Page 1 PROJECT INFORMATION DOCUMENT (PID) APPRAISAL STAGE Report No.: AB268 Project Name Third Urban Poverty Project Region EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC Sector Micro- and SME finance (50%);General water, sanitation and flood protection sector (20%);Other social services (15%);General transportation sector (10%);Sub-national government administration (5%) Project ID P084583 Borrower(s) REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA Implementing Agency Ministry of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure (Kimpraswil) Director General of Human Settlements Jl Pattimura No. 20, Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta Selatan, 12110 Indonesia Environment Category [ ] A [X] B [ ] C [ ] FI [ ] TBD (to be determined) Safeguard Classification [ ] S 1 [ ] S 2 [ ] S 3 [X] S F [ ] TBD (to be determined) Date PID Prepared January 22, 2004 Date of Appraisal Authorization February 16, 2004 Date of Board Approval May 25, 2004 1. Country and Sector Background The proposed project is the third in a series of Urban Poverty Projects in Indonesia and is essentially an expansion of UPP to 14 additional provinces. The first UPP became effective in 1999, with Phase I completed in 2002, and Phase II under implementation. Based on the success of UPP, the government proposed an expansion of the project to 13 provinces, and the second project (UPP2) was approved by the Bank in June 2002. Subsequently, the government engaged with the Bank in extensive discussions about the potential impact of the UPP approach on poverty alleviation, community development and local governance in Indonesia. As a result, and in conjunction with the preparation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy, the government has developed a long term 10-year program of urban poverty alleviation, involving the geographic expansion of UPP, learning, and consolidation. The proposed project, requested by the highest levels of government, would further expand the coverage of UPP to the rest of the country to make it a national program. Urban poverty alleviation and community development. The concept of UPP was developed following the 1997 financial crisis, when the problem of urban poverty in Indonesia was seen primarily as a lack of income and employment. There was an urgent need to get financial resources to the poor rapidly. UPP was therefore designed to: (i) organize the poor into groups which would receive micro-credit loans for income generation or grants for tertiary level infrastructure; and (ii) promote the development of community organizations (Badan Keswadayan Masyarakat or BKM) at the ward (kelurahan) level that would receive block grants that they would manage as a revolving fund. In the first two years alone, the project provided loans/grants to over 670,000 households through 1,298 BKMs, primarily for income generation activities (e.g. petty trade; selling cooked/fresh food; services such as electronics repair, tailoring; small scale manufacturing of shoes, clothing, handbags, pottery; etc). Some tertiary level infrastructure investments were also financed, including road/bridge construction/ improvements, drainage, water supply, garbage collection, etc. benefiting more than a million people. Over US$53 Page 2 million have been disbursed to communities, most of which is still being revolved, generating more capital for additional loans and for infrastructure improvements. UPP’s original goals were surpassed at the end of Phase I. However, through the large network of facilitators and field implementers, four observations came to the forefront: i) income poverty is a limited view of poverty—poor people demand improvements in various infrastructure and social services in addition to income generation; ii) even well-run micro-credit systems are not a very effective way to reach the poorest; iii) although poor communities value loans, the main strength of the project is the opportunity it gives them to create an organization that they elect, with leaders that they trust, and an opportunity to discuss issues of poverty together as a community; and iv) the relationship between the BKM and local governments needs to be clarified and strengthened. In response to the above, the focus of UPP2 evolved in the following directions: i) developing broad- based community organizations by placing more emphasis on the process of electing community representatives to the BKM; ii) assisting communities to formulate Community Development Plans that try to address the multi-dimensional nature of poverty; iii) supporting the formation of city level federations (BKM Forum) which bring together BKMs from all the kelurahans within the city; and iv) encouraging a partnership between local governments and BKMs through the introduction of the Poverty Alleviation Partnership Grant (PAPG), which finances activities jointly proposed by local government agencies and BKMs. UPP2 has just started with consultants mobilized and currently being trained. The proposed project will expand these ideas to new geographical areas. UPP has, in fact, become a key part of the government’s emerging national Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRSP exercise). This project takes a longer-term view of the role of the BKM as an institution of community development and poverty alleviation. The vision of a successful and sustainable BKM is an organization that is: i) trusted by and accountable to the community; ii) able to address poverty issues and the needs of the community beyond the confines of the project; iii) able to carry the aggregated demands of communities to higher levels of government and demand better services from government; and iv) a legitimate conduit for government and other agencies for delivering services. This project will support the longer term consolidation of this vision. Decentralization and local governance. The decentralization laws in Indonesia place local governments in charge of providing services to their citizens. With limited resources, however, local governments will inevitably face tradeoffs in terms of what they deliver. They will meet the demands of the population only if officials understand community priorities and are accountable to them. This, in turn, will require communities to be organized, to aggregate and prioritize their needs and demands, and to articulate these priorities to government. Thus, for decentralization to work at the local level, two parallel processes need to take place—strengthening community capacity to organize, aggregate and articulate their needs and priorities, and building the capacities of local governments to respond to and work with communities. Based on learning from UPP 1 & 2, this project explicitly supports both processes (see Section B and Annex 4, Project Description). In addition, the government has mandated certain measures/policies for a decentralized approach to community development and poverty alleviation which will be supported by the project: i) the mandated community consultations for kelurahan development (Musbangkel) will be supported under the project through the formulation of Community Development Plans at the kelurahan level; ii) Poverty Alleviation Committees (KPK) required at the district level will be strengthened through the project, through participation in project activities and through training; and iii) the development of Regional Poverty Alleviation Strategies (RPAS) newly required at the district level will be supported (and partially financed) under the project. Responsibility for service delivery. The UPP concept at its inception called for block grants to communities to enable them to make decisions about their priority needs largely because of the general Page 3 lack of trust between communities and local governments at that time (1998) and the government’s failure to deliver what communities needed. However, the concept does not advocate that all community level services should be provided and managed by communities. Many urban services have significant network factors and are best managed at a level higher than the community. In UPP1, the local government role in service delivery was left to a future (beyond project) stage, when the BKM would be strong enough to demand better services on its own from the government. In UPP2 and 3, after the passing of the decentralization law in 2001, the focus has shifted to strengthening both community and local government capacity for service delivery at the same time. Block grants will still be provided to communities for services at the kelurahan level that communities are willing and able to manage. At the same time, the capacity of local governments to work with communities will be strengthened through their involvement in the development of the BKM; in the formulation of RPAS with the participation of BKMs; and through the joint implementation of investments in infrastructure and services through the PAPG funds (see Section B and Annex 4). Broader issues of governance reform at the local level, including procurement and financial management reforms, local economic development policies, institutional strengthening, etc.—all of which also have a significant impact on service delivery—are being addressed under a separate Bank-financed project being prepared concurrently, the Urban Sector Development Reform Program. 2. Objectives The objective of this project is to improve services to the urban poor. This objective will be achieved through: (i) the establishment or support of representative and accountable community organizations that are able to increase the voice of the poor in public decision making; (ii) making local governments more responsive to the needs of the poor through increased cooperation with community organizations; and (iii) the provision of funds transparently to community based organizations and local governments to provide services to the urban poor. Impact indicators 1. 75% of poor urban households receive benefits and services from UPP3, at least 80% of whom are satisfied 2. 80% of BKMs perform satisfactorily (i.e. they are representative, participatory, accountable, and trusted by communities and local governments) 3. Rationale for Bank Involvement The Bank has gained considerable experience in supporting the government’s goals of more participation in development, more effective governance and better poverty alleviation programs. The three Kecamatan Development Projects (KDP), and UPP1 and 2 introduced new ways of working with local institutions. They demonstrated that participatory principles can work in Indonesia on a large scale and that community driven projects can meet Bank standards for quality and accountability. KDP and UPP in fact reflect a paradigm shift in the Bank’s—and the government’s—approach to poverty alleviati on, from traditional government-implemented infrastructure and service delivery projects towards interventions that are owned and implemented by communities, and supported by government. The Bank has been instrumental in converting what started off as individual projects, to two national programs which now form a pillar of the government’s poverty alleviation program. With regard to UPP, there has been a tremendous amount of learning from implementation of the first two projects. The Bank has proven its ability to adapt the project to incorporate this learning. In so doing, the Bank has built a strong relationship with relevant government departments not only in implementing UPP, but in encouraging the government to scale it up to a national level. Continued Bank Page 4 support for UPP3 will consolidate these gains and enable the important lessons learned to be internalized in the program. 4. Description The first two UPP projects cover the islands of Java, Kalimantan, Sulawesi and Nusa Tenggara Barat. UPP3 will cover Sumatera, Maluku, Papua, and East Nusa Tenggara—14 provinces with about 1,618 wards (kelurahan). Component 1: Community Development and Local Government Capacity Building During implementation, the project will aim for: i) an awareness in the wider community about the project and its rules; ii) well functioning kelurahan organizations that are democratically elected and accountable to people; iii) well functioning community groups that participate in planning for development and use the kelurahan grants for productive purposes; and iv) local governments that are able to work with kelurahan organizations to implement poverty alleviation programs. To achieve these, this component will finance consultants and facilitators to carry out the following activities: 1. an extended awareness raising or socialization process that will encourage communities to discuss, through a series of focus group discussions, the nature of poverty in their kelurahan, how it should be addressed, and what is required to deal adequately with poverty (in the form of individual commitment, organization, resources, skills, etc). 2. assistance to the community to carry out a Community Self Survey (CSS) on poverty 3. the formation/confirmation of an elected body of representatives (BKM) that is accountable to the community at large and which will act on behalf of the community for poverty reduction 4. the formulation of a poverty-oriented Community Development Plan (CDP) for the kelurahan using a participatory process and based on the results of the CSS 5. organizing and assisting community groups (Kelompok Swadaya Masyarakat or KSM) who will submit proposals to the BKM to utilize project resources and implement the programs identified in the CDP 6. assistance to BKMs to form associations (BKM Forums) and work collectively 7. building local government capacity to work with BKMs and the BKM Forum The bulk of this component will involve a long and guided socialization process where groups of facilitators will be trained to work directly with communities in the kelurahan (4 facilitators will work with 10 kelurahan). This socialization process, encompassing activities 1-5 above, is expected to take about 6 months and will begin after the project becomes effective. Socialization and training activities will also target local governments, including particularly, the city level Poverty Alleviation Committees (see below). Component 2: Kelurahan Grants Each participating kelurahan will be allocated a grant according to the size of the population, ranging from Rp. 200 million (US$25,000) for kelurahan with less than 3000 people, to Rp 500 million (US$62,500) for kelurahan with greater than 10,000 people. Once the kelurahan organization (BKM) has been formalized (notarized with the legal status of an association) and a CDP has been agreed upon, the BKM will sign a Grant Implementation Agreement with the government which will lay out the respective roles and responsibilities of the two parties, the terms of disbursement, as well as the expectations regarding the use of funds beyond the project life. The project will also provide additional funds to selected kelurahans that participated in UPP1 and UPP2 who have demonstrated their ability to provide services in conjunction with the local level administration/lurah. Page 5 For each participating kelurahan, this component will finance specific sub-projects. Sub-projects have to be in accordance with the CDP, and will cover a range of poverty alleviation activities with an open menu (with a short negative list). There will be different rules and regulations regarding the use of funds depending on the type of activity being financed. It is expected that CDPs will generally include the following types of activities: 1. pre-identified specific investments that are a community priority by consensus (these could be a bridge, a road, school repair, health facility repair or others); 2. activities that community groups can compete for (any range of physical infrastructure to services sub-projects—the CDP should indicate clearly what priority sectors or priority groups for that community are likely to be financed); 3. microcredit loans for community groups which will form the basis of a revolving fund (with clear rules/principles for implementation—see Annex 16); and 4. grant assistance to the poorest or most vulnerable individuals (this could include scholarships, home improvements, health care, etc. to specific individuals identified by communities as being most needy). The ceiling for any single sub-project per group or microcredit loan to a group (KSM) is Rp 30 million (US$3,750 equivalent). The allocation to the kelurahan will be disbursed in three tranches to ensure proper fund use and management, and to encourage better performance. Facilitators at the kelurahan level, with support from other project staff, will provide technical assistance (including socialization and training). Component 3: Poverty Alleviation Partnership Grant (PAPG) The Poverty Alleviation Partnership Grant fund (PAPG) will encourage partnerships between local governments and communities and attempt to institutionalize a consultative process between the two for future activities undertaken by local governments using their own funds. It will finance poverty alleviation activities that are too big to be financed by the kelurahan grants, or that require local government involvement (e.g. networked infrastructure or operations and maintenance); and that cover more than one kelurahan. Initial results from implementing PAPG under UPP1 Phase 2 indicate that, in order to reap the full benefits of this fund, local governments have to be involved in the UPP program as a whole and not just in the implementation of the PAPG component, and that the PAPG needs to be affiliated with a specific local government structure. In addition, as part of the development of the national Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRSP to be finalized in mid-2004), the central government now expects all local governments to prepare Regional Poverty Alleviation Strategies (RPAS) at the city level. The responsibility for preparing the RPAS will fall on local level Poverty Alleviation Committees (Komite Pengetasan Kemiskinan or KPK). To take into account these developments, the following design changes have been incorporated into this component—i) PAPG will be affiliated with established KPKs; ii) the KPK will be involved in the process of BKM formation from the beginning and participate in training programs and socialization activities; and iii) this component will support KPKs in developing RPAS through technical assistance. These activities will be undertaken in every participating project city. However, PAPG funds will be allocated competitively to 40 local governments (see Annex 4). PAPG funds will aim to support the RPAS to the extent possible. The KPKs in cities that are eligible to receive funds will be in charge of forming an independent PAPG Selection Committee who will evaluate proposals and determine the allocation of PAPG resources. It is expected that these design features will build greater ownership of the UPP approach—and therefore the PAPG component—by local governments. Page 6 Forty local governments will be selected to participate in the PAPG. Selected cities will be eligible to receive amounts ranging from a total of Rp 4.5 billion (US$562,500) over three years (for cities with less than 15 BKMS), to a total of Rp 7.5 billion (for cities with more than 25 BKMs). There will be an open menu for activities eligible for financing under the PAPG (with a short negative list). Activities could include basic infrastructure works that go beyond one kelurahan (such as roads or drains, or refurbishment of existing schools or clinics that serve more than one kelurahan); skills training that would benefit more than one kelurahan; non-formal education and health etc. The cost for individual sub-projects are expected to range from Rp 30 million (US$3,750) to a maximum of Rp. 200 million (US$25,000). PAPG implementation will begin one year after project launch in order to give cities a chance to familiarize themselves with the BKMs and to develop the RPAS. Component 4: Implementation Support The project will be managed by the same Project Management Unit established at the Ministry of Settlements and Regional Infrastructure (Kimpraswil) as for the other UPPs, assisted by an administrative unit (PIMPRO). The PMU will hire consultants and facilitators to assist in project implementation. Technical assistance will be provided through National Management Consultants (NMC) at the central level; Oversight Consultant (OC) Teams at the provincial level, with district offices in the participating cities; and facilitators and community cadres (volunteers) at the kelurahan level. This component will finance the cost of the consultants and facilitators. The cost of government operating expenditures will be covered through counterpart funds. Details of implementation arrangements are provided in Annex 6. 5. Financing Source: ($m.) BORROWER/RECIPIENT 45.1 INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT 44.4 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION 69.9 Total 159.44 6. Implementation Like in UPP1 and 2, responsibility for coordination, management and monitoring lies with the Directorate General of Human Settlements in the Ministry of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure (Kimpraswil). The planning ministry, Bappenas, will chair the Project Secretariat (an interministerial coordination committee), which will consist of representatives from Kimpraswil and the Ministries of Finance, Home Affairs, and People’s Welfare. Kimpraswil will set up a Project Management Unit (PMU) at the central level to manage the project, the Special Account, and be in charge of project monitoring and reporting. The PMU will be assisted by an administrative unit (PIMPRO). Both will be headed by the same Project Manager. The PMU will hire consultants and facilitators to assist in project implementation, particularly since this type of a community driven project will require extensive presence in the field at the kelurahan and district (kota/kabupaten) levels. National Management Consultants (NMC) will be hired at the central level, assisted by Oversight Consultants teams (OCs) at the provincial level to manage and implement the program. Teams of facilitators will also be hired with, on average, 4 facilitators serving every 10 kelurahan, to carry out the day-to-day interaction with communities. Facilitators will be supported by volunteers from the kelurahan (community cadres) who will play a key role in disseminating the project objectives and principles, and ensuring the sustainability of the community organization beyond the life of the project. The PMU will also hire Evaluation Consultants to carry out performance and impact evaluation studies. Page 7 The district level Poverty Alleviation Committees (KPK) will be the main interlocutor for the project from the local government side. Coordinating teams will be assigned at different levels to administer the project, with an administrative manager at the sub-district level and at the district level who will respectively sign off on the kelurahan grants and the PAPG sub-projects. 7. Sustainability Institutional sustainability The institutional sustainability of the BKM in delivery of services will be evidenced in the following: \01fi if the BKM is able to address poverty issues and the needs of the community beyond the confines of the project (e.g. play an advocacy role on behalf of the poor, or carry the aggregated demands of communities to higher levels of government and demand better services from government), thereby demonstrating to the community a role beyond implementation of project funds; \01fi if the BKM is able to become a legitimate conduit for government and other agencies for delivering services, thereby providing long-term access to funds beyond the project life; and Through the activities described above, these roles will be strengthened to the extent possible (and monitored during the course of implementation). The institutional sustainability of the BKM as the representative of the community raises a concern. Before the decentralization law, local level institutions at the kelurahan level such as LKMDs were appointed, and therefore not representative of communities and often not trusted by them—hence the communities’ enthusiasm for an elected BKM. Now, the decentralization law envisages elected local councils at the kelurahan and village levels (though mandated, BPDs do not yet exist in the majority of project areas, and there are no clear government instructions for the process of elections for BPDs). This means that there could be two institutions at the local level representing the people—the elected BKM (with a mandate to provide community level services and give voice to community needs) and the elected legislative body (with the role of overseeing the Lurah’s executive functions and developing village legislation). Given the national coverage of UPP and communities’ overwhelmingly positive response to BKMs, the central government has initiated a discussion on the relationship between BKMs and BPDs. The experience in UPP1 has been that where BPDs exist, BKMs have been able to work closely together with them. In the long term, the government envisions that the BPD and the BKM will become one institution with two functions—i) to oversee the execution of local government expenditure by the Lurah and to be coordinator and facilitator; and ii) to deliver community based services. Central government agencies intend to review experiences and best practices of how BPDs and BKMs function under this project, and prepare relevant legislation accordingly during the course of project implementation. Technical sustainability of sub-projects financed Proposals for both the kelurahan grants and the PAPG will go through a screening process by project staff and other experts, if required, to ensure their technical feasibility. For microcredit activities, BKM/UPKs will receive training on analyzing viability of proposals for use of loan funds, and will be supported by microcredit specialists at both the regional level and the central level. In addition, an exit strategy has been developed to ensure financial sustainability of the revolving fund function (Annex 16). For infrastructure activities, KDP has developed simple technical manuals for design and supervision of small works which will be used to guide UPP3 activities. Since sub-projects will be community driven, there will be a high level of ownership and communities will therefore have an incentive to maintain and sustain whatever activity they have chosen to finance. Under the PAPG, if any public goods such as infrastructure are financed that require operations and maintenance by either government or communities, both would have full ownership of all such projects as they will have proposed the sub-projects themselves. All sub-project proposals will be required to set out an operations and maintenance plan Page 8 (implementation as well as financial arrangements) which will be one of the criteria for selection of proposals. Financial Sustainability The project aims to create a foundation for community based poverty alleviation. It does this through developing community capacity for collective action and the development of a credible community level organization. Once UPP3 is complete, almost half of the existing kelurahan in the country will have such an organization. These communities will not need further support in this respect. However, if GOI chooses to expand to every village in the country, a similar program will have to be carried out with a cost about equal to the magnitude of this program. The investments in developing the BKM will provide a long term benefit for GOI’s poverty alleviation program. For example, many poverty alleviation programs from sectoral departments such health, education, etc., could be effectively, efficiently, and better targeted through BKM facilitation. The BKM is, in fact, expected to coordinate all these program at the community level through the CDPs. 8. Lessons Learned from Past Operations in the Country/Sector The first phase of UPP1 is complete, and Phase II is under implementation. Many lessons have been learned during the process of implementing UPP1 Phase I, which were incorporated in designing UPP2. Key design changes between the original UPP and UPP2 (and this project) include the following: \01fi The provision of services to communities is a joint responsibility of communities and local governments. Local government therefore has to be one of the key players. \01fi It takes time to build a dialogue with communities regarding community issues and to reach consensus on ways to approach poverty. A longer (four to six month) guided process for awareness raising and socialization is required. This includes a defined set of community development activities; centrally prepared training for consultants and facilitators to ensure consistency of messages; and centrally-prepared publicity materials \01fi Revolving funds can be run well by BKMs, but they need to follow standardized principles and best practices and need to be accompanied by a support strategy and training. In this project, IF BKMs choose to run revolving funds, a standardized program has been designed to: i) apply best practices and principles; ii) provide more training for improved management of revolving funds; iii) distinguish between levels of investment in revolving funds and more support and skills training to those BKMs that wish to (and prove to be eligible to) operate a larger, more professional microcredit program. The project continues to take a learning approach and implementation experiences are continually being incorporated into the implementation processes. Impact of UPP1 and UPP2 UPP1 did not have a system to measure the welfare and poverty impact of the project. There was no baseline survey, and not enough importance was given to collecting project data systematically and accurately across the 1,300 kelurahan (learning from this, both UPP2 and UPP3 include a systematic impact evaluation system, with a baseline survey, specific indicators to measure impact, and a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods of evaluation—see Annex 3, Results Matrix, and Annex 17, Monitoring and Evaluation). The system for data collection under Phase II (MIS system) has been strengthened, but it is too early in the implementation stage to measure impact. UPP2 has only recently been launched, and the consultants and facilitators are still being trained, indicating that there is little to see on the ground in the UPP2 provinces. Despite the absence in UPP1 of direct indicators measuring impact, implementation of Phase 1, and now of Phase II (using the UPP2 design principles) have yielded strong indirect evidence that the UPP Page 9 approach is an effective way of organizing communities, providing improved services, and promoting partnerships between local governments and communities: \01fi the number of households benefiting from UPP1 Phase 1 surpassed targets \01fi the majority of the BKMs created under Phase 1 remain in operation, even though the project ended in Phase 1 kelurahan over one year ago \01fi BKMs came together on their own (without any intervention from the project) to form BKM Forum at sub-district and district levels to work together and help each other out \01fi local governments are already using BKMs (without any intervention from the project) as a conduit for channeling government funds for poverty alleviation activities in some areas \01fi an independent post-audit report indicates that mis-use of project funds at the community level is insignificant \01fi under Phase II, improved socialization and facilitation processes have dramatically increased participation in the program, with about 25% of adults in Phase II kelurahan participating in BKM elections and over 28,000 volunteers signed up to work on behalf of the project from all layers of the society \01fi under Phase II, a demonstrated increase in the capacity of the project to recruit and train motivated and high quality facilitators and volunteers locally. 9. Safeguard Policies (including public consultation) Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No Environmental Assessment ( OP / BP / GP 4.01) [X] [ ] Natural Habitats ( OP / BP 4.04) [ ] [X] Pest Management ( OP 4.09 ) [ ] [X] Cultural Property ( OPN 11.03 , being revised as OP 4.11) [X] [ ] Involuntary Resettlement ( OP / BP 4.12) [X] [ ] Indigenous Peoples ( OD 4.20 , being revised as OP 4.10) [X] [ ] Forests ( OP / BP 4.36) [ ] [X] Safety of Dams ( OP / BP 4.37) [ ] [X] Projects in Disputed Areas ( OP / BP / GP 7.60) * [ ] [X] Projects on International Waterways ( OP / BP / GP 7.50) [ ] [X] Safeguard Screening Criteria: SF Environmental Screening Criteria: B Communities and BKMs will choose how they want to use the funds under the kelurahan grants based on the Community Development Plans (CDP) that they will develop. BKMs will evaluate proposals for sub- project from community groups based on the CDP. Use of the PAPG funds will be determined by a committee consisting of NGOs, government officials and community organizations. It is not possible to determine a prior when the safeguards policies will be triggered. Safeguards policies will be addressed in the following manner: \01fi Sub-projects that are a priori known to have an adverse impact on the environment will not be financed and are included in the negative list (e.g. protected areas, logging). Environmental Guidelines have also been developed to address minor environmental issues that may arise. \01fi Subprojects are not expected to require involuntary resettlement or acquisition of significant amounts of land. In the event they do, however, a Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework has * By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties' claims on the disputed areas Page 10 been developed in accordance with OP4.12 to ensure application of the appropriate safeguard policies. \01fi The highly participatory nature of the project will ensure that communities would be able to identify if any proposed sub-project will have an impact on cultural property and to ensure that these activities do not adversely affect cultural property. Sub-project proposals will require the identification of any such activities and require the group proposing the sub-project to specify adequate mitigation measures. \01fi In areas where Indigenous People may be affected (e.g. Papua), a Framework for the Treatment of Indigenous People will be applied. This will include a “situational analysis” prior to implementation to determine if any changes would be required in the project approach and design to ensure that Indigenous People are fully included in the project. The above guidelines and frameworks will be made available to the public through the Bank's Project Information Centers in Jakarta and Washington, will be published in the project manuals and be made available to the community organizations/dinases preparing proposals. Kelurahan facilitators and other project staff (OCs) will be trained in the understanding and application of the guidelines and assist in the preparation of sub-project proposals. BKMs and the PAPG Selection Committee will be trained in how to apply the safeguards in their selection process. Communities will be in charge of deciding all implementation and procurement arrangements, and follow-up on guidelines and approved proposals will be monitored by kelurahan facilitators and OCs. On the environment, an experienced environmental consultant will be required to summarize progress, monitor and measure the impact of the project on the environment. 10. List of Factual Technical Documents Project Implementation Plan: Draft, October 2003 Procurement Capacity Assessment Report, April 2002 Financial Assessment Report, March 2002 Mid-Term Review of UPP1, April 2001 Aide Memoire of UPP 1, October 2001; May 2002; September 2002; February 2003; May 2003; and August 2003 Aide Memoire of UPP 2, November 2001; May 2002; March 2003; and September 2003 Draft Project Manual (General Guidelines and Technical Guidelines) Draft Handbooks for Project Implementers Terms of References for NMC, OC, kelurahan facilitators, and community cadres Evaluation Reports for UPP1 (carried out by Monitoring and Evaluation Consultants) Final Report of UPP 1 Phase 1 Draft Report of Study on ‘Capacity for Collective Action and Poverty Alleviation’ (Qualitative Evaluation of UPP 1 Phase 1 in Java, Sulawesi, and Kalimantan) Back to Office Report: Mission to Indonesia to review Urban Poverty Program, September 29-October 9, 2003, C. Fallert Kessides. Draft Paper “A Learning-Implementation Model for Scaling Up Poverty Alleviation: The Indonesia Urban Poverty Projects”, September 2003. 11. Contact point Contact: George Soraya Title: Sr Municipal Engr. Tel: (6221) 5299-3000 Fax: (6221) 5299-3111 Email: Gsoraya@worldbank.org Location: Jakarta, Indonesia (IBRD) 12. For more information contact: Page 11 The InfoShop The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20433 Telephone: (202) 458-5454 Fax: (202) 522-1500 Web: http://www.worldbank.org/infoshop Rumana Huque L:\RUMANA 2002-2003\Indonesia\UPP3\Preparation\PAD\PID UPP3 Appraisal 1-22-03.doc January 22, 2004 9:18 PM