INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Report No.: 69123______________ Date prepared/updated: 5/10/2012 I. Basic Information 1. Basic Project Data Country: Indonesia Project ID: P130648 Additional Project ID (if any): Project Name: Community Facilitator Development Program Phase 3 Task Team Leader: Hans Antlov Estimated Appraisal Date: Estimated Board Date: N/A Managing Unit: EASID Lending Instrument: Technical Assistance Loan Sector : Capacity Building (100%) Theme : Community Facilitator Certification (50%); TOT for TNA and Knowledge Management (50%) IBRD Amount (US$m.): IDA Amount (US$m.): GEF Amount (US$m.): PCF Amount (US$m.): Other financing amounts by source: Borrower 0.00 Indonesia - Free-standing Trust Fund Program 1.19 1.19 Environmental Category: C Is this a transferred project Yes [ ] No [ x] Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [x] Is this project processed under OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises Yes [ ] No [x ] and Emergencies) 2. Project Objectives: The objective of the Community Facilitator Development Project is to support community- driven poverty reduction by advancing the role of community facilitators (including PNPM staff) as agents of change through a certification process and improved training design. The project will provide multiple benefits for a number of stakeholders:  Existing PNPM facilitators will not only be ad hoc project staff but be recognized as certified professional facilitators. This will allow their associations to promote the use of facilitators in development projects. Certification will also enhance the public image of facilitators and their leadership role in society.  The workload of the various secretariats of PNPM Mandiri projects as regards facilitator training will be reduced. Executing agencies will no longer need to carry out separate basic competency training for the facilitators and the various projects will be able to hire staff who already have certain basic competencies  The central government will be better able to maintain standard minimum competencies that all recognized facilitators must hold. This license program will ensure that recruited staff are competent, thus improving the quality of program delivery. This will support the tasks of the central government and PNPM line ministries in maintaining the quality of program delivery, as the role of the central government in the future might shift towards standardization, quality control and oversight, rather than program delivery.  The program will allow for the mainstreaming and replication of community facilitation and PNPM principles into regular local government affairs by providing a roster of certified facilitators that in line with national procurement guidelines can be hired as government consultants.  Universities and training institutes will develop specialized curriculum for community development and facilitators, which will enhance the “third role� of universities in social and economic development of their surrounding communities.  Other development partners and NGOs will also be able adopt the program and use the LSP certification as a main criterion for recruiting community facilitators as project staff. 3. Project Description: Grant financed activities under Recipient-executed funds, totaling $1.139.000, will be used to deliver the following outputs: 1. Establishment and support for the operations of the non-profit Community Facilitators Certification Institute (LSP), under auspices of the Indonesian National Board for Professional Certification. Through local branches, the LSP will assess agreed-upon competency standards and provide professional certification, acknowledged by the Government of Indonesia. The target for Phase 3 is that 3,000 facilitators will be assessed 2. Design a system for refresher training of community facilitators 3. Identify and develop standards for certification of advanced competencies 4. Develop a work plan for accreditation of facilitator’s training institutes and material. 5. Develop a roster of master trainers who can carry out training needs assessments and design interactive training. An Indonesian NGO has been identified as grantee Yayasan Nusantara Sejati- Institute for Good Governance and Regional Development (YNS-IGGRD) was established in 2004 and has been providing support to previous phases of the CFDP program Support for Point 2-5 will be directly executed under the auspices of YNS-IGGRD. Support for activities under Point 1 will be done through technical assistance: the Community Facilitators Certification Institute (LSP) is an independent organization and funds will not be directly channeled to the LSP. Rather, YNS-IGGRD will provide administrative and management support for the operations of the Certification Institute. Support under this point includes:  Establishment of the LSP Management Team and LSP office  Establishment of Regional Competency Test Centers in ten locations and training of 70 assessors  Design and launch of the certification process – including grievance redress mechanisms  Communications and MIS - an effective media communication and information management strategy that is accessible by accredited facilitators and PNPM/donor programs.  Facilitators’ database and roster of qualified master trainers and training institute  Business plan – for how the LSP can become a self-sustaining entity after the end of the present support. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis: The project will cover the facilitators of the various PNPM project locations across all provinces in Indonesia (33 provinces) 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists on the Team: Mr Juan Martinez (EASER) Ms Catrini Pratihari Kubontubuh (EASIS) Mr Dennie Stenly Mamonto (EASIS) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered (please explain why) 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: Since this project consists of training activities and there is no physical intervention, hence there are no safeguard issues and impacts associated directly with the proposed project. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: There are no significant long term potential safeguard impacts triggered by this project. Nevertheless the CFDP project has strong linkage to PNPM in ensuring their facilitators trained from this project will have proper understanding on safeguards policies, specifically the ones triggered in the umbrella of PNPM Rural. The OP/BP 4.01 - Environment Assessment and OP/BP 4.10 - Indigenous Peoples as well as explained in Implementation Guideline for Social and Environmental Safeguards (IGSES) shall be implemented in the training modules within CFDP curriculum. The Safeguards Team will review the Action Plan and Detail of Curriculum prior to the implementation stage in order to ensure the integration of safeguard issues in CFDP training programs. 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: As a certification and capacity-building project, the CFPD does basically not directly impact on safeguard issues. However, the grant recipient IGGRD has developed an Safeguard Action Plan, which aims to ensure that the safeguards policies are taken into considerations during the planning and implementation of the project, and specifically, that safeguard issues become part of the regular competency standards for community facilitators. Based on the approved action plan, IGGRD will work with the LSP to develop Detail of Curriculum and the system to ensure awareness of stakeholders on the safeguard issues, as has been stated in the community facilitators basic competency documents (SKKNI) which has been approved prior to the project implementation. The recipient has been involved in the CFDP project since phase I, therefore they are aware of the safeguard requirement of Bank-financed projects. Based on those considerations, the recipient is rated to have the capacities to implement the action plan. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people: The key main stakeholders of the project are community facilitators in various Government of Indonesia and donor CDD -projects. There are around 25,000 facilitators who are now working under several PNPM scheme projects. The project is aim to standardize the quality of the facilitators through certification and capacity building activities. The newly established Community Facilitators Certification Institute has been driven by a range of stakeholders, from government, NGOs, universities, and community facilitator’s association. During the implementation of the project, disclosure is mandatory to all stakeholders. The action plan will be uploaded to the project website, as well as the materials which consider the safeguards issues. 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? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop 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 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 (to be filled in when the ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting) OP/BP 4.01 - Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] EMP) report? If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats Would the project result in any significant conversion or Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] degradation of critical natural habitats? If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of 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 Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] issues? Is a separate PMP required? Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a safeguards specialist or Sector Manager? Are PMP requirements included in project design? If yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? OP/BP 4.11 – Physical Cultural Resources Does the EA include adequate measures related to Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] cultural property? Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on physical cultural resources? OP/BP 4.10 - Indigenous Peoples Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] Framework (as appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been reviewed and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit? OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review and approve the plan/policy framework/process framework? OP/BP 4.36 – Forests Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] issues and constraints been carried out? Does the project design include satisfactory measures to overcome these constraints? Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, does it include provisions for certification system? OP/BP 4.37 - Safety of Dams Have dam safety plans been prepared? Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] Have the TORs as well as composition for the independent Panel of Experts (POE) been reviewed and approved by the Bank? Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) been prepared and arrangements been made for public awareness and training? OP/BP 7.50 - Projects on International Waterways Have the other riparians been notified of the project? Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] 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? What are the reasons for the exception? Please explain: Has the RVP approved such an exception? OP/BP 7.60 - Projects in Disputed Areas Has the memo conveying all pertinent information on the Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] 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 of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] 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 Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] 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? D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Hans Antlov Environmental Specialist: Dennie Mamonto 5/4/2012 Social Development Specialist Juan Martinez 5/4/2012 Additional Environmental and/or Catrini Kubontubuh 5/4/2012 Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Comments: Sector Manager: Comments: