INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET
APPRAISAL STAGE
I. Basic Information
Date prepared/updated: 08/30/2010 / Report No.: 564271. Basic Project Data
Original Project ID: P077012 / Original Project Name: Kapitbisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (KALAHI-CIDSS) Project
Country: Philippines / Project ID: P114048
Project Name: KALAHI-CIDSS (Additional Financing) Project
Task Team Leader: Andrew Parker
Estimated Appraisal Date: April 8, 2010 / Estimated Board Date: September 28, 2010
Managing Unit: EASPS / Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan
Sector: Water supply (40%);General transportation sector (40%);Other social services (20%)
Theme: Participation and civic engagement (33%);Rural services and infrastructure (33%);Conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction (17%);Indigenous peoples (17%)
IBRD Amount (US$m.): 59.12
IDA Amount (US$m.): 0.00
GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00
PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00
Other financing amounts by source:
Borrower 45.70
45.70
Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment
Simplified Processing / Simple [X] / Repeater []
Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies) / Yes [ ] / No [X]
2. Project Objectives
Empower local communities in targeted poor municipalities and selected urban areas to achieve improved access to sustainable basic public services and to participate in more inclusive Local Government Unit planning and budgeting.
3. Project Description
Building on the Project's strong performance, the Additional Financing (AF) will expand the project's reach to 220 of the poorest municipalities within the 42 poorer provinces already covered. The AF will also introduce the following key enhancements to further improve project impact: (i) a reformulation of the Project's Development Objective (PDO) to better capture the focus on community empowerment, (ii) strengthening the roles of the municipal local government units to integrate the key principles and mechanisms of KALAHI-CIDSS in local development planning; (iii) systematizing the engagement with the provincial local government units; (iv) the design and testing of the a CDD approach in urban areas, (v) further simplification of the project's key performance indicators linked to a strengthened monitoring and evaluation system. The Additional Financing will support the original three (3) components with one additional component to cover the pilot-testing of the urban KALAHI-CIDSS as follows:
a. Component 1 - Barangay Grants, will include not only direct sub-project investment grants but also technical assistance funds for communities and to cover the costs of capacity building activities for community volunteers;
b. Component 2 - Capacity Building and Implementation Support will cover: (i) the costs incurred by Area Coordination Teams that support community facilitation activities,; (ii) capacity building for barangay and municipal LGUs; and, (iii) a clearly defined set of social accountability activities, covering the grievance redress system, third-party monitoring, and active information disclosure.
c. Component 3 - Urban KALAHI-CIDSS will support the project's piloting of a KALAHI-CIDSS model in urban poor communities.
d. Component 4 - Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation focuses on the project costs that are specifically related to DSWD's management and monitoring of the project.
4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis
The Project will be implemented in 220 municipalities within the 42 poorest provinces, most of which are the same provinces as that of the original project. Eligible municipalities will be drawn from those with a poverty incidence of 50 percent or more. A maximum of 50 percent of municipalities in any one province will be targeted, including a subset of previously covered municipalities. The final list of municipalities for funding would be subject to municipalities completing an "enrolment process" designed to assure their willingness to participate in and support the objectives of the KALAHI-CIDSS program. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that indigenous peoples would be affected in several target municipalities. The additional financing will also cover four pilot urban poor areas. However, it is unlikely that there will be indigenous people in the pilot urban areas.
5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists
Ms Maria Loreto Padua (EASPS)
Mr Gerardo F. Parco (EASPS)
6. Safeguard Policies Triggered / Yes / No /Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) / X
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) / X
Forests (OP/BP 4.36) / X
Pest Management (OP 4.09) / X
Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) / X
Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) / X
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) / X
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) / X
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) / X
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) / X
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:
The Project would support small-scale community infrastructure sub-projects (e.g., tire track roads, barangay health centers, day care center, level I and/or II water system). The environmental impacts (e.g., increase in dust and noise) of such small scale community projects are minimal, temporary and easily mitigated by the community themselves.
It is also anticipated that some community sub-projects (particularly roads and water system) would involve acquisition of small parcels of land primarily through voluntary donation. Through the community mobilization process, the Project would ensure that the acquisition of land, no matter that these are small, are genuinely donated and not coerced.
Although the final selection of the target municipalities and urban poor communities have yet to be finalized during the initial months of implementation, it is anticipated that some target municipalities will have the presence of indigenous people. In keeping with the guiding principles of a community driven development (CDD) approach, the Project is expected to ensure the inclusive participation of the IPs in local development processes and support IP-responsive community sub-projects that promotes their welfare and preserves cultural heritage.
2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area:
The long-term impact of the project would be generally positive in terms of empowering poor communities to participate in the local development processes; building community social capital in terms of enhancing engagement between and among the community, local government units and other members of the civil society.
3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts.
Not relevant.
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.
The project currently has a Category B environmental classification. No significant potentially adverse environmental impacts on communities or their surrounding areas are anticipated. The Project has been in compliance with the safeguards covenants in the Loan Agreement. Bank supervision has consistently rated safeguards performance as satisfactory with no major issues.
All sub-projects undergo screening to determine environmental risks or issues and proper mitigation measures were formulated by the community and reflected in the Environmental Management Plan as part of the sub-project design. The negative list of prohibited investments with adverse environmental impacts was also implemented. The Environmental Assessment Guidelines will be updated to reflect new Regulatory issuances by the DENR. The revisions will be reflected mainly on the environmental requirements for specific community based infrastructure. The list options in the positive and negative list will also be reviewed and updated, taking into consideration the experience in the original loan project
No involuntary resettlement took place as all the sub-projects were small-scale infrastructure that required minimal land acquisition. Most of the land for the sub-projects was donated or acquired. DSWD has, therefore, taken initiative to monitor closely the condition and status of land acquisition, most of which is publicly owned and does not require a deed of donation. In the case of privately-owned lands, these were found to be small in terms of area. Nevertheless, the DSWD has taken steps to ensure that deed of donations are executed and filed for annotation. It was agreed that DSWD will continue to monitor the status of land acquisition/donation and include the findings as part of the quarterly progress reports.
The concerns of indigenous peoples were basically addressed through the participatory processes of KALAHI-CIDSS. A thematic review of the Project's Indigenous Peoples Strategy provided information on the Project areas where there are presence of IPs. Of the 4,229 barangays (villages) covered by the Project, 761 or 18 percent have presence of 21 IP groups. In the Cordillera Administrative Region, 100 percent of the 143 barangays are indigenous communities while 58 barangays (98 percent) in Region 10 have IPs.
The review also documented the various mechanisms for promoting inclusion of IPs in the Project which included: (i) adoption of IP-sensitive social mobilization techniques which serves as a parallel mechanism for obtaining Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC); (ii) building IP capacities to prepare community plans which facilitated the formulation of Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP); and, (iii) coordination with the provincial coordinators of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). Some of the positive outcomes include: (i) increased participation of IPs in local planning; (ii) representation in Barangay Development Councils; (iii) reinvigorated indigenous/cultural practices; and, (iv) increased awareness of municipal LGUs on IP concerns. In addition, about US$23M (18% of total community grants) worth of community sub-projects benefitted the IP communities. Most of the sub-projects in IP communities were basic social services facilities (e.g., health stations, water supply, school buildings); access facilities (e.g., access roads and hanging bridges); and, production or economic support facilities (e.g., rice/corn mill).
In terms of organizational arrangements, the Project has designated separate environment and social safeguards focal persons at the national and regional levels. The same arrangements shall be followed under the additional financing project.
Although the project has been compliant with all safeguards policies, DSWD has prepared an enhanced Environmental Management Plan guidelines, IP Framework, and Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy to reflect enhancements and innovations based on seven years of implementation. Specific to the IP Strategy, DSWD consulted with representatives of the NCIP, the new IP Sectoral Council of the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) and other civil society organizations working with IPs for validation and confirmation. The initial drafts of all the aforementioned safeguards instruments were disclosed in the DSWD website and the Bank's Infoshop on April 7, 2010. Based on the comments generated from the disclosure and consultations, the safeguard instruments were finalized and forwarded to the Bank on April 15, 2010. The final versions were likewise disclosed in the DSWD website on April l5, 2010.
5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people.
The key stakeholders are the communities, the LGUs (provincial, municipal and barangay levels). Since the safeguards concerns are part of the community mobilization and sub-project implementation, operations and maintenance, the communities and LGUs have access to safeguards-related plans of the Project. The revised/updated safeguards policies/instruments shall be disclosed in the DSWD website and popularized as part of the manuals for the community mobilization and capacity building for the LGUs.
B. Disclosure Requirements DateEnvironmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other:
Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? / Yes
Date of receipt by the Bank / 04/07/2010
Date of "in-country" disclosure / 04/07/2010
Date of submission to InfoShop / 04/07/2010
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? / Yes
Date of receipt by the Bank / 04/07/2010
Date of "in-country" disclosure / 04/07/2010
Date of submission to InfoShop / 04/07/2010
Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework:
Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? / Yes
Date of receipt by the Bank / 04/07/2010
Date of "in-country" disclosure / 04/07/2010
Date of submission to InfoShop / 04/07/2010
Pest Management Plan:
Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal?
Date of receipt by the Bank
Date of "in-country" disclosure
Date of submission to InfoShop
* 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 AssessmentDoes the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? / No
If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? / N/A
Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? / Yes
OP/BP 4.10 - Indigenous Peoples
Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework (as appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples? / Yes
If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? / Yes
If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been reviewed and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit or Sector Manager? / Yes
OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement
Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? / Yes
If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? / Yes
The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information
Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop? / Yes
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? / Yes
All Safeguard Policies
Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? / Yes
Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project cost? / Yes
Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? / Yes
Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? / Yes
D. Approvals
Signed and submitted by: / Name / DateTask Team Leader: / Mr Andrew Parker / 04/19/2010
Environmental Specialist: / Mr Gerardo F. Parco / 04/19/2010
Social Development Specialist / Ms Maria Loreto Padua / 04/19/2010
Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s):
Approved by:
Sector Manager: / Mr Mark C. Woodward / 04/19/2010
Comments: