Integrated safeguards datasheet

INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET

APPRAISAL STAGE
I. Basic Information

Date prepared/updated: 10/03/2008	Report No.: AC3167
1. Basic Project Data
Country: Brazil	Project ID: P104752
Project Name: Rural Poverty Reduction Project II -- Paraiba
Task Team Leader: Jorge A. Munoz
Estimated Appraisal Date: September 18, 2007	Estimated Board Date: January 15, 2009
Managing Unit: LCSAR	Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan
Sector: General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (70%);Power (10%);Water supply (10%);Sub-national government administration (10%)
Theme: Rural services and infrastructure (P);Participation and civic engagement (P);Rural non-farm income generation (P);Rural policies and institutions (S)
IBRD Amount (US$m.): 20.90 IDA Amount (US$m.): 0.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00
Other financing amounts by source: Borrower 4.50 Local Communities 2.50 7.00
Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment
Simplified Processing	Simple [X]	Repeater [X]
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

The proposed COOPERAR II project would support the Government of Paraiba's efforts to reduce the incidence of rural poverty, addressing both its income and non-income dimensions, by: (a) improving access to small-scale socio-economic infrastructure and services: (b) raising incomes and capital assets through investments in productive activities and facilitating linkages between small producers and national and international markets; and (c) strengthening the capacity of Municipal Councils (MC) and Community Associations (CA) to raise funding and harmonize policies and institutional arrangements for the delivery of public investments intended to benefit the rural poor.

3. Project Description

Total project cost is estimated at US$27.9 million, of which US$20.9 million would come from the Bank loan. The Project's structure by component is:

Component 1: Community Subprojects (US$23.7 million or 85% of total project cost) to support community matching grants for about 1,000 small-scale socio-economic and productive activities, infrastructure, health/sanitation, and other investments aimed at helping the State raise HDI, in complement with other State and Federal programs. Community associations would identify and implement the investments.

Component 2: Institutional Development (US$2.8 million or 10% of total project cost) executed by the State Technical Unit (STU) would finance technical assistance and training to support: (a) mobilization and strengthening of CA in their role of identifying, preparing, executing, operating and maintaining subproject investments; (b) capacity building for MC in their decision-making, oversight and facilitation role, as defined in the Project Operational Manual; (c) the STU's Regional Management Units (RMU, boosting their capacity to facilitate the STU's project coordination activities; and (d) workshops and seminars for MC and CA to exchange experiences and explain/facilitate project integration with other State and Federal programs.

Component 3: Project Administration, Supervision, Monitoring and Evaluation (US$1.4 million or 5% of total project cost) would finance operational costs (excluding salaries) of project administration, supervision, monitoring and evaluation.
4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis

The Project Area would comprise the same 222 municipalities included in the previous project, with more intense focus on 100 municipalities with lowest HDI-M. These 100 poorest municipalities would receive about 60% of total subproject resources.

5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists

Mr Alberto Coelho Gomes Costa (LCSAR)

Ms Estela Maria Souza Costa Neves (LCSAR)

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:

(a) Safeguard Issues and Impacts: The project is a Category B, i.e., its potential environmental impact on human populations and ecologically important areas is considered moderate/modest. As spelled out in the EMP, the Project defines procedures for ensuring that the environmental screening of water resource subprojects identifies any possible environmental, economic and social effects/impacts of dams/irrigation or other water supply systems which utilize a single water source, including cumulative impacts. In this regard, the EMP and Operational Manual respond to issues on this theme identified in the Bank report "Thematic Review - Rural Infrastructure Projects in Brazil" (QAT Thematic Review, 2002). All approved subprojects involving the use of water resources, before signature of the agreement with the community association, must be examined according to criteria which include the level of water demand, and supply capacity of the watershed involved. This process may include an analysis/estimate of aggregate impacts at the watershed level. Finally, a study of cumulative impacts will be carried out during Project implementation (TOR are being prepared).

Environmental screening and technical/legal requirements and procedures are summarized in the EMP for 14 types of subprojects commonly demanded by CA in Paraiba: manioc mill; water supply system (complete); desalinization equipment; water supply (artesian well); water supply (Amazon well); water supply (small-scale reservoir); water supply (cistern); agricultural mechanization (tractor and equipment); agro-industry (fruit processing); goat herding; shrimp farming; fish farming; milk production plant; and, honey production.

No large-scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts are foreseen.
2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area:

NA
3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts.

NA
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.

A. Measures to Address Safeguard Issues:

Subproject environmental screening procedures established and periodically upgraded under the previous Rural Poverty Alleviation Project in Paraiba (classified as a Category B)indicate a sound and effective framework for all stages of subproject preparation, implementation and operation which merits continuation (updated and with minor adjustments). Environmental monitoring performance was satisfactory and the specialized environmental technical support networks created will be sustained under the Repeater.

Safeguards applying to the Repeater Project and measures to be applied are as follows:

(a) Environmnental Assessment (OP4.01):

The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the proposed Repeater Project, which is an integral part of the Project Operational Manual, will apply environmental screens during the technical assessment of subproject proposals in order to ensure that these are compliant with applicable Bank safeguard policies and relevant Federal and State regulations. Specifically, the EMP includes: (i) environmental provisions based on lessons learned from the previous project; (ii) a negative list of Category A-type subprojects; (iii) provisions for assessing cumulative environmental impacts from implementation of certain subproject types; (iv) environmental management criteria, screens, and procedures for different subproject types; (v) standard environmental mitigation measures for typical subproject types; (vi) environmental rules for civil works; (vii) environmental capacity-building measures; and (viii) an annex summarizing the project's public consultation events. This document was reviewed by the Bank and submitted to the InfoShop on September 17, 2007; it is also available through the Project's State Technical Unit website.

(b) Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04):

The screening procedures in the EMP explicitly prohibit approval of any community subproject proposal which is likely to cause degradation to essential natural habitats. The EMP prohibits approval of any subproject located in Legal Reserves and Permanent Preservation areas.

(c) Pest Management (OP/BP 4.09):

No major pest management issues are expected under the project. The EMP includes screening criteria for detecting the use of pesticides under any community subproject proposal. The EMP also includes provisions for promoting integrated pest management, where appropriate, in relevant agriculture investment subproject.

(d) Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11):

The Project Operational Manual incorporates procedures to be followed in the event of "chance finds" of culturally significant materials during subproject implementation.

(e) Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10):

Paraiba has an indigenous population of about 12,600, the majority comprising the legally-recognized ethnic grouping of Potiguara. There are also Quilombola (slave-descendent) communities (162 benefited from the previous project). The Repeater Project will continue to support these groups by expanding coverage to groups not already reached and intensifying actions for those already served. An Indigenous Peoples Participation Plan (IPPP), an integral part of the Project Operational Manual, reviews the experiences with indigenous peoples and Quilombola communities under the previous project and lessons learned. The IPPP also defines guidelines and specific procedures for engaging these communities in project activities. Culturally-appropriate methods will be used to promote inclusion - outreach, studies, information and mobilization campaigns, consultation with leaders/community members, technical assistance and training. This document was reviewed by the Bank and submitted to the Infoshop on September 17, 2007; it is also available through the Project's State Technical Unit website.

(f) Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12):

Because the project will not finance physical or economic displacement of people, OP 4.12 is not triggered. The Project Operational Manual explicitly prohibits approval of any subproject proposal which would result in involuntary resettlement, physical or economic.

B. Borrower/Institutional Capacity: The STU has a total staff of 147 of which 99 are professionals and technical specialists in agriculture, agrarian and environmental sciences, social sciences, economics and civil construction, supported by 48 administrative and financial staff.

The State Technical Unit for the previous project complied with Bank safeguard policies and project environmental rules (including Federal and State norms) applicable at the time. For the proposed project, a fully-revised Environmental Management Plan incorporating current Bank safeguard provisions, has been prepared.

The STU (based in Cabedelo)also has seven Regional Management Units/teams responsible for seven regions of the state. Four teams are located in the field while the other three teams are based at STU headquarters but responsible for the regions of Cariri, Camalau and Regiao Litoranea. The three teams located at headquarters have their own structure and identical responsibilities to the four, field-based units. The STU can call on specialized consultants in irrigation, environment, water resources management and the social sciences and has established partnerships with an extensive list of public and private agencies/entities with environmental mandates, responsibilities and/or interests to support project environmental monitoring, supervision and legal/safeguards compliance. These include: State Secretariat of Science, Technology and the Environment (SECTMA), Brazilian Institute for the Environment (IBAMA), Executive Agency for Water Management (AESA), National Institute for Semi-arid Regions (INSA), Federal University of Paraiba (UFPB), State University of Paraiba (UEPB), National Environmental Council (CONAMA), the Environmental Protection Council (COPAM) and the Fundacao Parque Tecnologico.

Environmental capacity-building is an integral part of the project's overall training and technical assistance program under Component 2, Institutional Development. Further agreed actions taken by the STU include: (a) additional environmental technical expertise on staff; (b) environmental modules inserted into the Project Monitoring and Information System (MIS); (c) application of a broader negative list of prohibited investments; (d) an updated Operational Manual which reflects Bank Safeguards as well as new State and Federal legal requirements; (e) creation of a new category of community investment already in use in other participating states - environmental subprojects - which might include for example, soil and/or water recuperation activities by communities; and (f) reinforcing through training (STU, MC and CA) the identification, analysis and management of environmental events.

The State of Paraiba has the legal and institutional capacity and experience to execute all environmental requirements under the project. While the State's environmental laws are quite demanding in the number of requirements, the implications for the new project are not onerous given simplified procedures agreed with the State based on the small scale of individual investments. The Project Operational Manual, part of the legal documents of the Project, reflects the enhanced EMP and includes all key measures for environmental preservation, addressing the Bank's Safeguard policies and Brazilian law.
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: The primary project stakeholders are poor rural communities organized into Community Associations, with particular focus on indigenous peoples, Quilombola communities and female-headed households, generally among the very poorest. Secondary stakeholders include State and local authorities and civil society linked to and integrated with the project throughout the subproject cycle.

Mechanisms for Consultation and Disclosure: Public consultation on all aspects of Project design including environmental standards and requirements has been conducted in a highly-effectuve manner through the participatory MC and this will continue under the Repeater. The Councils provide an open forum which meets regularly, has committed membership, includes the participation of technical specialists, and is recognized as a legitimate, inclusive chamber for knowledge dissemination and debate. The Repeater project will promote special meetings of the Councils to discuss environmental aspects of specific subprojects for which environmental impacts are foreseen. The Operational Manual reflects this decision and the EMP has been posted on the project STU website.

B. Disclosure Requirements Date
Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other:
Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal?	Yes
Date of receipt by the Bank	08/01/2007
Date of "in-country" disclosure	06/14/2007
Date of submission to InfoShop	09/17/2007
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
Date of "in-country" disclosure
Date of submission to InfoShop
Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework:
Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal?	Yes
Date of receipt by the Bank	08/01/2007
Date of "in-country" disclosure	06/14/2007
Date of submission to InfoShop	09/17/2007
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?	Yes
If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report?	Yes
Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan?	Yes
OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats
Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats?	No
If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of other (non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank?	N/A
OP 4.09 - Pest Management
Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues?	Yes
Is a separate PMP required?	No
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?	N/A
OP/BP 4.11 - Physical Cultural Resources
Does the EA include adequate measures related to cultural property?	Yes
Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on cultural property?	N/A
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?	N/A
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	Date
Task Team Leader:	Mr Jorge A. Munoz	09/20/2007
Environmental Specialist:	Mr Alberto Coelho Gomes Costa	09/20/2007
Social Development Specialist	Ms Estela Maria Souza Costa Neves	09/20/2007
Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s):
Approved by:
Regional Safeguards Coordinator:	Mr Reidar Kvam	09/21/2007
Comments:
Sector Manager:	Ms Ethel Sennhauser	09/21/2007
Comments: