Construction

182. The contractor’s responsibility in respect of consultation and communication will be

set out in the CPP and the relevant section of the CPP will be integrated into the ESMP and
bid and tender documents. The contractor will engage with communities primarily through
the community advisory committees and specific grievance redress committees established
in each subproject area and recorded in the EIA. The protocols for behavior of workers and
conduct in and around villages will be set out in the CPP and will be an element of the ESMP
to help mitigate any impacts resulting from construction workforce and camp.
183. Affected people are in the first place to discuss their complaint directly with the
Turanga-ni-Koro (elected administrative head) in their village. If the Turanga-ni-Koro
supports the complaint both persons take the complaint to the contractor’s site office. For
those who wish to remain anonymous, a register of their complaint or issue can be made on
a register held with the village head. This register will be provided to the Turanga-ni-Koro as
per the above. Any complaints arriving at the contractor’s site office will be recorded in a
register that is kept at the site and which will be subject to monitoring. The register will
record complaints by date, name, contact address and/or phone number if available, and
reason for the complaint.
184. If the complainant desires, their identity may be kept anonymous but the nature of
their concern should still be recorded. A duplicate copy of the entry is given to the person
making the complaint for their record at the time of registering the complaint. The duplicate
copy given to the complainant will also show the procedure that will be followed in assessing
the concern or complaint, together with a statement affirming the rights of the person to
make a complaint. For straightforward grievances, the project engineer can make an on-the-
spot determination to resolve the issue.
185. The register will show:
 who has been directed to deal with the concern/complaint
 the date when the complaint was made
 the date when the complainant was informed of the decision, and
 how the decision was conveyed to the complainant.
186. The register is then signed off by the person who is responsible for the decision and
dated. The register is to be kept at the front desk of the contractor’s site office and will be a
public document. For anybody making a complaint no costs will be charged. The register will
be the subject of monitoring.
187. For more complicated complaints, the project engineer will forward the
complaint to the FRA’s environment manager. FRA’s environment manager will have a
total of three weeks to investigate and convey a decision to the affected person to
resolve the complaint. The affected person and the Turanga-ni-Koro may, if so desired,
discuss the complaint directly with the project engineer and environment manager. If the
complaint of the affected person is dismissed the affected person will be informed of their
rights in taking it to the next step. A copy of the decision is to be sent to DOE.
188. Should the person who made the complaint or raised the issue not be satisfied, the
affected person may take the complaint to DOE to review the complaint. The DOE will have
10 days to make a determination.
189. If the affected person is dissatisfied with the determination they may appeal to the
national court. This will be at the affected persons cost but if the court shows that the project
engineer, or the environment manager have been negligent in making their determination,
the affected person will be able to seek costs.
34

2. During Operation

190. The same procedure is followed except that the complaint is now directed to
FRA rather than the contractor’s site office. During operation, the same conditions apply;
i.e., there are no fees attached to the affected person for making a complaint, the
complainant is free to make the complaint which will be treated in a transparent manner and
the affected person will not be subject to retribution for making the complaint.
 35

I. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

1. Introduction

The environmental and social assessment of the construction and operation

stages of the two subprojects has determined that they will have relatively minor
and site-specific impacts on the local environment. Environmental and social
mitigation measures have been proposed to avoid or minimize environmental and
social impacts to acceptable levels.
International best practice requires the ESMP contained in the approved EIA be
updated based on detailed design and then the contractor prepare the CESMP
detailing the methods they will use. These plans are approved by FRA, DOE and
ADB prior to implementation. The roles and responsibilities for various
environmental and social management tasks as well as the overall institutional
arrangements are discussed in section 2 below.

An ESMP for the project is presented below and complies with government and
ADB/WB requirements. The ESMP includes the following information:
 Implementation arrangements for the ESMP including: (i) institutional roles and
responsibilities for ESMP implementation throughout all stages of the project
(procurement, design, construction, operation); (ii) capacity building
requirements for executing agency to ensure environmental and social
management requirements are properly understood and fully implemented; and
(iii) grievance redress mechanism;

 Environmental and social mitigation and monitoring matrices including: (i)

potential environmental impacts that could occur during each stage of the
project (pre-construction/design, construction, operation); (ii) proposed
mitigation measures to address each impact identified; (iii) agency responsible
for implementing each mitigation measure; (iv) monitoring tasks to ensure
mitigation measures have been implemented effectively during each stage of
the project; and (v) schedule and responsibility for monitoring;
 Costs associated with implementation of all aspects of the ESMP.
191. Prior to construction commencing, the outline ESMP matrix (Table 2) will be
developed into a detailed CESMP by the contractor. A project supervision team will be set
up within FRA which will include an environment manager. This unit will be responsible for
supervision of the CESMP implementation through regular observation and spot checks of
construction-related activities. FRA with DOE’s endorsement will ensure that the CESMP will
be adequately prepared and consistent with the ESMP matrix (Table 2). FRA will ensure that
adequate and timely remedial actions are taken by the contractor.
192. Local communities will have access to the supervising engineer to report and have
resolved any project-related concerns or problems. Any construction-related problems,
along with follow-up actions undertaken, will be reported by the supervising engineer to FRA,
WB and ADB on a quarterly basis.
36

2. Institutional Arrangements, Roles and Responsibilities

193. These include the FRA’s project supervision team which will be responsible for
overseeing and managing project execution including compliance with project requirements
(financial management, procurement, safeguards, and monitoring and evaluation). A DSC
will be responsible for the screening and analysis required for the prioritization and ranking
of subprojects6, preparation of feasibility studies of selected subprojects, preliminary and
detailed designs, preparation of bidding documents and assisting with bid evaluation, and
monitoring construction.

194. Fiji Roads Authority. FRA will be the implementing agency for the project, and a
project supervision team will be established for the purposes of delivering the project. The
project supervision team will be responsible for overseeing and managing project execution
including compliance with project requirements (financial management, procurement,
safeguards, and monitoring and evaluation). The project supervision team will consist of a
project manager/engineer, accountant, environment manager, and social impact manager.
The environment manager will be consulted to ensure that the procedures and processes
established in this ESMF are followed for the project. However, documentation of how the
ESMF will be applied for the project will be the responsibility of the safeguards specialists
within the DSC.

195. Feasibility studies (including screening and analysis required for the prioritization and
ranking of subprojects, safeguards assessments and consultation), detailed designs, and
supervision of construction and civil works contractor will be the responsibility of the DSC.

196. Design and Supervision Consultant. The DSC will include international and
national specialists to implement the safeguard tasks as required by this ESMF and the
LARF. Amongst a number of others, the DSC will include: (i) environmental safeguard
specialist (international) (ESS); (ii) social safeguard/resettlement specialist (international)
(SSS); (iii) safeguards specialist (national) (NSS); and (iv) gender and community
development specialist (national) (GCDS). The DSC will be headed by a team leader.

197. General environmental and social management responsibilities of the DSC include:
 Updating of the COEP to reflect current FRA institutional arrangements and
requirements of Environmental Management Act 2005.
 Through the team leader, ensuring that the environmental and social
safeguards are implemented as set out in this ESMF so as to meet intended
requirements. This includes undertaking safeguards assessments during the
feasibility study, ensuring that the ESMPs from approved environmental and
social assessments are included as part of construction section and tendering
conditions of the bid and contract documents, and monitoring is undertaken.
 Providing training to contractor, as required, prior to preparation of CESMP,
and review and approval of CESMP;
 Supervising the implementation of the CESMP during construction.
198. Within the DSC team, the ESS, SSS and NSS will have specific responsibilities for
implementation of this ESMF. Their duties include:

6
The prioritized subprojects will be agreed and selected for feasibility study by the Project
Steering Committee. Subprojects with approved feasibility studies will go forward to detailed design.
Feasibility studies will be cleared by government, WB and ADB.
 37

(i) During the project inception, brief the DSC team on the ESMF and
safeguard and CPP requirements that need to be implemented during the
project.
(ii) Undertaking the screening of each sub-project (including individual
components such as water crossings at different locations) and identify
main environmental and social impacts and prepare project descriptions.
(iii) Prepare the development consent applications including subproject
descriptions and the screening forms, and after approval by FRA submit to
DOE for assessment determination.
(iv) Prepare the assessments (EIA or just ESMP as determined by DOE) for the
selected or prioritized subprojects as required to meet the requirements of
this ESMF.
(v) Undertake adequate consultations with affected people and studies of the
subproject area/catchment to identify baseline conditions and impacts;
(vi) Ensure that disclosure of the draft assessments is done in accordance with
the project’s CPP in compliance with ADB’s Public Communications Policy
(2011), WB and government requirements.
(vii) Submit the environmental and social assessment to DOE. Arrange for a
copy and the conditions of the EIA issued by DOE to be sent to the
ADB/WB.
(viii) During pre-construction, ensure that issues that need to be addressed by
the design engineers are considered. Prepare a design brief containing
main requirements for action by the technical design team.
(ix) Based on detailed designs, update the ESMP from the approved
environmental and social assessment. Integrate the revised/updated ESMP
and DOE’s EIA conditions into the construction section of the bid and
contract documents.
(x) With the GCDS arrange public consultation to advise affected communities
of the scope and scheduling of the subproject and to raise awareness within
the communities of the likely phasing of events that will occur within their
boundaries.
(xi) If required by the team leader, provide a review of environmental and social
management aspects during bid evaluation.
(xii) Following the award of the contract and prior to submission of the CESMP,
provide general ESMP and safeguards induction for the contractor (if
required).
(xiii) Ensure that contractor has access to the environmental and social
assessments of the subprojects and the EIA conditions issued by DOE.
(xiv) Evaluate, and when satisfactory, advise FRA that the CESMP may be
approved.
(xv) Advise the contractor of their responsibilities to mitigate environmental and
social impacts and issues associated with construction activities.
(xvi) With the project engineer, supervise and monitor the contractor’s
compliance with the approved CESMP. As required, issue defect notices
concerning non-compliant work which will be channelled to the contractor
via the project engineer. Any instructions or requirements for corrective
actions will be issued through the project engineer.
(xvii) Prepare reports of site visits and compliance checks at least every two
months, contribute to the quarterly progress reports (summary of
compliance reports and contractor’s monthly reports and any other
safeguards activities including training seminars or workshops and the like),
and prepare safeguards monitoring reports twice per year.
199. Contractor. The contractor will be responsible for complying with the environmental
and social management requirements included in the contract as follows:
38

(i) Prior to construction commencing, the contractor will address the

construction section of the ESMP which will be developed into the detailed
CESMP that addresses the EIA conditions and details working statements
and methodologies as required by the ESMP. It will include a monitoring
plan and a reporting program. Submit the CESMP to the DSC for clearance.
(ii) Designate an environmental, social and safety officer and deputy
environmental, social and safety officer who will take lead responsibility for
implementation of the CESMP.
(iii) Provide briefings and training seminars for all workers (and sub-contractors
as relevant) on the CESMP and safeguards requirements governing the
project.
(iv) Following approval of the CESMP, the contractor is required to attend a site
meeting where the CESMP is further discussed to ensure that all
compliance conditions are clearly understood.
(v) The contractor’s site engineer and environmental, social and safety officer
will be responsible for daily supervision of the CESMP. The contractor is
required to undertake work as directed by the project engineer (who will be
assisted by the ESS and NSS). If the work is non-compliant with the
CESMP or conditions, the contractor must respond to the defect notice
issued and rectify the issue or work.
(vi) The contractor will cover CESMP implementation, including grievance
redress, in the monthly reports that will be submitted to the DSC. The report
will also contain the monthly accident/incident report.
200. Department of Environment. The DOE will be responsible for the following tasks: (i)
respond to the initial screening application and determine what assessment is required for
each subproject and review the assessment reports when submitted; (ii) issue EIA approval
with or without conditions or advise on why it has not been approved; (iii) participate in a
monitoring committee and review monthly monitoring reports (for larger projects), iv)
undertake periodic monitoring of the subprojects and implementation of EIA conditions as
required; and (v) undertake to review the environmental and social grievances or complaints
that cannot be resolved through the GRM.

201. ADB and WB. During the project, the ADB and WB will provide support to FRA and
DSC as required during review missions and at other times as required. ADB/WB will review
and clear environmental and social assessments prepared for subprojects and safeguards
monitoring reports and disclose these documents as per Public Communication Policy 2011.
Review missions will review the procedures being implemented by DSC, and the contractor,
and will include review of screening, assessment, consultations, ESMP updating, bid
documents, and monitoring.

3. Monitoring and Reporting

In the periodic reporting on the project the project supervisor is required to

include a status report of compliance with environmental mitigation measures.
The proposed project will follow such requirements. In circumstances where the
supervisor and the contractor are the same organization, an independent review
of compliance with the CESMP should be undertaken.
202. Each CESMP will contain a monitoring and reporting program suitable for the
subproject. The DSC will be responsible for reviewing and updating the monitoring program
to ensure that it meets the intention of the ESMP and the ESS, NSS and contractor will be
responsible for carrying it out.
 39

203. The DSC will undertake safeguards supervision and monitoring at least every two
months (monthly for larger projects – as determined by DOE during screening phase), in
addition to CESMP compliance checking being undertaken on a daily basis by the project
engineer. Following the supervision and monitoring checks, reports will be prepared and
submitted to DOE and FRA.
204. Local communities will have access to the GRM (as set out in Section H) and the
supervising engineer to report and have resolved any project-related concerns or problems.
Any construction-related problems, along with follow-up actions undertaken, will be reported
by the supervising engineer to FRA, WB and ADB on a quarterly basis.
205. The DSC will prepare quarterly progress reports that will summarize the CESMP
compliance monitoring undertaken by ESS and NSS and the contractor’s monthly reports.
These reports will be submitted to FRA, DOE, WB and ADB. The DSC will also prepare
semi-annual safeguards monitoring reports and submit to FRA, DOE, WB and ADB. These
reports will be disclosed to the public.

206. ADB/WB will prepare a project completion report after the project has finished. This
report will summarize safeguards implementation (including any requirements for capacity
building) and monitoring and comment on compliance with the project’s ESMF.
40

Table 2 – Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Matrix

Environmental and Mitigation and/or Enhancement Measures Monitoring Plan
Social Issue/ Project
Measures and Actions Responsible Timing to Cost Parameter to Frequency & Responsible Cost
activity
to Implement Implement monitor Verification to Monitor
DESIGN / PRE CONSTRUCTION STAGE
Project disclosure 1. Submit ADB-approved EIA to DOE for approval as 1 to 4: FRA 1 and 2 1 to 4: Cost Environmental 1 to 3 and 5. FRA 1. Application fee
per the Environmental Management Act. included in approval for the Prior to signing $250.
5 EPC Immediate.
2. Obtain lease and development consent for FRA/DSC project obtained of EPC contract
earthworks/structures within a river/stream as contractor 2. Application fee
3 and 4: staffing from DOE. and start of site
specified in the Crown Lands Act and Town and varies depending
During tender works. Once.
Country Planning Act. 5: Cost Complete check on value of works
preparation
3. Ensure DOE approved ESMP and any conditions included in of items 1 to 5. Monthly 4. – estimate
of EIA and Development Consent are included in 5:EPC EPC contract Grievance between $50-
Development
EPC tender documents including i) requirement for detailed registry, monthly $150
EPC contractor to seek DOE approval and update consent and
design phase reports
ESMP in the case of significant changes to design ii) necessary leases 3, 4 and 5. Cost
requirement for EPC contractor to prepare a CESMP obtained from included in PMU
(based on ESMP) for approval of FRA before Dept. of Town and budget for
commencement of construction. The CESMP will Country Planning additional NES to
demonstrate the manner (location, responsibilities, and Director of support project
schedule/ timeframe, budget, etc.) in which the
Lands. procurement and
contractor will implement the mitigation measures
specified in the ESMP approved under DOE EIA implementation.
approval.
4. Implement plan for Grievance Redress
Mechanism as described in the EIA and inclusion of
appropriate measures from CPP and GRM in tender
documents
5. EPC contractor’s project design to adhere to all
design related mitigation measures in ESMP or in
updated ESMP as approved under DOE EIA
approval.
Environmental and 1. FRA to commit to provide sufficient resources for 1: FRA Initiate during 1: & 2: [Link] loan Prior to start of FRA Cost included in
social capacity project duration to oversee ESMP implementation. procurement Environment covenants site works and FRA budget for
2: DSC
development 2. Environment and social manager/NSS to train period and and social throughout environment and
DSC project engineer and EPC contractor in [Link] progress
3: EPC continue manager and construction social manager.
implementation of ESMP as well as general training reports to ADB
contractor throughout NSS cost phase. Estimate
in ADB and WB safeguards requirements to raise project included as US$80,000 per
3. EPC Tender
awareness and build capacity of environmental and
construction part of documents and year per specialist
social management. A mix of workshops and on-the-
job training to be used. FRA/DSC check during
(project) construction.
3. Conduct contractor / workers’ orientation on
costs
ESMP provisions.
3:Included in
EPC contract
 41

Environmental and Mitigation and/or Enhancement Measures Monitoring Plan

Social Issue/ Project
Measures and Actions Responsible Timing to Cost Parameter to Frequency & Responsible Cost
activity
to Implement Implement monitor Verification to Monitor
cost
Environmentally and 1. ESMP is included in EPC tender documents to 1 & 2: 1 & 2: Bid Included in 1 & 2: Inclusion in Bid preparation FRA 1. FRA’s
social responsible ensure that mitigation measures are budgeted and preparation bid cost bid docs stage. environment environment
to prepare the contractor for environmental DSC for FRA
procurement manager/DS manager– as
responsibilities. 3 & 4: Before
3: Preparation C & NSS above.
2. Specify in tender document that contractor shall start of civil
of CESMP - 3 & 4: Check
engage appropriately qualified and experienced staff works 2. NSS – included
EPC compliance
to take responsibility for the environmental and Before start of in DSC staffing.
social management and safety issues at the working contractor,
site works
level and to monitor the effectiveness and review Approval of Estimate is
mitigation measures as the project proceeds. CESMP-DSC US$40,000 per
3. EPC contractor to submit construction year.
4: EPC
environmental and social management plan
contractor 3. Estimate is
(CESMP) based on contractual ESMP for approval
by DSC (i.e., site clearance, site drainage, waste $8,000 to prepare
and materials management, traffic, noise and dust CESMP. $4,000
management etc.). per month to
4. Contractor recruits qualified and experienced staff implement
to oversee implementation of environmental and CESMP.
safety measures specified in the ESMP.
Physical Impacts
Climate change Design criteria in respect of peak flood size and FRA/DSC EPC tender Included in Civil design Prior to signing FRA/DSC FRA – as above.
adaptation measures levels to be established based on available climate document overall specifications in of EPC contract
ESS ESS – included in
to be properly change modelling data. In the absence of such data, preparation project cost tender document and start of site
DSC staffing
considered and design criteria to be demonstrably conservative. works. Once.
EPC contractor’s
incorporated into
detailed civil
design
design
Construction permits Obtain Permit for any discharge of solid waste and EPC Before start Cost included Documents Once before FRA Environment and
river extraction permit (DOE) if required. contractor of in contract start of environment social manager
construction construction manager included in FRA
budget.

Cost of additional
permits estimated
at US $5,000
(preparation and
submission)
Scour/erosion 1. Minimize the number of piles in bridge design EPC EPC detailed Cost included EPC contractor’s Prior to signing FRA/DSC Cost included in
2. Design of structures to allow for continued flow of contractor design phase in contract detailed civil of EPC contract EPC budget
42

Environmental and Mitigation and/or Enhancement Measures Monitoring Plan

Social Issue/ Project
Measures and Actions Responsible Timing to Cost Parameter to Frequency & Responsible Cost
activity
to Implement Implement monitor Verification to Monitor
water through or appropriate overtopping in flood. design and start of site ESS
works. Once.
Ecological Impacts
Terrestrial ecology 1. Adjust alignment of access roads to minimize EPC EPC detailed Cost included Visual Before start of DSC As above
need for removing large trees. contractor design phase in contract observation of vegetation (ESS/NSS)
3. Survey set out
2. Minimize width of vegetation clearance corridor for and before boundary clearance
realigned road if bridge upstream of Matewale and maintenance
clearance markings
crossing implemented estimate $10,000
works
3. Mark boundary of vegetation clearance corridors
with high visibility tape to ensure construction
workers are aware of clearance boundaries.
Socio-economic Impacts
Loss of land or 1. Design road realignments to take into account 1 to 3 EPC EPC detailed Cost included EPC contractor’s Prior to signing FRA/DSC Cost included in
displacement of value of land and to minimize area required contractor design phase in contract. detailed civil of EPC EPC budget
ESS
people through land 2. No physical displacement of people, either on an design. contract and
individual household basis or through the acquisition 4. FRA Cost of land 4. Compensation
acquisition start of site
of public properties such as schools, churches or environment acquired to calculated as per
works. Once.
other community centers. and social be LARP.
3. Stockpiles located on lower value land or public manager determined
land. using LARP.
4. Loss of land compensated through measures
outlined in LARF/ LARP.
CONSTRUCTION STAGE
Physical Impacts
Climate 1. Construction equipment and vehicles will be EPC Throughout Cost included Check Once a month DSC Included in
change/greenhouse serviced regularly to minimize emissions. contractor construction in contract implementation as part of (SSS/NSS) contract cost.
gas emissions from phase routine
construction vehicles monitoring
Water Quality impact 1. Schedule excavation activities in the drier months EPC Throughout Cost included Check Twice a month DSC 1, 2, 5, 7 ,8, 10
due to sediment (Jun - Oct) contractor construction in contract implementation of as part of (ESS/NSS) and 11 Cost
runoff, disturbance to 2. Minimize width of vegetation clearance corridor for phase all items routine included in EPC
creek beds, scour or realigned road if bridge upstream of Matewale construction budget
discharge of crossing implemented monitoring
3. Grassing $4 per
hydrocarbons. 3 Immediately re-vegetate and/or stabilize exposed
surfaces and stockpiles of excavated material square meter.

4. Implement effective construction site drainage Planting trees $80

such that runoff is directed to sediment traps before
 43

Environmental and Mitigation and/or Enhancement Measures Monitoring Plan

Social Issue/ Project
Measures and Actions Responsible Timing to Cost Parameter to Frequency & Responsible Cost
activity
to Implement Implement monitor Verification to Monitor
discharge to water course per tree.
5. Install cut-off drains above excavated areas on
4. Earthworks $20
steep slopes to reduce erosion
per cubic meter
6. Minimize machinery movements within creek beds (cut to fill.
7. No works to be undertaken that will block the
waterway at any time 6 As above for
earthworks.
8. No machinery refueling to occur within 20 m of
watercourses. 9. Rock protection
9. Install river bank protection measures (gabion (250 nominal rock
baskets etc.) at bridge abutments size including
10. As far as possible ensure cut to fill balance geotextile) $220
per cubic meter.
11. Effective construction supervision to ensure
above measures implemented
Riverbed extraction 1. Investigate viable alternatives to river gravel EPC 1 to 3 prior Cost included CESMP includes 1 o 3 before DSC 1, 4 and 5.
2. Prepare a gravel extraction plan, including contractor to in contracts a gravel extraction. (ESS/NSS) Safeguards
determining volumes required and incorporate as construction. extraction plan. specialist –
part of a wider construction ESMP (CESMP). 4 and 5
included in DSC
4 and 5 River extraction implementation
3. Riverbed gravel extraction permit obtained if staffing. Estimate
throughout permit in place (if of gravel
required. $40,000 per year.
construction. necessary) extraction plan
4. No gravel extraction from the active river channel in accordance 2 and 3. Estimate
5. Extraction spread out over a number of different with CESMP. $5,000 for gravel
extraction locations extraction plan
and submission of
permit.
Waste storage and 1. Prepare and implement a Waste Management 1: EPC 1: One month Cost included Check 1: Before DSC 1. Estimate for
disposal Plan (WMP) as part of CESMP before construction contractor to before start of in contracts implementation of construction (ESS/NSS) WMP preparation
to cover all aspects of waste storage disposal and prepare WMP site works items 1-9 and is $3,000.
accidental spills. To be approved in writing by 2-9
as part of WMP provisions
FRA/DSC one month prior to starting works. 2 to 9: Implementation Items 2 to 9
Contractor to implement WMP provisions. CESMP,
Throughout Disposal of solid of WMP included in
FRA/DSC
2. Segregation of wastes shall be observed. construction waste to provisions: implementation of
NSS to assist
3. Recyclables shall be recovered and either reused phase authorized site or Monthly WMP and
and approve
in other crossing construction or sold to recyclers. permit granted. estimated at
4. Residual wastes shall be disposed of in disposal 2 to 9: EPC $2,000 per month.
sites approved by local authorities and not located contractor
within 500m of rivers or streams.
6 Construction offices and facilities shall be provided
with garbage bins
44

Environmental and Mitigation and/or Enhancement Measures Monitoring Plan

Social Issue/ Project
Measures and Actions Responsible Timing to Cost Parameter to Frequency & Responsible Cost
activity
to Implement Implement monitor Verification to Monitor
7. Burning of construction and domestic wastes shall
be prohibited.
8. Disposal of solid wastes into drainage ditches and
public areas shall be prohibited.
9. All general solid waste will be collected and
removed from the work areas and disposed in local
waste disposal sites as identified by the waste
management plan.
Use of hazardous 1. Hydrocarbon, toxic material will be stored in EPC Throughout Cost included Check Monthly DSC Included in above
substances and adequately protected sites consistent with contractor construction in contracts implementation of (ESS/NSS) (WMP).
international best practices to prevent soil and water
hazardous waste phase all items
contamination.
disposal
2. All areas intended for storage of hazardous
materials will be quarantined and provided with
adequate facilities to combat emergency situations.
3. Segregate hazardous wastes (oily wastes, used
batteries, fuel drums) and ensure that storage,
transport and disposal shall not cause pollution and
shall be undertaken consistent with international
best practice.
4. Ensure all storage containers are in good
condition with proper labeling.
5. Regularly check containers for leakage and
undertake necessary repair or replacement.
6 Store hazardous materials above possible flood
level
7. Discharge of oil contaminated water shall be
prohibited.
8. Used oil and toxic/hazardous materials shall be
disposed of off-site at a facility authorized by permit.
9. Ensure availability of spill clean-up materials (e.g.,
absorbent pads, etc.) specifically designed for
petroleum products and other hazardous substances
where such materials are being stored.
10. Spillage, if any, will be immediately cleared with
utmost caution to leave no traces.
11. No refueling of vehicles within 20m of a
watercourse.
Ecological Impacts
 45

Environmental and Mitigation and/or Enhancement Measures Monitoring Plan

Social Issue/ Project
Measures and Actions Responsible Timing to Cost Parameter to Frequency & Responsible Cost
activity
to Implement Implement monitor Verification to Monitor
Aquatic ecology 1. Implementation of all proposed mitigation EPC Throughout Cost included Check Twice a month DSC As per water
measures for i) erosion & loss of top soil and ii) contractor construction in contract implementation of as part of (ESS/NSS) quality costs in
water quality impacts, as identified above to be
all items routine construction
rigorously applied.
construction impacts.
2. Machinery refueling to be undertaken at least 20m monitoring
from any watercourse.
Terrestrial ecology 1. Construction equipment and vehicles will be EPC Throughout Cost included Check Twice a month DSC Included in EPC
impacts from noise maintained to a good standard and shall be provided contractor construction in contract implementation of as part of (ESS/NSS) contract
with muffler silencers.
and vibration all items routine
2. Limit the use of machinery that will cause vibration construction
impacts. monitoring
Socioeconomic Impacts
Operation of 1. Location of site office and facilities to be agreed 1:EPC 1: One month Cost included Check 1: Before DSC 1. Included in
contractor camp / Site with local community with facilities approved by contractor with before start of in contracts implementation of construction (SSS/NSS) EPC contract
offices FRA/DSC and managed to minimize impacts;
FRA/DSC site works items 1-7
Protocols established as per CPP and GRM 2 - 7: Monthly 2, 3, 5 and 6.
approval
2. Potable water, clean water for showers, hygienic 2 to 7: $2,000.
sanitation facilities/toilets with sufficient water supply, 2-7: EPC Throughout
worker canteen/rest area and first aid facilities will be 4. Included in
contractor construction
provided onsite. EPC contract.
phase
3. Separate toilets shall be provided for male and 7. Included in
female workers.
WMP costs
4. As many local workers as possible will be hired (above).
and trained for construction.
5. Adequate toilet facilities shall be installed and
open defecation shall be prohibited and use of toilets
encouraged by keeping toilet facilities clean at all
times.
6. The Contractors facilities area will be cleaned up
to the satisfaction of PMU/local community after use.
7. All waste materials shall be removed and
disposed to disposal sites approved by local
authorities.
Occupational Health 1. Contractor to prepare a Health and Safety Plan 1:EPC 1: One month Cost included Check 1: Before DSC Cost to prepare
and Safety (HSP) instructing workers in health and safety contractor with before start of in contracts implementation of construction (SSS/NSS) HSP is $5,000.
matters. Plan to be approved in writing by FRA/DSC
FRA/DSC site works items 1-5
one month prior to starting works. Contractor to 2 - 5: Monthly Cost to implement
implement HSP provisions. approval
2 to 5: HSP (including all
2. Before construction commences the contractor 2-5: EPC Throughout items 2 to 5)
will conduct training for all workers on contractor construction $4,000 per month.
environmental, safety and environmental hygiene.
46

Environmental and Mitigation and/or Enhancement Measures Monitoring Plan

Social Issue/ Project
Measures and Actions Responsible Timing to Cost Parameter to Frequency & Responsible Cost
activity
to Implement Implement monitor Verification to Monitor
The contractor will instruct workers in health and phase
safety matters as required by good engineering
practice and provide first aid facilities.
3. Workers shall be provided (before they start work)
with appropriate PPE suitable for civil work such as
safety boots, helmets, gloves, protective clothes,
goggles, and ear protection at no cost to the
workers. Site agents/foremen will follow up to see
that the safety equipment is used and not sold on.
4. Fencing installed on all areas of excavation > 1m
deep and at sides of temporary works.
5. Provision of potable water supply in all work
locations.
Community Health 1. Provide temporary access across the watercourse EPC At all times Cost included Check Monthly DSC 1 and 2. Included
and Safety to facilitate safe access during construction. contractor throughout in contracts implementation of (SSS/NES) in EPC contract.
2. Timing of large scale construction works to occur construction items 1-6
outside of frequent use, such as start and finish of Cost for item 3 to 6. Included in
phase
the work/school day. 6 included in HSP costs
3. Include in HSP barriers (e.g., temporary fence). PSA (above)
These shall be installed at construction areas to
deter pedestrian access except at designated
crossing points.
4. The general public/local residents shall not be
allowed in high-risk areas,
5. Provide warning signs at periphery of site warning
public not to enter
6. Traffic control measures shall be provided and
included in the CESMP. Traffic control shall include
the use of stop/go signs and strict imposition of
speed limits through the site.
6. Implementation of communicable diseases (incl.
STIs and HIV) awareness and prevention measures.
Noise and dust 1. Construction equipment and vehicles will be EPC Throughout Cost included Check Twice a month DSC Included in cost to
nuisances maintained to a good standard and shall be provided contractor construction in contract implementation as part of (SSS/NSS) implement
with muffler silencers.
phase routine CESMP (above).
2. Ensure watering of access road adjacent to construction
residential areas during dry periods monitoring
3. No construction works between the hours of 1900
and 0700 every day.
4. Monitor and investigate complaints; propose
alternative mitigation measures.
 47

Environmental and Mitigation and/or Enhancement Measures Monitoring Plan

Social Issue/ Project
Measures and Actions Responsible Timing to Cost Parameter to Frequency & Responsible Cost
activity
to Implement Implement monitor Verification to Monitor
Disruption to users of 1. Avoid closure of the crossing, particularly at high EPC At all times Cost included Check Monthly DSC Included in EPC
the road. use times. Provide an alternative crossing through contractor throughout in contracts implementation of (SSS/NES) contract.
the use of temporary structures. construction items
2. Communication to the public through public 2. Cost included in
phase
consultation and notice boards regarding the scope DSC safeguards
and schedule of construction as well as certain staffing. Signage
construction activities causing disruptions and estimated at
access restrictions. $2,000.

Damage or 1. Prepare a discovery protocol – chance find EPC At all times Cost included Check Discovery Once for check DSC $3,000 to prepare
disturbance of sites procedures - and educate contractors on its contractor throughout in contracts protocol in place and training in (SSS/NES) discovery
of cultural or historic contents, including what actions are to be taken in construction and training discovery protocol.
significance during the event of uncovering a site of potential phase completed. protocol.
earthworks or significance. Training by Monthly checks of
Training prior Monthly checks
vegetation clearance SSS within implementation.
to of
DSC.
construction implementation.
works.
OPERATION STAGE
Increase in vehicle 1. Road alignments to create consistent vehicle EPC Design Included in EPC contractor’s Once, after DSC (ESS) Included in contract
emissions from speeds contractor overall detailed civil detailed design costs
increased traffic use of 2. Two lane crossings to avoid stop/start. project cost design.
improved crossings

*Cost is approximate and provided as a rough indication only. Costs have been estimated based on a typical schedule of quantities for a road project prepared in 2013. Costs will vary
depending on contractor’s equipment and resources (i.e. whether owned, leased or purchased). Costs to be confirmed in site specific CESMP.
Costs in Fijian dollars, unless otherwise indicated.
48

J. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

207. The overall finding of the assessment is that the proposed works associated with the
subprojects will not cause any significant adverse environmental and social impacts. The
impacts will be site-specific and temporary and can be readily mitigated provided the ESMP
is properly implemented. The ESMP will be updated by the contractor in the construction
phase into a detailed CESMP once detailed design has confirmed the options (if the
subprojects are selected for implementation under the project. The CESMP will incorporate a
gravel extraction plan (if necessary), erosion and sediment control measures, a waste
management plan and traffic control measures. Supervision of the ESMP will be by FRA’s
environment manager, who will act on behalf the government and will report regularly to the
ADB, WB, DOE and FRA.
208. The project proposes institutional arrangements suitable to the duration of the project
and likely subprojects to be prepared and implemented through it. These include FRA’s
project supervision team which will be responsible for overseeing and managing project
execution including compliance with project requirements (financial management,
procurement, safeguards, and monitoring and evaluation). A DSC (which could include more
than one firm) will be responsible for supporting FRA in project implementation by
undertaking the screening and analysis required for the prioritization and ranking of
subprojects, preparation of feasibility studies of selected subprojects, preliminary and
detailed designs, preparation of bidding documents and assisting with bid evaluation, and
monitoring construction. The DSC will include environmental and social safeguards
specialists to oversee compliance by the contractor in implementing the measures in the
ESMP.
209. Provision is also made to train and upskill local staff in environmental and social
safeguards compliance and requirements to enhance the capacity of the local workforce in
implementing the measures contained within the ESMP.
210. A grievance redress mechanism has been suggested for any affected parties to be
able to make a complaint or raise an issue. Measures are proposed for resolving any
complaint or issues raised throughout the implementation of the subprojects.
 49

Annex 1 – Drawings (to be included)