Page 1 Page 2 Proposed ISDS PAD Format – Draft Pre-meeting with ISG - March 2, 2004 Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (ISDS) Section I – Basic Information Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: March 2, 2004 A. Basic Project Data A.1. Project Statistics Country: Indonesia Project ID: P071316/P071318 Project: Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program (COREMAP) Phase II TTL: Pawan G. Patil Total project cost (by component): (A) Institutional Strengthening ($19.6m). (B) Community Based & Collaborative Management ($44.9m). (C) Public Awareness, Education and Extension ($9.5m). Appraisal Date: 01/12/2004 IBRD Amount ($26.5m): Board Date: 04/22/2004 IDA Amount ($30.0m): GEF Amount ($7.5m): PCF Amount ($m): Miscellaneous Funds (specify) ($m): Managing Unit: EASRD Sector: Rural Lending Instruments: APL Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency recovery)? Yes No Environmental Category: B Safeguard Classification: S2 A.2. Project Objectives The development objective of the Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program (COREMAP) Phase II is to establish a financially sustainable program that is nationally coordinated but decentralized in implementation, in order to empower and to support coastal communities to sustainably co-manage the use of coral reefs and associated ecosystem resources, which will in turn, enhance the welfare of these communities in Indonesia. Page 3 Proposed ISDS PAD Format – Draft Pre-meeting with ISG - March 2, 2004 A.3. Project Description The Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program (COREMAP) Phase II would be implemented through three components: (A) Institutional Strengthening - to enhance government institutional responsiveness to meet the needs of coastal communities, in support of collaborative management of marine reserves and larger marine protected areas. This component will provide technical assistance, human resource development, management structures, and legal input to support a paradigm shift from centralized to local management of coral reef and associated ecosystems enabled by laws U.U. 22/99 and 25/99 and in accordance with KMK 35. (B) Community Based & Collaborative Management - to empower all coastal communities throughout program districts to sustainably co-manage coral reefs and associated ecosystems to increase incomes which will in turn enhance community welfare. In program districts, coral reef resources (i.e. fisheries) comprise one of the largest sources of potential revenue and food security available to coastal communities and local governments. Through replacing short-term exploitative practices with long-term sustainable economic benefits, communities and local governments can drive the development process, thereby reducing dependence on central government finance. For these reasons, this component will empower 416 coastal communities in the first six districts to manage extensive and bio-diverse coral reef ecosystems in a cost-effective and sustainable way. The expectation is that by the sixth year, the program is largely financed independently of external sources of funds. (C) Public Awareness, Education and Extension - to promote societal awareness of the benefits of coral reef ecosystem conservation and sustainable use that leads to behavioral change. This component aims to address the knowledge gap in Indonesia of the benefits of sustainable coral reef management and thereby support the realization of behavioral change. Toward this end, the program will target children and youth through an education and scholarship program, key stakeholders through advocacy, local government and communities through technical assistance and awareness campaigns. A.4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis: The Phase II Program will be implemented in 6 Districts (Pangkep, Selayer, Buton, Biak, Raja Ampat, Sikka), 2 National Marine Parks (Taka Bone Rate, Wakatobi) and 4 KSDAs (Regional Marine Parks). The locations were chosen based on ecological criteria and are located in the coral triangle, considered the world’s best remaining coral reefs. Approximately 416 villages living in these areas and dependent on the reefs for their livelihood will be eligible for participation in the program. Their involvement in the program is entirely voluntary. Finally, the indigenous people (Bajo) living in the program area are specifically targeted since they are most dependent on the reefs for their livelihood and have the most to gain from increasing the productivity of the reef fisheries through collaborative management and sustainable use. B. Check Environmental Category A [ ], B [X], C [ ], FI [ ] Comments: C. Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) [X] [ ] Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [X] [ ] Pest Management (OP 4.09) [ ] [X] Cultural Property (draft OP 4.11 - OPN 11.03 -) [ ] [X] Page 4 Proposed ISDS PAD Format – Draft Pre-meeting with ISG - March 2, 2004 Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [ ] [X] Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) [X] [ ] Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [ ] [X] Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [ ] [X] Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) * [ ] [X] Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) [ ] [X] * By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties' claims on the disputed areas Page 5 Proposed ISDS PAD Format – Draft Pre-meeting with ISG - March 2, 2004 Section II – Key Safeguard Issues and Their Management D. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues . D.1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts. The project does not anticipate any large-scale, significant or irreversible impacts, as the aim is to support a process at the community scale to empower coastal communities to manage their coral reef ecosystems. As part of this process, the project will support community-determined micro- projects, all of which will be site-specific and classified as either Category B or C. These micro- projects could potentially trigger safeguard issues, so the project will include an Environmental and Social Impact Management Framework to ensure that the potential environmental and social impacts of micro-projects are assessed and considered as they are designed by communities, with the assistance of project-financed extension teams. D.2 Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area. The project does not anticipate any long-term or indirect adverse environmental or social impacts in the communities within project districts as a result of micro-projects, because of their small scale and the positive and negative lists (included in the Environmental Checklist) that will be applied in reviewing proposals. D.3. Describe the treatment of alternatives (if relevant) N/A D.4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. In order to address potential safeguard issues that could result from community-determined micro-projects, the borrower has prepared an Environmental and Social Impact Management Framework to guide project staff to assist communities in the design of micro-projects, so that they do not trigger the above safeguards. This Framework includes criteria that automatically prohibits land acquisition, and hence involuntary resettlement, using project funds, and provides a process for determining whether proposed micro-projects trigger any of the above safeguards. If triggered, the Framework includes procedures to ensure communities make appropriate siting and design changes, operating procedures, and where necesssary, prepare Environmental Management Plans which must be approved by the Program Management Unit (PMU) prior to COREMAP Phase II approval of micro-projects for funding. The PMU in each program district will be assisted by international consultants and budget for technical assistance as needed, in order to ensure the capacity is present to review micro-projects and assist in their design, and in the implementation of the Framework. Page 6 Proposed ISDS PAD Format – Draft Pre-meeting with ISG - March 2, 2004 D.5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. National ministries and line agencies necessary to successfully design, prepare, coordinate and implement the Phase II project are represented through the established multi-agency GOI Design Team, the GOI Intra-Agency Preparation Team, and the GOI Intra-Agency Operational Team; District officials participate in design, preparation, coordination, and implementation through their representation on the national teams referred to above; each Community and co-management regime is the cornerstone of the Phase II project. Without community engagement, the project will not succeed. As a result, communities have been engaged from the very beginning of project preparation through the participatory social assessment/consultative process, etc. Prior to the implementation of activities at all Project sites, the communities will engage in a comprehensive planning process that identifies constraints, risks, and opportunities under the project. A Gender Action Plan (under preparation by ADB funded technical assistance consultants) will delineate how the Project will encourage women’s participation and provide opportunities for them to play active roles in setting up, operating, and managing small-scale income-generating projects. It will also ensure that indigenous people are consulted on each activity developed and are able to participate fully and obtain benefits from the planning and implementation of community empowerment activities, particularly for the establishment of required basic services. While project sites have heterogeneous populations, the social assessment has determined that most project villages are ethnically homogenous. E. Safeguards Classification (select one) [ ] S 1 . –The project has significant, cumulative and/or irreversible impacts; where there are significant potential impacts related to several safeguard policies. [X] S 2 . – One or more safeguard policies are triggered, but effects are limited to their impact and are technically and institutionally manageable. [ ] S 3 . – No safeguard issues [ ] S F . – Financial intermediary projects Page 7 Proposed ISDS PAD Format – Draft Pre-meeting with ISG - March 2, 2004 F. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/ Management Plan /Other: Date of receipt by the Bank 10/06/2003 or Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure 10/06/2003 or Not Applicable Date of submission to InfoShop 12/10/2003 or Not Applicable For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors …/…/… or Not Applicable Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: Date of receipt by the Bank …/…/… or Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure …/…/… or Not Applicable Date of submission to InfoShop …/…/… or Not Applicable Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework: Date of receipt by the Bank …/…/… or Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure …/…/… or Not Applicable Date of submission to InfoShop …/…/… or Not Applicable Pest Management Plan: Date of receipt by the Bank …/…/… or Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure …/…/… or Not Applicable Date of submission to InfoShop …/…/… or Not Applicable Dam Safety Management Plan: Date of receipt by the Bank …/…/… or Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure …/…/… or Not Applicable Date of submission to InfoShop …/…/… or Not Applicable If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why. Section III – Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level OP/BP 4.01 - Environment Assessment: Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? No OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats: Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats? No OP 4.09 - Pest Management: Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues? Yes Is a separate PMP required? No Draft OP 4.11 (OPN 11.03) - Cultural Property: Does the EA include adequate measures? Yes Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on physical cultural resources? NO OD 4.20 - Indigenous Peoples: Has a separate indigenous people development plan been prepared in consultation with the Indigenous People? No If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been reviewed and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit? Yes OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement: Has a resettlement action plan, policy framework or policy process been prepared? No OP/BP 4.36 - Forests: Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional issues and constraints been carried out? No Does the project design include satisfactory measures to overcome these constraints? No Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, does it include provisions for certification system? No Page 8 Proposed ISDS PAD Format – Draft Pre-meeting with ISG - March 2, 2004 OP/BP 4.37 - Safety of Dams: Have dam safety plans been prepared? No Have the TORs as well as composition for the independent Panel of Experts (POE) been reviewed and approved by the Bank? No Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) been prepared and arrangements been made for public awareness and training? No OP 7.50 - Projects on International Waterways: Have the other riparians been notified of the project? No If the project falls under one of the exceptions to the notification requirement, then has this been cleared with the Legal Department, and the memo to the RVP prepared and sent? No What are the reasons for the exception? Please explain:………………………… Has the RVP approved such an exception? No 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, cleared with the Legal Department and sent to the RVP? No Does the PAD/MOP include the standard disclaimer referred to in the OP? No BP 17.50 - Public Disclosure: 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 the safeguard measures? Yes Have safeguard measures costs been included in project cost? Yes Will the safeguard measures costs be funded as part of project implementation? Yes Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures? Yes Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? No Signed and submitted by: Task Team Leader: Pawan G. Patil November 25, 2003 Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator Glenn Morgan Date February 25, 2004 Comments Sector Manager Mark D. Wilson Date February 25, 2004 Comments