INTEGRATEDSAFEGUARDSDATASHEET Date ISDS ......INTEGRATEDSAFEGUARDSDATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: December 20, 2013 I. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Basic Project Data

INTEGRATEDSAFEGUARDSDATASHEET

APPRAISAL STAGE

Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: December 20, 2013

I. BASIC INFORMATION

1. Basic Project Data

Country: Brazil Project ID: Pl26735

Project Name: Strengthening Public Management and Integrated Territorial Development Technical Assistance Loan Project

Task Team Leader: Alessandra Campanaro

Estimated Appraisal Date: July 17, 2013 Estimated Board Date: January 24,2013

Managing Unit: LCSDU Lending Instrument: Technical Assistance Loan

Sector(s): Sub-national goverrunent administration (34%); Public administration- Other social services (25%); Public administration -Water, sanitation and flood protection (25%); General education sector (8%); Health (8%)

Theme(s): Other urban development (34%); Natural disaster management (25%); Other social development (25%); Education for all (8%); Health system performance (8%)

Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP 8.00 No (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies)?

Project Financing Data (in USD Million)

Total Project Cost: 48 Total Bank Financing: 48

Total Cofinancing: 0 Financing Gap: 0

Financing Source Amount

BORROWER/RECIPIENT 0

Total 48

Environmental Category: B

Is this a Repeater project? No

Is this a Transferred No project?

2. Current Project Development Objectives The proposed PDO is to support the Borrower to improve service delivery through introducing

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

performance-based management information technologies and an Integrated Territorial Development Approach in key public services.

3. Project Description

The main components ofthe project will be the following:

Component 1: Strengthening metropolitan management through integration and coordination in urban development, housing, transport, environment and disaster risk management. US$ 16.4 million (a) Strengthening of the Borrower's metropolitan governance framework through, inter alia: (i) monitoring and evaluation of territorial development impacts; and (ii) the development of an integrated master plan for metropolitan urban development.

(b) Strengthening of the Borrower's metropolitan transport management capacity through, inter alia: (i) the evaluation and consolidation of the existing transportation ticketing system (Bilhete Unico ); (ii) the definition of an action plan for the revision of the AMTU-RJ' s role; and (iii) the strengthening of the AGETRANSP institutional capacity.

(c) Strengthening of the Borrower's metropolitan housing management capacity through, inter alia: (i) the carrying out of technical studies to develop an institutional strengthening proposal for the SEH and the CEHAB; (ii) the carrying out of technical studies to design low income housing programs and integrate those programs with social programs; and (iii) the design of an integrated plan for sustainable urban land regularization.

(d) Improvement of the Borrower's disaster risk management capacity and early warning system for high rainfall events through, inter alia: (i) the development and implementation of hardware for the existing Borrower's early warning system to monitor and respond to geological and hydrological disaster risks; (ii) the carrying out of a study to model the hydrological disaster warning system, including basic protocols to be used by the Borrower and its municipalities; (iii) the mapping of the Borrower's landslide and flood risks; and (iv) the carrying out of training to various Borrower's disaster risk management teams.

Component 2: Improving living conditions in the most vulnerable social settings. US$ 23 million. (a) Strengthening of the Borrower's capacity to implement an integrated and evidence -based medium-term social development strategy through, inter alia the support to the Borrower's restructuring and strategic planning process for social programs by: (i) developing and implementing a strategic plan for the SEASDH; (ii) carrying out technical studies to design a model for a monitoring and evaluation system, and acquisition of information management hardware and software; (iii) strengthening of existing public sector management procedures and administrative systems; and (iv) strengthening the SUAS' management and effectiveness capacity.

(b) Enhancement of the Borrower's capacity to identify, locate and support missing and involuntarily interned people through, inter alia: (i) the development of a software and a methodology (for reporting, classifying and analyzing data on missing people) to implement the PLID; and (ii) the extension of the MSM Information System to all the hospitals located in the

Borrower's territory.

(c) (i) Strengthening of the Borrower's: (A) education management capacity including evidence-based policy making capacity for secondary education; and (B) management capacity on school infrastructure; and (ii) enhancement of the quality of secondary education, all through, inter alia: (1) the expansion of SEEDUC's analytical and system management capacity; (2) the evaluation of infrastructure conditions in the Borrower's secondary schools; and (3) the development and implementation of a 4-year plan to build and refurbish necessary secondary school infrastructure.

(d) Strengthening of the Borrower's health monitoring and evaluation processes and public hospitals' information systems through, inter alia:(i) the evaluation of the comparative performance of different models of organizing and delivering primary health care; and (ii) the analysis and restructuring of administrative and clinical processes in public hospitals.

Component 3: Strengthening core finance and taxation functions. US$ 6.1 million. Development and adoption of new practices aimed at strengthening the Borrower's tax administration and financial management systems through, inter alia: (i) (I) the carrying out of technical studies to develop a methodology for estimating lost revenue due to tax waivers, (II) the development of proposed revisions to the tax collection procedures, and (III) the design and implementation of diagnostic mechanisms needed to implement best practices in debt management; (ii) the implementation of a control system for the Borrower's Automobile Property Tax (IPV A); (iii) the development of procedures, processes, manuals and databases to improve the management and costing of public investment programs, to better assess medium term implications of fiscal policy decisions; and (iv) provision of training for technical specialists and managers.

Component 4: Project management. US$ 2.5 million. Provision of support for the overall management of the Project. This component will be administered day to day by the SEOBRAS UGP (see Section IV, A on implementation arrangements), however the decisions about its funding allocation \viii be taken by the Coordination Committee. The project will support project management and provide implementation support including technical, administrative. and fiduciary support, support for monitoring and evaluation, data collection, and stakeholder involvement.

4. Project location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis (if known)

The Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Region (RJMR) environmental problems are diverse and comparative to its magnitude. Key environmental issues in the RJMR are related to a massive urban development in an environmentally sensitive area. The RJMR area is characterized by a diverse topography, with high mountains separating the coastline from the west side lowlands (Baixada). A significant portion of the Region is formed by mountains and low lands, with unfavorable conditions for urban development. Natural vegetation remains in the mountains and steep terrains. Most low land has urban use.

The RJMR faces numerous environmental problems, such as unplanned occupation of steep

slopes and river margins, water quality degradation, air quality problems in specific areas and progressive degradation of the remaining preserved Atlantic Forest spots. The recent landslides in Niteroi and Nova Friburgo reinforce the importance of the ongoing State policies to improve urban development planning, environmental management and risk mitigation.

The RJMR has Atlantic Forest ecosystems with high rates of biodiversity. Natural vegetation still responds. for approximately one fourth of the area, including forests, mangroves, salt marshes and beaches, essential to the environmental equilibrium. The most significant remaining forest and conservation units are located in the foothills of the central mountainous region or close to the shoreline, in swampy areas in the vicinity of the Guanabara Bay, and the western city of Rio de Janeiro. The forests, marshes and mangroves are located in regions where physical obstacles placed limits on expansion of economic activities or where they have stagnated due to socioeconomic realities and political conditions, allowing native vegetation to regenerate.

The RJMR shares with other metropolitan areas in Brazil the problems of water pollution, and the need to improve sanitation, solid waste collection and disposal. Problems with sewerage and solid waste collection services are aggravated by the region topographic conditions. Sanitation coverage is not universal. It is higher in the affluent and consolidated portions of the RJMR, but deficient in peri-urban areas, slums (favelas), occupied mainly by lower-income populations.

In summary, urban expansion in RJMR takes place in a unique and fragile natural environment, characterized by diverse topography and encroachment of urban settlements into environmentally sensitive areas, causing progressive environmental degradation. The GORJ sector policies addressed by this project focus on the region urban degradation causes, improving urban planning and environmental management.

During preparation, the Bank undertook a social assessment to explore the potential social impacts of the project.. It relied on secondary sources - mostly social assessments and poverty and social impact analyses carried out for previous DPL operations with the state and municipality of Rio de Janeiro. These previous assessments relied on demographic and census data, ethnographic studies of the conditions of daily life of poor people, youth, women and vulnerable groups, and social assessment consultations.. The previous assessments show that, despite having recently begun to tum the comer after decades of economic stagnation and social deterioration, the State of Rio de Janeiro and its metropolitan region have not been able to convert economic growth into widespread, improved social well-being. Although the proportion of poor and extremely poor people in the State's population is smaller than in the rest of the country, social and economic inequality remains high in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Both metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions present relevant challenges to further reduce poverty and improve well-being.

These assessments tend to concur with the proposition that lower incomes, poverty and extreme poverty are closely and meaningfully correlated with race, generation and gender issues, lower levels of education, more limited access to public services, inadequate housing and higher vulnerability to violence and crime. Also, there is strong evidence that poverty and extreme poverty are considerably more widespread in the metropolitan region and disproportionately

and overwhelmingly affect female-headed households with children (a trend towards a feminization of poverty) and afro-descendants who reside in precarious settlements and at-risk areas. The metropolitan region has expanded in the last decade toward peripheral zones and vertically within the favelas in a unique and fragile natural environment. The absence of a formal housing market and state policies for low-income housing has led poor families to locate themselves in underserviced peripheral areas. These "solutions" have increased social exclusion and promoted "favelization" in most peripheral areas. Thus, the percentage of people living in substandard housing under precarious conditions and in at-risk areas has increased and, in recent years, at a rate three times faster than the growth rate of the city's population. Additionally, the available data show that, since 1985, increasing numbers of precarious, poor and informal settlements have fallen under the rule of drug lords and militias, with devastating effects for the residents. Crime and violence are focused in these settlements and surrounding areas, and victimize young people the most. Finally, this research, social assessment consultations and public opinion polls have pointed out rampant violence and criminality -closely related with drug dealing and addiction- are conceived of as the main social concerns and the key obstacles to new business attraction, economic recovery and social development in the state.

Previous research and previous social assessment consultations- reviewed on the social assessment for this operation- show the metropolitan population agrees that (a) social and economic inequality is the main issue in the metropolitan region of Rio de Janeiro and (b) it is reflected in a spatial distribution of inequality that is reinforced by the lack of state investments in public services and infrastructure in most settlements. The data available from qualitative research and consultations show broad public support for policies driven towards urban upgrading of favelas and the reduction of settlements in at-risk areas. Many studies also suggest that the metropolitan population agrees that the re-taking of informal settlements previously controlled by drug dealers and militias was essential for improving the living conditions of poor residents, recovering their citizenship rights, and improving their participation in civil society. Finally, the available sources reveal that the metropolitan population and, in particular, the people living in violence ridden communities previously or currently controlled by drug dealers and militias, strongly support the view that police activities should be complemented with other social interventions, including policies to improve low-income housing, upgrade informal settlements and promote social development. Thus, the feedback from residents of informal settlements about UPP (Pacification Police Units) policies has been mostly positive, but they remain concerned with the potential migration of crime and violence to other neighborhoods. They express fears that UPP interventions may not endure and that drug traffickers and militias might return and retaliate against residents. They also fear that traffickers might prevail over both government and nongovernment programs that promote social and youth development, strengthen citizenship rights among a population that has been socialized under the culture of violence, and return drug users to their everyday family life.

5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists on the Team

6. Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes No Environmental Assessment X

The proposed Strengthening Public Management and Integrated Territorial Development Technical Assistance Project is expected to have positive environmental impacts, given the focus on capacity building of key institutions of the Rio de Janeiro Government. The operation will support technical assistance related to sustainable urban development, housing and transport sectors institutional modernization. Institutional capacity improvement has important environmental and social implications, allowing the State to adopt sustainable practices, especially related to housing and land titling programs. The Project includes primarily conceptual studies and activities related to institutional strengthening, which are likely to have minimal or no direct adverse environmental impacts. The strengthening of the State's disaster risk management systems, the metropolitan master plan, the housing policy and the land management program are the only activities that may have indirect environmental implications. For this reason, the project has been rated category "B" and safeguard policies have been triggered for Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01). The Environmental Assessment Safeguard is mandatory to all projects that may potentially have an environmental or social impact. The Natural Habitats and Involuntary Resettlement are also triggered. The environmental and social assessments were carried out by the Borrower, assessing all sub-projects potential environmental and/or social impacts. The Environmental Management Framework and the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) address sub-components screening and eligibility, and guidelines for the effective and timely implementation of environmental and social safeguards during Project implementation. These instruments include social and environmental conceptual frameworks for activities supported by the project, including conceptual studies that may have indirect environmental implications. The project will provide a broad-based and participatory arena for the establishment of an integrated metropolitan development strategy that will build upon and improve existing sector-based planning and management exercises that lack adequate communication among the various players including a special emphasis on the environment. In addition to the traditional (municipal) master planning processes, the proposed project will generate value added by establishing medium- and long-term strategic development targets for the metropolitan area that are linked to stakeholders, investment plans, time horizons, and implementation indicators while taking environmental implications fully into account. With respect to technical assistance activities to be provided under Components 1 and 2, the State will ensure that the terms of reference are reviewed by the Bank and incorporate applicable Bank safeguard policies. The project will support (through Component 1) activities aimed at improving disaster risk management (DRM) capacity. Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) I x I The project does not include conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats, and no significant impact on natural habitats is foreseen. However, the Project includes housing and land management related conceptual studies and policy formulation that may have implications on natural habitats. The Natural Habitats Safeguards is triggered on a precautionary basis, and must be applied if impacts on natural habitats are identified, or anticipated, during Project implementation. The Secretariat of Public Works (SEOBRAS) will be in charge of the metropolitan master plan and as such will ensure that the EMF, any associated plan, and the RPF are taken into due consideration during project implementation.

Project activities will give preference to those that do not cause negative impacts on natural habitats. Where such impacts are inevitable the appropriate measures to avoid, mitigate and where appropriate compensate for them will be implemented. Forests (OP/BP 4.36) I I X

None of the project's activities will directly or indirectly influence the management or use of natural or plantation forests. Pest Mana2ement (OP 4.09) I I X

The project will not support the procurement or use of pesticides or other agricultural chemicals, or lead to the increased use of such chemicals. Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) I I X

The Project does not involve excavations, earth movement, flooding or other major environmental changes. Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) I I X

The Project does not affect Indigenous Peoples and this policy has not been triggered. A screening exercise- relying on official information available from the National Agency of Indigenous Affair (Fundayao Nacional do indio)- has not found the presence of Indigenous Peoples ~ith the four characteristics considered by this Policy within the Project Area. Indeed, indigenous lands in the state of Rio de Janeiro are found at the southernmost municipalities of Angra dos Reis and Parati. Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) I X I The project supports studies and technical assistance. Its potential to generate direct impacts related with involuntary resettlement is unexpected. However, the team has triggered the Involuntary Resettlement Policy in a precautionary mode. This precautionary approach was considered proper because adverse social consequences and disputes related with involuntary resettlement may arise from subsequent activities, projects and/or programs designed and implemented under the state of Rio de Janeiro government's disaster risk management and urban territorial development policies framed according to the outcomes ofthe supported studies. Such policies and plans could involve the resettlement of families living in precarious settlements and/or areas at risk of landslides. The State will ensure that the terms of reference for relevant studies and activities are reviewed by the Bank, incorporate applicable Bank safeguard policies and these will inform and guide the proper handling of any involuntary resettlement. After triggering the policy, the team has given advice to the client on the Involuntary Resettlement Policy and has worked closely with the government of Rio de Janeiro and the implementing agencies (Secretariat of Social Development, State Land Institute, Secretariat of Housing, Secretariat of Public Works), which have properly prepared a RPF. Three technical meetings were held between the team and these implementing agencies to revise, improve and frame this RPF between July and December 2011. This framework covers the gaps between the state regulatory framework and the Bank's Involuntary Resettlement policy with regards to compensation of affected people without land tenure rights, compensation of losses related with economic displacement, compensation according with the replacement value, and provision of easily accessible and responsive grievance mechanisms. The framework sets the principles and guidelines to be followed by the government in the unexpected situations in which activities, projects, programs and policies supported by the project and cause involuntary resettlement. The RPF has been publicly disseminated on the project's website prior to appraisal.

Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) I I The project will not finance construction or rehabilitation of dams nor activities rely on the operation of any existing dams.

·Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) I The project will not finance activities related to international waterways. Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) The project will not finance activities in disputed areas.

II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management

A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues

I

I

I

X

will project

X

X

1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts:

The project does not entail any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible negative impacts.

2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area:

A number of studies included under the housing and metropolitan governance aspect of the project could potentially have indirect environmental and/or social impacts. These studies will be developed in accordance with the EMF and RPF guidelines, taking into consideration the Bank Social and Environmental Safeguards.

Adverse social consequences and disputes may arise from the government's disaster risk management and urban territorial development policies that could involve the resettlement of families living in precarious settlements and/or areas at very high risk of massive landslides. The State of Rio de Janeiro's current practices of resettlement- as defined by State Decree 41.148/2008 (and its complementary legislation) and implemented in large programs such as PAC - have been assessed in the preparation of the Metropolitan Urban and Housing Development Policy Loan (Pl22391). The gaps between these practices and their regulatory framework have been properly addressed and covered within the project's Involuntary Resettlement Policy Framework.

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 Rio de Janeiro State is making significant progress to improve its environmental management system. The Environmental and Social Management Framework proposes institutional capacity strengthening measures and an institutional arrangement to implement the Project. INEA is the State Environmental Agency and is fully capable of overseeing implementation of the EMF, resulting plans,and the RPF. It will also be responsible for activities under Component 1 which might potentially impact natural habitats. Each Project Implementation Unit is responsible for their environmental management and will follow the guidelines established in the EMF under guidance from INEA. Each Secretariat has its own

environmental staff and the Project implementation will have staff dedicated to following compliance as stipulated in the EMF and also according to State and National legislation.

Other agencies such as the Secretariat of Housing, the Secretariat of Public Works, the State Land Institute and the Social Secretariat have worked jointly to prepare the RFP for the project, and are capable of handling monitoring and implementation of social safeguards issues that may arise during project implementation. Additionally, the state of Rio de Janeiro has notably improved its involuntary resettlement legislation and procedures in the past few years. Decree 41148/2008 introduces as its main guidelines: (a) the participation of the affected people in all stages of the resettlement process; (b) the provision of resettlement options; (c) strong mechanisms of communication with the population; and, (d) extensive consultation processes with main stakeholders to address their concerns during implementation. These procedures, guidelines and mechanisms potentially advance socially responsible resettlement processes and are in accordance with most of the provisions of the Bank's resettlement policies. However, they have been recently introduced in state practices in a learning-by-doing basis and there are still some gaps between this state regulatory framework and the Bank's Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP/BP 4.12), that have been properly addressed in the project's Involuntary Resettlement Policy Framework.

5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people.

For this operation, the key stakeholders are the state agencies whose institutional capacity will be strengthened through the supported activities. The State Agencies (Department of Mineral Resources, Secretariat for Planning, State Land Institute, State Environmental Institute, State Housing Company, Secretariat of Housing, Secretariat of Public Works, Secretariat of Transport, Secretariat of Education, Secretariat of Health, State Public Prosecutor, and Secretariat of Finance) have been involved in the discussion and preparation of all safeguard documents; their capacity to meet safeguards requirements of the World Bank has been assessed. Safeguards have been triggered just on a precautionary basis as most TA activities do not have direct adverse environmental or social impacts, but a few may lead indirectly to drafting of policies and/or regulations that are likely to have environmental and social impacts when implemented through future programs or projects. By triggering such safeguard policies, agreements have been reached with the client on the need to incorporate environmental or social concerns that meet the World Bank· s requirements on the preparation of the terms of references underlying project activities . In addition to this, the state has a well-developed environmental policy framework and the necessary environmental institutional capacity to minimize any negative impacts that may be associated with the project. As mentioned above, the EMF emphasizes the use of consultative processes in case specific plans need to be developed for any underlying project activity.

B. Disclosure Requirements

Environmental Assessment/ Audit/Management Plan/Other

Date of receipt by the Bank 12113/2011

Date of submission to Info Shop 12/19/2011

For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the N/A

EA to the Executive Directors

"In country" Disclosure 12/20/2011

Comments:

Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process

Date of receipt by the Bank 12/13/2011

Date of submission to Info Shop 12/19/2011

"In country" Disclosure 12/20/2011

Comments:

Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework

Date of receipt by the Bank N/A

Date of submission to Info Shop

"In country" Disclosure

Comments:

Pest Management Plan

Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? N/A

Date of receipt by the Bank

Date of submission to Info Shop

"In country" Disclosure

Comments:

If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultnral Resources policies, 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

OP/BP/GP 4.01 -Environment Assessment

Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? Yes [X 1 No [ 1 NA [ 1

If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager Yes [X] No [ l NA [ l (SM) review and approve the EA report?

Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the Yes [X l No [ 1 NA [ l

credit/loan?

OP/BP 4.04- Natural Habitats

Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation Yes [ I No [X 1 NA [ I of critical natural habitats?

If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of Yes [ 1 No [ 1 NA [X I other (non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank?

OP 4.09 - Pest Management

Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues? Yes [ I No [ 1 NA[X 1

1s a separate PMP required? Yes [ I No [ I NA[X 1

If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a safeguards Yes [ 1 No [ 1 NA [X I specialist or SM? Are PMP requirements included in project design?Ifyes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist?

OP/BP 4.11 -Physical Cultural Resources

Does the EA include adequate measures related to cultural property? Yes [ I No [ I NA[X 1

Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the Yes [ 1 No [ 1 NA[X I potential adverse impacts on cultural property?

OP/BP 4.10- Indigenous Peoples

Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework (as Yes [ I No [ 1 NA [X I appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples?

OP/BP 4.12 -Involuntary Resettlement

Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process Yes [X I No [ 1 NA [ I framework (as appropriate) been prepared?

If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Yes [X 1 No [ I NA [ 1 Sector Manager review the plan?

OP/BP 4.36- Forests

Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional issues and Yes [ 1 No [ I NA [X I constraints been carried out?

Does the project design include satisfactory measures to overcome Yes [ I No [ 1 NA[X 1 these constraints?

Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, does it Yes [ 1 No [ I NA[X I include provisions for certification system?

OP/BP 4.37- Safety of Dams

Have dam safety plans been prepared? Yes [ I No [ 1 NA [X I

Have the TORs as well as composition for the independent Panel of Yes [ 1 No [ 1 NA[X 1 Experts (POE) been reviewed and approved by the Bank?

Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) been prepared and Yes [ I No [ 1 NA [X I

arrangements been made for public awareness and training?

OP 7.50- Projects on International Waterways

Have the other riparians been notified of the project?

If the project falls under one of the exceptions to the notification requirement, has this been cleared with the Legal Department, and the memo to the RVP prepared and sent?

Has the RVP approved such an exception? •

OP 7.60 - Projects in Disputed Areas

Has the memo conveying all pertinent information on the international aspects of the project, including the procedures to be followed, and the recommendations for dealing with the issue, been prepared

Does the PAD/MOP include the standard disclaimer referred to in the OP?

The World Bank Policy on Disclosure oflnformation

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?

III. APPROVALS

Task Team Leader:

Approved By:

Regional Safeguards Coordinator:

Sector Manager:

Alessandra Campanaro

Yes [ I

Yes [ I

Yes [ I

Yes [ I

Yes [ I

Yes [X I

Yes [X I

Yes [X I

Yes [X I

Yes [X I

Yes [X I

No [ I NA[X I

No [ I NA[X I

No [ I NA [X I

No [ I NA [X I

No [ I NA [X I

No [ I NA [ I

No [ I NA [ I

No[ I NA [ I

No [ I NA [ I

No[ I NA [ I

No[ I NA [ I