INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 03/08/2006 Report No.: Basic Project Data Country: Uganda Project ID: P Project Name: Millennium Science Initiative Task Team Leader: Michael F. Crawford Estimated Appraisal Date: January 13, Estimated Board Date: May 25, Managing Unit: AFTH1 Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Tertiary education (65%);Other industry (35%) Theme: Education for the knowledge economy (P);Other financial and private sector development (S) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 0.00 IDA Amount (US$m.): GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: BORROWER/RECIPIENT 3.35 Financing Gap Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) [ ] No [ ] 2. Project Objectives The project will contribute directly to two of the five pillars of Uganda s Poverty Eradication Action Plan. With respect to Pillar Two, Enhancing Productivity, Competitiveness, and Incomes, the project will increase the amount and quality of skills available to the labor market in areas critical to private-sector led growth. It will also increase the number and quality of connections between private firms and academia, and raise the awareness of firms as to the potential benefits of greater technology use. With respect to Pillar Five, Human Development, the project will contribute to goals P1 (to improve [tertiary] curriculum to emphasize science and technology and use the credit system). 3. Project Description 1. The lending instrument for the project is a specific investment loan (SIL). The SIL is appropriate because this is the first project of its kind in Uganda; the implementing institutions do not have experience implementing competitive funds for the development of S&T capacity. Supervision of the SIL will provide greater guidance and technical assistance than would be the case if the goals of this project were to be pursued under

2 budget support. This is consistent with the Government s stated desire and Bank practice of having budget support be themain form of assistance, with projects only in areas bearing on productivity enhancement. It is also consistent with the Strategic Framework for Investment in Africa, which identifies investment lending as appropriate for investment in areas sectors without an established track record. 2. Project development objective and key indicators The project s development objective is for Ugandan universities and research institutes to produce more and better qualified science and engineering graduates, and higher quality and more relevant research, and for firms to utilize these outputs to improve productivity for the sake of enhancing S&T-led growth. Increases in amounts of human resources trained would be measured by increases in numbers of programs, enrollment, and graduates in science and engineering, and labor market utilization of these skills. Improvements in quality would be measured through independent review panels, and growth in total publications and publication citation impact analysis, as well as increased collaboration with advanced regional and international research partners and firms. Improved relevance would be indicated by increased labor market utilization of S&T skills, greater public awareness and understanding of science, and greater use of technology and skills to improve commercial product- and process-improvements, and similar improvements in PEAP priority areas of public concern (i.e. health, agriculture, infrastructure, energy, etc). If the project is successful it will build experience within the GoU for managing a national science funding facility according to international best practice. It will help make it possible for Uganda to achieve, within 10 years time, the targets of the National Council for Higher Education of one-third of tertiary enrollment in S&T disciplines, with all tertiary students getting exposure to some science. It will train an increasing percentage of the national S&T workforce domestically, in programs that produce qualified Bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D.s in areas of relevance. It will increase the private sector absorption of both people and knowledge, creating greater competitiveness and new areas of comparative advantage. Its institutions and policies will support the continuous development and deepening of S&T capacity. 3. Project components The project would consist of two components: (i) a competitive fund to support research, education and training in science and engineering, and linkages to the private sector; and (ii) an outreach, policy, and institutional strengthening component. Component One: Millennium Science Initiative (MSI) Fund [US$16.69 million]. The core of the project would be a competitive grant fund (the "MSI Fund"). The MSI Fund would have three windows to support (i) advance research connected tograduate

3 training; (ii) strengthening or creation of undergraduate degree programs in S&T disciplines; and (iii) research activities defined by the private sector. All grants would be competitively awarded through open, transparent selection processes. Clear, merit-based selection criteria will be used for evaluating proposals. Expert peer reviews will provide technical opinions on proposal merit, and substantial feedback will be given to grant proponents. Two rounds of competition will be held, so proponents who are not selected in the first round can resubmit improved proposals for consideration. Grants under Window A would go to research groups led by a senior principal investigator or emerging young investigators, based at universities or research institutes. Grants would fund specific subprojects or research programs that pass through the rigorous review of an international Technical Committee (TC). Grant resources would fund scientific and technological equipment, reagents and research supplies/consumables, visiting professors, post-doctoral and graduate students, results dissemination, and/or the creation of specialized short courses. Successful grant proponents would be required to demonstrate how their research would directly strengthen graduate training in their fields, and how the research is relevant to national needs. Grants would vary in size according to the particular needs of each discipline and proposal; but they would be large enough to equip an international-level laboratory and attract the needed personnel to work in it. The larger grants might exceed US$ 1 million total over a five-year period; smaller grants would also be available, but would be commensurate with international standards for the particular disciplines selected. Technical assistance would be provided to grant proponents to improve the quality of proposals. Grants under Window B would fund the creation or strengthening of undergraduate degree programs in science, technology, and engineering. They would fund acquisition of laboratory equipment, modification of buildings, visiting professors/specialized professors, reagents, consumables, and other research related recurrent costs, texts and didactic materials, and other related costs. Grant amounts would range as high as US$1.2 million over a five-year period. Making a new degree program fully operational takes time and planning. To accommodate this, grants under window B would have a planning phase and an implementation phase. For new programs, up to 18 months would be used to assemble staff, equip laboratories, and recruit students. For existing programs, the planning phase could be complete within the first 12 months of grant implementation. Grants under Windows A&B would be selected through a competitive process. Proponents will respond to a detailed call-for-proposals. An eight-person Technical Committee, composed of Ugandan and non-ugandan scientist, technologists, and entrepreneurs, would select finalists and grantees under a two stage process. All proposals will be rigorously reviewed by ad hoc international peer reviewers. The TC will conduct visits with and interview the finalists prior to selection of grantees. The TC

4 will also participate in the monitoring and evaluation of scientific and commercial outcomes. Grants under Window C would focus on activities that give firms greater access to technology and skills and link academia and industry. Academia-industry collaboration would be organized around research topics defined by and useful to the private sector. Window C support: (i) small grants for technology evaluation; (ii) grants for "technology platforms" through which firms and researchers definecollaborative research agendas on problems of direct interest to industry, and then pursue solutions collaboratively; and (iii) money for firm-based internships for students in science, engineering, and business administration. Technology evaluations would allow firms, in connection with academic partners, to identify and assess whether technology that exists and is used outside of Uganda could profitably be transferred for use domestically. The grants would pay for the costs of the assessment and analysis, the firms would purchase and employ the technology themselves. Technology platforms are fora which bring together firms and knowledgeable partners from academia to define a set of technological problems facing firms to which research or consultation could provide solutions. Once these research agendas have been defined, the partners could apply for follow-on funding to conduct research and devise solutions to the problems identified. Firm-based internships would provide students from science, engineering, ICT, mathematics, and other technology related disciplines with opportunities to gain hands-on experience in firms during their education. Internships would be structured around specific themes to which the students, under the guidance of a firm and academic supervisor, would be expected to contribute. Grants under Window C will be vetted and selected by a subcommittee of the Technical Committee, with special expertise in entrepreneurship, engineering, and business R&D and consulting. Grant proposals for Window C will be accepted on a continuous basis, and responses from the selection subcommittee will be prompt (4-6 weeks), in keeping with the demands of business. Component Two: Outreach, Policy, Institutional Strengthening Activities (US$16.65 million). The aims of this component are to raise public understanding and appreciation of science while improving the capability of institutions to create and implement appropriate and effective policies for the S&T sector. The first subcomponent would be concerned with outreach activities that raise the profile and public understanding of the role of S&T in a country that is seeking to develop and modernize. Activities would include "social marketing" of science by high profile researchers to primary and secondary school students. This subcomponent would sponsor high visibility activities, including a National Science Week, in which the

5 contributions of science to development are highlighted, and career and other opportunities are promoted. The outreach subcomponent would also include activities to pilot two types of tertiary science education called for in the Government s S&T policy. The first is remedial science educations for students who may not have had three passes in A-level science subjects, but who express an interest in pursuing science degrees and careers. The second is "science-for-the non-scientist" courses, designedto provide breadth and understanding of natural and exact science to students who are studying arts, business administration, social science, or other subjects. Such courses are not currently available, but are called for in the Government s policy. The second subcomponent would involve institutional strengthening of Ugandan Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) and the Uganda Industrial Research Institute (UIRI) as principal agencies involved in S&T policymaking, implementation, and service delivery. This subcomponent would provide support and technical assistance to the restructuring and strengthening of the UNCST to be more focused on deliverable outputs and policy implementation. An institutional assessment of the UNCST conducted in July 2005 found that has seen its core activity as the formulation of broad policies for science and technology. This has led to the creation of various policy frameworks which have unfortunately not received budgetary commitment or institutional follow through. In [give date of budget speech], the Government announced its intention to restructure the UNCST to improve its effectiveness. In line with the recommendations of the institutions assessment, the UNCST will narrow its focus to six areas of concentration, each with specific annual work plans and outputs. The Council s governance structure will be revamped to allow it to exercise effective control over this new structure. The new council will be reorganized into two units: one for policy, and one for operations. The policy unit would be responsible for: 1. Annual Analysis of S&T Activities and Expenditure 2. S&T Human Capital Development Report 3. Policy Recommendations for S&T in Economic and Industrial Development 4. Advice to Government on Occasional/Ad-hoc S&T topics (with UNAS) The policy unit would have responsibility for numerous sectoral monitoring and evaluation activities done in conjunction with project monitoring. The operations unit would be responsible for: 1. Support to Research through Competitive Funding Mechanisms (incl. MSI) 2. Safety and Ethics Regulation and Compliance (incl. Bio-Safety) Services

6 The operations unit would house the MSI Project Secretariat. Over time, the MSI Fund, and the MSI Project Secretariat, would transition from a donor-financed activity to a domestically-financed national science funding system. The Government s policy for innovation and industrialization seeks to greatly enhance the role of the UIRI as a main conduit for provision of public services to industry. The UIRI will play a main role in marketing and reviewing proposals for firm-academia interaction under Window C of component one. In addition, Component Two would enhance UIRI s ability to provide services to firms via (i) strengthening of its human capital base; (ii) an intensive needs-assessment of firm priorities for services; and (iii) selected investments in rehabilitation of UIRI's physical capital. 4. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design Lessons from general Bank experience include the need to base project design on thorough analytical work and stakeholder consultation. Prior to beginning design of the Uganda MSI, five major participatory stakeholder workshops were held, involving 200 key actors from universities, industry, government and civil society. A comprehensive situation analysis, "The State of Science and Technology in Uganda",was produced to examine the current status of S&T in education, privatesector, health, agriculture, government and related sectors. Bank experience with the Millennium Science Initiative has taught that focused investment in research excellence, awarded through competition and closely linked to training, can provide a catalytic stimulus for quality, relevance, and human capital development in S&T. In Chile, the number of PhD's trained domestically was doubled through concentrating resources on a few top scientists. In Chile, Venezuela, and Mexico, giving highly-selected researchers grants large enough to attract them to stay in their home countries has been key to renovating quality in several key research areas. This trend toward use of competitive funding mechanism evolved in response to years of lessthan-satisfactory performance of Bank-funded projects that provided science and technology infrastructure without in-depth consideration or competitive screening for the specific research activities for which it would be used. Other projects have channeled support to improvement of undergraduate education through competitive funds. The Indonesia: Quality of Undergraduate Education Project improved first degree programs at public and private universities by supporting staff development, equipment, technical assistance, and rehabilitation of facilities. The Quality Innovation Fund (QIF) of the Mozambique: Higher Education Project (P069824) was deemed at mid-term review a "very successful" element of an overall well performing project. This mid-term review also suggested promoting greater participation of private universities in the QIF and raising maximum institutional thresholds by 33% to US$ 1 million. The Ethiopia: Post-Secondary Education Project has emphasized different levels of funds for different purposes, as well as the need to put great ex-ante emphasis on the development of funding administration procedures.

7 In Uganda, the Uganda: Decentralized Service Delivery-Makerere University Training Pilot Project has demonstrated that investments in training directed to high priority social needs (social service delivery) can modify traditional curricula and teaching methods and bring the work of students and professors much closer to concrete needs of service providers. Experience from the Mexico: Knowledge and Innovation Project underscores the gains from creating channels for private sector-academia interaction based around problems defined by firms. While project experience has been largely successful, it has also been apparent that improving S&T systems involves both institutional strengthening and "social learning." These take place over reasonably long time frames when projects have been able to demonstrate the advantages of improved research funding, administration, and linkage practices. For example, the use of competitive, peer-review grant awards systems, or intensive researcher accountability, are initially resisted by those who may feel unable to compete. After experiencing the benefits of this type of system, however, stakeholders strongly prefer the transparent, merit-based procedures to the less efficient practices they supplant. 5. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection Several alternatives to this proposed project design were considered: (i) An investment in pre-selected centers of excellence in biotechnology. This alternative was rejected because it would concentrate too narrowly on research in a single field of science (albeit an important one) to provide the range of science-and technologybased solutions for obstacles to Uganda s development. Itwould not improve the Ugandan S&T system in a balanced way, with focus on research, training, and application of knowledge, and it would not create any open, transparent, funding opportunities to which all Uganda researchers could apply. (ii) An investment focused on secondary or primary level science education. Stakeholders pointed out the serious deficiencies of science education at the primary and secondary level, and the need to build the "pipeline" of qualified candidates for advanced training. However, given the modest resources available, and the fact that other donors are active at the secondary level, it was felt that an investment in the tertiary/graduate training system would be cost-effective and would address an important sub-sector not currently receiving funding. (iii) An investment focused only on private sector demanded research, or only on undergraduate engineering. It was felt that the Uganda S&T system needs should be encouraged to grow in a balanced manner, with a mix of fundamental science tied to training (graduate and undergraduate) and applied research and skills creation for nearterm needs of the productive sector. Attempting to pre-select the exact "needs" of industry was deemed likely to miss the mark.

8 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis The MSI has triggered OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment and OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement; the safeguard screening category is S2 (limited impact) and the environmental screening category is B. Accordingly, the project has prepared an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) to address the issues discussed in the preceding section, and a Resettlement Policy Framework to address and mitigate any potential negative social impacts in the event that there is land acquisition,impact on assets or impact on livelihoods in connection with the project. Both documents have been disclosed in Uganda on October 25, 2005, and at the Bank s Infoshop on November 3, The ESMF includes planning for the creation of individual Environmental Management Systems (EMS) in each laboratory, as well as proposed capacity building measures, monitoring and evaluation and supervision plans, and cost estimates. The ESMF is included in the Project Implementation Plan/Operational Manual. The Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) outlines the policies, principles, and procedures to be adopted in the event that land is to be acquired in connection with the project, and the ex-ante screening process to mitigate any potential negative effects relating to resettlement, loss of assets, or the loss of livelihoods. The overall responsibility for the implementation of the RPF will be the UNCST/MSI Project Secretariat. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Ms Kristine Schwebach (AFTS1) 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) Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) 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: The MSI has triggered OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment and OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement; the safeguard screening category is S2 ("limited impact") and the

9 environmental screening category is B. Accordingly, the project has prepared an Environmental and Social Management Framework to address the issues discussed in the preceding section, and a Resettlement Policy Framework to address and mitigate any potential negative social impacts in the event that there is land acquisition, impact on assets or impact on livelihoods in connection with the project. Both documents have been disclosed in Uganda on October 25, 2005, and at the Bank s Infoshop on November 3, Laboratory safety and the safe disposal of wastes is the principal potential environmental concern. The ESMF contains an in-depth digest of international best practice standards for laboratory safety. The standards cover all classes of physical, chemical, biological, and radioactive hazards. They discuss procurement and transport, storage, protocols and facilities for use in research, training of personnel, segregation of waste types, and disposal of wastes. The digest also describes core processes for establishing functioning environmental management systems within laboratories, including development of training for personnel, designation of responsibility for environmental management, performance of needs assessment and waste stream assessment, installation and maintenance of appropriate equipment, treatment processes, and safe transport. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: The ESMF includes planning for the creation of individual Environmental Management Systems (EMS) in each laboratory, as well as proposed capacity building measures, monitoring and evaluation and supervision plans, and cost estimates. The ESMF is included in the Project Implementation Plan/Operational manual. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. N/A 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 UNCST has been the lead agency in Uganda for the creation of draft legislation covering biosafety. This has given the agency in-depth experience with environmental and social safety issues from both the policy and implmentation perspectives. In producing the ESMF, the UNCST sought out international best practice for laboratory safety as the standard to which to aspire, going beyond the requirements of national legislation. It has also sought and obtained the cooperation of the National Environmental Management Agency (NEMA) for implementation of compliance and monitoring. NEMA has extensive experience in implementation of Bank s safeguard policy.

10 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Key stakeholders who were consulted early in the process were principal investigators and scientific research directors at public and private research laboratories, Vice- Chancellors, and heads of faculties and departments at universities.current practices safety practices were documented in several laboratories, and consultations were held with NEMA officials responsible for enforcement of hazardous waste standards. Disclosure has included not only these stakeholders, but the university community and the general public in vicinity of where project activities may occur. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Date of receipt by the Bank 10/21/2005 Date of "in-country" disclosure 10/25/2005 Date of submission to InfoShop 11/03/2005 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: Date of receipt by the Bank 10/21/2005 Date of "in-country" disclosure 10/25/2005 Date of submission to InfoShop 11/03/2005 * If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Cultural Property, 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 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/BP Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information

11 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? D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Mr Michael F. Crawford 03/08/2006 Environmental Specialist: Ms Kristine Schwebach Social Development Specialist Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Sector Manager: Comments: Mr Dzingai B. Mutumbuka