Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 04/15/2010 1. Basic Project Data Original Project ID: P093640 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Report No.: AC5282 Original Project Name: Haiti Community Driven Development (CDD) Project / PRODEP Country: Haiti Project ID: P118139 Project Name: Rural Community Driven Development - Additional Financing II Task Team Leader: Ayat Soliman Estimated Appraisal Date: May 6, 2010 Estimated Board Date: May 27, 2010 Managing Unit: LCSAR Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (60%);Roads and highways (20%);Irrigation and drainage (10%);General water, sanitation and flood protection sector (10%) Theme: Participation and civic engagement (29%);Rural services and infrastructure (29%);Poverty strategy, analysis and monitoring (14%);Municipal governance and institution building (14%);Managing for development results (14%) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 0.00 IDA Amount (US$m.): 15.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: BORROWER/RECIPIENT 1.20 1.20 Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies) [] No [ ] 2. Project Objectives The development objective of the proposed Additional Financing (AF) remains the same as that of the original Haiti Community-Driven Development Project (PRODEP); i.e., to support the scaling up of the direct transfer of public resources to local community organizations in poor rural and peri-urban communities: (i) to improve their access to basic and economic infrastructure and support income-generating activities by financing small-scale investments proposed, implemented and managed by the community organizations themselves; and (ii) to improve governance and build social capital of local communities through an increase in citizen participation and transparency in open decision-making processes.
3. Project Description The original grant for the Haiti CDD project (PRODEP) was for US$38.0 million equivalent; the first Additional Financing was for US$8.0 million equivalent, and the proposed Additional Financing is for $15.0 million equivalent and would scale up investments and activities under Component 1: Community Subprojects, as well as related capacity building and management support under Components 2 and 3. Under Component 1: Community Subproject Funding, Management, and Support, the Additional Financing would: (i) finance approximately 136 subprojects of the type financed under the ongoing PRODEP - 1 to 2 subprojects per Municipal Section (Section Communale) in 27 Municipalities defined as "second phase Municipalities"; and (ii) finance an additional 80 subprojects with wider impact, to be selected on the basis of the Municipalities needs in addressing the impact of the earthquake and the Municipalities overall need to provide basic services; and the consolidation of the achievements of the ongoing subprojects in the 59 Municipalities already covered under PRODEP. For the 136 smaller-scale subprojects, and as in the original CDD/PRODEP project, subproject funding would finance: (i) basic small-scale socio-economic infrastructure (spot rehabilitation of rural road or paths, education, health, natural resource management, etc.) and productive/income generation community investments identified by Community Based Organizations, and subsequently prioritized by representative COPRODEPs based on available project resources; and (ii) the contracting of service providers to mobilize CBOs to participate in the project, and provide them with necessary training and technical assistance in the preparation, execution and operation of subproject investments. The second component includes additional capacity building for the local institutions (COPRODEP) and CBO in subproject design, implementation and operation and maintenance as well as training in organization and management. BMPAD as implementing agency will also receive some training under this component. Finally the AF will also support some additional management and monitoring and evaluation costs for BMPAD. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis The AF would support activities in the 59 eligible municipalities (among the poorest in the country) of PRODEP, across five geographic departments (Northeast, Center, Southeast, South and Nippes) of the country. Scope and coverage will undergo the changes outline above, but targeted municipalities are already covered by the project s original Environmental Management Framework (EMF). Social and environmental issues would be addressed as in the original Project, in accordance with World Bank guidelines and in compliance with safeguard requirements. No new safeguard policies would be triggered under the AF and the environmental category would remain B. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Ms Valerie Hickey (YPP)
Mr Peter Cohen (LCSSO) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Forests (OP/BP 4.36) Pest Management (OP 4.09) Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues 1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: Under the original project, the following safeguard policies were triggered: Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01). Because of the potential for small-scale, manageable impacts to the environment from the variety of sub-projects that could be proposed, this policy was triggered. As a result an EMF was prepared that, among other things, (i) outlined the screening criteria for selecting sub-projects eligible for support based on having only small-scale, reversible and easily manageable environmental impacts; (ii) analyzed the potential impacts of these eligible types of subprojects; (iii) provided guidance on minimizing, mitigating and managing these impacts; and (iv) described institutional arrangements for identifying potential impacts, preparing the instruments to manage these impacts, implementing safeguard actions, and monitoring these actions. Physical Cultural Property (OP 4.11). Because of the potential for sub-projects to be supported in areas with cultural resources, such as sacred sites, this policy was triggered. The EMF includes screening criteria for classifying these potential sites as fragile, which in turn triggers a sub-project needing a site visit prior to classification, and each of these sub-projects having to follow guidelines established in the EMF. Pest Management (OP 4.09). This was triggered because sub-projects that propose to procure or manage pesticides were - and will continue to be - eligible under the project. The EMF includes guidance on how to minimize and manage adverse environmental impacts associated with the use, handling and storage of pesticides. In accordance with the Bank s Disclosure Policy, and prior to appraisal, the Recipient made a copy of the draft EMF publicly available in Haiti and through the Bank s InfoShop, and undertook a consultation of the draft EMF (May 17, 2005) with key
stakeholders (including NGOs, academics and environment-related governmental institutions). In terms of social safeguards, the project goals include the strengthening of social cohesion, social capital and local governance in participating local communities, which includes greater transparency and citizen participation in the decision-making process. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: The same environmental and social safeguards would apply to the AF as to the original Project, and the same EMF would be used. The AF would support activities in the 59 Municipalities in which PRODEP is already present. Community investments would remain relatively small, and subprojects that might entail resettlement impacts of any kind (whether physical or non-physical) would not be eligible for financing. Although the scope and type of activities may change somewhat, this would have no impact on environmental and social management procedures. In view of these considerations, no new safeguards would be triggered under the AF. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. 4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard policy issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. Institutional arrangements for safeguard screening, management, and M&E would remain identical to those of the original project, as outlined in the EMF which is included in the project s Operational Manual. Safeguards arrangements under the ongoing Project have been deemed satisfactory by Bank supervision missions, including a Social Safeguards Compliance Assessment, conducted as part of the Mid-Term Review, and would be maintained under the AF. Together with the Project Development Councils (Conseil du Projet de Développement Participatif, COPREDEPs), the project Service Providers (Maîtres D Ouvrage Délégués, MDODs) screen each proposed sub-project for environmental and social impacts as outlined in the EMF. BMPAD has both a Social Specialist, charged with overseeing and monitoring the Project's social aspects (including consultation and screening against any potential resettlement impacts), and an Environmental Specialist, who reviews the screening process and monitors the application of the EMF guidelines to particular sub-projects as laid out in the EMF. The capacity and effectiveness of these specialists and of the MDOD teams was found to be adequate to ensure safeguards compliance under the Project. The Project has furthermore financed a number of environmental and safeguards training sessions for other PCU and MDOD staff, COPRODEPs, and local and central government staff participating in Project implementation at the regional and local levels. In addition to these safeguards capacity building activities already undertaken under the Project, PRODEP is planning to participate in the new safeguards training program, currently being developed jointly with IADB.
PRODEP s operational manual includes five mechanisms to deal with environmental management of the subprojects. First, PRODEP has maps of environmentally sensitive areas in each intervention region and has developed standard intervention methodologies to deal with environmental impact of the most common type of subprojects. Second, there is an environmental screening of each subproject, which categorizes 3 types of subprojects as having low (or positive), moderate, or high (negative) environmental impacts. This screening also includes a site-specific evaluation of potential environmental impacts in fragile zones. No subprojects of type III (high impact) are financed. The PCU Environmental Specialist reviews the screening criteria applied to each proposal to verify that the correct category has been assigned based on the subproject s evaluation of impacts. Third, after the screening and during subproject evaluation studies, the standard intervention methodologies are applied and included into the subproject budget. Wherever necessary, additional mitigation measures are introduced. Fourth, the MDOD and the PCU, in the person of the Environmental Specialist, carry out regular supervision of the implementation of the environmental mitigation measures. Technical audits also examine environmental compliance. And fifth, the MDOD provide technical assistance to contractors and CBOs to deal with the environmental mitigation measures. During implementation of the original Project, social safeguards arrangements were reviewed and an additional mechanism included in the Operational Manual to strengthen the screening out of potential resettlement impacts associated with voluntary donations of land in subprojects (and particularly, to ensure that these are indeed voluntary, that any impacts on the donor or any third party are minimal, and that the process is adequately documented). During the preparation of the AF, this mechanism was reviewed and some additional changes made to strengthen it to ensure the Bank s policy was followed. BMPAD s Social Specialist is responsible for ensuring the proper application of this procedure. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. PRODEP has benefitted from an unusually high level of stakeholder participation compared with other projects, in which consultation is an open, integrated, and ongoing process, supported by a considerable degree of staff attention and budget. The Project is based on a participatory approach that also serves as a social control mechanism to guard against no negative impacts. A public consultation was held as part of Project Preparation, on May 17, 2005, in Portau-Prince, to discuss the draft EA. The event was organized by the BMPAD and included a variety of environmental professionals from government, academia, and private sector organizations. Other than this, there has been no stand-alone consultation mechanism or component in PRODEP. Rather, consultation is essentially mainstreamed throughout all phases and aspects of the process and lessons learned through stakeholder feedback on a continuous basis. (One example of stakeholder feedback from participatory actions and events being incorporated into the design of this AF is the desire of community participants to see the financing limit raised for individual subprojects.) Ongoing
consultations are also an integral part of sub-project identification, prioritization, and implementation under the CDD mechanism. Communication and dissemination campaigns, incorporating activities linked to local history and culture (music, dancing, etc.), have been extremely effective in promoting community participation, and would continue under the Additional Financing. Community-based organizations (CBOs) would continue to be the foundation of the Project. Project Development Councils (COPRODEPs) would continue to receive support under to improve their capacity to assess, approve, and monitor subprojects, and training and technical assistance would continue to be provided to reinforce their role in promoting social cohesion. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank 05/13/2005 Date of "in-country" disclosure 05/16/2005 Date of submission to InfoShop 05/13/2005 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Pest Management Plan: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? N/A Date of receipt by the Bank N/A Date of "in-country" disclosure N/A Date of submission to InfoShop N/A * If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources, the respective issues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of the Environmental Assessment/Audit/or EMP. If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why:
C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (to be filled in when the ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting) OP/BP/GP 4.01 - Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? OP 4.09 - Pest Management Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues? Is a separate PMP required? If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a safeguards specialist or SM? Are PMP requirements included in project design? If yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? OP/BP 4.11 - Physical Cultural Resources Does the EA include adequate measures related to cultural property? Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on cultural property? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank s Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? All Safeguard Policies Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? No No
D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Ms Ayat Soliman 04/13/2010 Environmental Specialist: Ms Valerie Hickey 04/13/2010 Social Development Specialist Mr Peter Cohen 04/13/2010 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Mr Glenn S. Morgan 04/15/2010 Comments: Sector Manager: Ms Ethel Sennhauser 04/15/2010 Comments: