INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 12/17/2007 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Report No.: AC Basic Project Data Country: Indonesia Project ID: P Project Name: National Program for Community Empowerment in Urban Areas (PNPM UPP) Task Team Leader: George Soraya Estimated Appraisal Date: December 10, Estimated Board Date: May 20, Managing Unit: EASIS Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Roads and highways (27%);Health (27%);General education sector (27%);Other social services (13%);Sub-national government administration (6%) Theme: Other urban development (P) IBRD Amount (US$m.): IDA Amount (US$m.): GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: BORROWER/RECIPIENT Financing Gap 1, , 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 proposed project development objective is to benefit the urban poor by improving services and infrastructure identified and delivered in a more effective and participatory manner through the scaling up of a sustainable national program for poverty reduction. The results monitoring framework and indicators will build on the revised indicators applied for the Urban Poverty Project -2 additional financing (UPP-2 AF) and will be finalized during project appraisal. Indicators will also be synergized with those of the Kecamatan Development Project of the National Community Empowerment Program (KDP PNPM) 3. Project Description The National Program for Community Empowerment in Urban Areas(PNPM) is being designed as a consolidated poverty reduction program, but between now and 2009 the government will continue to maintain separate urban and rural windows for implementation managed by the Ministry of Public Works (Urban Poverty Project-UPP)

2 and the Ministry of Home Affairs (Kecamatan Development Project-KDP). It is important to note that beyond 2009, the government may create a special agency to oversee all poverty programs, but this is still under discussion. In the meantime, the Government of Indonesia (GOI) has developed a framework for close collaboration and harmonization of UPP and KDP projects to foster a greater degree of cross fertilization. Total financing needs, packaging, and the most appropriate lending instrument are still under discussion. It is expected that both projects would launch in early 2008 and be implemented through The total cost of the PNPM in urban areas is expected to be US$600 million per year. This cost will be shared by various donors, domestic financing (central and local), and the Bank. The Bank financing is expected to be US$200 million for 3 years, from GOI will initially finance 50% of the program and scale up to full financing by The project design builds on the existing portfolio of UPP operations. The executing agency will be the Ministry of Public Works. The main components will likely include: (a) Community Planning and Capacity Building: This component would require about 7 percent of the project funds. It would fund the cost of facilitators to carry out social intermediation activities, training, workshops, meetings and focus group discussions, and production of socialization materials and publications. Outputs under this component include community development plans (CDP), training and socialization of communities about the PNPM, and the formation of community boards of trustees (BKMs). (b) Kelurahan Grants: This component would comprise about 75 percent of the loan/credit. Sub-projects included in the CDPs are supported by block grants for kelurahans. These sub-projects cover an open menu of poverty alleviation activities with a short negative list. Typical activities for this component fall into three categories: infrastructure, revolving funds, and social assistance. Specific infrastructure investments are pre-identified by communities and consist of bridges, roads, public toilets, drainage, health facility repair, etc. Most of these subprojects focus on the improvement or repair of existing infrastructure. Revolving funds for community groups are designed to target the poor who do not have access to other lending sources. A joint KDP/UPP study on the effectiveness and sustainability of revolving funds is under preparation and will be completed by March The results of this study will feed into the design of the project. Social assistance is provided through small grants to the poorest or most vulnerable individuals to pay for scholarships, health care, etc. (c) Local Government Capacity Building: This component would use about 5 percent of project funds. It would support the training and socialization of local government staff on the PNPM and leverage support from local governments to share costs of sub-projects. The PNPM will support devolving responsibility to local governments and enhancing their capacities established by UPP proceeds uninterrupted as the transition occurs to the PNPM. The project will also require that local governments provide counterpart funds for administrative work at the kota, kecamatan, and kelurahan levels.

3 (d) Implementation and Technical Assistance: This component would require about 10 percent of the loan/credit. For the additional financing, the Project Management Unit (PMU) has hired consultants and facilitators to assist in project implementation. This arrangement would be evaluated and expanded to deal with the scaling up of the PNPM. Technical assistance would be provided through national management consultants (NMC) at the central level, and oversight consultant (OC) teams at the provincial level, with offices in the participating districts. (e) Monitoring and evaluation: This component would require about 3 percent of the loan/credit, and would cover the costs of qualitative and quantitative monitoring. A management information system (MIS), project website, and complaints handling mechanism would also be established. These elements would build on existing M&E framework being put in place for the UPP 2 additional financing. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis The The National Program for Community Empowerment in Urban Areas (UPP PNPM) will cover 8,813 Kelurahan consisting 6,521 kelurahans of UPP2, UPP3 and UPP-2 additional financing (UPP-2-AF), and 2,292 new location/kelurahan in all 33 provinces in Indonesia. In existing UPP areas, funds will be used to strengthen community organizations and carry out more sophisticated poverty alleviation interventions tied to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs). These communities will be ready to begin implementing block grants in 2008, while newly added communities will initially require socialization and training on the PNPM, and will be ready to receive the block grants in Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Mr Isono Sadoko (EASIS) Ms Indira Dharmapatni (EASIS) Ms Vivianti Rambe (EASIS) 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)

4 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 proposed project is an urban CDD program, and the nature of the investments (mostly tertiary level infrastructure such as minor road/bridge repairs, footpaths, tertiary drainage, and sanitation/public toilets,) are not likely to have any large scale, significant or irreversible impacts. In addition, the project will not include any proposal that may require Environmental Impact Assessment(AMDAL) (Category A type of operations). The environmental screening criteria proposed by the project to address potential environmental impacts are acceptable and are the right approach for these kinds of investments. Potential impacts from the proposed sub-projects are likely to be site specific, not significant and can be managed by adopting good engineering design and construction practices. Furthermore, investments will be planned and implemented through an intensive participatory process at the KSM (Community Groups) and BKM (Badan Keswadayan Masyarakat/Community Boards of Trustees) levels. Observations in some sub-projects under previous iterations of UPP suggest that environmental related-issues mainly occur due to inadequate guidance, monitoring and supervision by the facilitators and OCs (Oversight Consultants) during the planning and implementation stages. Based on this experience, there are two kinds of activities that contribute to environmental risk: (a) risks related to tertiary roads, bridges and drainages activities, and (b) risks related to public toilets, sanitation and water supply. The major direct environmental impact associated with roads, bridges and drainage activities is erosion, especially from disturbance of unstable soils that are sensitive to landslides or from changes in the flow of water. In addition, health issues can also emerge when there is lack of planning on the overall drainage setting so as to keep the drainage system connected either with subsurface drainage or surface drainage canal outlets (e.g. blocked drainage due to improper design and maintenance stops the flow of water, which can impact public health). Furthermore, with regard to environmental risks related to public toilets, sanitation and water supply activities, public health is the mainconcern. There is always the possibility of increasing contamination. For example, a water source can become contaminated by surface water entering from outside or groundwater can become contaminated by a poorly designed or constructed waste control system. One also must consider the formation of an operations and maintenance committee for water or sanitation projects. For these types of environmental malfeasances, the proposed mitigation and prevention methods are proper training (on specific technical measures) and monitoring of the supervising field engineers, especially on site selection for water and sanitation projects, use of tested water quality from wells, and maintenance of the facilities. As all sub-projects are small scale, they are expected to have an insignificant amount of land acquisition. The screening will drop any sub project if significant involuntary resettlement takes place. In UPP-2, for instance, only 14% of the total sub-projects

5 involved land acquisition or needed land. The average size of land acquired was about 6 m2 involving 1-5 land owners. The largest land acquisition was 200 m2. Sub-projects requiring land are mostly public toilets, water supply reservoirs and related distribution, wells, drainage, and footpaths. For the sub-projects requiring land, there are three land acquisition schemes. The most common scheme is land contribution from sub-project beneficiaries. This constitutes about 56 % of the sub-projects that need land. It is also suspected that the other 40% of sub-projects that need land also obtained land from voluntary community contribution, despite unclear identification in the consolidated report. Field visits to selected kelurahans and reports from visited OCs confirm that, for this category, land is obtained through community contribution. The second scheme for land acquisition is through compensation. In a very few cases, land is obtained through cash compensation with full consultation with land owners and funded by cash contribution from beneficiaries of the sub-projects. Recent field visits to selected UPP3 sites suggest that only one sub-project acquired land through compensation, involving one land owner and about 100 m2 of land. The funds for compensation were contribution from the beneficiaries. This land was obtained through full consultation/negotiation between the land owner and the beneficiaries. Although land needed by most sub-projects in UPP2, UPP3, UPP-AF was obtained through voluntary contribution from beneficiaries, a few sub-projects acquired land through compensation. The third scheme is land provided by the local government, which has taken place in very few cases in the project. In one case encountered during UPP3 supervision, the local government provided land for the development of a facility that was co-financed by them and by the community grants. Learning from the UPPs experiences, as UPP PNPM is a repeater project of the UPPs, it is expected that UPP PNPM will have similar situation whereby most sub-projects that need land will obtain it through community contribution. In the case that community and local government voluntarily contribute land, the OP 4.12 is not triggered. However, documentation of the process will have to be prepared. However, in the case involuntary land acquisition takes place, the project will use the land acquisition and resettlement policy framework of UPP3, which was adopted in the UPP2 AF. Lessons learned and land acquisition process in UPP-2, UPP-3 and UPP-2 AF A. Land contribution from the community. As mentioned above, the UPPs have three schemes for obtaining land needed for subprojects: contribution from the community members, cash compensation, and contribution from the local government. Field visits to selected sites show that there have been no negative social impacts to the community members as a result of voluntary land contribution. This is because decisions on land contribution were made voluntarily on land owners initiatives with good consultation among community members and a relatively small-amount of land area involved in each sub-project. In fact, voluntary land contribution has provided positive impacts on beneficiaries. Facilities are located closer to the beneficiaries and construction after sub-project proposal approval is implemented relatively fast as land is easily available. The process of obtaining land through land contribution is as follows: (a) the KSM submits a proposal to the BKM for review and approval. One item included in the

6 proposal, in some cases, is identification of land needed and how the land will be obtained. In the case that the proposed sub-project requires land, the proposal already identifies that land is available through contribution from member(s) of the community. (b) the BKM and the project staff (facilitators) verify in the field and ensure that the land contributors have voluntarily agreed to donate his/her/their land for the proposed subproject. They also ensure that land contribution is made through participatory mechanisms. In many cases, the BKM and facilitators participate in the community meetings discussing the land contribution for a particular sub-project. The BKM and project staff obtain a statement letter (attached to the proposal) signed by the community member(s) who donate the land and witnessed by the chairperson of the community ( kepala dusun ) or head of village, and by other witnesses. The letter contains, among others, name and address of land contributor(s); location and land area donated; the purpose of land donation. (c) once the sub-project proposal is approved by the BKM, the land owner who contributes the land points out the site on the ground where to build the facility. B. Land acquired through compensation. In the case that land is obtained through compensation, the process is as follows: (a) the KSM submits a proposal to the BKM for review and approval. The proposal already mentions that the land will be obtained through cash compensation. Usually land obtained through this scheme is an area that is irreplacable by another area because of specific needs and the land owner most likely does not get a direct benefit from the facility. The Bank observed this as the case for a water reservoir facility that located close to a water spring. Beneficiaries discussed and negotiated with the land owner, and agreed with the compensation level. (b) the community members then discuss and agree upon how the compensation will be shared among them. (c) community pays the compensation to the land owners; (d) the BKM and the facilitators verify the process and land availability prior to approval of the proposal. (e) the BKM obtains the transaction letter for the land from the community and it is attached to the proposal. Although there is no experience in the UPPs to date, in the case land owner refuses to sell his/her land despite the adequate compensation, the proposed sub-project will have to find other alternative site, or, if proper alternative site is not found, the sub-project will have to be cancelled. C. Land provided by the local government. In a few cases land is provided by the local government. The Bank noted that the local government provided state land for a public facility financed jointly between the local government and the project grants. The sub-project proposal was prepared together between the BKM and the local government and submitted to a selection committee at the local government level. The OC and the selection committee (consisting of representatives of relevant local agencies and of BKMs) verify, among others, the availability of land. Documentation at sub-project proposal stage and of land acquisition process Despite the small amount of land acquired and good consultation/negotiation during most of the land acquisition process, documentation needs to be improved. At the KSM and BKM levels: (a) sub-project proposal that need land include a more detailed plan to

7 acquire land; (b) documentation of the consultation/negotiation process and of the agreement on land contribution/transaction needs to be improved. At the BKM and City Coordinator ( korkot ) and OC levels, a more systematicconsolidated report on land acquisition needs to be prepared quarterly. In all UPPs, there is no report on the involvement or impacts on the IVP, as all subprojects are located in the urbanized areas. Supervision missions have confirmed that no IVPs are involved or affected by the project. However, as the PNPM will cover more kelurahans in the eastern islands, although it is very unlikely, in the case that the Project involves IVP, it will use the Indigenous and Vulnerable People(IVP) policy framework of the UPP-3, which was adopted in the UPP-2 AF. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: None is anticipated; sub-projects are relatively small-scale, site specific and decentralized to serve a particular community. 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 Borrower is familiar and has the capacity to implement the environmental guidelines, land acquisition and resettlement frameworks as well as IVP framework, as they have managed the implementation of UPPs over the last 7 years. The National Consultant Team (NMC) who is currently assisting the PMU of the Executing Agency will have experts who have sufficient experiences in environmental management, social issues including land acquisition and gender, and, in handling IVP. He/she will disseminate environmental guidelines, land acquisition and resettlement, as well as IVP policy frameworks and cultural property identification to the regional management consultants (OCs). He/she will train the OCs and city/district coordinators who then, will train the facilitators. He/she will monitor the implementation of the environmental and social policy frameworks and will prepare a consolidated report regularly on the occurrence of the environmental and social safeguards, based on the consolidated reports prepared by the City Coordinators and the OCs.. He/she will also update the project manual regularly, prepare formats for documentation at all levels, and provide guidance to the OCs and city/district coordinators on the mitigation measures on the negative impacts. The project will adopt the Environmental Guidelines, Land Acquisition and Resettlement Framework, IVP Policy Framework of the UPP-3 which was adopted by the UPP-2 additional financing (UPP2-AF) with some modification based on lesson learned/implementation experiences of the previous UPPs. The modified Guidelines will ensure that the potential environmental and social impacts are addressed as an integral part of project design, appraisal and implementation.

8 The Project will not finance sub-projects that use items listed in the negative list, that will have potential negative impacts on cultural property and, that will have potential large-scale land acquisition/ resettlement. The NMC will carry out additional trainings for the OCs and city/district coordinators for the UPPs on the environmental/land acquisition/ivp policy frameworks and their implementation. Kelurahan facilitators and other project staff will be trained in the understanding and application of the guidelines and assist in the preparation of subproject proposals. The BKMs will be trained in how to apply the safeguards in their selection process. Communities will be in charge of deciding all implementation arrangements, and follow-up on guidelines and approved proposals will be monitored by the kelurahan facilitators and OCs. The current check list for environmental screening and for identifying the need, scheme and process in acquiring land will be improved. The NMC will provide a detailed outline of information that should be put in the environmental and resettlement consolidated report. 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 BKMs and the community groups (KSM, as beneficiaries, consists of 5-12 households). Communities and BKMs will choose how they want to use the funds under the kelurahan grants based on the Community Development Plan (CDP) that they will develop through participatory process. Sub-project proposals are discussed within the members of the KSMs. In the case for the Kelurahan Block Grants, the KSM members will discuss and agree on how to, for instance, obtain the needed land, or avoid particular environmental impacts. The BKM, with assistance of the facilitators, will screen the sub-projects. BKMs with the assistance of facilitators will ensure that adequate mitigation measures are taken. The selection of proposals by the BKM for the kelurahan grant shall be made in a meeting, publicized in advance and open to the public. The OCs will be trained on the three safeguard policy frameworks who will be then carry out similar training for the facilitators and BKMs, as well as raising awareness in all participating communities and KSMs. The policy frameworks of the three safeguard aspects have been adopted and operationalized in the PNPM manual (which is an expanded and improved UPP-2 AF Manual). The UPPs manual have been disseminated to more than 130 local governments, and in over 2,000 villages, in the last four years. The PNPM safeguard policy frameworks will be made available to the public through Bank s Project Information Center in Jakarta and will be included in the PNPM manuals and be made available, by the OCs, to the community organizations/dinases preparing proposals. In addition, the UPPs manual is available in the UPPs website, namely, The PNPM manual will be uploaded in this website. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal?

9 Date of receipt by the Bank 11/09/2007 Date of "in-country" disclosure 12/10/2007 Date of submission to InfoShop 12/10/2007 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 11/09/2007 Date of "in-country" disclosure 12/10/2007 Date of submission to InfoShop 12/10/2007 Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank 11/09/2007 Date of "in-country" disclosure 12/10/2007 Date of submission to InfoShop 12/10/2007 * 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: The PNPM safeguard policy frameworks and guidelines, which are an expanded and improved UPP-2 Additional Financing s frameworks, will be uploaded in the UPP website ( At present, the UPP-3 safeguard frameworks, which was adopted by the UPP-2 Additional Financing, have been included in the Project Manuals and are in the Project website. 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 Indigenous Peoples Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework (as appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? 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? OP/BP Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? No N/A N/A N/A

10 If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? 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? D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Mr George Soraya 12/06/2007 Environmental Specialist: Ms Vivianti Rambe 12/06/2007 Social Development Specialist Mr Isono Sadoko 12/06/2007 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Ms Indira Dharmapatni 12/06/2007 Approved by: Sector Manager: Ms Sonia Hammam 12/14/2007 Comments: