Page 1 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 02/16/2010 Report No.: AC4670 1. Basic Project Data Country: Mexico Project ID: P115347 Project Name: School Based Management Task Team Leader: Ricardo Rocha Silveira Estimated Appraisal Date: February 22, 2010 Estimated Board Date: April 15, 2010 Managing Unit: LCSHE Lending Instrument: Adaptable Program Loan Sector: Primary education (60%);Pre-primary education (30%);Secondary education (10%) Theme: Participation and civic engagement (40%);Education for all (30%);Managing for development results (30%) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 220.00 IDA Amount (US$m.): 0.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: Borrower 82.00 82.00 Environmental Category: C - Not Required 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 project is the second phase of an ongoing Adaptable Loan Program (APL). As approved by the Board of Directors (December 13, 2005), the long-term development objective of this APL is to improve the education coverage, social participation, and educational outcomes in Mexico. This objective is measured as follows: Commitment of the Government to the Program as expressed by the number of schools participating in the Program as a percentage of public basic education schools; Commitment to the goals of School Based Management, as expressed by social participation in school financing (parental contributions) and in School Strategic Plan (Programa Estratégico de Transformación Escolar PETE) ; and Educational outcomes as expressed by average test scores in Math and Spanish for students in participating PEC schools. Consistent with the Program development objective, the Project Development Objective for Phase II (the Project) is to expand the coverage of PEC, with increasing social participation and focus on schools with poor and indigenous population. Page 2 3. Project Description The second phase of the Program would follow the basic design introduced in Phase I. The main focus of Phase II would be to increase the coverage of PEC while also improving the targeting, educational focus and management of the Program. Specific changes would include improving the information system, developing new targeting and prioritization mechanisms, and improving social participation in school decision-making. The PEC has developed a new PETE-Formato Concentrador, which is shorter and substantially more user friendly than the original instrument. This will become the main instrument to allocate resources and would be used to ensure that PEC schools achieve their strategic objectives. In addition, PEC would play a greater role in coordinating various federal programs at the basic education level and in strengthening the supervision system. Phase II of the School-Based Management Program would maintain the three components from Phase I: Component 1: School and Education Grants (US$280.8 million with contingencies or 93 percent of project cost; Bank financing: US$204.5 million). This component would finance the necessary resources and technical assistance for participating schools to implement school improvement plans and to support local efforts to improve education quality. Sub-component 1.1: School Grants (US$267.8 million) would be carried out at the school level, with grants offered by the State Education Authorities (AEEs). Sub- component 1.2: Local Education Grants (US$13 million) would provide similar support as in Sub-component 1.1 but at a higher level of aggregation, such as for groups of schools or at the state or supervisory level. Component 2: Program Monitoring and Oversight. (US$17.5 million with contingencies or 5.8 percent of project cost; Bank financing: US$12.7 million) This component would finance Program monitoring, oversight and supervision, and dissemination and it follows the structure of Component 2 in phase I. The component would include support for the redesign of the school-based information system (SIPEC) and accreditation of other information systems, through sub-component 2.1: Program Monitoring ($1.6 million). Sub-component 2.2: Program Implementation ($10.6 million) would finance Program management and supervision, allowing the supervision of activities in all of the states and the organization of national and regional events. Sub-component 2.3: Program Dissemination ($5.3 million) would continue to support the dissemination of information on Program objectives, activities, and results. Component 3: Policy Development and Evaluation. (US$3.3 million with contingencies or 1 percent of total project cost; Bank financing: US$2.4 million) As in Phase I, this component would support the organizational and institutional development of the Program and contribute to policy changes that in the long term can mainstream positive experiences. Specifically, the component would finance the evaluation of PEC#s impact on education outcomes (including student learning) through sub-component 3.1: Program Evaluation ($2.5 million) as well as policy studies and the evaluation of SEP programs included in the PETE of participating schools through sub-component 3.2: Policy Studies ($0.8 million). Page 3 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis All the Mexican territory 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Ms Maria E. Castro-Munoz (LCSSO) 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: The PEC phase II is giving a greater focus on schools in poorer and more marginalized communities which, in the case of Mexico, means indigenous population. Therefore, the project will trigger Indigenous Peoples 4:10. There are no potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts expected. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: n/a 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 Indigenous People Plan prepared for the APL continues to be valid for Phase II. However, activities to ensure indigenous peoples' participation and benefiting from the project have been up-dated for Phase II, taking into account lessons-learned from phase I and a recent evaluation of PEC execution in indigenous schools. In addition, The Bank has excellent experience with the Borrower's institutional capacity from four previous Page 4 projects in the same sub-sector: Mexico Basic Education Development, Phases I, II and III, as well as Phase I of the proposed project. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. This study included consultation with children, parents, teachers and principals in indigenous schools as well as relevant community stakeholders. The social specialist in the team has supervised preparation of this update to ensure compliance with this safeguard. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop 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 12/10/2009 Date of "in-country" disclosure 01/26/2010 Date of submission to InfoShop 02/16/2010 Pest Management Plan: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop * 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) Page 5 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? Yes 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 Ricardo Rocha Silveira 02/16/2010 Environmental Specialist: Social Development Specialist Mr Reidar Kvam 02/16/2010 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Sector Manager: Ms Tatiana Proskuryakova 02/16/2010 Comments: