Page 1 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 02/25/2009 Report No.: AC4109 1. Basic Project Data Country: Central African Republic Project ID: P111679 Project Name: Support to Vulnerable Groups Community Development Project Task Team Leader: Bernard Harborne Estimated Appraisal Date: November 10, 2008 Estimated Board Date: March 31, 2009 Managing Unit: AFTCS Lending Instrument: Emergency Recovery Loan Sector: Sub-national government administration (40%);Other social services (40%);General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (20%) Theme: Participation and civic engagement (P);Decentralization (S);Other rural development (S) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 0.00 IDA Amount (US$m.): 8.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: BORROWER/RECIPIENT 0.00 0.00 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) Yes [X] No [ ] 2. Project Objectives The Community Development Project aims to rehabilitate social infrastructure and improve the capacity of local stakeholders to plan and manage local recovery in targeted areas of CAR. 3. Project Description Component A: Capacity Strengthening for Local Development (US$1.5 million). This component will empower rural communes and villages to prepare and implement development plans in an inclusive manner, with adequate support from Government staff. The planned capacity building activities will address the technical and fiduciary skills needed at the different decentralized levels to implement local development activities. A Field Guide will outline a streamlined, results-oriented planning approach that is transparent and participatory. The Field Guide will also incorporate innovative tools and approaches for human security reporting and conflict prevention at the local level. Page 2 A training-of-trainers approach will be used, and capacity building activities will be undertaken to transfer the requisite skills associated with the Field Guide to national NGOs and/or consultants, who will then train and mentor stakeholders at the local level. The methodology to be employed will permit targeted communes and villages to (i) establish, or where already in place, strengthen Village Development Committees (VDCs) and Communal Development Committees (CDCs), (ii) reinforce the capacities of de-concentrated line ministry staff and local administrations to support the planning and implementation of these activities; (iii) foster trust and mitigate conflicts between communities and Government; and (iv) stimulate the effective communication between diverse stakeholders involved in local development. Component B: Priority Response Fund (US$2 million): The priority response fund’s (PRF) objective is two-fold: (i) offer a window of opportunity to expedite the delivery of most-needed resources; and (ii) encourage participation and buy-in of the project by demonstrating a rapid tangible dividend to collaboration. This component will disburse funds in small increments to finance sub-projects that are ready for implementation. Criteria for accessing the PRF will be outlined in the Project Implementation Manual (PIM), but two types of projects will be earmarked in the first instance: (i) those articulated in existing local development plans; and (ii) those identified upon the guidance of the first sitting (post-project launch) of the Inter-Ministerial Committee, including UN agencies that have undertaken needs assessments on behalf of the Government, particularly in the health and water sectors. The PRF will allow for rapid centralized project selection and approval through a set of procedures that are lighter and more rapid than those of the Local Development Fund (LDF). As such, it will give the project time to develop some of its more comprehensive but labor-intensive institutional structures. The PRF will be implemented by AGETIP-CAF on behalf of the Ministry of Social Affairs due to its past performance and knowledge of Bank procedures. The PRF will close within 12-18 months of project effectiveness or when exhausted (whichever comes first). Component C: Local Development Fund (US$3 million): The objective of the LDF is for targeted communes and villages to have access to funding in a timely and transparent manner. Rural communes and villages will identify public socio-economic investments through a local development planning process. Service providers will be contracted by the CDP to undertake these investments during the course of the project. Criteria and procedures for use of the LDF will be described in detail in the Project Implementation Manual (PIM), and will include a negative list detailing the types of activities which will be ineligible for project financing. The focus of the fund will be on community public goods and will complement the AfDB community fund which is focused on individual benefits and income generation activities. The technical and fiduciary review of activities will take place at all Government levels in line with the decentralization process. The budget allocation for the four participating regions in CAR will be determined with a ‘weighting’ formula based on population levels (80 percent of the fund) and poverty data (20 percent of the fund). Criteria for targeting the villages and communes will be outlined in detail in the PIM but will be based on the following two principles: (i) first-come-first serve according to development of local plans satisfactory to the project; and (ii) Page 3 preference given to those villages acting in concert to maximize the impact of collaborative implementation. This fund for sub-projects will also be implemented by AGETIP-CAF. Component D: Project Management, Monitoring, and Evaluation (US$1.5 million): This component seeks to have all project components effectively coordinated and monitored. It will support a Project Coordination Team (PCT) responsible for technical and fiduciary oversight of the project. The PCT will be mainstreamed within the Department of Community Development in the Ministry of Social Affairs and its size will be limited to core functions critical to ensure project success and overcome capacity constraints (such as overall coordination, monitoring and evaluation, and fiduciary matters). Monitoring and Evaluation will focus on results-oriented data collection to inform decision-making and impact evaluation. As baseline information is very weak support will be given through the CDP to ICASEES, to assist particularly on project monitoring and evaluation as well as strengthen capacity for information and data gathering more generally. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis Geographic location. The project will support the design and implementation of the Government's policy with regard to community development, and will as such be implemented in the four following regions in the country. i. Nana Mambere; Mambere Kadei and Shangha-Mbaere; ii. Ombella-Mpoko, Ouham and Lobaye; iii. Kemo Quaka and Basse Kotto; and iv. Mbomou Key socio-economic issues. CAR is a landlocked country, with a population of 4.4 million. According to household survey data, 67.2 percent of the population lived below the poverty line in 2003, with poverty particularly widespread in rural areas, at 71.7 percent. Approximately 20 percent of the population lives in Bangui, the capital city. The agricultur al sector generates more than half of the country’s GDP and 80 percent of the population is engaged in subsistence agriculture. Timber and the diamond industry account for about 16 percent and 40 percent of export earnings respectively. Despite its richness in natural resources, the CAR remains one of the least developed countries in the world (ranking 171st on the 2007 Human Development Index) largely due to its landlocked position, weak institutions, a poor transportation system, an unskilled work force, and politico-military crises. This situation has been compounded by the international financial crisis. The specificity of indigenous peoples (Aka). Indigenous peoples in the project area include the AKA Pygmies. The AKA Pygmies view the great forest of the North, the reserve of the Basse Lobaye and its extension as their country. They have grown in this forest habitat. Pygmies do not live in villages, but live in temporary camps on the edge of the forest or in crop areas. Very dependent on neighboring villagers, pygmies do live in a state of submission to each family of Bantu origin, sometimes for several generations. Page 4 Some issues they face are the following: - Most Aka do not have ID cards or birth certificates and thus cannot participate in civic life, register to vote or interact on a legal basis with governmental services; - Aka settlements are usually not considered to be independent villages, administratively speaking, and are therefore usually unable to articulate their needs to governmental institutions. The interests of the Aka are often at the mercy of mayors who see themselves as representing a mostly ‘Bantu’ constituency; - Lands of ethnic minorities, hunter-gatherer societies, and/or settlements without legal status as independent villages, do not enjoy any form of legal protection. They have no way to acquire rights to "community forests" or to defend the remnants of their "homelands" from outside interests. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Ms Lucienne M. M'Baipor (AFTCS) Mr Emeran Serge M. Menang Evouna (AFTEN) 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: Most of the sub-projects planned under the CDP will be small in scale. Their direct negative environmental and social impacts are therefore likely to be small. The project will not have any large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts. Since the financial support to local and communal development plans remains very modest and will be distributed among a large number of communities in the country. OP 4.01 has been triggered because the potential exists that implementation of the CDP may lead to negative environmental impacts, mainly of a localized nature associated with activities to be financed under the Priority Respond Fund and the Local Development Fund. An Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) will be designed Page 5 in the context of preparation to ensure that the CDP complies with the country's environmental policies and the World Bank's safeguard policies. Indigenous People: as the CDP is a project focusing mainly on rural areas, it can be expected to affect ethnic minorities, and particularly those who are referred to by others as “pygmies”. According to OP 4.10, an Indigenous People Development Plan (IPDP) should provide additional information to the ESMF and the RPF. An IPDP will be prepared to ensure that the CDP will respect the dignity, rights and culture of Central African’s “pygmy” populations and that they are also benefiting from the CDP. Involuntary Resettlement: past community-driven development experience shows that infrastructure sub-projects – primarily improvements to existing villages andcommunes such as roads, water control, wells and schools – sometimes cause lossof land or loss of access to other resources, particularly in the case of new physical works or changes in the configuration of existing infrastructures. Land tenure and property rights in CAR are regulated under the national land tenure system, although traditional land tenure systems are in place at the community level. To mitigate the potential for involuntary resettlement, a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) will be prepared for purposes of planning resettlements under the CDP in compliance with the policies and principles of the World Bank, namely OP 4.12 for Involuntary Resettlement, and the land tenure policies and regulations of CAR. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: Since the financial support to community action plans remains very modest and since this support will be spread over a large number of communities in the country, there is little risk of cumulative impact of combined sub-projects. Nevertheless, in some areas, many community sub-projects may create cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts are impacts which may result from individually small-scale activities with minimal impacts but which over time can combine to have a significant impact. Examples are: - Deforestation due to the exploitation of forest resources, owing to the use of poles and timber in small-scale construction; - Depletion of soil fertility due to clearing (using slash and burn methods) of marginal forest land; - Potential impacts on groundwater, owing to the construction of numerous wells and potential cumulative impacts on water users (especially downstream users of potential river and streams); - Fragmentation of habitats from road projects; - Waste and dumping sites due to the inappropriate disposal of waste materials; - Strengthening of traditional systems of environmental and social governance and the community dialogue; - The low capacities of the pygmies might result in the facts that they are not able to carry out some or any subproject which would increase their marginalization. Page 6 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. No project situation. In the no-project scenario, poverty and conflict over resources are likely to increase in extent and severity over most of the rural areas in CAR, especially in the four regions where the project will be implemented. This will result in greater resource degradation than the ‘with-project’ situation. 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. AGETIP, which is currently viewed as the implementation partner for the Priority Response Fund (as well as recruitment of key personnel at project inception) will also have procurement and financial management responsibilities for the Local Development Fund. The project team will look at revising the implementation arrangements accordingly, to build capacity in the Ministry of Social Affairs where it is needed and delegating the execution of sub-projects to AGETIP. AGETIP has sufficient staff and capacity to implement the proposed operation. In the first few months the project will work on sub-projects without environmental/social issues (category C). A limited positive list will be developed to get the PRF started. Some projects identified for Indigenous Peoples areas will not be developed until an Indigenous People Development Plan acceptable to IDA is elaborated and disclosed at the Bank InfoShop and published by the Government. These temporary arrangements will pass on to the permanent ones under the CDP project’s safeguard instruments when the PCT will be trained to deal with the attendant social and environmental safeguards issues. Some safeguards training will be provided by a Social Development officer hired for the project. The ESMF will propose environmental and social considerations to be fully incorporated into the participatory process for identifying, implementing and monitoring activities or sub-projects, in order to ensure that such operations are screened for their potential impacts and that they are consistent with World Bank safeguard policies. Resettlement Policy Framework. Resettlement issues will be identified as part of the environmental and social screening. The RPF will specify the cases in which a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) or abbreviated RAP is necessary. Project Affected Persons must be identified on the sub-project application form. RAPs and abbreviated RAPs shall be prepared with technical support from deconcentrated Ministries. Indigenous People Development Plan. In the absence of specific measures, pygmy communities will not be able to share in the benefits of the CDP and would face increased risks of marginalization. The CDP must carry out the activities prescribed by the IPDP to fulfill the requirements of OP 4.10. The IPDP and an action plan will be prepared within three months after the effectiveness of the project in order to ensure pygmies don’t lose out in the ‘first-come-first serve system’ to be used to fund sub- projects. Page 7 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. a) ESMF and RPF Stakeholder interviews in Bangui and Project Target Areas. Stakeholder consultation will be a key tool in achieving the ESMF/RPF objectives. Project preparation included an intensive schedule of interviews with key stakeholders and informants, especially in representative villages at the Regional levels, as well as joint meetings/workshops with groups of stakeholders. The ESMF/RPF team will consult stakeholders and key informants in Bangui. Separate field visits to the four Regions will be undertaken. The purpose of these visits will be to meet and consult with local governments and agencies, as well as with participating communes and village communities, to verify the initial analysis of the Project’s potential environmental and social impacts. b) IPDP The IPDP will be carried out in a participatory manner and in close collaboration with all stakeholders (governmental agencies, donor organization, indigenous population as defined in OP 4.10, other rural populations, NGOs, etc.). B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? No Date of receipt by the Bank 05/30/2009 Date of "in-country" disclosure 06/08/2009 Date of submission to InfoShop 06/08/2009 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? No Date of receipt by the Bank 05/30/2009 Date of "in-country" disclosure 06/08/2009 Date of submission to InfoShop 06/08/2009 Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? No Date of receipt by the Bank 05/30/2009 Date of "in-country" disclosure 06/08/2009 Date of submission to InfoShop 06/08/2009 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. Page 8 If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why: This is an Emergency project, the ESMF, RPF and IDPP will be disclosed in the World Bank InfoShop and in CAR 180 days after the project effectiveness. As AGETIP-CAF will implement the two components of the project related to sub-projects, in the first few months the project will work on sub-projects without environmental/social issues (category C). A limited positive list will be developed to get started with until the permanent instruments (ESMF, RPF and IPDP) are disclosed and agreed with the Bank. 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? No Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? Yes OP/BP 4.10 - Indigenous Peoples Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework (as appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples? No If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? No 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 OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? No If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? No The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop? No 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? No 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 Yes Page 9 borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Mr Bernard Harborne 02/13/2009 Environmental Specialist: Mr Emeran Serge M. Menang Evouna 02/13/2009 Social Development Specialist Ms Lucienne M. M'Baipor 02/13/2009 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Mr Warren Waters 02/13/2009 Comments: Sector Manager: Mr Ian Bannon 02/13/2009 Comments: