Military reference books and manuals (2009-2023, Volume 6)

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 2 of

Next Review

29 December 2012

Date:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PURPOSE / SCOPE

2 DEFINITIONS

3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

3.1

Legislation & Standards

3.2

Company Requirements

3.3

Stopping Unsafe Work

3.5

SSOW Specific Cross References

3.6

Language Facilitation

4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

4.1

Site Manager (SM) / Site Controller (SC) / Offshore Installation

Manager (OIM)

4.2

Area Authority

4.3

Performing Authority

4.4

Task Risk Assessment Team Leader (Area Authority)

4.5

Individual TRA Member

4.6

People carrying out the Work

4.7 Marine Authority

4.8 AUDITING AND MONITORING

4.9 COMPETENCY, TRAINING AND AWARENESS

5. RISK ASSESSMENT LEVELS

5.1

Level 1 Risk Assessment Guidance Notes

5.2

Level 2 Risk Assessment Guidance Notes

5.3

NORMAL LEVEL 2 RISK ASSESSMENT

Manual and mechanical excavations less than 1.2m deep

5.3.1 OPERATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT

5.3.2 STAND-ALONE RISK ASSESSMENT

5.3.3 ISOLATION RISK ASSESSMENT

5.3.4 SAFETY OVERRIDES RISK ASSESSMENT

5.4

Level 2 Risk Assessment Team

5.5 THE STAGES OF RISK ASSESSMENT

5.5.1

Defining the Task to be Assessed

5.5.2 L1RA Specific

5.5.3 L2RA Specific

5.6

Identifying the Hazards

5.6.1

Identifying the Hazard Effects

5.7 Existing Control Measures

5.7.1 Evaluate the Risk

5.7.2

Determining the Additional Controls Required

5.7.3

Allocating Responsibilities for Control Actions

5.7.4

Re-evaluate the Risks for Acceptability

5.7.5

Implementation of Control Measures

5.7.6

Task Inspection Checklist

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 3 of

5.7.7

Toolbox Talks

5.8 MANAGEMENT OF RISK

5.8.1

Approval

5.8.2

Recording the Risk Assessment

APPENDIX A: Hazard Checklists

APPENDIX B: Risk Assessment Chart

APPENDIX C: L2RA Form

APPENDIX D: Risk Assessment Flow-path

APPENDIX E: Risk Hierarchy Examples

APPENDIX F: Task Inspection Checklist (example)

PURPOSE / SCOPE

It is a requirement of the Permit to Work procedure employed within BP AzRPU that

a Task Risk Assessment is carried out before any permits are issued.

The purpose of this procedure is to describe the Task Risk Assessment process

employed by BP AzRPU in support of the Permit to Work System.

The contents of this procedure are applicable to all BP owned and managed sites /

installations in Azerbaijan and Georgia. Contractors working on BP owned or

managed sites / installations are also responsible for alignment with this procedure.

This document does not replace the procedures prepared and adopted by specialist

contractors. Neither does it supersede any national and local regulatory

requirements.

All guidelines contained shall be regarded as the minimum requirements for BP

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 4 of

owned or managed sites / installations in Azerbaijan and Georgia.

The scope covers defined activities of BP and Contractors at all BP AzRPU sites and

installations.

DEFINITIONS

Area Authority

AAA

Affected Area Authority

AEP

Authorised Electrical Person

ALARP

As Low as Reasonably Practicable

AOM

Area Operations Manager

CBT

Computer Based Training

COSHH

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health

COW

Control of Work

CRO

Control Room Operator

CSE

Confined Space Entry

Cold Work

Formal Procedure

HWNF

Hot Work Naked Flame

HWSP

Hot Work Spark Potential

Isolating Authority

ICC

Isolation Control Certificate

Integrity level, highest of Safety Integrity Level (SIL), Environmental

Integrity Level (EIL) and Commercial Integrity Level (CIL)

IRA

Isolation Risk Assessment

L2RA

Level 2 Risk Assessment

LTI

Long-Term Isolations

Marine Authority

OIM

Offshore Installation Manager

ORA

Operational Risk Assessment

Performing Authority

PTW

Permit to Work

PTWC

Permit to Work Coordinator

PUL

Performance Unit Leader

REP

Responsible Electrical Person

RTC

Risk It, Talk It, Check It Pre-Task risk Assessment

SARA

Stand Alone Risk Assessment

Site Controller

Site Manager

SSOW

Safe System of Work

TRA

Task risk Assessment

Technical Authority

TBT

Toolbox Talk

DRE

Discipline Responsible Engineers (instrumentation/ electrical process

mechanical etc)

RPU

Regional Production Unit

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 5 of

3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

- Operating Management System OMS Essentials 2.3, 3.1 and 4.5.

- BP Group Guidance Hazard Identification and Task Risk Assessment GG 3.1-

0002

- BP Group Defined Practice for Control of Work GDP 4.5-0001

3.1

LEGISLATION & STANDARDS

The aim of this Safe System of Work is to achieve ”no accidents”, “no harm to

people” and “no damage to the environment”. To achieve this aim, this SSOW

complies with National Legislation, the terms of the Production Sharing Agreement

(PSA) and mandatory BP Standards.

The best International Oil Industry practice and relevant goal setting legislation have

been adopted to reduce the level of risk to as low as reasonably practicable and

therefore well below that mandated by applicable statutory laws and regulations.

In the absence of local regulations, BP Group Standards will apply. In addition,

appropriate UK and US regulations and industry best practice have been considered

in setting suitable goals and targets.

3.2

COMPANY REQUIREMENTS

It is a company requirement that all tasks are subjected to an assessment of risk to

demonstrate that risks have been reduced to as low a level as reasonably practicable

(ALARP). This can be achieved by complying with the Company‟s existing standards.

Where compliance with Company standards cannot reasonably be achieved, a

formal level 2 Risk Assessment will be undertaken to identify any additional controls

and demonstrate that risks remain as low as reasonably practicable.

3.3

STOPPING UNSAFE WORK

To stop the continuation of potentially unsafe work at the earliest possible stage, the

Control of Work (CoW) Procedure and this Task Risk Assessment procedure make it

very clear that all personnel are obliged and have the obligation to “STOP” the work

that they consider to be unsafe.

3.5

SSOW SPECIFIC CROSS REFERENCES

This procedure shall, where appropriate, be used in conjunction with this suite of

AzSPU Procedures referenced below.

Document Number

Title of Procedure

AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00060-2

Procedure for Permit To Work

AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00048-2

Procedure for Energy Isolations-Electrical

AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00049-2

Procedure for Energy Isolations-Process

AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00055-2

Procedure for Leak Testing

AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00013-2

Procedure for Confined Space Entry

AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00058-2

Procedure for Management of Radioactive Materials &

Radiation Generators

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 6 of

AZSPU-HSSE-DOC- 00002-2

Procedure for Control of Work Standard

AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00088-2

Procedure for Control of Work Training Policy

3.6

LANGUAGE FACILITATION

Due to the various languages spoken at sites / installations, there is a necessity to

assist all with “an ease of understanding”. Therefore, the development and use of

information tools are available.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

4.1

SITE MANAGER (SM) / SITE CONTROLLER (SC) / OFFSHORE INSTALLATION

MANAGER (OIM)

The Site Manager

/ Site Controller

/ Offshore Installation Manager shall be

responsible and accountable for the application of this procedure in his area of

responsibility, He shall ensure:

 That adequate numbers of Competent responsible persons are appointed to

manage and maintain the requirements of this procedure

 That this procedure is strictly adhered to for all occasions when it is identified

that task risk assessments are to take place.

 That formal records of all task risk assessments are maintained in accordance

with this procedure

 That the task risk assessment Process is applied at sites within their area of

responsibility

 Periodic internal reviews and

/ or audit of the operations of task risk

assessment

 Appointing individuals to act as task risk assessment Team Leaders to

facilitate the TRA process

 The review of all Level 2 Risk Assessments.

Note: It is incumbent on the SM / SC / OIM to request a higher level of Risk

Assessment should they consider that risks have not been fully addressed.

4.2

AREA AUTHORITY

The Area Authority shall be responsible for ensuring that the requirements of this

procedure are adhered to for all task risk assessments conducted within his area of

responsibility. He shall be responsible for ensuring:

 That all persons are instructed on the requirements of task risk assessment,

permit to work conditions, and any risks or hazards associated with the work

activity

 The level of Risk Assessment required for the task

 Organising and participating in the Task Risk Assessment process

 That the Performing Authority participates in Risk Assessments, and conducts

Toolbox Talks associated with the work activity

 Ensure that the TRA is transferred in all appropriate languages commonly

used by the workforce, where required.

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 7 of

4.3

PERFORMING AUTHORITY

The Performing Authority shall ensure:

 The compliance of all personnel under their supervision with this procedure

when involved in risk assessed activities

 That a risk assessment has been performed and a toolbox talk conducted

 That all personnel are informed of, and understand, the risks associated with

the task they are performing, and any associated works that may affect their

work activity

 That the activity is executed in accordance with this procedure

 That works are halted if an unsafe situation occurs.

 That good housekeeping practices are implemented at all work areas

 That work activities have been reviewed and pertinent information exchanged

with all other affected parties.

4.4

TASK RISK ASSESSMENT TEAM LEADER (AREA AUTHORITY)

The main responsibilities of the TRA Team Leader are to:

 Lead the team in performing a Level 2 Risk Assessment

 Ensure the team understands the assessment process

 Take responsibility for maintaining the quality of the TRA

 Ensure that the assessment team includes personnel with all the necessary

experience, knowledge and competence for the task involved

 Ensure that the TRA includes a worksite visit

 Ensure that all members of the TRA team have a full opportunity to contribute

and that the details of the assessment are agreed by all team members

 Ensure that the details of the assessment are accurately recorded

4.5

INDIVIDUAL TRA MEMBER

The responsibilities of individual team members are to:

 Actively participate in the TRA process

 Help identify hazards and control measures to reduce the likelihood of an

incident/accident occurring

 Ensure they agree with the overall TRA before approval, ensuring that risks

have been reduced to as low as reasonably practicable

4.6

PEOPLE CARRYING OUT THE WORK

The responsibilities of the people carrying out the work are to:

 Understand the hazards, risks and controls associated with the task

 Participate and contribute in the Toolbox Talk

 Actively monitor the worksite and surroundings for changes

 Stop the job at any time if they have concerns about the safety of the task

 Sign to confirm that they understand the hazards and controls

4.7 MARINE AUTHORITY



MA is accountable for assigning appropriately experienced marine

practitioners to the risk assessment. He is responsible for reviewing and approving

Marine or Marine Operations Risk Assessment.

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 8 of

4.8 AUDITING AND MONITORING

Each Asset shall:

 Undertake internal audits of the operation of the Risk Assessment process as

part of the Safe Systems of Work at each Operating facility: Site / Installation.

 Maintain an Audit Register.

 Have in place a system for tracking recommendations

Use of a Standard Audit Checklist is recommended, to allow comparison with

external audit results.

The recommended frequency of Audit is as follows:

Supervisor/ Area Authority

Minimum of 2 per week

Site Safety Adviser

Minimum of 1 permit per week

Site Manager/Site Controller/OIM

Minimum of 1 permit per month

Site Managers / Site Controllers / Offshore Installation Managers shall carry out

regular internal reviews of the findings of Risk Assessment Audits, to ensure that any

critical failings in the system, or its manner of implementation, have been identified

and appropriate actions have been, or are being, taken.

4.9 COMPETENCY, TRAINING AND AWARENESS

All personnel involved in the use of the Risk Assessment process shall be trained

and proven to be competent.

The competency of all relevant personnel shall be established during the planning

process for a particular risk assessment. The Area Authority and/or Line Supervisor

shall ensure that the personnel involved in the activity have the correct competencies

through records or requesting individuals to produce relevant certification.

All training and competency requirements shall be followed as described in CoW

Training Policy AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00088-2

Note: Toolbox Talks are an essential part of the Risk Assessment Process. All

users of this SSOW should contribute at this point.

4.9.1 RECORDS

Records of attendance and competency will be filed for future reference / verification

by Senior Management. Risk Assessments shall be uniquely numbered and retained

(preferably in electronic format).

RISK ASSESSMENT LEVELS

The process of Task Risk Assessment

(TRA) is a method for systematically

examining an individual work assignment (task), to identify the hazards, evaluate the

risks and specify appropriate controls.

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 9 of

There are 2 levels of risk assessment defined within the process:

Level 1

Level 1 is a broad overview of the task by a Area Authority (AA) (typically the Team

Leader and the Performing Authority (PA) to identify any hazards involved and

appropriate control measures which are required to be in place to allow the job to

proceed.

Level 2

Level 2 is a formal assessment, which is required only when the AA‟s judge that

there are greater hazards or complexities associated with the task, which requires a

more rigorous level of assessment. A team of minimum 2 personnel carries out this

assessment.

All Risk Assessments require input from those who will be doing the work. In addition,

some Level 2 Risk Assessments may require the input of expertise from outside the

normal site / installation team.

Previously carried out L2 Risk Assessments (L2RA) can be used for repeat tasks.

Note: Whenever a previous L2RA is re-used then it is critical that the details of the

TRA are reviewed to ensure that the scope of the task is still relevant,

conditions have not changed and that the hazards and control measures are

still appropriate. A new L2RA Front-Sheet must be completed, to capture

details of the new review team. If conditions have changed, the TRA should

be reviewed, revised and approved before it is re-used.

5.1

LEVEL 1 RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES

A Level 1 Risk Assessment is based on section 1 and 2 of the Permit. The Permit

Form provides the prompt list and structured approach for this level of Risk

Assessment.

Different Permits have different prompt lists in section 2.

A Level 1 Risk Assessment involves a review of the task by the PA in consultation

with the Area Authority to identify the hazards associated with the task and

appropriate control measures required to manage these hazards. The PA‟s in using

their technical competence and task information from section 1 selects the hazards

from a list.

The PA then uses the controls listed in section 2 of the Permit to show how the work

will be controlled.

These hazards and controls are selected from a list from the permit, although the PA

should not be constrained by this and must use his judgement and expertise to

identify any further hazards or controls

- there is space on the permit to add

additional hazards and controls.

The Area Authority must decide whether the risks can be controlled adequately by

the proposed means, taking into account the controls required by any relevant local

procedure and the competence of the person in charge. If the Area Authority is not

completely assured that the risks will be adequately controlled by these measures

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 10 of

and feels a more rigorous assessment is required, they must inform the person in

charge of the work and request a Level 2 Risk Assessment. This requirement should

ideally be identified at the earliest opportunity. The Site Manager / Site Controller /

Offshore Installation Manager can direct that a Level 2 Risk Assessment shall be

undertaken at any time. Earliest communication of the task requirement and

discussion about it will identify the level of Risk Assessment process to be

conducted.

The Area Authority will review with the PA Section 1 and 2 of the permit along with

any documentation. They will visit the worksite to confirm all hazards have been

identified and controlled.

The flow-path that should be followed is provided in Appendix D.

Note: Discussing the job with the workforce involved is an important part of this

process.

ISSOW database, where RA recorded has got different layout (See attached Link)

5.2

LEVEL 2 RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES

A Level 2 Risk Assessment must be carried out at any stage in the process where

the PA, AA, a member of management or any other personnel believes that

significant risks exist which will not be adequately controlled without a more rigorous

assessment and the application of additional controls. This requirement should

ideally be identified when the planning for the task is first initiated. The AA is

responsible for making a decision whether a L2 RA is required.

The reasons for a Level 2 Risk Assessment might include, for example:

 The task is new and unfamiliar

 It is physically impossible to comply fully with the standards in a relevant local

procedure or other recognised source of guidance

 Previously used controls may not be reasonably practicable in this case

 The task is complex and/or has potential impact on other activities

The decision on when a Level 2 Risk Assessment is required for a task is somewhat

subjective and will depend on the people involved, but the following rules should be

applied to ensure a consistent level of assessment is being carried out across the

organisation.

There are five types of Level 2 Risk Assessment:

 Normal

 Operational Risk Assessment (ORA)

 Stand Alone Risk Assessment (SARA)

 Isolation Risk Assessment (IRA)

 Safety Overrides Risk Assessment(SORA)

A Level 2 Risk Assessment is mandatory for any job described in Table 1 below.

5.3

NORMAL LEVEL 2 RISK ASSESSMENT

Tasks identified in this section require a Normal Level 2 TRA to be performed. In the

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 11 of

event a particular task is not listed but the Task has a significant risk then a Line

Supervisor should be consulted. Some sites may have specific activities unique to

that site which they deem as mandatory Level 2 tasks, that has to be reflected in the

local rules. A Level 2 Risk Assessment must always be undertaken for any job, which

requires:

Table 1 - Mandatory Level 2 Risk Assessment



Confined Space Entry



Introduction of new Marine Vessels whether

owned, operated or chartered into operation



Work on flare systems



Changes to the operation of a Port or

Terminal



Plugging/sealing



Installation of or movement of major

equipment and facilities offshore or from

construction yards to the operating location



Hot / Odd Bolting



Change in the intended duty or mode of

operation of vessels offshore



Heavy Lifts (A load is classified as heavy when



Diving Operations

specified by the Site Lifting Coordinator)



Simultaneous Operations (SIMOPs)



Use of Explosives



Working with asbestos, NORM(other activities



Lifts over live process pipelines or process

involving exposure to substances for which

plant

there are defined exposure limit value)



Working at Heights without scaffold or



Tasks involving Ground Disturbance. Manual

structure

and mechanical excavations below 1.2m



When minimum standards of Energy Isolation



Where there is a significant potential for

cannot be achieved

injury to people outside the site boundary



Unconventional access (e.g., abseiling, crane



Hot work within 15m radius of hydrocarbons

basket)



Proof Tests (initial hydro test where no design



When the approved procedures cannot be

pressure exists)

followed.



Pneumatic test (as alternative to hydro test,



Task that may have specific hazards

up to 110% of design pressure), including

associated with Energy Isolation.

leak testing of gas lines with N2.



Non-routine

venting/draining/cleaning



Tasks which are judged to be unusually

equipment containing hazardous chemicals

complex (e.g., due to the number of steps or

interfaces)



Tasks which are unfamiliar, or which involve

Any activity involving potential exposure to

unfamiliar methods or technologies

H₂S

o Removal of any part of any footing surface consisting of gratings, deck hatches, deck plates

etc., located at height, or above void. Any further activity taken place within such an area -

properly signed, controlled and barriered.

Table 2 - Advisory Level 2 Risk Assessment

Where multiple protective devices are removed

New activities being carried out for the first time

or inhibited from a system

and/or involving personnel or vendors new to the

site / installation

Blocked escape routes, off-line fire pump or

Manual and mechanical excavations less than

emergency generator

1.2m deep

Some sites / installations will have standing instructions or procedures in place

covering standard precautions for some of these activities. They can act in support of

the assessment and may adequately cover most of the required control measures.

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 12 of

The flow-path that should be followed is provided in Appendix D.

5.3.1 OPERATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Operational Risk Assessments (ORAs) are associated with a piece of equipment or

plant as opposed to being associated with a specific task. They involve going through

a similar process as for raising a WCC Permit or Routine and require carrying out a

Level 2 Risk Assessment and identifying some control measures that need to be put

in place.

Examples of ORA are:

 Operating a compressor with some executive action instrumentation out of

service (e.g. vibration probe), where some additional controls or monitoring is

required to allow continued operation of the compressor

 If any part of a Safety Critical Element does not meet its performance

standard.

 To override a trip function, unless approved by operations procedures.

 Reduction of deluge cover in an area of the Installation where some additional

controls or restriction on work would be applied to that particular area of the

plant

 Problem with a lifeboat where some alternative evacuation arrangements are

in place

Content of Operational Risk Assessment

The ORA shall describe:

History

The ORA shall describe the context of the situation surrounding the requirement for

the ORA. Include explicit description of equipment involved - tag numbers etc.

Consequence

The ORA shall describe the consequences of operating in accordance with the

ORA.

This will include a statement of the value (1 to 15) of highest residual risk depicted in

the Level 2 Risk Assessment Matrix (refer to Paragraph 5.7.1) and a description of

the impact on integrity or safety of this change from normal condition.

Justification

The ORA shall include a statement describing why the risk of operating in this

way is As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP)

The team may need to refer to discounted alternatives to demonstrate ALARP.

Note: ALARP is the point at which the potential risk has been reduced to where any

additional reduction will be outweighed by the cost or effort that will be incurred.

(Click the Link for more guidance).

Plan to Resolve

The ORA shall include a description of the duration and the planned actions to

resolve the need for an ORA. Furthermore it shall describe what actions are required

in the event the duration of the ORA is exceeded.

Duration of ORA

The duration assigned to the ORA is agreed within the risk assessment and reflects

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 13 of

the maximum acceptable duration, consistent with maintaining risks ALARP.

The maximum possible duration for specifically numbered ORA is 28 days. This is

different to the agreed acceptable duration for which the risk may be permitted to

remain - i.e. a shorter validity period can be stated, or another duplicate ORA

generated after 28 days, if a longer duration is acceptable.

When ORAs result in the issue of a temporary eMoC they shall be cross referenced.

Approval of ORA

In addition to the normal ISSOW approvals the following engineering functional

approval is required:

 All process or equipment related ORA‟s shall be reviewed and approved as a

minimum by the relevant DRE in the AESTL team.

 For all ORA‟s with a risk ranking 8 and above a Technical Authority (TA) or

delegate shall endorse the ORA. In some instances more than one TA may

be required to review and endorse. In reviewing any individual ORA the TA

shall also consider the cumulative risk of existing ORAs.

 Anyone with actions assigned by the ORA shall countersign it to acknowledge

that they have read and understood the ORA.

 Prior to approval, the Site Controller shall consider the cumulative risk of the

proposed and existing ORAs.

 The Site Controller shall carry out a physical inspection of any associated

modification to equipment/worksite prior to approval of the ORA.

Note: In exceptional circumstances the Site Controller is delegated authority to

approve the ORA without engineering review, if the Site Controller is satisfied that the

risks accepted by the ORA have been reduced to ALARP. (Click the Link for more

guidance).

In these circumstances, the ORA shall be countersigned by the relevant engineering

level within 3 days.

Operational Risk Assessment Review Process

 Any abnormal change to process or equipment shall trigger an immediate

review of all ORA‟s related to that system to ensure that the ORA remains

valid.

 Weekly Review: A site led review to confirm that the ORAs are still valid and

that no changes are required. (This will normally be carried out at the daily

PTW / SIMOPS meeting) and the Sentinel Pro system will warn of the

necessity to review.

Re-Authorization / Reassessment (28 days max)

A site led review to confirm that the ORA is still required. The same approval process

shall be followed as for a new ORA, with confirmation that no additional controls are

required.

To ensure history is maintained via the „view linked facility‟ the ORA that is due to

become out of date should be copied and then fully re-assessed by a suitable team

(AA, discipline expert) prior to submission the SM / SC / OIM for approval.

The Sentinel Pro software will alert personnel that a reauthorization is due.

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 14 of

Quarterly Review

All current ORA‟s shall be audited by AOM, as follows:

a. Assess and approve the cumulative risk to site (this should be ALARP).

b. Use a risk matrix to plot ORAs in order to assist with the assessment of risk.

c. Review progress to close out the ORA. Agree any changes required to action

plan; ensure that the priority of ORA close-out is consistent with Asset

requirements and the ORA residual risk.

d. All ORA‟s shall be logged as Audited (through the full cycle to SM / SC / OIM

review and any relevant findings logged in the audit report using the Sentinel Pro

software)

e. Any actions arising from the quarterly audit shall be recorded in Traction.

5.3.2 STAND-ALONE RISK ASSESSMENT

SARA‟s are not task-related but once again require that a Level 2 Risk Assessment

be conducted. A Stand-Alone Risk Assessment involves carrying out a risk

assessment, which may not be associated with either a task or specific piece of

equipment. It could for example involve performing a risk assessment associated with

a change in organisation or responsibilities. It allows direct use of the standard Level

2 Risk Assessment process.

If a SARA is required, the procedure would be:

 Create a team as per L2RA procedure (Mandatory Level 2 Risk Assessment)



Complete a TRA on Front-Sheet and Work-Sheets(or ISSOW database for

electronic Permit to Work System users)

 Authorise SARA - register held by SM / SC / OIM

 Assign controls, and put in-place

A Stand Alone Risk Assessment has no restriction on validity duration, but should be

reviewed by the SM / SC / OIM every 28 days.

5.3.3 ISOLATION RISK ASSESSMENT

When an Energy Isolation-Process does not meet the standard as stipulated in

Energy Isolation procedure; AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00049-2, a L2RA is required. The

risk assessment should only be on the isolation element of the task, and not the work

task element.

Examples of when an Isolation Risk Assessment (IRA) is required are:

 Sufficient number of valves are not available to achieve the level of isolation

required

 There is an integrity issue (e.g. leaking) of part of an isolation

 An alternative means of isolation must be resourced, i.e. stopple bag, ice-plug

If an isolation requires a risk assessment, the procedure would be:

 Create a team as per L2RA procedure (Mandatory Level 2 Risk Assessment)

 Complete TRA Front Sheet or ISSOW database for electronic Permit to Work

System users)

 The TRA Worksheet should identify controls to allow a safe and suitable

isolation

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 15 of

 Authorise IRA - register held by SM / SC / OIM

 Assign controls, and put in-place

An Isolation Risk Assessment is valid indefinitely, however it has to be revalidated

after 7 days by the SM / SC / OIM

5.3.4 SAFETY OVERRIDES RISK ASSESSMENT

A SORA is required for any of the following:

 Protective instruments with IL 1 or above.

 Riser valves; sub-sea valves; down hole safety valves

 ESDV‟s

 Yellow or Red Shutdown functions

Note: Even for routine tasks such as trip testing or sampling, SORA shall be required,

however a generic SORA may be prepared for repetitive tasks.

If a SORA is required, the procedure would be:

 Follow up RA process detailed in Procedure for: Control of Protective System

Overrides and Alarm Blocks (AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00015-2) using attached

form in Appendix B

 Authorise SORA - register held by SM / SC / OIM (for Export Pipelines - Ops

Manager):

 Assign controls, and put in-place

5.4

LEVEL 2 RISK ASSESSMENT TEAM

The objective of the Level 2 Risk Assessment is to assemble a team of persons with

intimate knowledge and expertise of the task and in a structured way, examine all the

hazards associated with that task, and then devise a set of controls which will ensure

an acceptable level of risk is achieved. Where necessary, expertise from elsewhere

(e.g. specialist vendors/contractors) may also be brought into the assessment

process.

Where larger jobs or shutdowns are planned, work should be undertaken early on to

identify potential tasks requiring Level 2 Risk Assessments in order to allow adequate

time for the assessment to be undertaken.

The Level 2 Assessment Team shall be made up of a minimum of two persons and

consist of persons having intimate knowledge and experience of the task or

equipment to be used.

Note: There should be a fully competent TRA Leader (Area Authority) capable of

acting as facilitator and leader of the assessment process.

The TRA Team Leader should make arrangements for the team to work as a group.

It is important to ensure, for example, that there is adequate space for examination of

drawings and that sufficient time is allocated to allow a rational decision to be

reached.

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 16 of

It should not normally require more than a team of five persons to carry out an

assessment.

The objective of a Level 2 Risk Assessment is to use local knowledge and specialist

knowledge in a structured way in order to achieve ALARP for any residual risk.

The Risk Assessment team should include:

 The Area Authority for the area in which the task will be carried out, who will

act as TRA Team Leader

 The Performing Authority

 The person who will undertake the task

 A specialist from inside and external to the operation as required

Note: An HSE specialist involvement may be required to ensure that the Risk

Assessment is carried out in accordance with this procedure and for recording the

results.

Note: a L2RA Team requires at least two members.

5.5

THE STAGES OF RISK ASSESSMENT

5.5.1 DEFINING THE TASK TO BE ASSESSED

The task description detail must provide information on Who, What, Why, How and

When the task will be performed. As the task becomes more complex the level of

detail and supportive documentation required will increase. The level of information

provided must take into account all people taking part in the task.

The Task Risk Assessment team must first ensure that they fully understand the task

and its implications. The overall task may need breaking into steps to facilitate

carrying out the Task Risk Assessment. When defining the task, think about such

aspects as:

Item

Issues to Consider

1. System boundaries

What is the system being worked on? The extent of

equipment, hardware, or software affected by the activity.

Will the work be carried out on isolated or un-isolated

systems? Where are the isolations, or interfaces with other

systems?

2. Area or space boundaries

What area is affected by the activity?

What area could be affected in an accident?

3. Work activities included

What do you have to do? What might be the effect of doing

it? Think about isolations, inhibits, etc.

4. People affected

People; in the team, working nearby, who might be passing

by, working on related activities and working on connected

systems.

5. Time and duration of work

Will the task take one hour or multiple shifts?

Will the work be done during the day or night or both?

6. Tools and equipment to be used

Does the activity require hand tools, power tools, ladders,

lifting equipment, etc.? Task-specific PPE

7. Interfaces with adjacent work-

How will your work affect other work going on at the same

fronts

time? How will other work affect you?

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 17 of

5.5.2 L1RA Specific

For a L1 Risk Assessment, the Task Description is recorded in box 1 of the permit.

5.5.3 L2RA Specific

The L2RA Front Sheet should be completed as far as possible. The sections that

should be completed are:

INSTALLATION

DEPARTMENT/SYSTEM/LOCATION -

complete for relevant option

PERMIT No - if known at this point. If not,

TASK DESCRIPTION - be as explicit as

complete when the PTW is initiated.

possible, for clarity and future use

REFERENCES AND OTHER RELEVANT

DATE - the date the risk assessment took

INFORMATION - enter all relevant information

place

TRA Ref No - if registered, enter number

RISK ASSESMENT TEAM - enter names and

here. This will be used when Risk

positions. No signatures required

Assessments are being stored for future

use. Site specific rules will dictate how this

is administered.

TYPE - NORMAL, IRA, SARA or ORA

Any sub task steps should be identified on the L2RA Work-Sheet columns 1 & 2.

Note that the TRA front sheet is not signed as approved initially; this section will only

be signed after worksheets are complete and the SM / SC / OIM accepts the Task

Risk Assessment.

Note: ISSOW database, where RA recorded has got different layout (See attached

Link)

5.6

IDENTIFYING THE HAZARDS

A visit to the work site by the AA or his designee and PA is MANDATORY in order to

assess the layout of the area, site conditions and adjacent plant and activities. Once

the members are all familiar with the scope of the task to be carried out, the team

should list all the significant hazards in column 3 of the TRA worksheet. For a L2RA

these are identified on the permit.

Checklists are supplied as a guide for reference purposes only. They should not be

considered as being comprehensive. A group brainstorm, with the team leader

making sure that each member is given adequate opportunity to express their views

is vital to maintain a systematic approach to using these checklists. See Appendix A

Note: ISSOW database, where RA recorded has got different layout (See attached

Link)

5.6.1 IDENTIFYING THE HAZARD EFFECTS

Note: Recording of the Hazard effects is only recorded on a L2RA. However the

hazards effects should be considered on any type of Risk Assessment.

The Team shall then identify the Hazard Effects, which will be entered into column 4

of the L2RA Work-Sheet. Hazard effects are the worst credible possible outcome of

the hazard. The Team should be as explicit as possible in the Hazard Effect details. It

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 18 of

is important to consider property damage and environmental impact and not just

personal injury.

Examples are shown below:

Sub-Task Activity / Description

Hazard

Effect

Move temporary oil decanting

Slipping/tripping hazard

sprain, graze

hoses in utilities area to new

Dropped object

broken foot bone

storage cupboard.

Decant methanol from temporary

Flammable (invisible flame) and

Burns

skid on deck to new storage

Toxic by inhalation & swallowing.

Fatality

tanks, use of temporary hoses

Welding of new earthing point in

Fire / explosion in hydrocarbon area

Multiple fatality

live operational area

Long term plant

shut down

The table below should be used to determine the hazard effect, rated A - E.

Personal Injury

Property Damage

Environmental Damage

Effect Rating

Fatality

Major Loss >$5M

Total Loss of Containment

Likely Permanent

Significant Damage

Significant Loss of

Disability

Loss $500k to $5M

Containment. 100bbl, Limited

ability to control

Hospital Stay

Moderate Damage

Significant Loss of

Loss $100k to

Containment

$500k

> 100bbl only Workplace

affected

DAFWC / Restricted

Minor Loss $10k to

Minor Loss of Containment

Work Case / Medical

$100k

< 100bbl only Workplace

Treatment

affected

Simple First Aid Injury

Loss <$10k

Slight Loss of Containment <

1bbl

5.7 EXISTING CONTROL MEASURES

Note: Existing Control measures are valid for both L1RA and L2RA.

When doing a risk assessment, it is normal to assume that no controls are in place.

For many tasks, some controls may be known before the risk assessment, and it is

not realistic to think of the work being done without these controls (e.g. an energy

isolation). So, if experience or normal industry or trade standards dictate, it may be

valid to assume that certain controls are in place, provided that:

 They are stated in column 5 of the L2RA Work-Sheet

 They are demonstrated as part of the task definition (e.g. planned isolations

must have appropriate isolation certificate and marked-up P&IDs); and

 The controls are confirmed to be in place prior to the work being carried out

Controls that may be included in the definition of the task include:

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 19 of

 Procedures, operating guides, etc. (supported by a valid risk assessment);

 Energy isolations confirmation certificate (including P&IDs)

 Entry certificate

 Scaffolding request; and

 Other risk assessments such as, manual handling, LSA/NORM scale.

Work permits are used for recording the controls for individual work tasks, for

controlling the interfaces between work activities and to gain the correct approvals to

start a job. However, a work permit itself is not a control for an individual work task

and should therefore not be included in the task definition.

Note: ISSOW database, where RA recorded has got different layout (See attached

Link)

5.7.1 EVALUATE THE RISK

Note: Recording of the Risk value is only recorded on a L2RA. However the risk

factors should be discussed for a L1RA.

The risks created by each hazard on the list should be evaluated according to:

 The worst credible severity of the hazard effects, should anything go wrong

 The probability of the hazard being realised and resulting in the specified

hazard effect

It is important to consider property damage and environmental impact and not just

personal injury. For each hazard the initial hazard effect and probability are defined

based on the Risk Assessment Chart shown in Appendix B.

Probability Guidelines:

PROBABILITY

RATING

Event likely to occur more than once per quarter

HIGH

(FREQUENTLY)

(H)

Event likely to occur at least once per year, but less than a quarter

MEDIUM

(PROBABLE)

(M)

Event likely to occur less than once per year

LOW

(OCCASIONAL)

(L)

The hazard effect (E) and probability (P) are then used to determine the risk (R),

using the risk matrix provided. The E, P & R values are written in column 6 of the

TRA worksheet.

The effectiveness of the assessment will depend entirely on the team‟s ability to

identify and evaluate all hazards associated with the task. The team should also

consider the possibility of the interaction of different hazards, including those related

to:

 Location - Attention should focus on the proximity to other plant or equipment,

e.g., air intakes, shut down systems, control points, vents, drains, sample

points and ignition sources.

 Critical Activities - Critical activities include isolation, flushing, inerting, confined

space entry; work at height, hot work, lifting, use of power tools, temporary

power and air supplies, pressure testing, radiography.

 Simultaneous Activities. - Simultaneous activities should be investigated both

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 20 of

within the task itself and with other unrelated activities taking place nearby.

Risk Matrix (R)

HAZARD EFFECT

5.7.2 DETERMINING THE ADDITIONAL CONTROLS REQUIRED

Note: Recording of the Additional Controls is only completed on a L2RA column 7.

Recording of Controls for a L1RA is in section 2 of the permit.

Once the initial Assessment of Risk is complete, the team must work systematically

through the list of Hazards and specify all the Additional Control Measures needed to

mitigate each associated Risk. These are recorded in column

7 of the TRA

worksheet.

Note: Controls, which prevent the hazard being realised, should be used in

preference to controls that reduce the effect of a hazard.

The hierarchy of controls is applied in the following order:

1. Eliminate

2. Reduce (substitution, Engineering, Segregation)

3. Manage or Administration (reduce exposure, Procedures)

4. PPE - This must be the last control applied; remember that with PPE you are

inside the hazard zone.

Wherever possible, measures higher in the hierarchy should be used, providing they

are reasonably practicable, and emphasis should be placed upon control at source.

A combination of measures will usually be necessary in order to reduce the level of

Risk to As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). It should also be considered

that when specifying controls, any associated risk that they bring with them needs to

be assessed and controlled.

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 21 of

Activities such as confined space entry (ground disturbance and etc.) supported by

task risk assessments shall identify the credible potential emergencies that could

occur during the work with response and rescue plans being in place before the work

commenced.

Typical Control Measures can be placed in the following categories:

Control Measure

Typical Examples

Physical

Removal of fuses; Insert spade or blank flange in pipe work; Lock off

valve; Erect mechanical barrier; Use locked enclosure; Keep people at a

distance (e.g., signs, warning tape); Eliminate or substitute toxic

substances; Substitute noisy machinery; Use mechanical handling

equipment.

Procedural

Test for pressure build-up or leaks; Examination of flushing fluid; Test for

hazardous chemicals in liquid, solid or gaseous form; Procedure for

control of simultaneous or adjacent work; Prohibition of hot work;

Equipment lock-out; Develop contingency plan,

Human

Use of independent specialist personnel; Regular or constant monitoring

of the Task; Use of method statements / detailed procedures; Clear

instructions and warnings to workforce; Clear definitions of roles and

responsibilities during the Task; Adequate supervision; Ensure

competency of personnel for the activity

Time

Limit duration of the Task or time of day when the activity occurs; Use

time-saving measures such as hot-bolting, good work-site preparation

and planning for the movement of materials, tools.

Contingency

Emergency shutdown, deluge and blow-down systems, reduction of

(Control)

inventory.

Contingency

Temporary refuge, emergency response system, fire/blast wall, water

(Mitigation)

curtain, provision of PPE, rescue equipment, etc.

5.7.3 ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CONTROL ACTIONS

Note: Recording of the Responsibilities is completed on a L2RA column

Responsibilities for control actions are not recorded on a L1RA, but can be

identified in a method statement or procedure.

Once the control measures have been identified, each should be allocated to either

an individual or a role. The Risk Assessment may be completed some time before

the actual work task-taking place; therefore the delegated individual

/ role may

change. Where possible, identify both a role and a specific individual. These are

recorded in column 8 of the L2RA Work Sheet.

Column 11 is for recording the closeout of the actions. Therefore this column should

not be completed until the work is about to commence.

Note: ISSOW database, where RA recorded has got different layout (See attached

Link)

5.7.4 RE-EVALUATE THE RISKS FOR ACCEPTABILITY

Note: This is completed on a L2RA column 9. Risk re-evaluations are not recorded

on a L1RA (permit).

The team must then re-evaluate the risk for all those hazards for which controls have

been determined. The new risk level should be determined and the team should

consider whether the risk is now as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). Column

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 22 of

10 should be identified with a „Y‟ to confirm the Risk Analysis Team has agreed

ALARP.

If the risk is not ALARP, the review team must decide what further safeguards need

to be put in place. The agreed residual E, P and R are recorded in column 9 of the

TRA Worksheet.

The team must finally decide on the acceptability of the overall remaining risk for the

task. Individual hazards with a medium risk may be acceptable provided the overall

risk of the task is considered low. If the team decides that even with the controls in

place, there are too many hazards, which still have a medium risk, this must be

recorded and the task in its present form must be abandoned.

The higher the perceived risk for any particular hazard, the greater should be the

number and/or quality of independent controls, which the team specify as necessary.

Consideration should also be given to the possibility of cumulative effects from the

interaction of several different hazards.

If the team considers that there are insufficient independent controls available, or that

the controls are likely to be ineffective against any particular risk, that risk must be

judged to be unacceptable, and the team leader must record this decision. The task

must then be abandoned or referred to higher management.

The team may also conclude that because of the complexity or degree of the risks

involved, a more detailed engineering assessment is needed. In this case, the task

must be suspended until the assessment is available.

As a final check, the team should ask itself the following questions about the

proposed task:

 Have all necessary control measures been fully and effectively identified?

 Is there a need for engineering change to eliminate or reduce risk further?

 Is there a need to shutdown the plant or process?

 Is the residual risk rating acceptable?

 Is there anything else that can be done to further reduce the risk?

Only at this point can the team judge whether ALARP has been achieved.

This Table gives guidance for the residual risk criteria:

SCORE

ACTION REQUIRED

13 to 15

Immediate action.

Task must not proceed.

Serious loss potential.

Task may proceed only with additional controls in place to avoid

serious loss.

9 to 12

Plan controls to reduce risk further.

Assess the priority and agree implementation targets.

6 to 8

Monitor procedures and controls to ensure the risk is maintained as

low as reasonably practical.

Take immediate action if standards are not met.

Ensure additional controls are implemented.

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 23 of

2 to 5

Implement control measures to reduce the risk to the lowest level

reasonably practicable.

Prepare a plan to reduce the risk to the lowest level reasonably

practicable.

5.7.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL MEASURES

Note: Recording of the control implementation is completed on a L2RA column 11.

Implementation of controls is not recorded on a L1RA.

Column 11 is for recording the close-out of the actions. Therefore this column should

not be completed until the work is about to commence.

There are two types of control measures that will be identified from either the Level 1

or Level 2 TRA process:

 Prerequisite controls are those which must be in place prior to the job starting

 Supplementary controls are those which have to be applied during the job

The prerequisite control measures must be implemented prior to the job going live.

This includes any training and/or special briefing of the PA and work party according

to an agreed plan of action.

The supplementary controls, which will be applied during the job, must be understood

fully by the PA and the work party before work commences.

The AA must satisfy himself that Competent Persons have been allocated the work;

the required controls are in place, any additional paperwork is complete, and that all

the individual risks are reduced to ALARP.

5.7.6 TASK INSPECTION CHECKLIST

In order to ensure that workers are made aware of the hazards and control measures

of a particular task, checklists should be prepared. The checklists are based on the

control measures identified in the TRA and for use by site

/ installation

supervisors/safety officers during toolbox talks and site inspections. An (example)

checklist is shown in Appendix F.

5.7.7 TOOLBOX TALKS

Note: Toolbox talks will be carried out for all tasks, whether they are L1RA or L2RA.

This is the process of transferring the methodology and controls to the people who

will carry out the work. It is vital that all persons involved in working on a particular

activity are fully aware of the details of the TRA and all the hazards and controls

associated with the job. Some of them may have been directly involved in the TRA

but others may not have been. This is particularly true of larger jobs

(e.g.

construction) where the PA who is normally the Construction Supervisor will have

been directly involved in the TRA but the rest of the work party probably have not.

A Toolbox Talk is a vital part of the process to ensure that the TRA and its associated

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 24 of

documents are reviewed prior to the start of the job and are fully understood by all

persons involved in the task.

Particular emphasis should be placed on those residual risks with a higher rating. It is

also an opportunity for those involved in the work to raise any further concerns about

the job and to identify any hazards not picked up in the TRA process.

It is crucial to the people involved in the task execution to fully understand the TRA.

Therefore, where English is not the first language for the work team, a quality

translation to appropriate languages must be made available to the team before work

starts.

Note: If anyone at this stage identifies some additional hazards that have not been

properly assessed or thinks the control measures are inadequate, then the job should

not proceed until the TRA has been re-evaluated and appropriate controls identified

to ensure the job is ALARP.

Keys to the success of this step are:

 Communication of the task, the hazards and what must be done to control

them to every person involved in the task.

 Language is critical, especially in complex technical tasks.

 The toolbox talk is held prior to work starting

 Everyone understands everything discussed

 Everyone has the opportunity to voice concerns

 Everyone signs to confirm that they understand the hazards and control

measures

Some example topics to cover as part of the Toolbox Talk are:

Issue

Notes

The current weather conditions

 Weather

 Sea State

The work party

 Competence and experience

 Familiarity with the installation and the system being

worked on

 Anyone fatigued or distracted

The worksite

 Access

 Ground conditions

 Awkward working position

 Temperature/humidity

 Lighting

The current state of the plant

 Physical condition of plant and equipment

and equipment

 Current operating status of plant and equipment

The current adjacent work sites

 Can this job affect other work sites

 Can other work sites affect this job

The pre-defined precautions

 Are they as per written instructions, risk assessments,

and controls

PTW, etc

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 25 of

5.8

MANAGEMENT OF RISK

5.8.1 APPROVAL

On completion of the Risk Assessment, the Risk Assessment Front & Work Sheets

must be attached to the permit application for the job. It must be reviewed and signed

by the SM / SC / OIM before he approves the associated Permit(s) to Work.

Should the SM / SC / OIM feel that the task presents risks beyond his level of

accountability, he must refer to his Manager for guidance, and if necessary request a

more sophisticated analysis of the risks and mitigation than can be provided by the

method described in this procedure.

5.8.2 RECORDING THE RISK ASSESSMENT

Where a task is likely to be repeated, a record of the Risk Assessment should, at the

permit issuer‟s discretion, be retained for future reference. In any event Risk

Assessments, which include hazards to the health of those undertaking the task must

be attached to the permit(s) for the job and retained for 12 months.

Note: ISSOW allows you to track past records.

Where a Risk Assessment form is being re-used, it must be fully reviewed and a new

front sheet created.

APPENDIX A: HAZARD CHECKLISTS

Hazard Checklist - General

Falling from height

Noise

Manual Handling

Vibration

Lifting operations

Pressure

Falling object

Biological agents

Noise

Welding/cutting

Lighting

Power tools

Fume/dust

Hand tools

Minimise potential for ignition

Work on safety systems

Collision

Transport by sea/air

Hand tools

Storage

Machinery

Water jetting

Asphyxiation

Grit blasting

Cold/Heat

Loss of containment from nearby system

Mental Stress

Loss of containment from system being worked on

Ionising Radiation

Ignition

Chemical hazard

Fire

Inert gas

Explosion

Flammable gas

Structural damage

Flammable liquid

Personal injury

Electricity

Barriers/access restrictions

Static Electricity

Weather

Hazard Checklist - Isolations

Nature of fluid

Pressure stability of system and adjacent systems

Temperature stability of system and adjacent systems

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 26 of

H2S

Wax

Sand

LSA Scale

Hydrates

Foaming

Blockage

Trapped pressure

Type of valves and reliability

Size of pipe work

Integrity testing

Reverse flow

Pressure build-up

Migration from other systems

Inventory behind isolations

Duration of isolation

Adequacy of pipe supports

Fail position of ESD valves/blow down valves

Contingency in the event of failure of isolations

Environmental impact of spills or emissions

Electric Shock

Hazard Checklist - Breaking Containment

Note: This checklist should be used in conjunction with Hazard Checklist - Isolations.

Electrical risk of using portable tools

Flammable or toxic vapours arising from sludge in vessel

Hazardous substances trapped around bends, behind baffles, linings etc.

Chemical reactions with cleaning materials

Environmental impact of spills or emissions

LSA Scale

Pyrophoric scale

Asbestos gaskets

Trapped pressure

Residual pressure

Residual heat

Liquids remaining from flushing

Inert atmospheres

Chemical hazards

Hazard Checklist - Vessel Entry

Residual gases/vapours

Sludge which may give rise to vapours/gases when disturbed

LSA scale

Adequacy of ventilation

Need for air movers during entry.

Communication difficulties within the vessel or with the standby man

Standby man communication with the CCR

Ingress of gases/vapours from other nearby activities or systems

Use of mechanical tools/power tools/electrical equipment

Slip hazards within the vessel or at the point of entry

Ionising radiation; nucleonic instrumentation

Danger of falling into vessel boots or sumps

Noise, general

Noise when using power tools

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 28 of 38

APPENDIX B: RISK ASSESSMENT CHART

HAZARD EFFECT RATING

Personal Injury

Fatality

Likely Permanent

Hospital Stay

DAFWC, Restricted

Simple First Aid Injury

Disability

Work Case, Medical

Treatment

Property Damage

Major Loss >$5M

Significant Damage Loss

Moderate Damage Loss

Minor Loss $10k to

Loss <$10k

$500k to $5M

$100k to $500k

$100k

Environmental Impact

Total Loss of

Significant Loss of

Minor Loss of

Slight Loss of

Containment

Containment. 100bbl,

Containment

Containment < 1bbl

Limited ability to control

> 100bbl only Workplace

< 100bbl only Workplace

affected

PROBABILITY

HIGH (H)

Event likely to occur more

than once per quarter

(FREQUENT)

MEDIUM (M)

Event likely to occur at

least once per year, but

less than quarterly

(PROBABLE)

LOW (L)

Event likely to occur less

than once per year

(OCCASIONAL)

SCORE

13 to 15

9 to 12

6 to 8

2 to 5

ACTION REQUIRED

Immediate action.

Plan controls to reduce

Monitor procedures and

Implement control

Prepare a plan to reduce

Task must not proceed.

risk further.

controls to ensure the

measures to reduce the

the risk to the lowest

Serious loss potential

Assess the priority and

risk is maintained as low

risk to the lowest level

level reasonably

Task may proceed only

agree implementation

as reasonably practical.

reasonably practicable

practicable.

with additional controls

targets.

Take immediate action if

in place to avoid serious

standards are not met

loss

Ensure additional

controls are

implemented.

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 29 of 38

APPENDIX C: L2RA FORM

Sheet 1 of __

INSTALLATION :

PERMIT No :

DATE :

TRA REF No :

DEPARTMENT/SYSTEM/LOCATION:

RISK ASSESSMENT TEAM (FIRST NAMED-TRA TEAM LEADER)

NORMAL

IRA

RISK ASSESSMENT TYPE:

SARA

ORA

NAME

POSITION

TASK DESCRIPTION:

I, the TRA Leader confirm that the TRA has been reviewed to ensure that the

risks identified are relevant and that all control measures are in place.

Name:

Date:

Sign:

REFERENCES AND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION :

CONFIRMED ALARP

(e.g. Emergency Provision Required, Competency requirements, Tools & Equipment, additional

TRA APPROVED BY (OIM/SC/SM):

PPE, P&IDs, Drawings, PTW, Procedures, Certificates, other Risk Assessments)

NAME (PRINT):

SIGNATURE :

POSITION :

DATE :

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 31 of

APPENDIX D: RISK ASSESSMENT FLOW-PATH

Task identified - Copy of existing TRA if

available

After site visit by the AA (Team Leader) and PA, the AA

decides the level of TRA required for the task

L1 TRA

L2 TRA

Is task L1 or L2 TRA

AA, PA, where practicable HSE team

member may also be required visit work site

to identify all task hazards

Use hazard identification checklist.

TRA front sheet completed - Task details -

Complete the PTW hazard identification and

Team members and date

enter controls

Submit PTW to AA for review and arrange

TRA reviewed for sub-tasks, hazards,

site visit

hazard effect, existing controls, initial risk,

control measures, responsible persons,

residual risks and ALARP status

Are all hazards

Consider

identified and

L2 TRA

controlled, with correct

Have all hazards

level of TRA?

now been identified?

TRA?

YES

PTW and L1 TRA submitted for SM / SC /

PTW and TRA front and work sheets

OIM authorization

submitted to SM / SC / OIM for

authorization

PTW and L1 TRA

PTW and L2 TRA

approved?

AA issues PTW after face to face discussion with PA

YES (L1)

YES (L2)

At TBT, any more hazards

or controls identified?

Work complet

ed as per PTW and TRA. Work must “STOP” if any

new conditions introduce new hazards. Once

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Documencomplete, TRA (if L2) to be stored and L

essons Learned reported to the AA (Team Leader)

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 32 of

APPENDIX E: RISK HIERARCHY EXAMPLES

Examples

Elimination / Prohibition



Use of mechanical device instead of manual

handling



Maximum stacking height



Unauthorised personnel



Prohibit smoking, jewellery, mobile phones

Substitution



Solvent-based paint with water-based paint



Dusty powders with pastilles or pellets



Electric hand tools with compressed air



Reduction in size or weight of item

Engineering Controls



Local exhaust ventilation for e.g.:



Welding



Soldering



Grinding



Mechanical or electrical isolations



Lighting



Enclosure, e.g.:



Sealable containers



Noise enclosures for turbines or pumps

Segregation



Barrier or guard



Separate storage areas



Physical isolations (spade, lock-off)



Access controls

Reduction in Personnel or



Job or shift rotation

Time Exposure



Breaks



Hazardous work carried out at low activity

periods such as nights or weekends



Dispense dilute chemical



Increase airflow through work area



Automated feed process instead of manual

Personal Protective



Gloves

Equipment



Goggles



Face mask



Boots



Respiratory protective equipment



Chemical suits or gauntlets



Safety harness or inertia reel

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<05 November 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 33 of

APPENDIX F: TASK INSPECTION CHECKLIST (EXAMPLE)

Note: All control measures identified in the TRA should be identified in the checklist

and communicated during the pre-task Toolbox Talk.

SHOT BLASTING

FACILITY:

LOCATION:

Checklist

Yes

Comments

Is the method Statement and TRA available on work

site?

Is the Work Permit available?

Is shot blasting performed so that the prevailing wind

carries airborne dust away from any activity, persons

and equipment, etc?

Where dry shot blasting operations are being

performed on site, has all other activities in the area,

especially down wind, been suspended for the

duration of the operation?

Is all equipment in the vicinity of shot blasting

operations protected against impacting material and

dust by sheeting or other means?

When shot blasting in the vicinity of sensitive

equipment, such as electrical equipment, is the area

totally enclosed by sheeting or other means?

Is access by unauthorised persons prevented?

Are drains in the vicinity of shot blasting operations

covered?

Is only non-silica shot blasting medium used?

Are compressors and other equipment in good

mechanical condition?

Is the hose between the shot blasting machine and

the operator of sufficient length to ensure that the

operative feeding the machine with is clear of any

dust arising from the nozzle?

Is the nozzle of the hose fitted with a dead-man‟s

handle?

Is the nozzle earthed?

Are operatives wearing correct PPE including face

masks, hearing and eye protection?

Is efficient ventilation provided to remove airborne

contamination when work is performed in a confined

space?

Name

Signature

Date

Site Supervisor

Safety Officer

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<05 November 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 35 of

Revision/Review Log

Revision Date

Authority

Custodian

Revision Details

09 Sept 2004

CHSSE Manager

CHSSE Team Leader

Initial issue as controlled document

18 June 2007

Alan McNulty

Esmira Akhundova

General:

(CHSSE Manager)

(CHSSE Team

Throughout the procedure the document numbering

Leader)

for referred procedures has been changed.

Section 1. Introduction:

Inclusion of 1.2 Scope, 1.3 Company Requirements,

1.4 Stopping Unsafe Work, 1.5 Deviations, 1.6

Document Review, 1.10 SSOW Specific Cross

References (new doc control numbers).

Section 2. Responsibilities:

Is now “Definitions”

Section 3. Auditing and Monitoring:

now “Roles and Responsibilities”. Additions to the

responsibilities of SM, SC, OIM, Area Authority,

Performing Authority and Employees.

Section 4. Is now Auditing & Monitoring:

Heading - Each business asset shall; Installation ha

been added after site in the first bullet point. The

recommended frequency of Audit for supervisor / Ar

Authority changed to a minimum of 2 per week. OIM

entered into the third bullet point of the second

paragraph.

Sectio

5. Risk Assessment Levels:

Is now

“Competency, Training and Awareness”. 5.3 Record

Added to paragraph - “Risk Assessments shall be

uniquely numbered and retained (preferably in

electronic format).”.

Section 6. Is now Risk Assessment Levels:

6.1 General, The word significant removed from the

first bullet point. 6.3.1 Table 1: Classification of Heav

Lift incorporated. 6.4 Level 2 Risk Assessment Team

Third paragraph. Removed the words, "and consist o

persons having intimate knowledge and experience

the task or equipment to be used". Added to bullet

point one "who will act as TRA Team Leaders".

6.4.1”Normal Level 2 Risk Assessment”, 4 additiona

bullet points added.

Section 7. The Stages of Risk Assessment:

Hazard Checklists moved to Appendix A of the

procedure. Added to Hazard Checklist - Isolations:

Electric Shock. 7.1.1 L1RA: Added - “recorded in bo

1 of the permit”. 7.5 Evaluate the Risk: - Probability

Guidelines re-worded. 7.8 “Re-evaluate the Risks fo

Acceptability”. The table giving guidance for the

residual risk criteria changed to reflect the Risk Matr

in 7.5. 7.10 “Task Inspection Checklist” is an

additional paragraph. 7.11 Toolbox Talks: Additional

bullet point added.

Appendices.

appendices included to the document as follows:

 Level 2 Risk Assessment Checklists

 Risk Assessment Chart

 Level 2 Risk Assessment Form:

Added at the bottom of Task Description "I the TR

Leader confirm that the TRA has been reviewed

ensure that the risks identified are relevant and

that all control measures are in place". Also, nam

date and signature.

 Risk Assessment Flow Path

 Risk Hierarchy Examples

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 36 of

 Task Inspection Checklist (example)

 Procedure Summary

 RTC Pre-Task Risk Assessment Form

 Feedback & Improvement Suggestions

Authority position/name and custodian position/nam

05 Dec 2008

Yuliy Zaytsev,

Adalet Mamedov,

have changed to reflect org changes in HSE&TD

Safety&Compliance

Central Safety TL

of December 1st 2008.

Systems Manager

02 April 2009

Yuliy Zaytsev,

Niyaz Mamedov,

Paragraph 3.1 additional bullet is added.

Safety&Compliance

HSE Systems -

Systems Manager

Control of Work

Paragraph 6.3 is shortly amended in regard to AA

Advisor

responsibility for making decision on L2 RA.

Paragraph 7.11 reflects now requirement that peop

involved in the task fully understand TRA whe

English language is not the first one for the work tea

14 April 2009

Yuliy Zaytsev,

Niyaz Mamedov,

The changes relate only to Marine operations,

Safety&Compliance

HSE Systems -

Offshore.

Systems Manager

Control of Work

Advisor

Paragraph 1.6 deviations related to Marine

Operations are to involve MA

Section 2, definition is given to MA

Paragraph 3.7 roles & responsibilities of Marine

Authority

Paragraph 6.3.1 Mandatory L2 RA Table is added

with 4 possible marine related operations

09 September 2009

Yuliy Zaytsev,

Niyaz Mamedov,

Section 5, Training and Competency Requirements,

reworded in compliance with CoW Training Policy.

Safety&Compliance

HSE Systems -

Systems Manager

Control of Work

Advisor

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Procedure for Task Risk Assessment

Page 37 of

29 December 2010

Yuliy Zaytsev

Elman Shikhkerimov

The numbering of the Procedure is entirely

AzRPU Offshore

AzRPU CoW/Safety

changed.

Health and Safety

Systems Lead

Manager

Section 2 Definitions updated with IL and DR

abbreviations

Section 3 General Requirements: additional

lines added, which refer to relevant group

standards

Section 5 Risk Assessment Levels:

Requirement for minimum L2 Risk Assessment

team involvement changed inline with GG

HITRA 3.1-0002

Note section has been updated inline with GG

Sub-section 5.3: Normal Level 2 Risk

Assessment

Table 2 - Advisory Level 2 Risk Assessment

has been adjusted with additional tasks

Sub-Section 5.4 Level 2 Risk Assessment

Team updated, including minimum numbers of

people requirement

Paragraph 5.3.1 Operational Risk

Assessment

ORA process describing section has been

significantly altered in line with industry best

practices, with the main aim to improve overall

controls over the process

Paragraph 5.3.4 Safety Overrides Risk

Assessment

New paragraph added to point out SORA

process

Paragraph 5.7.2 Determining the additional

controls required updated with requirement to

have emergency response plans in place befor

the task commences, if identified by RA.

During the review some of the „‟should”

statements have been replaced with “shall” in

order to meet requirements of Control of Work

GDP 4.5-0001

In addition to Paper based Risk Assessment

process, ISSOW electronic PTW system risk

assessment database info added throughout th

procedure.

APPENDIX D: Risk Assessment Flow-path

HSE team member role in L2 RA process has

been slightly updated

Control Tier:

<<2>>

Revision Date: <<29 December 2010>>

Document Number: << AZSPU-HSSE-DOC-00063-2>>

Print Date: 2/1/2011

PAPER COPIES ARE UNCONTROLLED. THIS COPY VALID ONLY AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. THE

CONTROLLED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND AT

http://docs.bpweb.bp.com/dkazspu/component/hssesms

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

Table of Contents

Page

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

III

MAP: PROJECT AREA

FIGURE 1: EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD NETWORK IN BUTANA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

II.

STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE FOR IFAD INVOLVEMENT, COMMITMENT AND

PARTNERSHIP (KSF 1)

A. Rural development context

B. Policy, governance and institutional issues, political and economic issues

C. The IFAD country programme

III.

POVERTY, SOCIAL CAPITAL AND TARGETING (KSF 2)

A. Rural Poverty, Information and Analysis

B. The target group, including gender issues

C. Targeting strategy and gender mainstreaming

D. Geographic coverage of the project

IV.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (KSF 3)

A. The knowledge base: Lessons from previous/ongoing projects

B. Opportunities for rural development and poverty reduction

C. Project goal and objectives

D. Alignment with country rural development policies and IFAD strategies

E. Project components

IMPLEMENTATION AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS (KSF 4)

A. Institutional development and outcomes

B. The collaborative framework

The main implementing agencies and their roles

Technical partners in implementation

Component wise implementation

Links with complementary projects

Integration within the IFAD country programme

Project supervision arrangements

C. Results-based M&E

VI.

PROJECT BENEFITS, COSTS AND FINANCING

A. Project benefits

B. Summary cost table

C. Project financing: IFAD financing, co-financing, government, partners and

beneficiary financing

D. Flow of funds, disbursement, procurement, audit

VII.

PROJECT RISKS AND SUSTAINABILITY (KSF 5)

A. Risk analysis

B. Exit strategy and post-project sustainability

VIII.

INNOVATIVE FEATURES, LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KSF 6)

A. Innovative features

B. Project knowledge products and learning processes

C. Regional knowledge networking

IX.

NEXT STEPS

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

List of Tables

TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF RATES OF RETURN BASED ON THE ROAD SURFACING

TABLE 2: ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION IN BUTANA

TABLE 3: LIVESTOCK IN THE PROJECT AREA, BASED ON ESTIMATED FIGURES FOR 2008 (SOURCE: SOCIO-

ECONOMIC SURVEY, BDA, 2009)

TABLE 4: LIVESTOCK SALES IN THE MARKETS THAT SERVE THE PROJECT AREA BASED ON ESTIMATED FIGURES

FOR 2008 (SOURCE: SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY, BDA, 2009)

TABLE 5: LIVESTOCK PRICES IN THE VARIOUS MARKETS, BASED ON ESTIMATED FIGURES FOR 2008 (SOURCE:

SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY, BDA, 2009)

TABLE 6: SPECIFICATIONS OF THE IMPROVED ARAB 6-ES SOUBAGH-HUSHEIB ROAD

TABLE 7: PROJECT COSTS BY COMPONENT (USD)

TABLE 8: PROJECT COSTS BY FINANCIER

TABLE 9: DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNTS AND FINANCING RULES

TABLE 10: PRIOR REVIEW THRESHOLDS

TABLE 11: CRITICAL RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

ANNEXES

ANNEX I: CONTENTS OF THE PROJECT LIFE FILE

ANNEX II: RESULT-BASED LOG FRAME

ANNEX III: KEY FILE

ANNEX III: SUMMARY OF MAIN COST TABLES

ANNEX IV: ORGANIZATIONAL ORGANIGRAMME

ANNEX VI: RESULTS-BASED M&E

ANNEX VII: START-UP ACTIVITIES OF THE RURAL ACCESS PROJECT

ANNEX VIII: THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL REVIEW - SUMMARY OF THE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit

= Sudanese Pounds (SDG)

US$ 1.00

2.5 Sudanese Pounds

SDG 0.4

= US$ 1

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1 kilogram (kg)

2.204 pounds (lb)

1 000 kg

1 metric tonne (t)

1 kilometre (km)

0.62 miles (mi)

1 metre (m)

1.09 yards (yd)

1 square metre (m2)

10.76 square feet (ft2)

1 acre (ac)

0.405 ha

1 hectare (ha)

2.47 acres

1 feddan (fed)

0.42 ha = 1.03 acre

FISCAL YEAR

1^st January to 31^st December

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ARP

Agricultural Revival Programme

BDA

Butana Development Agency

BIRDP

Butana Integrated Rural Development Project

CRF

Community Road Fund

DSF

Debt Sustainability Framework

CRF

Community Road Fund

GONU

Government of National Unity

MPPPU

Ministry of Planning and Public Utilities

NKRDP

North Kordofan Rural Development Project

NHBA

National Highways and Bridges Authority

O&M

Operation and Maintenance

RAP

Rural Access Project

RIMS

Result Impact Management System

RRMU

Rural Road Management Unit

RTT

Rural Road Travel and Transport

iii

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

Executive Summary

Project rationale. The Rural Access Project invests in rural roads in a way that complements the

transport, production and marketing infrastructure supported in the IFAD co-financed Butana

Integrated Rural Development Project (BIRDP, SD-717) and the Government supported Agricultural

Revival Programme (ARP). Its results will be measured on the cost and time of transport, the change

in the farm gate price, and the savings in vehicle operating costs. These results are expected to

enable small producers to take better advantage of the production and marketing activities proposed

under the BIRDP and the ARP.

The approach adopted for the construction of rural roads will consist of spot improvements in the form

of the establishment of wadi crossings, spot repairs and treatment of gulley erosion. The access road

selected is the Arab 6 - Es Soubagh - Husheib alignment, a 144 km long road servicing 5 main

markets, and covering 2 localities in 2 states (figure 1). The selection criteria included (i) synergy with

on-going projects particularly the ARP and the BIRDP; (ii) clarity of the flow of benefits to small

producers; (iii) responsive to community priorities; (iv) close fit with available grant resources.

Project area. The project area covers two localities (Butana in Gadaref State, River Atbara in Kassala

State) (see figure 1). The area is characterized by silty clay and black cotton soils where relatively

poor drainage characteristics combined with flat topography results in prolonged periods of inundation

during the rainy season especially in depressions and flat plain areas. Throughout the rainy season,

general access to and from the main external markets is very difficult for vehicular access, livestock

and people especially across seasonal streams.

Project beneficiaries. The total number of beneficiaries is expected to be

130 000 persons

equivalent to about 15 000 producer households. It is also expected that there will be 1700 additional

women trading in the main markets serviced by the road. Poor households constitute 80% of the rural

population in Butana.

Targeting and gender mainstreaming strategy. The localities selected are among the poorer in the

Butana. The gender mainstreaming strategy relies on women participation in the consultation for the

prioritization of rural roads, and in the implementation of the conservation and water control works

protecting the rural roads, and for road maintenance. The RAP project area covers 21 communities

located along the road alignment in the localities of Butana and River Atbara. These 21 communities

represent a subset of the 140 communities planned to participate in the BIRDP.

Project objectives. The project will contribute to the COSOP 2009-2012 goal of empowering the rural

poor to increase their food security, incomes and resilience to shocks. The main project objective is to

improve the access of the rural population to markets and social services. Three key results are

expected from the project:

- Rural roads upgraded in Central Butana and regularly maintained. The project target is 144 km.

- Communities are trained to manage road tolls and to engage in labor based maintenance contracts.;

- State capacity is strengthened to plan, design, supervise, and maintain rural feeder roads using the

spot improvement approach.

Project activities. The project will have 3 main components:

− Physical rehabilitation and construction of rural roads which consist in the

improvement of the Arab 6 - Es Soubagh - Husheib road, implementing conservation

works to protect the road from gulley erosion; and establishing the Community Road

Fund which will act as the principal financing mechanism for the routine and periodic

maintenance of the road.

− Capacity building and institutional development that would target the Road

Departments of the State Ministries of Physical Planning and Public Utilities

(MPPPUs) with formal and on-site training as well as office support; in addition to

training of communities on soil and water conservation works to protect the road from

gulley erosion and on the management of the labour based contracts for road

maintenance. Road committees will be established to organize and implement the

conservation and maintenance works.

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

− Project management. The Butana Development Agency (BDA) will be the lead

agency for this project and will be responsible for the coordination and financial

management of project activities. It constitutes a good platform for the coordination

and implementation of inter-state initiatives that promote sustainable development of

the Butana area. The BDA will maintain a close collaboration with the NHBA for the

monitoring of the performance and progress of the road works, the comparative

advantages of the spot improvement and preventative maintenance approach and its

potential replication to the rural road network.

Integration within the country programme. RAP contributes directly to the achievement of the

country programme strategic objective of increased access of the rural poor women and men to

markets and to microfinance. The RAP specifically contributes to the following milestone indicator of

approx 200 km of roads constructed in project areas; and to the outcome indicator of at least 20%

producers’ access markets in the project area.

Project costs. The total project costs (including contingencies) are estimated at USD 14.96 million.

The IFAD grant amounts to USD 12.95 million with a Government contribution of USD 1.92 million as

duties and taxes and beneficiaries’ contribution of USD 0.09 million towards the maintenance of the

road.

Scaling-up potential. Scaling up is included as a result of the project. The project will develop the

capacity of the road departments in the MPPPUs and will provide the cadre with the appropriate

design manuals to train new staff and replicate the methodology of spot improvement to the rural road

network in the 2 States of Gadaref and Kassala. Moreover, by involving the NHBA in the monitoring of

the project, the potential for the replication of the spot improvement and preventative maintenance

approach increases. The total set of road priorities identified is approx 1500 km in Butana. An amount

of approx USD 12 million is required for the improvement of each 200 km road.

vii

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

INTRODUCTION

The Government of National Unity and the International Fund for Agricultural Development

have agreed on 3 strategic objectives as part of the Sudan country programme strategy for the period

2009-2012. The third objective “increased access of poor rural women and men to markets and

microfinance” aims to align the IFAD co-financed country programme with the greater focus of the

Government’s Agriculture Revival Programme (ARP) on marketing. Given massive and widespread

poverty in Sudan and the breadth of challenges facing the agriculture sector, the Government and

IFAD agreed that the country programme will adopt an integrated rural development approach based

on: (i) consolidating ongoing projects to strengthen their impact and sustainability; (ii) strengthening

marketing and microfinance components in ongoing projects;

(iii)

systematically seeking

complementarities and partnerships with ongoing operations in project areas;

(iv) balancing

investments in capacity-building and productive activities.

It is in this context that the Government of National Unity (GoNU) and IFAD agreed to include

the Rural Access Project as part of the 2009 pipeline. The geographic focus of the intervention is on

the Butana area in Eastern Sudan where the IFAD co-financed project, the Butana Integrated Rural

Development Project, is on-going. The investment in rural feeder roads is complementary to the

investments in road infrastructure, marketing, production and community investments in the BIRDP.

IFAD fielded a design completion mission¹ during the period 11^th to 26^th July 2009, to address

the recommendations made by the reviewers in the Government and IFAD on the initial project

design, and to develop the implementation modalities of the project with particular emphasis on

management and procurement. The mission held meetings at federal level with the Ministry of

Finance and National Economy, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of Labour, National

Highways and Bridges Authority; at state level with the State Ministries of Agriculture, Animal

Resources, Physical Planning and Public Utilities, Finance, NGOs active in community mobilization

and organization; at locality level with the local government and engineering units in Butana, River

Atbara localities; at village and market level in Fuwal, Um Al Gora, Es Sadda.

The design completion mission built its conclusions and recommendations on the results of a

socio-economic survey of the project area as well as the physical survey of the proposed alignment.

These studies were undertaken by the Butana Development Agency² and the State Ministry of

Physical Planning and Public Utilities (MPPPU) in Gadaref State respectively during the period June

to July 2009.

II.

STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE FOR IFAD INVOLVEMENT, COMMITMENT AND PARTNERSHIP

(KSF 1)

A. Rural development context

Performance of the agriculture sector. Agriculture is the main source of livelihood for the

Sudan’s rural inhabitants, roughly 60 per cent and 90 per cent of the country’s population in the north

and south respectively. Agriculture provides 90 per cent of the national food requirements, constitutes

80 per cent of non-oil exports, and accounted for 42 per cent of GDP in 2007. Traditionally, prior to

the oil wave, agriculture represented a far greater share: for instance, it accounted for 90 per cent of

exports in the early 1990s but only 8 per cent in 2006. Exports include mainly livestock, sesame,

cotton and gum arabic. The low productivity of agriculture combined with the recent appreciation of

¹ The mission was composed of Dr. Elsayed Zaki, Institutional Development Specialist and Mission Team

Leader; Mr. Ian Anderson, Civil Engineer; Ms. Wadzanai Katsande, financial analyst; Dr. Asim Moghraby,

environmental specialist; Ms. Rasha Omar, Country Programme Manager, IFAD; Mubarak M. ElDawi, Ministry of

Finance and National Economy; Mr. Haytham Abdelbagui and Mr. Mohamed Abdelmotaleb, Ministry of

Agriculture and Forestry. BDA Director and BIRDP Coordinator, Rashid Abdel Aziz provided much needed

assistance during the course of the field work and participated in the state level discussions. The areas visited

included Gadaref and Kassala States.

² The socio-economic survey was led by Dr. Abdelrahim Ibrahim, road economist, with participation from the

following BDA staff: Mr. Rashid Abdelaziz, BDA Director; Ms. Aida Adam Osman, Gender and Community

Development Officer; Mr. Mohamed El Hassan, Natural Resources Management Officer.

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

the Sudanese pound has further eroded the competitiveness of Sudanese agricultural products,

namely for sesame, groundnuts and sorghum.

The country’s agriculture growth rate is highly variable (from -2.5 to 7 per cent within the

period 2001-2007). A distinction is usually made between the irrigated and the rainfed agriculture

subsectors. Growth in both subsectors is erratic. In the irrigated sector, this is the result of the

deferred rehabilitation and modernization of irrigation systems and their management leading to low

efficiency in water conveyance and low productivity. In the rainfed sector, disappointing growth can be

traced to the vulnerability of agricultural production to climatic variability, declining and erratic yields,

and the restrictions imposed by importing countries on Sudanese livestock due to intermittent disease

outbreaks. The traditional rainfed sector accounted for 26 per cent of the GDP in 2005, and for 67 per

cent of agriculture GDP. It is the most important sector for the agricultural economy and the

livelihoods of poor rural people, and yet it only receives from 3 to 12 per cent of expenditures on the

agriculture sector. The rainfed sector also receives a very limited share of private investments in

agriculture: this is mainly attributed to unclear land tenure arrangements and very poor infrastructure.

In The Sudan, the weak performance of the agriculture sector is perpetuated by five main

factors:

(i) decades of civil conflict and underdevelopment that have ravaged traditional rainfed

agriculture; (ii) disabling agriculture policies, including delayed financing of agricultural investments,

insufficient financing of the running costs of agricultural services, and overtaxation of agriculture

commodities, particularly the exportable commodities produced mainly by the rainfed sector; (iii)

inadequate land policy; (iv) inadequate water policy; (v) inefficient marketing arrangements. Market

inefficiencies are a result of poor accessibility (the road accessibility in Sudan is among the poorest in

Africa), high internal costs of transport due to limited road infrastructure, high costs of handling

products moving to points of export, imposition of charges and taxes in the marketing chain and the

weak organization and bargaining power of small-scale producers.

Rural roads, an under-developed sector. For a vast country like Sudan, the existing

transport infrastructure and facilities are poor and are considered the single most important constraint

to the development of agricultural markets and to small producers' access to these markets in rainfed

areas. The spatial road density of one kilometre of paved road per 575 km² of land area is one of the

lowest in Africa and, with 126 km of paved roads per million population, road accessibility is less than

in other countries in Africa as well as prevailing regional averages (Vijay 2007). It also seems that

there has been an imbalance in transport development between railway and roads, where the latter

has largely dominated; covering over 90% of inland transport services.

The road network, which is originally weak, has also deteriorated as a result of war and

limited budgetary allocation for maintenance and capital repairs. Most important is the lack of feeder

roads that would be conducive to the development of the agricultural sector. Rural/village access or

feeder (tertiary) roads form 20-30% of the total road network compared to 40-50% for state roads and

20-30% for national roads (Vijay 2007). The poor infrastructure situation is largely engendering high

transport and transaction costs in the movement of agricultural products. Road tariffs on tertiary

roads are 50% higher than those applied on the main national road network thus leading to high

transportation costs per km. Marketing costs, excluding charges not levied against any type of

services, varied from 32% to 49% of export price for rain-fed sorghum, sesame and groundnuts

according to the conditions of 2006 (van Holst Pellekaan and Faki, forthcoming). Such rates and

associated transaction costs reflect negatively on producers in the traditional rain-fed sector.

B. Policy, governance and institutional issues, political and economic issues

10.

The section will focus on the most salient policy, institutional, political and economic issues

that are of direct relevance to the rural transport sector in Sudan. Further detailed description is

available in working paper 1.

11.

Policy. The Agriculture Revival Programme articulates the Government's vision for agriculture

development as the engine of growth and the key catalyst for rural poverty alleviation. In this

programme, rainfed agriculture is allocated 25%³ of the total Programme budget. Rural infrastructure

(inclusive of roads) is allocated 7.5% of ARP budget, and 80% of proposed road lengths are located in

states where rainfed agriculture is the predominant production system. Such investments are aligned

with the vision to remove barriers to mobility and marketing in the rainfed areas. As a reminder,

rainfed agriculture accounts for a large share of agriculture GDP and exports.

³ This is a conservative estimate based on aggregate data available in the ARP publication, 2008.

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

12.

With regards the road sector, policies exist for national roads only in terms of their

construction, management and maintenance. The road transport system in Sudan is classified into

five main types of road (table 8 in working paper 1). Responsibility for the national road network lies

with the National Highways and Bridges Authority (NHBA) under the Ministry of Roads and Bridges.

The maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads is also the responsibility of NHBA and is

financed from road tolls collected by a private company and deposited in the NHBA account.

13.

Roads and structures that are not of national classification are delegated to the States who

plan and run their own programmes. States can request the assistance of NHBA in design and

supervision given its higher technical competency. Planning of roads at State level follows an ad hoc

prioritisation process rather than developing strategic plans covering all sectors with clearly

established and quantified alignments, designs and estimated costs. Limited funding and uncertainty

of flow of funds acts as a disincentive to planning. This is a structural problem in Sudan, all the more

so considering the existing budgetary crisis due to decreasing oil prices. Maintenance is not

undertaken for state level roads. Indeed, no road maintenance section or department exists at State

or locality level and although annual maintenance of roads is carried out for roads within the cities,

this is well below what is required under a preventative maintenance programme. In the rural areas no

such programme exists with states concentrating more on capital repair of the most damaged roads

as funds become available.

14.

In conclusion, it would appear that there is no specific policy framework governing rural feeder

roads in terms of planning, supervision and maintenance. Three issues appear of critical importance:

(i) planning of the rural road network to take into account marketing and social opportunities; (ii)

preventative maintenance; and (iii) predictability of financing for capital and maintenance costs.

15.

Institutions. Eight institutions of relevance will be discussed here: the National Highways and

Bridges Authority, the Ministry of Labour, the State Ministry of Physical Planning and Public Utilities,

the engineering units in the localities, the Rural Infrastructure Working Group of the Secretariat of the

Agriculture Revival Programme, the Butana Development Agency, the contractors, civil society

organizations.

16.

The National Highways and Bridges Authority (NHBA) is governed by a Presidential Act

for 1997. The NHBA has the following purposes: (i) provide and develop best services according to

Minimum Cost Principle and to realize surplus for the General Treasury; (ii) participation to increase

the national income and improvement on performance of services which the NHBA is supposed to

provide;

(iii) provide investment which the private sector has no ability to obtain individually. It

cumulates the responsibilities of studies, design, construction using its own equipment, supervision of

works, management and maintenance of national roads. It also provides assistance with design and

supervision of works to states upon demand. In addition to its headquarters, it has 7 offices that cover

the geographic areas of Sudan: 2 such offices cover the Eastern region and are staffed with a

resident engineer⁴. The NHBA raised a total revenue (principally from tolls) of SDG 144 million and

realized a surplus of approx SDG 12.3 million. The technical capacity of the NHBA is deemed

satisfactory. The NHBA now carries the supervision for rural roads planned under the Agriculture

Revival Programme.

17.

The Federal Ministry of Labour. The Ministry has implemented in the past labour intensive

road construction with assistance from the International Labour Organization in the White Nile state.

This experience taught the Ministry that for such works to succeed, a number of requirements should

be met: materials for construction should be available locally; the road construction should also be

linked to other activities such as afforestation, water reservoirs, soil and water conservation works;

sufficient number of engineers to supervise and backstop the works; and high level of organization of

the logistics of the work. The Ministry has an on-going project for labour intensive works in Kassala

State, targeting the control of the seasonal Gash river.

18.

The State Ministry of Planning and Public Utilities (MPPPU). A Roads Department located

in the Ministry of Physical Planning and Public Utilities is responsible for all aspects from planning

through to maintenance. In practice as funds are very limited and design capacity is constrained, the

work involves engaging the NHBA to carry out feasibility and design studies. Few experienced staff

are available with the numbers being made up of engineers and surveyors and architects who have

mostly graduated within the last four years. Although the staff appear to have good academic

⁴ The NHBA has an office in Khashm El Girba in the vicinity of the project area. The office also has lab facilities

for material testing.

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

background, the guidance that they receive in their professional working life is very limited. Good

technical staff have been taken up by contractors and consultants leaving very few experienced staff

to plan, design, supervise, and maintain roads within the states’ jurisdiction. As a result, the capacity

to oversee the private sector is limited and has resulted in inadequate quality control, poorly sited

structures and questionable sustainability. For roads of national importance, MPPPU staff are

seconded to work with the NHBA on the supervision of construction works.

19.

The engineering units in the localities of Butana and River Atbara. The localities have no

mandate with regards the design/supervision and maintenance of rural roads. They participate in the

overall planning for road construction at state level and lobby the state and federal government for

road networks within the boundary of the locality. Each locality has an engineering unit that is

responsible for the design, supervision and repair of construction works, primarily buildings for

schools and health centers. The existing cadre is limited in number, composed of young graduates

with no practical exposure to road engineering. The existing cadre is either outposted to the locality

from the MPPPU or recruited against a locality level post. The capital investments for construction

works of schools and health centers at locality level are funded from the state and federal

development budgets.

20.

The rural infrastructure working group in the secretariat of the ARP. The working group

is chaired by the Federal Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources and includes the National

Highways and Bridges Authority. The scope of work of the working group is to provide overall

guidance on the disbursement of ARP funds on these activities. The working group agrees that the

ARP has no strategic plan for the rural roads investments. In response to the serious capacity deficits

in road construction at state level, the Secretariat has requested the NHBA to carry out the

supervision of roads constructed under the ARP. Discussions are under way to explore how the

present project could be used as a catalyst for the improved planning, monitoring and sustainability of

the ARP investments.

21.

Butana Development Agency. Established in 2007 by Presidential decree, the Butana

Development Agency is a federal entity that coordinates inter-state efforts for the sustainable

development of the Butana area. The Butana area represents an agro-ecological unit that

corresponds to the rainy season grazing ground, and it covers 9 localities in 5 states (see table 1 in

working paper 1). The BDA has the mandate to (i) mobilize funds from the federal and states’

governments for project activities in addition to donor funds; (ii) facilitate the execution of the projects'

interventions through the provision of the necessary investments, capacity building and resource

deployment; (iii) strengthen stakeholders’ organization for the regulated access and use of natural

resources and for the improved efficiency in livestock marketing; (iv) facilitate the process for the

identification, negotiation, approval and monitoring of pertinent policy decisions involving the

respective states with regards land and water governance in accordance with poverty reduction

objectives; (v) ensure the replication and expansion of successful project interventions through the

mobilization of additional resources whether from the federal or state governments, national and

international NGOs, or donors; (vi) monitoring and evaluation of project activities, results and impact.

The BDA is currently managing the IFAD co-financed BIRDP (loan no. SD-717) which has a livestock

and marketing development component. The BDA is proposed as the lead agency for this project and

is also set to cooperate in a forthcoming GEF financed project on carbon sequestration with the

Forests National Corporation. The BDA does not currently have among its staff a road or civil

engineer.

22.

Contractors. There is a wide range of contractors capable of undertaking all civil work

activities in Sudan. Many are prepared to undertake rural construction works such as feeder roads

and spot improvements. Contractors are qualified by the NHBA. Contractors draw on qualified

national staff from the private sector as many Sudanese working abroad have returned.

23.

The major constraints facing road contractors is the difficulty in receiving timely payments

from Government (both Federal and State). Many contractors therefore undertake assignments

through the delay backed through bank guarantees, government bonds and bill of sales. Some

contractors will enter into contracts without guarantees and wait for payment which is sometimes

settled in land or in kind. This phenomenon has several adverse effects: increasing the cost of road

construction to include the cost of financing; low adherence of contractors to specifications; failure of

some contractors due to financial problems.

24.

Civil society organizations. The Butana area has a number of grassroots organizations

formed and trained by the UNDP-funded Area Development Scheme that closed in 2000. These

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

organizations are also registered under the voluntary association law. A total of 31 village based

grassroots organizations were then federated into an apex association for the development of Butana,

registered under the state level voluntary association law. The apex association has two main

activities: rental of agricultural implements; and supporting access to utilities mainly potable water and

electricity

(through generators). The association has institutional weaknesses illustrated by the

irregularity of the audit of accounts, retaining the board of directors beyond its term, and infrequent

general assembly meetings. The main lessons derived from the experience of the civil society

organizations with fund management is as follows: centralization of funds eases its management and

control; dedicated staff should be assigned to manage the funds; to the extent possible, the

association should contract out services or works rather than deliver these itself given limited staff and

business skills.

25.

In conclusion, it is clear that significant capacity building will be needed at state and

community level on the planning, design, supervision and maintenance of rural feeder roads.

Moreover, policies and mechanisms need t be put in place to ensure preventative road maintenance.

26.

Economy. As reported in the Rural Road, Travel and Transport Review (IFAD, 2007), there is

enough empirical evidence to demonstrate the strong link between the poor state of rural

infrastructure and rural poverty. Facilitating access to service and market centers by removing

physical access barriers, decreasing the costs and time of transport, results in positive impacts on

commodity sales, diversification of entrepreneurial activities, education and health. The present

economic assessment of the project benefits has taken these impacts into consideration. The

technical specifications for the rural roads need to be consistent with their potential uses, expected

traffic volume, financing capacity of Government and users. The internal rate of return was calculated

for the proposed rural road of Husheib-Es Soubagh- - Arab 6 taking into consideration 3 different

specifications: (i) spot improvements; (ii) gravelled road; (iii) asphalted road. The analysis shows that

given the traffic volume and market activity in the Butana, a spot improvement approach is warranted

and would allow maximum road coverage at reasonable km cost of improved accessibility.

Table 1: Comparison of rates of return based on the road surfacing

Project Base

Description

Cost (USD)

IRR

Spot Repairs

13 347 790

22.3%

Gravel Road

24 579 897

12.1%

Asphalt Road

38787404

6.1%

27.

Political buy-in. The Government of National Unity is committed to the development of the

agriculture sector and a number of initiatives reflect this commitment:

•

The 25 year (2007-2031) Strategic Plan

•

The Green Initiative (Nafra) for Rural Development, adopted for two seasons and then

incorporated into a sequel, the Agricultural Revival Programme.

•

The Agriculture Revival Programme

(2008-2011), a five year plan for agricultural

modernization and transformation

•

The budget allocated to agriculture increased from 25% to 44% of the national development

budget during the period 2000 to 2006.

28.

Rural roads are among the ARP popular endeavours. In the states of Kassala and Gadaref,

the roads constructed under the ARP are currently linking main towns with the irrigated and the

mechanized sectors. The RAP will extend planned roads under the ARP to the rainfed areas where

the livestock resources are concentrated in the rainy season. This is expected to facilitate livestock

trade in the rainy season and easier access to higher value markets, for example Gadaref, for

livestock export. The two states have committed to completing the alignment under ARP in

synchronization with the road proposed under the RAP.

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

C. The IFAD country programme

29.

The outreach of the country programme to date is about 1.6 million persons. The results

available from the completed North Kordofan Rural Development Project (NKRDP) and the two

ongoing projects that have passed their mid-term

- the South Kordofan Rural Development

Programme and the Gash Sustainable Livelihoods Regeneration Project - indicate that the country

programme has contributed to increased asset ownership, improved food security and higher farm

and off-farm incomes. Rural roads represent approximately 24% of project total costs under the 2002-

2008 country programme, the bulk of these investments being co-financed. However given the

positive impacts achieved on agriculture productivity and local economic development, as evidenced

by the Bara-El Obeid Road under the NKRDP, IFAD financing is also being increasingly allocated to

this activity. To illustrate this, the assessment of the Bara - El Obeid road, a 56 km tarmac road,

revealed the following: travel time decreased by 70%, fuel consumption of vehicles decreased by

50%, the sale price producers perceive has increased by up to 150%; and the cropped area has

increased by 200% and labour opportunities by 60% (NKRDP Project Completion Report, 2009).

Under the COSOP 2009-2012, rural roads are eligible for IFAD financing as a means to achieve the

strategic objective of increased access of poor rural women and men to markets and microfinance,

especially when these roads are complementary to integrated rural development projects that

facilitate producers' access to improved production technology and to markets.

30.

The country programme evaluation rated the overall performance of the IFAD portfolio in

support of the Government of The Sudan as moderately satisfactory The evaluation notes that the

country programme needs to improve in terms of efficiency, sustainability and scaling up of policy

dialogue from the project to the national level.

31.

The BIRDP was declared effective in July 2008. The specific objectives of the project are: (i)

establishing a coherent and cost effective governance framework that ensures a regulated access to

land and water resources of the Butana; (ii) improving the access and bargaining position of women

and men in the marketing of livestock; (iii) developing the capacity of community-based organizations

to engage in environmentally sound, socially and gender equitable development initiatives. The

project supports both production and marketing services. It has a budget of USD 4.8 million allocated

to livestock and marketing development to finance: (i) the construction and rehabilitation of 10 water

course crossings to increase accessibility to markets and social services during the rainy season for a

total budget of USD 2.7 million; (ii) the construction of a market in El Edaid El Humur village and the

rehabilitation of 5 markets Tamboul, Rattaja, Um El Gura, Es Soubagh and Seidon, for a total budget

of 0.4 million USD; (iii) the organization and training of producers to market livestock and dairy

products and access veterinary services for a total budget of USD 1.7 million. The budget available

under BIRDP for the construction of crossings however is deemed insufficient to significantly raise

producer's access to markets. Given the isolation of the central Butana area during the rainy season,

it was deemed necessary to complement the crossings' construction with the construction of a rural

feeder road linking the Central Butana area to the main rainy season livestock markets.

32.

The activities of road construction under the Rural Access Project and the activities of market

development under the BIRDP will need to be synchronized to create synergy. In particular, the

market development and market information system should be launched so as to maximise

producers' access to higher value markets and should be completed within the period 2010-2011.

III.

POVERTY, SOCIAL CAPITAL AND TARGETING (KSF 2)

A. Rural Poverty, Information and Analysis

33.

The information here is based on the appraisal report of the BIRDP (the baseline survey of

the BIRDP is not yet completed); and on the socio-economic survey completed in July 2009 in the

RAP project area.

34.

The population. The Butana are corresponds to a socio-ecological unit under 5 states and 9

locality divisions and it covers an area of 65 000 km². It is inhabited by 3 groups: (i) a group that

resides all year round in the central Butana but practices seasonal labour migration as a coping

strategy whereby men migrate to the periphery of Butana in the dry season in search of work in the

irrigated and mechanized schemes or migrate to Khartoum where they work in the building industry,

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

brick making, petty trade etc…; (ii) a group who settled in the periphery of the Butana - particularly on

the outskirts of the New Halfa irrigation scheme - in the wake of the 1980s drought and who returns to

Butana in the dry season to cultivate own land in wadis or on terraces; (iii) the nomadic group who

moves to Butana from nearby states in the rainy season to make use of the open access pastures.

35.

Reliable statistics on the demographics of the Butana are difficult to obtain in view of the

administrative fragmentation and the mobility of the population. Discussions with local administration

and the local population put the estimate of the total population at one million inhabitants. The

population density is approximately 15 inhabitant/ km² and follows a downward gradient as one

moves towards the center of Butana (around Es Soubagh).

36.

The predominant ethnic group in the RAP project area is the Shukriya tribe which constitutes

more than 80% of the population. Other ethnic groups include Khawalda, Bataheen, Jaleyin,

Lahaween, Kawahla, and Maashra, in addition to small ethnic groups like Fadnia in the northern part.

The nomadic tribes that visit the area in the rainy season include the Umbororo who are purely

nomadic cattle raisers from the Blue Nile State, as well as the Beja and Rashayda fom Kassala State.

Table 2: Estimated Distribution of the Population in Butana

Total population of Butana area

1 million inhabitants

Rural population in Butana

80% of total i.e. 800 000 inahb.

Central Butana

30% of the population, i.e. 240 000 inhab. mostly resident

settlements.

80% of this population is poor: 190 000 inhab.

Periphery of Butana (the

70% of the population, i.e. 560 000 inhab. mostly settled

irrigation areas, the semi-

communities with more limited reliance on communal or open

mechanized farming and the

access resources.

eastern parts of the Khartoum

67% of this population is poor: 375 000 inhab.

and Gezira states)

Transhumant population

Settles in central Butana during the rainy season. Estimates of

240 000 inhab.

RAP project area along the

- 63 000 inhabitants in the dry season in 21 communities along the

alignment of the road (located in

proposed road alignment Husheib-Es Soubagh - Es Sadda - Arab 6

Central Butana)

- 130 000 inhabitants in the rainy season (incl. the nomadic

population) along the road alignment.

- Livestock wealth estimated at 500 000 heads of camel, 400 000

heads of cattle, 700 000 heads of sheep, 140 000 heads of goat,

along the road alignment in the rainy season.

37.

Subsistence oriented livelihoods. Butana represents a socio-ecological unit under 5 states

and 9 locality divisions, and is characterized by the low density of the population and its seasonal

migration. On the poverty scale established by the national Multiple Index Cluster Survey carried out

by UNICEF, poverty levels are average for the states where Butana falls. The available statistics for

the project area show that almost 12% of children under-five are moderately wasted and 12% are

severely wasted. The indicators of infant mortality rate and under five mortality rate were also taken

as a proxy for poverty: in the Butana, they vary between 40 to 100‰, and 60 to 140‰ respectively.

These indicators are the lower in the states of Gadaref and Kassala which cover the central and

southern parts of the Butana area, where the RAP investments will be located.

38.

The main source of income/livelihood is subsistence oriented and is based on traditional

agriculture and pastoralism. Traditional agriculture depends essentially on harvesting of rain water

through terrace and wadi cultivation. Terrace cultivation involves the establishment of ridges to reduce

rain water run-off and increase soil moisture content. Wadi cultivation is practised on the residual

moisture following the recession of wadi or seasonal river floods. Sorghum is almost the sole crop

grown. Pastoralism entails migration to Butana during the rainy season (August-October) and out of

the Butana thereafter (October-July) to areas where crop residues and water are available. This

means that herds move to New Halfa and Gezira Schemes, as well as the large-scale mechanized

schemes in the states of Gadaref, Blue Nile and River Atbara and further south towards Upper Nile

State. The main animal species are sheep, camels, cattle and goats. Goats are sold all year round to

meet consumption needs, whereas sales of camels/ cattle and sheep are seasonal.

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

39.

Access to markets. About 78% of communities in Butana sell their produce and buy their

household needs at town markets. Only 13% of the communities depend on nearby village markets

and 9% on community markets. The vast majority of Butana communities depend on lorries as their

first means of transport to access markets and neighbouring villages. Women use pick-up trucks to

move between their village and the town market, namely New Halfa, a major destination for trade,

health services and social gatherings. Animals and walking are used mainly to access nearby

communities in festivals and condolences. The quality and service of transport has improved thanks

to the construction of the asphalt road connecting New Halfa to the main road between Khartoum,

Gadaref, Kassala and Port Sudan. In this regard and given the widespread and socially acceptable

use of vehicles (lorries and pick-ups) for men and women transport, the development of intermediate

means of transport will not be required.

40.

Producers chose the suitable marketing channels depending on the cost of transportation to

the market, itself a function of distance and, the number of animals to be sold. Transportation costs

during the rainy season (Kharif) increase by almost 50% due to the poor state of the roads to and

between markets which render travelling very difficult. The tables below provide a comparative view of

the herds and livestock sales in the main markets used by the population in the project area.

Table 3: Livestock in the project area, based on estimated figures for 2008 (source: socio-

economic survey, BDA, 2009)

Livestock in the

Number of heads in wet

RAP project

Number of heads in dry

season for settlers and

area

season

nomads

Difference

Camels

180900

556500

308%

Cattle

40300

394950

980%

Sheep

126000

775000

615%

Goats

37900

144200

380%

Table 4: Livestock sales in the markets that serve the project area based on estimated figures

for 2008 (source: socio-economic survey, BDA, 2009)

DRY SEASON

WET SEASON

MARKET

Camels

Cattle

Sheep

Goats

Camels

Cattle

Sheep

Goats

Rattaja

2000

21840

39090

13030

7207

23454

7818

New Halfa

600

35000

75000

30000

Es Soubagh

1270

600

5000

3400

2690

700

17500

2300

Al Edeid

540

360

9000

900

720

600

6000

300

Gadaref

2800

1600

6000

1200

Tamboul

8000

10000

40000

2500

3000

1500

20000

1100

Total

15210

69400

174090

51030

6410

10007

66954

11518

Table 5: Livestock prices in the various markets, based on estimated figures for 2008 (source:

socio-economic survey, BDA, 2009)

Average Price /Head in SDG

Markets

Dry season

Wet season

Camels

Cattle

Sheep

Goats

Camels

Cattle

Sheep

Goats

Es Soubagh

1050

1350

180

140

1400

1800

190

150

Rattaja

1100

1200

230

160

1200

160

110

Halfa

900

1200

200

Gedaref

1800

1100

280

180

1600

1000

230

120

Tamboul

1200

1600

220

180

900

2500

210

180

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

41.

It is worth noting that the dry season is 40 weeks long whereas the rainy season is 12 weeks

long. In the rainy season, the communities living in the project area find it difficult to transport their

herd to the terminal markets of Gadaref and Tamboul due to the impassability of the road and the

increase of the transportation costs by 100% to SDG 10-20/ person. The roads are blocked either by

muddy conditions or the floods from the seasonal streams. Rain shower of moderate intensity could

prevent passing over a road for 3 days or more. Such situation leads to complete cessation of

livestock supply to the market as in the case of the New Halfa Market as shown in the table 5 above

where no prices were given for the wet season. The Es Soubagh market is very active in the wet

season. Es-Soubagh market is considered a high potential market place as brokers visit it from big

markets like Tamboul, Gedaref and Khartoum. This is explained by the large numbers of animals

present in the area (see table 3). The Es Soubagh market is dominated by big merchants and brokers

who command lower prices than the terminal markets in Tamboul and Gadaref. It is estimated that

with good road access, producers in the project area would sell in the terminal markets and increase

their gross margin from SDG 16 to 45/ sheep.

42.

Poverty in Butana. The perception of poverty by communities in Butana is variable.

Communities that were found to be both poor and have a low capacity of natural resources

management have the following characteristics: reliance on agro-pastoralist and pastoralist modes of

production (i.e. no access to irrigated scheme or mechanized farms); lack of permanent water source;

absence of social services; communities situated in the areas of average to severe deterioration of the

vegetation; distance from dry season markets. These communities represent 30% of the project area

communities, and are mostly located in the Central part of the Butana region which corresponds to the

RAP project area. Poverty incidence in these communities is estimated to be 80%.

B. The target group, including gender issues

43.

In Butana, target households will include:

The poor households with less than 10 heads of small ruminants, cultivating only rainfed land

(either in wadis or on ‘terraces’) and lacking the means to finance tractor ploughing and

therefore cultivating no more than 5 feddans of sorghum per family, even if they have a right

to more. Women in these households are involved in milking small ruminants when they have

any, and do not have any surplus milk for processing. They make mats and other basket work

for sale. They also participate in cultivation tasks, planting seeds, weeding and harvesting

when the family fields are within walking distance. Men and women from such households

located near the irrigated schemes also work as casual seasonal labourers on the schemes

as a coping strategy to address poverty; men also gather and sell firewood as well as seek

unskilled employment in more remote towns and cities throughout Sudan. This group is

composed primarily of households who do not leave the Butana area.

Average households can be roughly described as those with about 30 small ruminants, up to

10 cattle and/or camels, cultivating up to 50 feddans of rainfed sorghum with mechanised

assistance for initial ploughing. They may also supplement this income through seasonal

labour of one or two family members on neighbouring irrigated schemes, in cities or even as

migrant workers in Saudi Arabia. Women in this group are usually involved in milking small

ruminants and processing their milk (as well as cow milk) into ghee and yogourt. In most of

the project area , women do not milk cattle or camels for cultural reasons. They do not

participate in cultivation, except if the fields are very near their homes in which case they may

participate in weeding and harvesting. These households are basically settled within the

Butana area, but most send their livestock towards the better pasture areas during the wet

season, accompanied by some of the male family members.

Wealthy households obviously have a larger area to cultivate, and own herds within the range

of 100 to 300 heads, have easier access to mechanization, engage in trade activities whether

for livestock or water, and are either settled within Butana or transhume from outside of the

project area. Mobility within and outside of the Butana is important for them to feed and water

their herds.

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

44.

In conclusion, the target group of the RAP in central part of Butana⁵ is composed of poor and

less poor households. For the poor households, the project will target them with labour intensive

activities in the context of the soil and water conservation works to protect the road from gulley

erosion. Households participating in such woks will be trained on conservation techniques and on

selecting the best vegetative cover from an environmental and economic point of view: for example

agro-forestry can support the conservation works and at the same time provide short term food

security and cash benefits to the households. For the less poor households, and who own vehicles,

the project will target them with awareness campaigns to encourage them to pay road and market

fees which proceeds will be used for the preventative maintenance of the road.

C. Targeting strategy and gender mainstreaming

45.

With regards poverty targeting, the project area corresponds to the poorer areas of central

Butana. .The targeting strategy implies that for a blanket investment like a rural road, the project

management should ensure that the poorer groups derive a larger benefit than other groups. In order

to achieve this, the project will adopt the following targeting strategy: (i) promoting labour intensive soil

and water conservation and road maintenance works in the dry season to generate income for poor

households. These activities would target the poor households who reside in Butana in the dry

season; (ii) monitoring the profile of the women and men employed on soil and water conservation as

well as road maintenance works in order to ensure that the training on soil and water conservation

works and on maintenance works as well as labour opportunities are equitably distributed along age

and gender. This will be reflected in the M&E system of the project described in annex 6. The

implementation of this target strategy is built on the following:(i) wealth ranking undertaken with

communities; (ii) identification of households who are most in need of dry season jobs and the skills of

and physical ability of women and men in these households; (iii) the road committees formed at

village will prioritize these households for training on soil and water conservation works, and for

participation in labour intensive maintenance works.

46.

With regards gender mainstreaming, and given women overall limited mobility in the Eastern

communities, the main issues to consider are : (i) the improved roads should address both concerns

of access to markets and service centers (particularly health and education) and hence women should

be represented in the planning and prioritization of the selected roads; (ii) the routine maintenance of

the roads particularly the soil and water conservation works to protect against erosion would offer

women labour opportunities during the dry season and increased production from crops and forestry;

and (iii) for the more entrepreneurial women, the road will offer the opportunity to engage in income

generating activities (petty trading, dairy processing, deferred sale of crops, etc…). The RAP design

will address points (i) and (ii) while point (iii), is already addressed as part of the BIRDP on-going

activities. It is worth mentioning that the alignment Es Soubagh - Arab 6 responds to women's

priorities in terms of mobility as it facilitates their access to New Halfa, which for women is the main

town for purchase of consumers' goods and raw material for their handicraft industries, for access to

health services and for family gatherings. Outreach to women is currently facilitated by the locality

development teams which include among their members at least two professional women, the

community development officer, range extension agent and/or the animal production extension

agents.

D. Geographic coverage of the project

47.

The project covers two states in Eastern Sudan, Gadaref and Kassala and 2 localities i.e.

Butana in Gadaref State, and River Atbara in Kassala State. The main characteristics of the project

area are described in working paper 1 para 8 to 11, and the main features summarized here.

There is a wide variation of soil types and properties in Butana. Texturally, the soils are

sands, sandy/clay loam and clay loam to clay with the lighter sandy soils predominating in the

north. Soils with high clay concentration and fine texture are found in the southern parts of the

plains. Gravelly weathered and sand surface sheets are found scattered in various locations

throughout with concentration in the vicinity of the mountains and outcrop rocks.

There are no clearly defined access routes and roads, and vehicles that utilise the area

⁵ The central part of Butana covers two localities, Butana and River Atbara.

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

especially during the dry season, take any alignment that they choose. This has meant that

wide areas have formed tracks and destroyed any form of vegetation that may still try to grow

using residual moisture. The main route into Butana during the rainy season is through the

New Halfa - Es Soubagh track road.

Population in central Butana increases in the rainy season with pastoralists coming from

surrounding states and the return of farmers residing in the Butana periphery to cultivate their

land in Butana. The sale of sheep also increases during the period September to November.

The New Halfa market is important to the inhabitants in the central plains for consumption and

trade purposes with those around the periphery travelling to a wide range of markets located

along the Nile or close to the Khartoum to Port Sudan road. The residents of central Butana

have a preference for the New Halfa market over the Tamboul market (on the western

periphery of Butana) because it is both a market for livestock and crop trade as well as for

consumer goods. Kinship ties are also stronger with the population in New Halfa where many

of the Butana residents have settled in the wake of the 1984 drought.

Despite the widespread poverty in Butana, the community capability assessment showed that

local communities in Butana had a reasonable level of capability, i.e., a combination of skills,

assets and attitudes that communities possess to manage resources. The community

capability assessment revealed the following key features of relevance to the RAP:

(i)

common vision; (ii) trust within communities; (iii) there is a good degree of self reliance with

communities helping themselves to organize collective initiatives and resolve problems. Main

areas that require further strengthening are fund management and management of

community initiatives.

There are a number of federal and state initiatives for construction of rural roads in the south

of Butana locality from the national road Khartoum- Gadaref towards Es Soubagh: This refers

to the Gadaref - Husheib road, an 80 km long road. Similarly, New Halfa is being linked

through a gravel road to Arab 6 and to Rattaga.

IV.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (KSF 3)

A. The knowledge base: Lessons from previous/ongoing projects

48.

The major lessons from IFAD's experience to date in rural access in Sudan could be

summarized as follows:

49.

Rationale for rural roads. Poor rural access (beside lack of peace) represents the main

factor for market failure to secure remunerative prices for output and regular flow of consumer goods

and services to rural communities.

50.

Impact of rural roads. Proximity from main urban areas and access to better marketing

services are a major factor in improvement of household income. This is illustrated by the Bara - El

Obeid road in North Kordofan State whereby linking Bara, a rural town with a horticulture and

livestock production base, to the urban center of El Obeid where the wholesale market is located, led

to a decrease by 60% of travel time, decrease by 50% of fuel consumption and repair costs, and

enabled producers to double their sale prices. Evidence from the case study on Empowerment of the

Rural Poor in Volatile Policy Environments in Sudan (IFAD/IFPRI, 2005) also points to the fact that

proximity to urban centers and to markets constitutes a good determinant for higher community

capabilities.

51.

Major constraints that affect the sustainability of road projects and that will be addressed in

the design of the present project include:

Shortage of technically qualified staff at the lower and middle level management of

government.

Construction costs have risen recently due to the lack of competition and timely funding. The

contractors' resort to self financing which results in significant increase of

30%-40% in

construction costs due to the implicit inclusion of a cost of financing and the-now acceptable

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

practice of quota allocation of roads for construction on non-competitive bases.

52.

Additional relevant lessons drawn from the Rural Road Travel and Transport Review, RTT,

(IFAD, 2007), as well as from the Pilot Community Based Rural Infrastructure Project for Highland

Areas (669-YE) are reiterated here given their relevance to the project:

Current priorities and focus in the roads sector emphasise maintenance of existing

infrastructure, partial rehabilitation and spot improvements rather than new construction in

order to increase and consolidate efficient and maintainable network. A focus on maintenance

is due to resource constraints and inability of economies under stress to maintain expanded

infrastructure.

Project design. The mechanism and approach for delivery of RTT sub-component(s) should

include procedures for identification of needs and prioritisation of interventions and

procurement; approaches for planning and implementation of interventions; outline of

resources requirement and budgets; definition of financial flow mechanisms, institutional

interfaces and key stakeholders responsibilities; and indicators for monitoring and reporting.

Alignment of interventions with national policies. It is important to understand the policies

and development frameworks supporting RTT, agriculture and poverty alleviation to be able to

define interventions that are likely to be accommodated in the long

- term country

development strategies. This should for example take into account the ongoing

decentralisation reforms in various countries and define interventions in a way that they

contribute to enhancing the process of reform.

Capacity building. Ensure availability of adequate technical skills and capacities for planning

and implementation of RTT interventions through capacity building initiatives tailored to the

needs of local partners. Capacity building should also be geared to support decentralisation

reforms.

Community participation. Discuss and agree with communities on the strategy, process of

participation and the tools to be used in order to ensure transparent approach. The process

should be gender inclusive and aim at instilling accountability and local ownership. In which

case, design and cost estimates for local interventions should also involve beneficiary

participation.

Gender mainstreaming. Targeting of women should mainly be at the level of benefits of

investment and not only their involvement in voluntary work. Deliberate measures should be

designed through a consultative process to ensure fair participation of men and women in the

improvement of RTT infrastructure.

Road maintenance. Before commitment to investment, one has to ask a question: who will

maintain the road

(or basic access infrastructure) after completion, and where will the

resources come from? Any assumption on maintenance should be strongly supported by the

existence of track record of reliable financial resources.

53.

The design of RAP adopts the spot improvement approach and preventative maintenance as

the most suitable solution to rural access in Butana given the area's low population density, the

seasonal trade activity, and relatively short rainy season. The lessons learned on capacity building,

community participation and gender mainstreaming, as well as road maintenance are also integrated

in the project design.

B. Opportunities for rural development and poverty reduction

54.

Efficient Rural Roads Travel and Transport (RTT) facilitates access to basic socio-economic

goods and services, information, technologies, rural and agricultural development and markets, and

thereby contributes to poverty reduction and agricultural growth. High potential farming areas cannot

be developed without adequate access to infrastructure and services. Poor rural feeder and village

access roads severely impede access of smallholder farmers to markets (and vice versa), and

increase transaction costs due to the high economic costs of transporting goods. This is the case in

the Butana where the marketing of livestock and dairy products is hampered by impassable roads

during the rainy season. The results from the Bara-El Obeid road also confirm the significant

economic benefits generated by roads and their potential impact to reduce poverty by creating new

job opportunities and improving producers' access to markets.

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

55.

The IFAD financed Butana Integrated Rural Development Project addresses marketing

constraints with regards to :(i) market access through the construction of crossings, and (ii) producers'

bargaining power through the organization and training of producers, and the set up of a marketing

information system. However, the investments in crossings are judged insufficient to realize the

intended benefits of the marketing component and will now be complemented with additional

investments under RAP.

56.

In view of large needs for rural road network and limited financing available, the spot

improvement approach - first piloted in Southern Sudan - has the potential to ensure maximum road

coverage at an optimal km cost of accessibility. When combined with preventative management and

capacity building of state institutions, the approach has the potential to increase the sustainability of

road investments in rural areas. In view of the potential investments in rural roads estimated at USD

100 million under the ARP, the approach has the potential to be replicated.

Project goal and objectives

57.

The project will contribute towards the COSOP 2009-2012 goal of "empowering the rural poor

to increase their food security, incomes and resilience to shocks". The main project objective is

improved access of the rural population in Central Butana to markets and social services. Three key

results are expected from the project:

Rural roads upgraded in Central Butana and regularly maintained. Target is 144 km.

Communities are trained to manage road tolls and to engage in labor based maintenance

contracts;

State capacity is strengthened to plan, design, supervise, manage and maintain rural feeder

roads using the spot improvement approach.

D. Alignment with country rural development policies and IFAD strategies

58.

Alignment with country rural development policies and investments. As demonstrated

earlier the project is aligned with the ARP focus on rural infrastructure for productive and marketing

purposes. The ARP has an indicative programme of rural road construction, yet this programme does

not consider spot improvement as an alternative approach to improve rural access, it does not pay

attention to much needed capacity building of the MPPPUs, and it does not address preventative

maintenance, three gap areas that RAP plans to fill.

59.

The ARP secretariat annually allocates resources destined to construct a specific length of

rural road for each state. In Gadaref, for example, ARP approved the construction of 90 km in 2008

and again in 2009. Also in New Halfa, Kassala State, the state government signed a contract for the

construction of Um Al Gora- New Halfa road. The RAP would extend the road network planned under

the ARP in Gadaref and Kassala States to the traditional rainfed areas and the site of concentration of

livestock during the rainy season.

60.

Alignment with IFAD strategies. Access of the rural poor to markets is a key IFAD strategic

objective under the Strategic Framework 2007-2010. The project is in compliance with the provisions

contained in the Learning Note on community participation in planning, priority setting, implementation

and follow up to infrastructure and rural travel and transport projects and the stock taking exercise for

Rural Travel and Transport (IFAD, 2007). Using the infrastructure checklist as reference, the design

team defined the scope and modalities for road maintenance and the mechansim for mainstreaming

the proposed capacity building and management package in Government road policy. The project

approach includes the following main elements: (i) strategic rural road plans for each state linked to a

strategic national road network plan; (ii) improved technical (particularly qualified and experienced

engineers) capacity to draw road specification, design, supervision and maintenance, (iii) competitive

and transparent bidding, (iv) preventative maintenance of roads and community awareness of and

participation in road maintenance, which should help decrease the overall capital costs of rural roads.

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

E. Project components

61.

The Project is organized into 3 main components: (i) physical rehabilitation and contruction of

rural feeder roads; (ii) capacity building and institutional development; (iii) project management. The

project duration is 4 years.

Component 1 - Physical Rehabilitation and Construction of Rural Feeder Roads

62.

This component would achieve result 1 "access roads upgraded in Butana and regularly

maintained". The target is 144 km of rural roads improved and regularly maintained in Butana. The

component consists of 4 main activities: the road development; the implementation of conservation

and water control works; the studies to support field activities for road development; and the

establishment of a community road fund to finance maintenance works.

63.

Road development. The spot improvement approach to road development will result in a

complete rehabilitated and upgraded road comprised of sections that will be a composite of different

classifications and specifications depending on existing soil conditions (see Table 6 below). The

access road alignments selected are the Arab 6 to Es Soubagh (84 km) and Es Soubagh to Husheib

(60 km), a 144 km long road servicing 5 main markets (Es Soubagh, Rattaga, New Halfa, Gadaref,

Tamboul), and covering

2 localities in

2 states. These road alignments were endorsed in a

memorandum of understanding signed by the Gadaref and Kassala states.

Table 6: Specifications of the improved Arab 6-Es Soubagh-Husheib road

Description

Total

Improved

Improved section

Graded sections to

Length

section to Class

to Class e.2 (spot

accompany (spot

of Road

d.3 (full gravel

improvements)

length)

Arab 6 to Es Subagh

Arab 6 Village to Es Sadda (a)

Arab 6 Village to Es Sadda (b)

Es Sadda to Es Subagh

Sub-total

Es Subagh to Hushieb

Es Subagh to Husheib

Sub-total

TOTAL LENGTHS

144

Note: Final lengths and locations of improved sections will derive from preparation surveys and design currently underway.

In between the fully improved road sections, grading and road shaping together with improved drainage will be carried out.

The net result will be a completed road with sections improved to different standards as set out above.

64.

The physical survey and design works for the proposed alignment are currently being

developed by the MPPPU in Gadaref State and will be submitted for field verification and validation by

mid-October 2009. The field verification and validation should be conducted in collaboration between

the NHBA, the MPPPUs in Kassala and Gadaref, the representatives of the localities of Butana and

River Atbara, and the representatives of communities serviced by the road. Once the design is

validated, the tender documents will be prepared with contract award planned once the project is

approved by the IFAD Executive Board in December 2009 and the project enters into force. It is worth

noting here that the road construction will be fully undertaken by contractors.

65.

Conservation and water control works. In the Butana area, roads have not been

engineered, but have just been developed out of traditional tracks and gulley crossings. In many

places, poor alignments across gulleys and drainage lines have developed and crossing points are

often much longer and more difficult than they need be. With the increase in livestock in the area and

the lower control of over grazing, most gulleys are actively eroding and measures are needed to

ensure that these gulleys are controlled and do not undermine any roads once built. In addition to this,

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

improved water control and management will be needed through the construction of upslope cut-

off/interceptor drains and diversion bunds, erosion control measures and structures and turnout and

relief drains. Similarly, downstream slope control structures and checks will be needed along with

vegetative measures to stabilise the gullies.

66.

Studies. Studies will include the survey and design of the rural road as well as additional

studies as required for the design of more complex structures such as bridges on large seasonal

streams and crossings downstream from dams. It is to be noted that the survey and design works

have already started and are being carried out by the MPPPU in Gadaref State. These costs will be

retroactively financed by the IFAD grant once it becomes effective.

67.

Community Road Fund. The Community Road Fund (CRF) constitutes the proposed

financing arrangement for road maintenance. The CRF will be financed by: (i) funds from the RAP to

cover the administrative and maintenance expenditures during the first 3 years of the project; (ii) levy

of fees by the localities towards road maintenance from vehicle operators and from market agents.

The CRF will be used to finance routine, periodic and preventative maintenance works using

contracted local labour from the Butana communities as well as private sector contractors depending

on the type of maintenance works required. The annual maintenance costs for the New Halfa - Es

Soubagh - Husheib road is approx USD 95 000 at road completion. The CRF will consist of an

account with the BDA and a committee under the BDA. The committee will be composed of members

representing the communities serviced by the road, the executive officers in the localities of Butana

and River Atbara with possible extension to the localities of Central Gadaref and New Halfa, the BDA

Director and Financial Controller as well as the Road Department from the MPPPUs in Gadaref and

Kassala which will act as the secretary of this committee. The Commissioners of Butana and River

Atbara will alternate as chairpersons of this committee. The CRF will have a dedicated bank account

replenished by funds from RAP and as of 2013 the CRF will be totally funded from road tolls and

market fees. The CRF account will be managed by the Director and the Financial Controller of the

BDA. It is planned that the two localities of Butana and River Atbara pass administrative decrees in

2010 for the levy of road tolls and market fees towards the maintenance of the road. The detailed

implementation arrangements of the CRF are presented in annex 7.

Component 2: Capacity Building and Institutional Development

68.

This component would achieve result 2 "communities are trained to manage road tolls and to

engage in labor based maintenance contracts" and result 3 "state capacity strengthened to plan,

supervise, manage, and maintain rural feeder roads using the spot improvement approach". The

component consists of 3 main activities: institutional support to the Road Departments in the MPPPUs

of Kassala and Gadaref; training of the Road Departments in the MPPPPUs; and training of

communities on the implementation of soil and water conservation works and implementation of

labour based works.

69.

Institutional support to the Road Department of the MPPPUs. The project will provide

office renovation, office equipment as well as survey and design softwares. The detailed list of

equipment is provided in tables 16 and 17 in working paper 1.

70.

Training for the Road Departments in the MPPPUs. Training for the Roads Department will

include the following topics: English language course; computer assisted design and use of

specialized software; surveying; construction management and supervision; specifications and

procurement; road design; and road maintenance. The training approach will consist of :(i) on-the-job

training whereby each site proposed for spot improvement is treated as a training site for the staff of

the Road Department; and (ii) short formal courses to complement the on-the-job training. A

consultancy firm will be recruited by the BDA to provide the necessary training and technical

assistance to the MPPPUs and to produce a series of manuals and guidelines for the training of the

engineers dealing with the roads and the water control and conservation works. It is the intention that

standards for rural feeder roads will be developed for all financiers whether government or donors so

that consistent and sustainable approaches are adopted.

71.

Training for the Community Based Organizations on conservation and water control

works. The training for the communities will include the following topics: soil and water conservation

techniques that are appropriate to limit gulley erosion and to protect the road structure; the

management of labour based contracts. The training approach will consist in: (i) the training of trainers

whereby soil and water conservation extension agents from the State Ministry of Agriculture and

Irrigation and competent persons selected by community based organizations will become "master

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

trainers" in order to train others in step with the demand for maintenance and soil and water

conservation works; (ii) on site training whereby suitable sites are selected close to the communities

to implement on the job training and practical demonstration of the soil and water conservation

techniques; (iii) formal training of community based organizations on the management of labour based

contracts for soil and water conservation and maintenance of the rural feeder road. The training will

be delivered by the Consultancy firm recruited by the BDA.

Component 3: Project Management

72.

This component would ensure that the project is managed effectively, efficiently and in a

sustainable manner. The component consists of 3 main activities: recruitment of and the consultancy

firm by the BDA to provide supervision of the road works and capacity building to the Road

Departments of the MPPPUs and to the communities (as indicated under component 2); monitoring of

the project by the NHBA; coordination with BIRDP community based and marketing activities.

73.

Recruitment of the Consultancy firm by the BDA. The BDA will recruit through an

international competitive process a consultancy firm to supervise the road works and to build the

capacity of the road departments in the MPPPUs and the communities. The consultancy firm will

make available to the BDA a dedicated technical team that will work under the management and

supervision of the Director of the Butana Development Agency. The team will be composed of a road

engineer with substantial experience in contract supervision and management, a construction

engineer and a number of qualified national consultants in the following area of expertise, computer

assisted design, structures design, hydrologist, procurement, soil and water conservation and training.

The estimated inputs in terms of person months for the various members of the technical team are

indicated in table 25 of working paper 1.

74.

Monitoring by the NHBA. The NHBA will assign from its staff (located in headquarters and in

the field) a monitoring team who will be responsible for the following: (i) reviewing project deliverables

and clearing them from a technical view point (this covers the infrastructure development plan, road

and traffic surveys, design works, works supervision reports, the operational manuals for rural roads);

(ii) undertaking a comparative analysis of the results of the project approach versus the more

conventional approach of the construction of fully designed roads and capital repairs; (iii) assessing

the progress of the project and reporting accordingly to the Director of the NHBA, the MPPPUs and

the Board of Directors of the BDA.

75.

Coordination with BIRDP community based and marketing activities. In order to realize

maximum synergy between the RAP and the BIRDP, the BIRDP implementation approach will be

adjusted as follows:

BIRDP will give priority to working with the 21 communities situated along the Arab 6 - Es

Soubagh - Husheib road. These communities will receive the full environmental, production

and marketing package offered by the BIRDP;

The rehabilitation of the markets and the establishment of the market information system

scheduled under the BIRDP will be synchronized with the road improvement. This refers to

the markets serviced by the proposed road and included in the market rehabilitation plans of

the BIRDP, such as Es Soubagh and Um Al Gora;

The Edeid El Humur area where a rainy season market is expected to be established under

BIRDP, will receive the required number of crossings to make it passable and to make it

accessible from the Husheib-Es Soubagh link;

The crossings planned under BIRDP and for which an amount of USD 2.7 million was

budgeted, would be planned strategically to complement the alignment proposed under RAP.

In particular, crossings will be established to facilitate access to : (i) the Edeid El Humur area

where a rainy season market is expected to be established under BIRDP; (ii) the Tamboul

livestock market;

As part of the community mobilization undertaken by BIRDP, road committees will be formed

under the aegis of the community development committee established at village level and

already registered under the voluntary association law;

The Planning and Monitoring system of the BDA which now covers the BIRDP, will be

expanded to include the planning, result measurement and progress reporting for the RAP;

The terms of reference of the following staff of the BDA will be amended to take into

consideration the integration of the RAP in their work programmes: the Director, the Financial

Controller, the Accountant, the M&E Officer, the assistant M&E Officer, the Gender and

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

Community Development Officer and the Natural Resources Management Officer. Their

involvement in the RAP will entail an additional workload for this personnel that will be

remunerated through the payment of overtime and allowances.

IMPLEMENTATION AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS (KSF 4)

A. Institutional development and outcomes

76.

Out of the 3 project results, 2 results relate to institutional development and outcomes. These

are as follows:

Communities are trained to manage road tolls and to engage in labor based maintenance

contracts;;

State capacity strengthened to plan, design, supervise, and maintain rural feeder roads using

the spot improvement approach.

77.

These results also constitute the pillars of project sustainability as will be discussed later.

Approximately 17% of the project base costs are dedicated to the achievement of these 2 results

under component 2 capacity building and institutional development.

B. The collaborative framework

The main implementing agencies and their roles

78.

The Lead Agency is the Butana Development Agency. The BDA will play the role of

financier and quality assurance. Its role is to ensure synergy of the interventions targeting the Butana

particularly BIRDP and RAP in order to effectively reduce poverty and ensure sustainable

management of natural resources; financing project interventions and accounting for fund use;

ensuring the quality of works by hiring qualified consultancy firm to carry out the training of the Road

Departments of the MPPPUs and the communities; monitoring project performance and deciding on

corrective actions as needed. The BDA Board of Directors will be expanded to include representation

from the MPPPUs in Kassala and Gadaref at ministerial level.

79.

The consultancy firm hired by the BDA will provide a technical team responsible for

supervising the constructions works of the road as well as provision of training and backstopping to

the Road Department and the communities. More specifically, its scope of work will include: (i) review

and update designs and detailed engineering drawings to ensure that works are in accordance with

the post improvement approach and that costs are maintained within the overall budget envelope; (ii)

provide construction supervision and quality control of all works; (iii) provide structured and practical

training for all assigned staff of the Road Departments in the MPPPUs of Gadaref and Kassala in

planning, design and improvement of Rural Access Roads and on site training in construction

supervision and maintenance of rural access roads; (v) provide training to the Road Departments staff

in the design of soil & water conservation and runoff control and associated road maintenance and

assist them to provide similar training to local Communities;

(vi) provide guidance, advice and

assistance in the development of a Community Road Fund (CRF) for funding Annual Routine Road

Maintenance programme. The full scope of work of the consultancy firm is available in working paper

1 appendix G.

80.

The National Highways and Bridges Authority (NHBA). The NHBA - given its mandate

and collaboration with the states

- will undertake monitoring of the project with a view to

mainstreaming its approach in the Government policy and programmes for rural roads, and to

replicating the approach under the rural roads programme of the ARP.

81.

The State Ministry of Physical Planning and Public Utilities (MPPPU) in Gadaref and

Kassala States. The State Ministry of Physical Planning and Public Utilities in both Gadaref and

Kassala States will be the contracting authority for the proposed road. The Road Departments in the

MPPPUs will be responsible for the adaptation of the road design to the field realities, the certification

of the contractors' payments, and the planning and supervision of the road maintenance works. As the

capacity of the Road Department to undertake these activities is currently limited, the staff of the Road

Department will be receiving formal and on-the-job training to build their capacities in road planning,

design, management, supervision and maintenance. The Road Department in the MPPPU will be

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

responsible for the final commissioning of the road. In order to facilitate the capacity building process

and clarification of roles and tasks within the Road Departments, the director of the Road Department

will organize the existing staff in

2 teams: (i) a construction team composed of a construction

engineer, design engineer, 2 surveyors, and 2 site supervisors; (ii) a rural road maintenance team

composed of an engineer and a surveyor. The Director of the Road Department as well as the staff

involved in the 2 teams will receive allowances from the RAP (included in annex 4, the detailed costs

of component 2).

82.

The localities in Butana and River Atbara are the main localities concerned by the road

alignment proposed under RAP. The role of these two localities will be to: (i) present to the local

councils for discussion and approval an administrative decree regulating the levy of road tolls and

market fees, and the channelling of the proceeds to the Community Road Fund;(ii) coordinating with

the neighboring localities of New Halfa and Central Gadaref the levy of fees in order to avoid

duplication and over-taxation of vehicle operators and market agents; (iii) review of the plans for road

maintenance works and effectiveness of their implementation; (iv) act as the contracting authority for

the maintenance works.

83.

The communities situated along the road. There are about 21 communities serviced by the

proposed road. These communities all have village development committees registered as voluntary

associations and engaged in broad based development work. The village development committees

will establish road committees to participate in the following: (i) validation of the design works and

maintenance works proposed for the road; (ii) supervision of the construction of the road and reporting

any mishandling to the localities and the BDA; (iii) reporting road breeches during the rainy season;

(iv) applying for labour based contracts for the maintenance of the road;

(v) supervision of

maintenance works; (vi) monitoring the number, gender, age and socio-economic profile of the

community members participating in the training and employed for the soil and water conservation

and maintenance works. The communities will also elect their representatives to the Community Road

Fund.

84.

The Community Road Fund will be a committee established within the BDA. It will be

responsible for planning and financing the maintenance of the road. The committee will have its own

by-laws stipulating the role of each party with regards the collection of fees for the maintenance

works, the planning of the works, the design and supervision of the works, the contracting of the

works and finally the monitoring. The CRF will be composed of members representing the

communities serviced by the road, the executive officers in the localities of Butana and River Atbara

with possible extension to the localities of Central Gadaref and New Halfa, the BDA as well as the

Road Department from the MPPPUs in Gadaref and Kassala. The Commissioners of Butana and

River Atbara will alternate in chairing this committee.

Technical partners in implementation

85.

The project will call on other partners to assist in the implementation of the RAP. These

include:

The private contractors selected for the implementation of road improvement and

maintenance works;

The State Ministry of Agriculture to assist in the design and implementation of conservation

and water control works.

Component wise implementation

86.

Component 1 Physical Rehabilitation and Construction of Rural Roads: a qualified

contractor will be recruited through national competitive bidding and following a prequalification

process. The Road Departments of the MPPPUs will monitor the performance of the contractor and

will certify the payments for the completed works. The MPPPUs will be the contracting authority for

the construction of the road. The Consultancy firm will carry out the role of construction supervision

and will also assist the BDA in the set up of the Community Road Fund. The Community Road Fund

will be established within the BDA and will be responsible for planning, financing and reporting on

road maintenance works.

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

87.

Component 2 Capacity Building and Institutional Development: The BDA will hire a

Consultancy firm to organize and implement the training targeting the Road Departments of the

MPPPUs and the communities. The Gender and Community Development Officer of the BDA with

assistance from the 2 locality development teams based in Es Soubagh and New Halfa and the

Natural Resources Management Officer will carry out the community awareness raising, mobilization

and organization to form road committees, sensitize them to their role and launch a campaign to

encourage users to pay for the road maintenance. The Gender and Community Development Officer

and the locality development teams will also mobilize the road committees to nominate both men and

women for the training on soil and water conservation and for the labour opportunities created by the

maintenance works.

88.

Component

3 Project Management: The BDA will be responsible for the project

coordination and financial management, as well as for synchronizing activities between the BIRDP

and the RAP in order to improve incomes in the beneficiary communities. The NHBA will carry out

regular monitoring to the project to assess the performance of the contractor and consultancy firm, to

monitor the progress of works, and to analyze the results of the spot improvement and preventative

maintenance approach with those of more conventional road construction methods.

Links with complementary projects

89.

The links to complementary projects are presented in Key file table 3. The main projects the

RAP will link with are:

The BIRDP. The RAP complements the livestock development and market component of the

BIRDP. The effectiveness of this complementarity will be measured by the following

indicators:

(i) the rehabilitation of markets, the establishment of the market information

system and the construction of the road are happening in tandem; (ii) decrease in the time

and cost of transportation and increase in sale prices obtained by producers.

The Agriculture Revival Programme, rural feeder road programme. The project will liaise

with the rural infrastructure working group to present the project progress and results with a

focus on the comparative advantage of the project spot improvement and preventative

maintenance approach compared to more conventional approaches, as well as the level of

awareness and capacity within the MPPPUs and the communities to implement the proposed

approach. The representative from the ARP rural infrastructure working group will be invited

to participate in the project supervision missions.

The EU financed model project for the construction of the Kadugli-Talodi road in the

State of South Kordofan. Plans are underway to establish joint activities with the EU funded

project for establishing a forum to exchange experiences about road procurement

arrangements; road maintenance arrangements; as well as for developing a governance

framework for the recruitment and implementation of road contracts.

Integration within the IFAD country programme

90.

As described earlier, RAP contributes directly to the achievement of the strategic objective of

increased access of the rural poor women and men to markets and to microfinance identified in the

2009-2012 country programme strategy. The RAP specifically contributes to the following milestone

indicator of approx 200 km of roads constructed in project areas; and outcome indicator of at least

20% producers’ access markets in project areas.

Project supervision arrangements

91.

The project will be directly supervised by IFAD and the Government of National Unity namely

the Ministry of Finance and National Economy (representative of the Borrower), National Highways

and Bridges Authority and the ARP rural infrastructure working group. In order to ensure

institutionalization of the knowledge and results of the project, the project design stresses the

supervisory and monitoring role of the NHBA and has made budget provisions in this respect. For the

purpose of the supervision of this project, IFAD will retain the services of an international road

engineer for the full duration of the project to carry out the following:(i) visit the project sites twice a

year during the construction and maintenance period which coincides with the dry season; (ii) monitor

the progress of the works, the performance of the consultancy firm hired by the BDA; (iii) assessing

the compliance of contractors with technical specifications, and that payments effected are consistent

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

with the progress of works; (iv) assessing the adequacy of the budgetary estimations for the road

maintenance works. Moreover, during

2010, IFAD will recruit an economist to design the

implementation of the road tolls system in collaboration with the localities.

C. Results-based M&E

92.

The logframe in annex 2 outlines the main results expected from the project. The M&E cycle

of the project will be as follows:

Planning. The development of the annual work plan and budget of the RAP will be a

collaborative endeavour involving the BDA, the Road Departments and the localities. The

annual work plan will specify the length of roads to be improved and maintained, the

mobilization of maintenance funds in the CRF and the training efforts required during the

year. The AWPB will be submitted to the BDA Board of Directors for endorsement then

submitted to IFAD for no objection.

M&E. The M&E system will monitor performance of the project as well as its results and

sustainability. The performance monitoring will essentially consist in the supervision of the

construction and maintenance works and reporting on their progress and adherence to

agreed technical specifications and schedule of works. This technical work will be conducted

by the BDA consultancy firm supervising the road as well as the Road Department of the

MPPPUs. Monitoring project results and sustainability will be carried out at community,

locality and state levels and will involve the road committees, the BDA development team and

the BDA M&E officers, as well as the Road Departments of the MPPPUs. The result based

M&E framework is explained in annex 6.

Learning. The Road Departments and the NHBA will be required to compile a data base on

the physical and economic results of rural roads constructed under conventional methods and

under spot improvement. With the M&E information collected from the RAP, the Road

Departments and the NHBA will be able to draw comparative analysis between conventional

approaches and the spot improvement approach, their respective strengths and weaknesses

and further actions proposed. It is expected that this comparative analysis will also be

reflected in the selection/ technical specifications and maintenance arrangements of roads

proposed in the state level road infrastructure plan.

VI.

PROJECT BENEFITS, COSTS AND FINANCING

A. Project benefits

93.

The project detailed benefit analysis is available in working paper 2. The total number of

beneficiaries is expected to be 130 000 persons equivalent to about 15 000 producer households,

corresponding to the households directly benefiting from the increased accessibility to markets in the

rainy season. It is expected that there will be 1700 additional women trading in the main markets

serviced by the road. It is estimated that the indirect beneficiaries represent 136 000 persons, namely

the population in River Atbara locality with business and kinship ties to Butana. In terms of economic

and social benefits, the main aggregate results for the project area are as follows (summarized from

working paper 2):

The main benefit is an increase in the value of agricultural production by USD 46 000 in the

short term, by USD 140 000 in the medium term, and by USD 233 000 in the long term. This

is based on 25% increase in farm gate prices;

The savings in vehicle operating costs, which will amount to USD 5 million in 2013 and will be

increasing to USD 6.5 million in 2017 provided the roads are regularly maintained and that the

number of trucks are regularly increasing by 5% every year. This means that 70% of the total

benefits from the access road will accrue to vehicle operators;

The increased income from women entrepreneurial activities in the trade sector are valued at

USD 80 000.

The net present value of the road is estimated at USD 22 million at 12% discount rate over a

period of 20 years.

The internal rate of return of the road is estimated at 22%.

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

94.

Given the high rate of benefits accruing to vehicle operators, a quick analysis highlights the

important impact of the combined effect of interventions enhancing production and vocational skills

combined with the construction of access roads. The results at household level are based on the

impact surveys carried out under the North Kordofan Rural Development Project for integrated

interventions in the area of agriculture production and life skills training and an impact survey for the

construction of the Bara - Obeid road under the same project. The assumption here is that the

traditional production systems in the locality of Bara in North Kordofan and the central area of the

Butana are comparable. The results of the project interventions on households' incomes are as

follows:

Table 7. Household benefits from the project, based on results obtained under NKRDP

Income sources

Household income

Comments

without interventions

with

productivity

with

productivity

enhancing

interventions and life

skills training

skills training, in

addition to easier

access to markets

Crop production in

1017

1242

2018

30% production sold at

SDG

25% higher price

Animal production in

1501

2767

30% sale in rainy

SDG

season, with

280%

increase in

gross

margins

(higher

livestock prices and

lower transport costs

in rainy season)

Wage labour in SDG

1945

1752

2920

Increase in wage

labour

opportunities

and number of working

days

Remittances in SDG

968

1076

Unchanged

decreased reliance on

migration

Trading activities in

1200

2110

Unchanged given the

SDG

increasing competition

Collection of range

1945

2699

Unchanged

given

and forestry products

diversification

in SDG

income sources

Total for household

8639

10380

13591

income in SDG

Total per capita in

1234

1483

1941

SDG

Total per capita in

493

593

776

USD

B. Summary cost table

95.

The total costs for the project are estimated at USD 14.96 million. Component 1 for the

physical rehabilitation and construction of rural roads represents 80% of base costs; component 2 for

capacity building and institutional development represents 17% of base costs; and component 3,

Project management, represents 3% of base costs.

Sudan: Rural Access Project (RAP)

PROJECT DESIGN REPORT - MAIN REPORT

Table 8: Project costs by Component (USD)

(SDP Million)

(US$ Million)

Components Project Cost Summary

% Total

Foreign Base

Foreign

Base

Local Foreign Total Exchange Costs Local Foreign Total Exchange

Costs

1. Physical Rehabilitation and Construction of Rural Roads /a

19.12

7.65

26.77

7.65

3.06

10.71

2. Capacity Building and Institutional Development

3.50

2.11

5.62

1.40

0.85

2.25

3. Project Management

0.96

0.05

1.00

0.38

0.02

0.40

Total BASELINE COSTS

23.58

9.80

33.38

100

9.43

3.92

13.35

100

Physical Contingencies

1.79

0.77

2.56

0.72

0.31

1.02

Price Contingencies

4.87

1.88

6.76

0.42

0.16

0.59

Total PROJECT COSTS

30.24

12.46

42.70

128

10.57

4.39

14.96

112

_________________________________

\a 10% Contingencies estimated for civil works

C. Project financing: IFAD financing, co-financing, government, partners and beneficiary

financing

96.

The project will be financed by IFAD, the Government and beneficiaries. IFAD financing, in

grant terms under the Debt Sustainability Framework, amounts to USD 12.95 million. Government

counterpart fund is estimated at USD 1.92 million approximately in form of exemption of taxes and

duties. Beneficiaries will contribute to the maintenance cost of the rural roads - through payment of

road tolls and market fees - to an estimated amount of USD 0.09 million.

Table 9: Project Costs by Financier

Components by Financiers

Local

(US$ Million)

The Government

IFAD

Beneficiaries

Total

For.

(Excl. Duties &

Amount

% Amount

% Exch. Taxes) Taxes

1. Physical Rehabilitation and Construction of Rural Roads /a

1.79

14.7

10.33

84.6

0.09

0.7

12.21

81.6

3.50

6.91

1.79

2. Capacity Building and Institutional Development

0.12

5.2

2.22

94.8

2.34

15.6

0.87

1.34

0.12

3. Project Management

0.01

2.3

0.41

97.7

0.42

2.8

0.02

0.39

0.01

Total PROJECT COSTS

1.92

12.9

12.95

86.6

0.09

0.6

14.96

100.0

4.39

8.65

1.92

_________________________________

\a 10% Contingencies estimated for civil works

D. Flow of funds, disbursement, procurement, audit

97.

Flow of funds and disbursement. The MOFNE will authorize the BDA to open a special

account in EURO for the specific purpose of the RAP, as well as a dedicated project account in local

currency to handle payments in local currency for project related activities. The special account and

project accounts will be managed under the principle of double signature by the BDA Director and the

Financial Controller. The initial deposit in the special account would amount to EURO 842 000 to

finance the first 6 months of project expenditures (please see annex 4 on the summary of main cost

tables).

98.

Disbursements for items each costing less than USD 20 000 (or equivalent) would be made

against Statements of Expenditure. The Project would retain the relevant documents and make them

readily available for inspection and review by the supervision missions and the auditors. No taxes and

duties would be financed out of the proceeds of the IFAD grant. The disbursement accounts and the

associated financing arrangement is presented below.

Military reference books and manuals (2009-2023, Volume 6) - page 1