E838 October 6, 2003 CORAL REEF REHABILITATION AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PHASE 11 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTALAND SOCIAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PHRD PROJECT PREPARATION CONSULTANT TEAM 6 OCTOBER 2003 (WORLD BANK PROJECT IDENTIFICATION NO: P071318) CLASSIFIED AS CATEGORY B CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................1I 1.1 Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program Phase 11 .....................1 1.2 Environmental Assessment Process for Community Micro-Projects .............4 1.3 Types of Micro-Projects COREMAP Phase II will Finance ................. ..............4 1.4 Types of Micro-Projects COREMAP Phase II will not Finance ............. ............5 1.5 Potential Environmental Impacts from COREMAP Micro-Projects ....................5 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION .....................5 2.1 Project Components ....................................................6 2.1.1 Institutional Strengthening ....................................................6 2.1.2 Community-Based and Collaborative Management ............................7 2.1.3 Public Awareness, Education and Extension ......................................7 2.2 Potential Activities to be Financed Under Each Component .........................7 2.2.1 Institutional Strengthening ....................................................7 2.2.2 Community Based and Collaborative Management ............................8 2.2.3 Public Awareness, Education and Extension ......................................9 2.3 Community-Based & Collaborative Management Component .................... ..9 2.4 Program Activities with Potential Adverse Environmental impacts ... 10 2.4.1 Creation and Implementation of Communities' Basic Needs ............. 10 2.4.2 Alternative Livelihoods Established in Communities ............. ............ 10 2.5 Institutional Structure for AIG and Community Projects . . 10 3. POTENTIAL BASIC NEEDS AND AIG PROJECTS AND THEIR IMPACTS ..... 11 3.1 Micro-Projects COREMAP will support (Extensive Positive List) .......... .......... 11 3.2 Micro-Projects COREMAP will not support (Extensive Negative List) ............. 11 3.3 Potential Environmental Impacts of Likely Projects and Mitigation .............. 12 4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ..... 16 4.1 Objective of the Environmental and Social Impact Management Framework ................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Scope of the Environmental and Social Impact Management Framework... 16 4.3 Output of the Environmental and Social Impact Management Framework.. 17 5. SAFEGUARDS APPLICABLE TO THE COREMAP EA PROCESS .......... ......... 18 5.1 Overview of Applicable World Bank Safeguards ......................................... 18 5.1.1 Environmental Assessment Safeguard Policy (OP 4.01) .................. 18 5.1.2 Terms and Instruments Applicable to Micro-Projects Supported by this Program ................................................... 20 5.1.3 Guidelines and Methodology for Carrying out EMP to address OP 4.01 Safeguard ................................................... 20 5.2 Natural Habitats Safeguard Policy (OP 4.04) .............................................. 21 5.2.1 Description of the Safeguard ................................................... 21 5.2.2 Guidelines and Methodology to address OP 4.04 Safeguard ............ 21 5.3 Forestry Safeguard Policy (OP 4.36) ..................................... 21 5.3.1 Description of the Safeguard ................................... ................ 21 5.3.2 Guidelines and Methodology to address OP 4.36 Safeguard ............ 22 5.4 Pest Management Safeguard Policy (OP 4.09) ........................................... 22 5.4.1 Description of the Safeguard .................................................... 22 5.4.2 Guidelines and Methodology to address OP 4.09 Safeguard ............ 22 5.5 Cultural Property Safeguard Policy (OP N 11.03) ....................................... 23 5.5.1 Description of the Safeguard .................................................... 23 5.5.2 Guidelines and Methodology to address OPN 11.03 Safeguard ....... 23 5.6 Indigenous Peoples Safeguard Policy (OD 4.20) ........................................ 23 5.6.1 Description of the Safeguard .................................................... 23 5.6.2 Guidelines and Methodology to address OD 4.20 Safeguard ........... 23 5.7 Involuntary Resettlement Safeguard Policy (OD 4.30) ................................ 24 5.7.1 Description of the Safeguard .................................................... 24 5.7.2 Guidelines and Methodology to address OD 4.30 Safeguard ........... 24 5.8 Safety of Dams Safeguard Policy (OP 4.37) ............................................... 24 5.9 Projects on International Waters Safeguard (OP 7.50) . . 24 5.9.1 Description of the Safeguard .................................................... 24 5.9.2 Guidelines and Methodology to address OP 7.50 Safeguard ............ 25 5.10 Projects on Disputed Areas Safeguard Policy (OP 7.60) . . 25 5.11 Social Considerations .............................................. 25 5.12 Summary of Safeguards and Requirements for EMPs ................................ 25 6. THE EA PROCESS FOR COREMAP PHASE II ............................................. 28 6.1 Incorporating EA into the design of micro-projects ...................................... 28 6.2 Review by Project Management Units ............................................. 28 6.3 Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................. 29 ANNEX 1: DRAFT EA CHECKLIST FOR MICRO-PROJECTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program Phase 11 The Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program Phase 11 (COREMAP) aims to empower coastal communities to sustainably manage their coral reefs and associated ecosystems, and through such efforts, enhance the welfare of these communities. Towards this goal, the program will work to build the government and legal capacity necessary to support communities. Two of the three components of the program (Component 1: Institutional Strengthening and Component Ill: Public Awareness, Education and Extension) will focus on building decentralized institutions that can support community-based and collaborative management of coral reef ecosystems and promote public awareness, education and extension about the importance of sustainable management of these resources. Both of these components are environmentally and socially benign, and are not expected to have any adverse impacts on either the environment or the natural habitats of Indonesia. These two components are both intended to support Component II: Community-Based and Collaborative Management. This component aims to implement a process for empowering communities to manage their coral reefs and associated ecosystems and diversify their local economies. The Community-Based and Collaborative Management process would be implemented at the district level by a Program Management Unit (PMU) working under guidelines supplied by a Coastal Community Empowerment Board (CCE Board). The PMU will have 6 full time professional staff members and be joined by other technical expertise on an as needed basis. The district government will allocate 2 full time senior staff to the PMU. These staff will be selected at the discretion of the Regent (Bupat,). However, expectation is that they will be drawn form the ranks of the district fisheries (Dinas KP) and planning (BAPPEDA) departments. One other full time government staff will be supplied from the Forestry Ministry (PHKA), either from a national park or the local forest conservation unit (KSDA). One of the 3 government staff will be selected as the PMU Head. In addition, there will be Program supported consultants such as a Marine Management Advisor, a Marine Resources Specialist, Financial Advisor, Public Awareness and a CBM coordinator. Other consulting expertise in business development/finance, legal, monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS), education, migratory fisher programs and other specialty areas may be supplied at the discretion of the PMU with approval by the CCE Board. The community extension program will be managed by the PMU through Senior Extension/Training Officers (SETOs). The Program will support +/- 20 full-time SETOs in each district. Initially two SETO's will live in each island subdistrict and coordinate activities at the village level. On the mainland, a SETO team may cover more than one subdistrict. Community Facilitators (CFs) will be recruited and deployed to each work in 2 villages. Every target villages will have 2 Village Motivators (VMs), preferably one man and one women. Over the period of the program the intensity of facilitation and activities will decrease, allowing SETOs to be redeployed to other areas. The community extension teams will initially go to each coastal community in their district and socialize the goals of the Program, gather baseline information and deliver key information about sustainable reef management. Communities requesting facilitation will then be given help to assess existing resources, plan and organize program implementation, begin training and develop the dialogue on the need for sustainable use and management of marine resources. The Program will establish a transparent 1 financial management system at the community level for the management of Program resources. The extension teams will train and assist community members to collect key data on the status of coral reef ecosystems and guide villages in creating and building community consensus for coral reef management plans. Upon creation of the coral reef management plans, extension teams would help communities set up enforcement and adjudication systems for the plans. Communities undertaking coral reef management initiatives will be supported to make proposals for substitute activities for sections of communities most affected by management actions. Substitute activities could include recruiting affected fishers to undertake detailed baselines and monitor impacts of management plans, or provision of alternative livelihoods. Communities demonstrating successful community based management may submit proposals for other development priorities in the communities. These might include solid waste management, simple potable water systems, transportation facilities (including vessels), docks, small generator driven electricity, community centers, etc. These investments should, where at all possible, be financially sustainable after program completion. Within a set budget envelope, extension teams would submit each community's proposal to the PMU. Proposals would be routed to financial institutions. Extension teams will forward information on individual proposals to the subdistrict head (Camat) and the PMU. To boost community welfare, the Program will promote alternative livelihood micro- projects. These micro-projects will be directed at coastal fishers and their families. Also although unlikely, if community members are identified that would be significantly and adversely affected by proposed management measures, the teams would work with these individuals to develop alternative livelihood enterprises that would become operational in conjunction with implementation of the coral reef management plan. Upon implementation of the coral reef management plans, extension teams would recruit, through the PMU, any experts necessary to help all interested community groups and individuals create viable, enterprises that would serve as alternative livelihoods to coral reef ecosystem resource exploitation. The teams would help these groups and individuals prepare business plans and proposals for these alternative livelihood enterprises, and then submit proposals for financing to the credit facilities. Thus, the community-based and collaborative management process implemented in Component 11 and supported by the other two components of the project, Institutional Strengthening and Public Awareness, Education and Extension could be summarized in Diagram 1 below: Diagram 1. 1. Public awareness and socialization campaiqn carried out in each villaqe 2. Communities buy-in to COREMAP aims and request facilitation. extension teams deployed; communities conduct participatory social assessment 3. Fishers undertake resource mapping Year 0 (baseline) extension teams work with villages to continue sustainability dialogue and educate community on sustainable use of resources 4. Community rehabilitate building as Information Center using transparent financial management system | 5. Communities complete management plan in line with district strategy | Inter village discussion and agreements Affected fishers recruited as reef-watchers and monitoring teams/ develop proposals for AIG's 6. Villages establish MPA deploy marker buoys and notice boards AIGs implemented by affected fishers /families 7. Rewards paid for CB-MCS successes MPA well managed for 1 year Year 1 monitoring completed 8. Successfully managed MPA 9. Successful communities develop proposal for communitv develoDment activitv 10. Business plan for development activity developed and submitted to PMU cc Camat MPA well managed for year 2 11. Year 2 Results processed and presented Successful communities awarded development activity 12. Year 3 Development activity implemented CB-MCS continued, Fisheries benefit recorded Community discussion about self-policing Fishers agreement to self-police 3 In summary, the activities from the above process and Component II could potentially have limited site-specific environmental impacts. However, since micro-projects will not be allowed if classified as Category A, there will not be a need under the program for the drafting of full Environmental Impact Assessments (ElAs). Micro-projects will go through a checklist process. The checklist process, at most, might reveal that the proposed activities could potentially require an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) with a related environmental monitoring plan. The micro-projects would include community development projects for basic needs proposed by communities to the PMU for funding and implementation and alternative livelihood enterprises proposed to credit facilities for start-up financing. These basic needs projects and alternative livelihoods enterprises would both be implemented at the community and individual scale, and are referred throughout this Environmental and Social Impact Management Framework (Framework) as community 'micro-projects'. Since these projects will only be determined throughout the implementation process of the program, the Framework is presented here to guide program staff in assisting with the design and assessing micro-projects as they are created. The Program is classified as a Category B, as project funds will not be used to finance any micro-projects that would be classified as Category A. 1.2 Environmental Assessment Process for Community Micro-Projects The Environmental Assessment process for micro-projects in COREMAP is a proactive approach that emphasizes the identification and mitigation of potential environmental and social impacts up front, as either individuals or communities design the proposals. In order to assist in assessing potential environmental and social impacts, the extension teams will first engage in a sustainability dialogue with individuals and communities, and will help them fill out EA Checklists during the micro-project design, in order to guide the selection of micro-projects and help communities and individuals understand the environmental and social implications of proposed micro-projects. The Program institutions responsible for providing this assistance are listed below: ROLE RESPONSIBLE Design phase - through environmental checklists, assist each Community Facilitator participant to identify potential environmental and social impacts resulting from proposed micro-projects, and to subsequently redesign proposals to avoid such impacts or include mitigation measures Screen proposals - based on environmental checklists, either approve PMU, or credit facility micro-project proposals for disbursement and implementation, or stipulate that an EMP is necessary Draft an EMP if necessary CF or proponent Review and approve EMP and subsequent disbursement and PMU, or credit facility implementation Monitoring and supervision of the implementation of micro-projects PMU, or credit facility 1.3 Types of Micro-Projects COREMAP Phase II will Finance Within the relatively small budget envelope available, communities are likely to request the following types of micro-projects: * Mariculture enterprises * Fisheries activities * Vegetable and fruit production Small scale fisheries and agro-processing 4 * Cottage industries (handicrafts, pottery, etc.) * Libraries * Transportation facilities including vessels * Community meeting and information centres * Water supply - bore holes and hand pumps for wells, catchments tanks, etc. * Electricity, for example through small generators * Communications systems * Medical support including midwives and medicines * Mangrove and/or coral reef rehabilitation * Private and public sanitation facilities * Development of alternative sources of energy (e.g., solar and wind energy) 1.4 Types of Micro-Projects COREMAP Phase II will not Finance COREMAP Phase II will establish a negative list of micro-projects that will not be eligible for financing: * Agricultural expansion * Commercial logging unless the investment is to improve managment and only when certification is in place or put in place under the investment * Large dam construction * Activities that would impact cultural property * Acquisition of land (whether individually or communally owned) * Any form of resettlement (voluntary or involuntary) * Construction or rehabilitation of places of worship No land will be purchased. If land is needed for construction of a micro-project it will need to be part of the community contribution and an elected village forum will need to provide written confirmation that affected individuals have not been negatively affected. Where at all possible, even this form of land acquisition will be avoided. 1.5 Potential Environmental Impacts from COREMAP Micro-Projects Micro-projects are likely to have only limited site-specific environmental and social impacts due to the small scale of the activities. Although unlikely some of the potential impacts of the types of micro-projects that will be financed could include: * Water Circulation - site specific minor re-distribution of sediment or shoreline erosion * Biodiversity - vegetation and habitat loss * Water - local contamination, blockage of drains * Air quality - local pollution, dust, smoke, etc. * Social - minor water transport re-routing, increased refuse, construction accidents The EA Process outlined in this Framework has been developed to insure that the above environmental and social impacts, as well as others, are identified and avoided or mitigated during the design of the micro-projects. 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program is intended to establish viable, operational and institutionalized coral reef management systems in selected districts in in Eastern Indonesia. The Program was originally envisaged as a fifteen year program implemented in three phases: (1) COREMAP Phase I: Initiation (1998-2001); (2) COREMAP Phase Il: Acceleration (2001-2007); and, (3) COREMAP Phase IlIl: Institutionalization (2007-2013). As a result of a much more challenging and ambitious than anticipated Initiation phase, the implementation time frame has now been modified. Moreover, as a result of significant political change in the country since 1998 and with the advent of decentralization, the Program in its second phase is designed as a nationally coordinated but decentralized program implemented primarily by district agencies and coastal communities. The new program timetable has been adjusted to be: Phase I: Initiation (1998-2003), Phase Il: Decentralization and Acceleration (2003-2009), Phase Ill: Institutionalization (2009-2015). The development objective of COREMAP Phase II is to establish a sustainable nationally coordinated but decentrally managed and implemented program to empower and to support coastal communities to sustainably manage use of coral reefs and associated ecosystem resources, which will in turn, enhance the welfare of these communities in Indonesia. 2.1 Project Components The proposed COREMAP Phase II Program is anticipated to be comprised of the following three components: (a) Institutional Strengthening; (b) Community Based and Collaborative Management; and (c) Public Awareness, Education and Extension. 2.1.1 Institutional Strengthening The objective of this component is to enhance national, provincial, and district level government (and non-government) institutional responsiveness to meet the needs of coastal communities, in the context of project objectives and to support collaborative management. There are five sub-components envisaged: 1. Program Coordination. The objective of this sub-component is to insure that institutional structures for program coordination and decentralized project management are established, sustained and monitored; 2. Marine Conservation Area Management (MCAM). The objective of this sub- component is to insure that all participating District Governments are equipped and effectively manage their coral reefs and related ecosystems in a productive and sustainable manner. 3. Marine Park Support. The objective of this sub-component is to insure that each participating marine park/protected areas authority is equipped to effectively engage in an enhanced management program; 4. Coral Reef Information and Training Centers. The objective of this sub- component is to insure that public centers for coral reef awareness are established and functioning to support community-based and collaborative coral reef management through the supply of critical information, including research and monitoring activities; 5. Legal Policy & Co-Management Strategy Assistance. The objective of this sub- component is to insure that informal and formal laws governing communities' rights to sustainably co-manage coral reef ecosystems are established and that national, provincial, district, and local laws are established and/or strengthened to deter improper exploitation of the coral reef ecosystems and encourage sustainable management and use. Funds are also provided for national level MCA, biodiversity and reef fisheries policy development. 6 2.1.2 Community-Based and Collaborative Management The objective of this component is to empower coastal communities to sustainably manage coral reefs and associated ecosystems and diversify incomes, which in tandem will in turn enhance community welfare. There are three sub-components envisaged: 1. Community Empowerment. The objective of this sub-component is to insure that communities are organized and empowered to sustainably manage the coral reefs and associated ecosystem; 2. Community Based Resource Management. The objective of this sub-component is to insure that coastal communities in program districts formulate and implement effective coral reef and associated ecosystems management, and to provide communities with the support they need to implement such management, particularly surveillance and enforcement; 3. Community Development. The objective of this sub-component is to insure that coastal communities' incomes are diversified through community investments and sustainable livelihood opportunities. 2.1.3 Public Awareness, Education and Extension The objective of this component is to promote village, subdistrict, district, provincial, and national societal awareness to the benefits of coral reef ecosystem conservation and sustainable use. There are five sub-components envisaged: 1. Public Awareness Campaigns. The objective of this sub-component is to disseminate materials created under COREMAP Phase I/other initiatives and create additional public awareness materials and campaigns at the international, national, district, subdistrict and village level to promote the merits of sustainable use of coral reef ecosystems. 2. Education Programs. The objective of this sub-component is to insure that coral reef conservation and sustainable use is mainstreamed into participating District's education system; 3. Sea Partnership Program. The objective of this sub-component is to insure that community-based and collaborative management coral reef activities are implemented in coastal districts and communities throughout the Program area. This is achieved through support to Dinas DKP by university professors, student scholarships and university student community extension activities. 4. Program Support Communication. The objective of this sub-component is to insure that all program activities and outcomes are socialized at every level, and all nationally or regionally produced project outputs are transformed and communicated to Program areas in an appropriate and culturally sensitive way. 2.2 Potential Activities to be Financed Under Each Component 2.2.1 Institutional Strengthening National Coordination * Support for National Coordination Unit * Monitoring, evaluation, and feedback support * National workshops to promote coral reef conservation management * National workshops on project management for participating District PMU staff * National training to support coordination and District management * Support to identify 6 additional Districts for Phase II participation 7 Marine Conservation Area Management * Support the establishment of District PMUs in each participating district * Support to Dinas DKP for sustainable fisheries management and capacity-building for extension * Support technical assistance needs, workshops and meetings to discuss marine conservation area management * Participatory mapping and planning/production of District Sustainable Fisheries Management Maps/Plans * Support to District MCS and enforcement efforts * Sustainable management of live reef fish trade * Learning exchanges for fishers, community leaders and district key figures Marine Park Support * Strengthen park authority effectiveness * Learning exchanges between marine park managers * National workshops on collaborative management * National marine park management and support services policy strengthening * Technology support * MCS and enforcement support * Management plans reviewed, revised, and socialized using participatory techniques Coral Reef Information and Training Centers * International CRITC outreach * Establish and/or strengthen regional and district CRITCs * Support data collection, analysis, and dissemination to national, district, and village program managers * Support for local research programs * Innovative grants for AIG micro-projects Legal, Policy and Strategy Assistance * Support to legalize program structures * Technical assistance to NCU for national policy assistance * Technical assistance to districts to assist the creation and implementation of enabling legislation (perdas), technical assistance to communities to assist in the creation and implementation of enabling legislation (perdes) * Support to create a National MCA Strategy * National Marine Biodiversity Conservation Strategy development and dissemination * Sustainable Reef Fisheries Management Strategies 2.2.2 Community Based and Collaborative Management Community Empowerment * Social marketing of sustainable coral reef management * Strategic maps produced and distributed * Community study tours and cross visits * Village facilitation and technical assistance * Information centers * Communication networks such as radios Community-Based Resource Management * Village resource assessments and mapping * Establishment of village MCAs within district framework * Preparation of village ordinances and perdes * Fishing gear and vessel inventory and registration * Decommissioning of destructive fishing gears in a few selected pilot villages * Establishment of participatory inter-village management plans * Community-based MCS and enforcement * Community monitoring of reefs and associated ecosystems * Strengthen and expand community based management areas Community Development * Village financial management system * Livelihood and income generation pilots * Occupational diversification support * Credit/savings programs * Support to widows and women * Support to migratory fishers * Self-financing community improvements . 2.2.3 Public Awareness, Education and Extension Public Awareness Campaigns * National, provincial, district and villages level public awareness plans and materials completed * Ongoing support for community awareness campaigns * Public awareness programs implemented Support to journalists and media for ongoing coverage of Program activities Education * Develop local primary and secondary school curriculum supporting coral reef conservation * Teacher workshops for use of new materials Sea Partnership Program * Sea Partnership scholarship program established and operated . Training students to support collaborative management and community based conservation activities * University staff support for institutional strengthening of local government Program Support Communications * Communication strategy prepared and operated 2.3 Community-Based and Collaborative Management Component COREMAP Phase 11 aims to implement a process to promote community-based and collaborative management of coral reef ecosystems and economic development in communities. Component 11 seeks to implement this process, and the other two components largely support Component 11. Any environmental impacts resulting from 9 project-supported activities would occur through the process promoted by Component II. This process is summarized in Diagram 1 above. 2.4 Program Activities with Potential Adverse Environmental impacts Throughout the process and activities listed in Diagram 1., only the basic needs projects (Diagram 1., Step 9) and the alternative livelihood enterprises (Diagram 1., Steps 5 and 6) are envisioned to have any potential site-specific environmental impacts that would require an assessment. However, this Framework is intended to guide the design as well as the implementation of these 'micro-projects', so that they incorporate principles of sustainable resource use from the outset. More specifically, these activities are: 2.4.1 Creation and Implementation of Communities' Basic Needs Under the Community Development sub-component of the Community-Based and Collaborative Management component, the Program may provide communities with a limited budget (e.g. +/- US $10,000) to fund their most pressing community development, or basic needs. These might include construction of a health care clinic, water supply, solid waste containers, etc. These basic needs 'micro-projects' will be determined by the community with the Community Facilitators. The projects will be designed based on this Framework, to insure that there are no adverse environmental impacts or there are mitigation measures included if necessary. The Program, through the District PMU, will not disburse funds to finance these community 'micro-projects' unless the EA checklist has been satisfactorily completed and verified by the Community Facilitator and the relevant SETO. 2.4.2 Alternative Livelihoods Established in Communities Also under the Community Development sub-component of the Community Based and Collaborative Management component, the Program will assist in providing access to credit facilities and provide technical assistance to community individuals and groups to design, establish and operate alternative income generation (AIG) projects. These could include micro-enterprises and cottage industries. The SETOs, Community Facilitators and technical experts would work with individuals to design these enterprises using this Framework to insure that there are no adverse environmental impacts or mitigation measures are taken, and credit financing would not be disbursed unless the EA checklist for the enterprise had been completed. 2.5 Institutional Structure for AIG and Community Projects For each project district: Community Projects AIG Projects ..~~~~~~~~rdt Institutio Commnity ICamat Community Facilitator l I I | Facilitator 10 EMP & cc: EA FINANCE cc:EA Community Project AIG Proposal 3. POTENTIAL BASIC NEEDS AND AIG PROJECTS AND THEIR IMPACTS COREMAP Phase II aims to assist coastal communities in Indonesia to more sustainably manage their coral reef and associated ecosystems, and therefore most of the program activities are geared towards environmental management and are not expected to have any adverse environmental impacts. However, as previously stated, in Component II, Community Based and Collaborative Management, the Program will support the creation and implementation of basic needs projects at the community level as well as provide training and credit assistance for alternative livelihoods. Collectively these basic needs projects and alternative livelihoods are referred to as 'micro-projects'. These 'micro- projects' could potentially have site-specific adverse environmental impacts, and are the focus of this Framework. 3.1 Micro-Projects COREMAP will support (Extensive Positive List) Rural coastal fishing communities throughout Indonesia are faced with many common constraints, and while each community's development challenges are site-specific. Field visits and previous projects have demonstrated some common basic needs that are likely to be included in COREMAP Phase II supported micro-projects. These include: * Mariculture enterprises * Fisheries activities * Vegetable and fruit production * Agro-processing * Cottage industries (handicrafts, pottery, etc.) * Libraries * Water supply - bore holes and hand pumps for wells, catchment tanks, etc. * Electricity, for example through small generators * Communications systems * Medical support including midwives and medicines * Mangrove and/or coral reef rehabilitation * Private and public sanitation facilities * Development of alternative sources of energy (solar and wind energy) * Construction or rehabilitation of health centers, clinical staff * Transportation, such as jetties, docks, inter-island boat transport 3.2 Micro-Projects COREMAP will not support (Extensive Negative List) Although communities will be limited in the basic needs projects they propose and micro- enterprises or alternative livelihoods they begin, the list below outlines the types of activities that will not be eligible for COREMAP financing. Even in the advent that the program budgets expand in the future and these types of activities become affordable to communities, they will not be allowed. The below activities represent what is classified as Category A projects (most significant environmental impacts) by the World Bank: * Any activity that will result in resettlement of individuals (voluntary or involuntary) * Any activity requiring the acquisition of land. If land is needed for construction of a micro-project, it will need to be part of the community contribution and an elected village forum will need to provide written confirmation that affected individuals have not been negatively affected. * Large-scale agriculture activities * Land development schemes to bring forest land into agricultural production * Agricultural programs necessitating resettlement * Large scale drainage and irrigation projects * Drainage of wetland wildlife habitat or of virgin forest * Forestry production projects * Conversion of hill forest land to other land use * Any commercial logging operations * Housing developments * Industrial plants and industrial estates including expansion, rehabilitation or modification * Reclamation and new land development * Manufacture, transportation and use of pesticides or other hazardous and/or toxic materials * Construction of ports 3.3 Potential Environmental Impacts of Likely Projects and Mitigation MICRO-PROJECT POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES Renovation & Soils - contamination from waste Control and daily cleaning at Rehabilitation of materials, e.g. cement and paints, construction sites, provisior of Buildings engine oil, etc. adequate waste disposal services Water quality and flow - water Proper disposal of chemicals and contamination due to materials and other hazardous materials chemicals Water quality and flow - blockage of Regular cleaning of drains drains Air quality - dust, noise, odor, and indoor Dust control by water, appropriate pollution design and siting, restrict construction to certain time Biodiversity and forests - disturbance of Consider alternative sites national parks and other protected areas Biodiversity and forests - vegetation loss Minimize vegetation loss during construction Social - increased refuse Regular clean-up Social - construction accidents Provision of basic safety training and equipment, first aid facilities or materials Construction of Soils - contamination from waste Control and daily cleaning at New Buildings materials, e.g. cement and paints, construction sites, provision of engine oil, etc. adequate waste disposal services 12 MICRO-PROJECT POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES Soils - erosion and flooding from new Appropriate design and siting of construction building, away from slopes and with adequate drainage Water quality and flow - water Proper disposal of chemicals and contamination due to materials and other hazardous materials chemicals Water quality and flow - blockage of Regular cleaning of drains drains Water quality and flow - contamination Proper siting of facility and from latrines latrines in relation to water sources, maintenance of latrines Air quality - dust, noise, odor, and indoor Dust control by water, appropriate pollution design and siting, restrict construction to certain time Air quality - air and vector borne Insure maintenance plan and diseases due to improper maintenance schedule for latrines or neglect of latrines Biodiversity and forests - disturbance of Consider alternative sites national parks and other protected areas Biodiversity and forests - vegetation loss Minimize vegetation loss during construction Social - increased refuse Regular clean-up Social - construction accidents Provision of basic safety training and equipment, first aid facilities or materials Construction of Soils - contamination from waste Control and daily cleaning at New of Health materials, e.g. cement and paints, construction sites, provision of Centers engine oil, etc. adequate waste disposal services Water quality and flow - water Proper disposal of chemicals and contamination due to materials and other hazardous materials chemicals Water quality and flow - blockage of Regular cleaning of drains drains Air quality - dust, noise, odor, and indoor Dust control by water, appropriate pollution design and siting, restrict construction to certain time Biodiversity and forests - disturbance of Consider alternative sites national parks and other protected areas Biodiversity and forests - vegetation loss Minimize vegetation loss during construction Social - increased refuse Regular clean-up 13 MICRO-PROJECT POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES Social - construction accidents Provision of basic safety training and equipment, first aid facilities or materials Social - medical wastes Special measures for medical waste disposal Rehabilitation of Soils - vegetation loss, cutting of trees or Revegetation and afforestation on Rural Roads poaching of wildlife where roads are the side of the road, limited area rehabilitated in forest or conservation as forest or conservation reserve areas Soils - erosion and increased runoff Construct or rehabilitation road embankment in such a way as to allow a free flow of water, provide drainage to the flow route of flood or runoff Air quality - dust and particulate matter Wet areas with water generation during rehabilitation continuously Social - contamination from waste Provision of adequate waste materials, e.g. engine oil, sand, etc. disposal services during rehab. Water Supply Soils - soil degradation during Revegetation and physical construction stabilization Water quality and availability - water Adequate protection from contamination livestock, minimal distance from settlements and farms, insure water at source is not used for bathing, laundering, animal watering, etc. Water quality and availability - seepage Measures taken to minimize of contaminated water back into well seepage, e.g. by lining the well and extending casting above ground level, covering the well, installing hand pump or permanently attached bucket to draw water Water quality and availability - puddles Adequate drainage around wells around wells, cistern or storage tanks storage tanks should be covered being turned into breeding sites for disease vectors Water quality and availability - Monitoring to insure aquifer use is overexploitation of aquifers sustainable Biodiversity and forests - disturbance of wildlife Proper site selection Biodiversity and forests - loss of vegetation Protection of vegetation during construction Mariculture, Soils - erosion or loss due to Proper siting, erosion control Agriculture, Agro- construction or rehabilitation of facilities measures, facility maintenance Processing, plan and schedule 14 MICRO-PROJECT POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES Cottage Industries Soils - pollution due to wastes or inputs Insure waste disposal or re-use and proper raw materials handling Water quality and flow - contamination Proper siting, minimal distance of water source from nearest water source Water quality and flow - water Proper removal of agricultural contamination due to agricultural residues in discharge water residues Water quality and availability - water Adequate protection from contamination livestock, minimal distance from settlements and farms, insure water at source is not used for bathing, laundering, animal watering, etc Seaborn Obstruction Proper siting of mariculture distant from habitation and navigation Fertilizer and pesticide use Fertilizers and pesticides be manufactured, packaged, labeled, handled, stored, disposed of, and applied according to international standards. Fiberglass Use Provision of masks, eye protection and gloves, basic safety training and equipment, first aid facilities or materials Biodiversity and forests - vegetative loss Encourage maintenance of due to construction of new facility vegetation, or revegetation and afforestation Transportation, Loss of coastal habitat, e.g. mangrove Mangrove replanting, sediment Jetties Boat cover; transport studies, prevent sand Transport, etc. Increased coastal erosion, pollution and coral mining for construction Mangrove, Reef Reefs, increased coral cover, Mangrove Positive impacts, no mitigation Rehabilitation forest cover increased, increased soil retention Private and Soils - soils contaminated by pathogens Design appropriate latrines for the Public Sanitation and parasites from feces local soil and water table Facilities conditions, educate community on need to use and sanitarily maintain latrine, insure maintenance plan and schedule Soils - soil erosion due to construction or Proper siting, revegetation vegetation removal Water quality - water contamination Proper siting, minimal distance from nearest water source Construction of Soils - contamination from waste Control and daily cleaning at Markets materials, e.g. cement and paints, construction sites, provision of engine oil, etc. adequate waste disposal services 15 MICRO-PROJECT POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES Water quality and flow - water Proper disposal of chemicals and contamination due to materials and other hazardous materials chemicals Water quality and flow - blockage of Regular cleaning of drains drains Dust control by water, appropriate Air quality - dust, noise, odor design and siting, restrict construction to certain time Biodiversity and forests - disturbance of Consider alternative sites national parks and other protected areas Biodiversity and forests - vegetation loss Minimize vegetation loss during construction Social - increased refuse Regular clean-up Social - construction accidents Provision of basic safety training and equipment, first aid facilities or materials 4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK 4.1 Objective of the Environmental and Social Impact Management Framework This Framework is being written to guide Community Facilitators to promote sustainable investments in communities' basic needs and in alternative livelihoods. The Program will promote a community-driven process where the extension teams work with communities to determine their basic needs as well as potential alternative livelihoods for which the Program will provide technical assistance. This means that it is not possible to determine a priori the exact nature of the micro-projects that will be requested by communities. Because of this, environmental assessments (EAs) will be built into micro-project preparation and design as part of the sustainability dialogue between the community extension teams and the communities. Full environmental impact assessments will not be necessary. The checklist screening process will insure that any subproject classified as Category A will not be financed; and also the microprojects are small, environmentally benign and classified as Category B. To insure that micro-projects proposals take into account potential environmental impacts, and that mitigation and compliance measures are included, this Framework outlines an EA process that will be an integral part of the Community-Based and Collaborative Management Component, tied to the release of funding tranches for the micro-projects. This Framework will outline a draft EA checklist to be used by communities and extension teams when preparing proposals for basic needs projects and alternative livelihoods for micro-credit financing. 4.2 Scope of the Environmental and Social Impact Management Framework The Framework will focus on the potential micro-projects to be funded under the Community-Based and Collaborative Management component of COREMAP Phase II, specifically the basic needs projects and the alternative livelihoods enterprises. The Framework will apply to the specific micro-projects in participating coastal communities 16 within the districts targeted by the program. It will also cover any additional districts and their coastal communities that may be included in Phase 111. The rationale for creating a Framework for community extension teams, rather than conducting an Environmental Assessment up front, is that individual micro-projects prioritized by communities will be location specific and determined by the communities throughout the course of the Program. The Framework will outline a process to insure environmental and social safeguards are addressed during the design and implementation of these specific micro-projects. 4.3 Output of the Environmental and Social Impact Management Framework The outputs of this Framework are as follows: 1. Potential micro-projects that communities may propose, and possible environmental impacts and mitigation measures. * List of types of micro-projects that communities are likely to propose * Potential environmental impacts of each type of micro-project * Options for mitigation measures of these impacts * EA checklist to be used by Community Facilitators and communities to determine whether proposed micro-projects will trigger any of the safeguards or regulations, and thus require the development of an environmental management plan (EMP). 2. Outline of the process for carrying out EAs in micro-projects proposed by participating communities in target districts for Phase 11 of COREMAP. * Process for carrying out EA in micro-project design, specifying which institutions will have specific responsibilities. 17 5. SAFEGUARDS APPLICABLE TO THE COREMAP EA PROCESS 5.1 Overview of Applicable World Bank Safeguards 5.1.1 Environmental Assessment Safeguard Policy (OP 4.01) World Bank Operational Policy 4.01 requires each project to conduct an Environmental Assessment to evaluate the project's potential environmental risks and impacts in its area of influence. Towards this requirement, the EA should examine project alternatives and identify ways of improving project selection, siting, planning, design and implementation by preventing, minimizing, mitigating and compensating for adverse environmental impacts. The process outlined in OP 4.01 begins with screening of projects. The investments that will be made by COREMAP Program Management Units in target districts are small, relatively uncomplicated projects, which are unlikely to have complex or large impacts or impacts beyond the immediate vicinity. Also, even where modest impacts do occur, these impacts can be normally avoided or mitigated by design modifications, relocation and/or application of good operational practices. Based on these considerations, COREMAP Phase II is classified as a Category B project. Given that the exact type and number of micro-project investments will only be determined during program implementation, the nature of the environmental impacts that may result is not ascertainable at this stage. Therefore, an Environmental Assessment has not been carried out during the overall preparation of COREMAP Phase II. Instead, the EA processes will be built into the sustainability dialogue between extension teams and communities, so that environmental assessments and considerations are included in the initial design and preparation of individual micro-project proposals. Each PMU in a program district will have access to a special account from which to fund micro-projects. The PMU will be led by a Senior Extension/Training Officer (SETO) and each community with be serviced by a Community Facilitator both will be trained in EA, and will verify through the EA checklists completed by communities and extension teams that each basic needs project proposal has been designed according to safeguard policies. Similarly, the program will assist in the development of alternative livelihoods enterprises in coastal communities, based on proposals from individuals and groups. Each proposal for financing will be accompanied by an EA checklist for the proposed enterprise that has been signed and verified by the Community Facilitator, and prepared with any necessary technical assistance. Thus, according to OP 4.01, before the PMUs authorize funds for a micro-project, they must verify that the micro-project meets all of the requirements of the World Bank's safeguard policies. In COREMAP Phase II, the PMUs will confirm through the EA checklists (see Annex 1) attached to each micro- project proposal that the community, group or individual who is submitting the proposal has already completed the necessary EA steps for that micro-project. If the EA checklist submitted reveals it necessary, the PMU will prepare terms of reference for a more detailed EMP to be carried out for the affected micro-projects. Category A Micro-Projects A proposed micro-project would be classified as a Category A if it is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are sensitive, diverse or unprecedented. These impacts may affect an area broader than the communities benefiting from infrastructure investments. The checklists submitted with basic needs project proposals 18 to the PMU and with alternative livelihoods enterprises for micro-credit financing will highlight any micro-projects that would be classified as Category A. As mentioned previously, micro-projects classified as Category A will not be eligible for financing under COREMAP Phase 11. Category B Micro-Projects A proposed micro-project would be classified as a Category B if it has potentially adverse impacts, but not severe enough to be categorized as Category A. Typically Category B activities have: * impacts that are not complex or irreversible; * do not affect important and/or sensitive ecosystems; * are of limited geographic extent; and * can be managed by uncomplicated and well understood mitigation measures. The EA for Category B micro-projects examines the micro-project's potential negative and positive environmental impacts and recommends any measures needed to prevent, minimize, mitigate or compensate for adverse impacts and improve environmental performance. Proposed micro-projects will be classified as Category B based on the EA checklists submitted by the communities, or groups or individuals in the case of alternative livelihood enterprises. Depending on the responses and information on the checklists concerning potential adverse environmental impacts, the PMU will either approve the micro-project and disburse the first tranche of funds, or send the proposal to available specialists to create terms of reference for an EMP. According to international experience, the types of activities that are typically classified as Category B include the following: * Agroindustries (small-scale) * Irrigation and drainage (small-scale) * Renewable energy (other than hydroelectric dams) * Tourism * Watershed projects (management or rehabilitation) * Protected areas and biodiversity conservation * Rehabilitation or maintenance of highways or rural roads * Rehabilitation or modification of existing industrial facilities * Energy efficiency and energy conservation These types of micro-projects are illustrative of Category B classifications, which will be applicable to micro-projects proposed in COREMAP Phase 11. Category C Micro-Projects A proposed micro-project would be classified as a Category C if it is likely to have no adverse environmental impacts. Once the micro-project is assessed for its environmental impact and determined a Category C, no further action would be required. Some examples from international experiences of micro-projects typically classified as Category C include: * Education (i.e. capacity-building, etc., not including school construction) 19 * Family planning * Health (education and capacity) . Nutrition * Institutional development * Most human resources projects 5.1.2 Terms and Instruments Applicable to Micro-Projects Supported by this Program According to OP 4.01, the terms and instruments that will be applicable to COREMAP Phase II micro-project proposals are defined below: Environmental Assessment - the entire process of assessing potential significant environmental impacts in the design and preparation of micro-projects and including measures to mitigate such impacts. This framework provides a step-by-step outline of this process for COREMAP in Chapter 6 below. Environmental Impact Assessment - EIA refers to a detailed technical assessment of the potential impacts of micro-projects. As mentioned above, ElAs should not be required for any micro-projects that would be financed under COREMAP Phase 11. Environmental Manaqement Plan - An environmental management plan (EMP) is a detailed plan and schedule of measures necessary to minimize, mitigate, etc. any potential environmental impacts. It should be prepared when project impacts can be determined without detailed study. It should be accompanied by a related environmental monitoring plan. Expectation is that COREMAP Phase II microprojects will require at most and an EMP with a monitoring plan. 5.1.3 Guidelines and Methodology for Carrying out EMP to address OP 4.01 Safeguard Based on EA determination, it may be necessary to prepare an Environmental Management Plan. The EMP should be prepared in consultation with the affected communities and community extension teams. An EMP should consist of a set of mitigation, monitoring and institutional measures to be taken during the implementation and operation of the proposed micro-project to eliminate adverse environmental impacts, offset them or reduce them to acceptable levels. The EMP should also include the actions needed to implement these measures, including the following features: Mitigation - The EMP should describe with technical details each mitigation measure, together with designs, equipment descriptions, and operating procedures, as appropriate. Monitorinq - Environmental monitoring during micro-project implementation, in order to measure the success of mitigation measures. The EMP should then include monitoring objectives that specifies the type of monitoring activities that will be linked to the mitigation measures. Specifically, the monitoring section of the EMP provides: * A specific description, and technical details, of monitoring measures that includes the parameters to be measured, the methods to be used, sampling locations, frequency of measurements, detection limits (where appropriate), and definition of thresholds that will signal the need for corrective actions; 20 * Monitoring and reporting procedures to insure early detection of conditions that necessitate particular mitigation measures and to furnish information on the progress and results of mitigation. The EMP should also provide a specific description of institutional arrangements - i.e. who is responsible for carrying out the mitigating and monitoring measures (for operation, supervision, enforcement, monitoring of implementation, remedial action, financing, reporting, and staff training). Additionally, the EMP should include an estimate of the costs of the measures and activities recommended, so that communities can budget the limited program funds available to them to finance the proposed micro- projects and the accompanying EMP measures. The mitigation and monitoring measures recommended by the EMP should be created in consultation with all affected groups and NGOs to include their concerns and views in the design of the EMP. 5.2 Natural Habitats Safeguard Policy (OP 4.04) 5.2.1 Description of the Safeguard World Bank OP 4.04 states that projects involving significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats are not eligible for financing unless there are no practical alternatives and benefits that clearly outweigh the costs. If habitat loss does occur compensatory activities will be required as an offset. These might include rehabilitation of similar ecosystems and/or protection of ecologically similar areas. The OP specifies that where feasible, World Bank (IDA) financed projects should be sited on lands already converted and the World Bank should promote the rehabilitation of degraded habitats. It is unlikely that any COREMAP Phase I1 micro-project that resulted in natural habitat loss would be approved. 5.2.2 Guidelines and Methodology to address OP 4.04 Safeguard When reviewing micro-project proposals, the PMUs should check to insure that the proposal and EA checklist identifies (as a result of a rapid assessment of critical natural habitats carried out by the extension teams and communities) important habitat sites in and around the communities submitting the proposals. The micro-project proposals should also identify the ecological functions these habitat sites perform, the degree of threats to the sites, potential indirect impacts on these sites as a result of micro projects (such as road rehabilitations providing increased access and potential degradation to critical habitats) and the priorities for conservation. Similarly, the communities and community extension teams should identify these habitats using the EA checklist. If the EA identifies significant impacts upon critical natural habitats, the micro-project should not be eligible for program finance. If any loss of natural habitat is envisaged then the EMP should include activities that promote the rehabilitation of degraded habitats, mitigation measures to minimize habitat loss (i.e. strategic habitat retention or post- development restoration) or establish and maintain an ecologically similar protected area. 5.3 Forestry Safeguard Policy (OP 4.36) 5.3.1 Description of the Safeguard According to OP 4.36, World Bank involvement in the forestry sector aims to reduce deforestation, enhance the environmental contribution of forested areas, promote afforestation, reduce poverty, and encourage sustainable economic development. Thus, 21 World Bank only allows for financing of production forests after receipt of international certification (e.g., FSC) and where the purpose of the financing is to support achieving a level of sustainable management. The COREMAP Phase 1l is located principally on small islands and does not envisage the inclusion of any forestry micro-projects. 5.3.2 Guidelines and Methodology to address OP 4.36 Safeguard When communities or individuals propose micro-projects, the EA checklist should distinguish between investments that are exclusively environmentally protective (i.e. strengthened forest management or micro-watershed reforestation) or supportive of small farmers (i.e. farm and community forestry) from all other forestry operations. In forest areas of high value, as identified by the EA checklist in accordance with the OP 4.04 for Natural Habitats, the World Bank finances only preservation and light, non- extractive use of forest resources. Micro-projects that include any forestry operations or activities that are not environmentally protective, supportive of small farmers, or light, non-extractive use of forest resources are not be eligible for financing. Thus, OP 4.36 should not be triggered by any micro-projects proposed by communities. 5.4 Pest Management Safeguard Policy (OP 4.09) 5.4.1 Description of the Safeguard In assisting borrowers to manage pests that affect either agriculture or public health, the World Bank supports a strategy that promotes the use of biological or environmental control methods and reduces reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides. However, if micro-projects include the use of pesticides, the World Bank requires that the pesticides be manufactured, packaged, labeled, handled, stored, disposed of, and applied according to international standards acceptable to the World Bank. 5.4.2 Guidelines and Methodology to address OP 4.09 Safeguard If micro-projects are proposed that require pesticides, pest management issues should be addressed by an EA process, with the following criteria applying to the selection and use of pesticides in any IDA-financed projects: * The pesticides must have negligible adverse human health effects. * The pesticides must be shown to be effective against the target species. * The pesticides must have minimal effect on non-target species and the natural environment. . Pesticide use must take into account the need to prevent the development of resistance in pests. The EA should also assess the capacity of the district's regulatory framework and institutions to promote and support safe, effective and environmentally sound pest management. For micro-projects that include pesticides, the EMP should include plausible alternatives to control pest populations through Integrated Pest Management approaches, such as biological control, cultural practices and the development and use of crop varieties that are resistant or tolerant to the pest. 22 5.5 Cultural Property Safeguard Policy (OP N 11.03) 5.5.1 Description of the Safeguard According to the safeguard, the World Bank will assist in the protection and enhancement of cultural properties encountered in IDA-financed micro-projects. This United Nations term "cultural property" includes sites having archeological (prehistoric), paleontological, historical, religious, and unique cultural values. This definition encompasses remains left by human inhabitants as well as unique natural environmental features such as canyons and waterfalls. 5.5.2 Guidelines and Methodology to address OPN 11.03 Safeguard EA checklists for community micro-project proposals should include, through public consultations if necessary, what is known about the cultural property aspects of the proposed sites for activities. If there is a question of cultural property in the area, a brief reconnaissance survey should be undertaken in the field by a specialist contracted by the PMU financed from the budget for the community's micro-projects. The World Bank does not finance micro-projects that will damage non-replicable cultural property, and will assist only those micro-projects that are sited so as to prevent such damage. Based on the EA checklists to determine cultural property aspects of proposed micro-projects, communities and individuals will avoid any activities that might damage or impact cultural property. 5.6 Indigenous Peoples Safeguard Policy (OD 4.20) 5.6.1 Description of the Safeguard The broad objective of this safeguard is to insure that the development process fosters full respect for the dignity, human rights and cultural uniqueness of indigenous peoples. More specifically, the objective seeks to insure that indigenous peoples do not suffer any adverse effects during the development process, particularly from IDA-financed micro- projects, and that they receive culturally compatible social and economic benefits. 5.6.2 Guidelines and Methodology to address OD 4.20 Safeguard The term "indigenous peoples" describes social groups with a social and cultural identity distinct from the dominant society that makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the development process. Indigenous peoples in the communities can be identified by the presence of varying degrees of the following characteristics: * Close attachment to ancestral territories and to the natural resources in these areas * Self-identification and identification by others as members of a distinct cultural group * An indigenous language, often different from the national language * Presence of customary social and political institutions * Primarily subsistence-oriented production Such groups should be consulted in all aspects of the EA for proposed micro-projects, particularly in regards to this safeguard. Proposed micro-projects which adversely affect indigenous groups will be identified by the EA checklist and will not be eligible for financing under the Program. 23 5.7 Involuntary Resettlement Safeguard Policy (OD 4.12) 5.7.1 Description of the Safeguard The objective of this safeguard is to insure that any population displaced by a micro- project receives benefits from the project. However, any form of involuntary resettlement will not be eligible for IDA-financing under COREMAP Phase II. If acquisition of land is required (e.g. for a new construction of a meeting place or health center, etc), written evidence will need to be provided by an elected village forum that the land has been voluntarily contributed by the community as a whole and that no individual will be negatively affected by such land acquisition. 5.7.2 Guidelines and Methodology to address OD 4.12 Safeguard Communities or individuals and community extension teams will identify in the EA checklists attached to micro-project proposals whether a given micro-project will require land. If a proposed micro-project, such as construction of a meeting place, health center, etc., requires land acquisition, then proponent will be directed by the EA checklist to further specify the whether or not this land acquisition will result in resettlement. If resettlement is required, the micro-project will not be eligible for financing under COREMAP Phase II. Furthermore, the proponent will have to provide written confirmation that the land has been voluntarily contributed by the community as a whole and that no individuals will be negatively affected by such land acquisition. Generally, micro-projects that are anticipated to require land acquisition (new buildings, health centers, cottage industries) would need less than a quarter hectare of land. In most cases, communities' basic needs project proposals will seek to renovate or rehabilitate an existing building or health center. However, in some rare cases communities may want or need to build a new facility. It is envisaged that the largest building needed would be a school building for communities with only 1,000 to 3,000 inhabitants. In such case a six-classroom building occupying less than a quarter hectare would be adequate. Communities proposing such a micro-project would decide where such an area of land with no residents was available, and the acquisition of that land would be part of their contribution towards the cost of the micro-project. Communities would provide documentation that the land was selected through a transparent and participatory process. If no area of land large enough for the micro-project is available that does not have a resident or involves resettlement, then the micro-project would not be eligible for financing by the Program. Thus, no micro-projects requiring land acquisition or involuntary resettlement will be financed by COREMAP Phase 11. 5.8 Safety of Dams Safeguard Policy (OP 4.37) The Program will not provide any financing for dams in any micro-projects, so this safeguard policy does not apply in any way. 5.9 Projects on International Waters Safeguard (OP 7.50) 5.9.1 Description of the Safeguard Because micro-projects on international waterways may affect relations between the World Bank and its borrowers and between states, the World Bank recognizes that the cooperation and goodwill of riparians is essential for the efficient utilization and protection of the waterway. It, therefore, provides guidelines that should be followed to assess whether proposed micro-projects will take place on an international waterway, as 24 well as requirements for cooperation. If such micro-projects are to be undertaken during program implementation, then notification needs to be provided to affected riparians. The riparians should be allowed six months to raise any concerns or seek any further clarifications. 5.9.2 Guidelines and Methodology to address OP 7.50 Safeguard Coastal communities in project districts in Indonesia are not located near international waters, so this Safeguard is not applicable. 5.10 Projects on Disputed Areas Safeguard Policy (OP 7.60) There are no disputed areas in the proposed districts for COREMAP Phase 11, so this safeguard is not applicable. 5.11 Social Considerations While the World Bank's policies for EA clearly outline the need to consult all stakeholders who might be affected by the proposed micro-projects in order to reflect their concerns, the EA checklists should also summarize the key social issues related to these micro-projects. The community extension teams should be particularly sensitive to any proposed micro-projects that may not include the concerns of all members of the community or residents in the area. The extension teams will be trained in participatory planning and will help facilitate the establishment of village forums. The election of these forums should be transparent and democratic (e.g. through a show of hands in an open meeting). The EA process will incorporate public consultations with all potentially affected stakeholders. 5.12 Summary of Safeguards and Requirements for EMPs SAFEGUARD REQUIREMENTS FOR EA CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR EMP Environmental EA checklist should identify potential env. A set of mitigation, monitoring and Assessment impacts of each micro-project and if institutional measures to be taken necessary hold public consultations. during the implementation and operation of micro-project activities to eliminate, offset or reduce to adverse env. and social impacts Natural Habitats EA checklist should identify important Activities that promote the habitat sites in the areas proposed micro- rehabilitation of degraded project, and if necessary, the EA will habitats, or mitigation measures further identify the ecological functions to minimize habitat loss or they perform, the degree of threats to the establish and maintain an sites, and the priorities for conservation. ecologically similar protected area. Forestry Not Applicable - The EA Checklist will Proposed micro-projects will not distinguish investments that are contain commercial forestry exclusively environmentally protective or operations or activities in the supportive of small farmers, from all other forest sector that would conflict forestry operations with the Bank's aim to reduce deforestation and enhance the environmental contribution of forested areas. Pest Management EA checklists indicate which if any micro- The EMP should include plausible projects will require pesticide use. alternatives to control pest 25 SAFEGUARD REQUIREMENTS FOR EA CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR EMP populations through Integrated Pest Management approaches, such as biological control, cultural practices and the development and use of crop varieties that are resistant or tolerant to the pest Cultural Property EA checklist should include available info Micro-projects should avoid any concerning cultural property aspects of activities that might damage or the proposed sites for activities, followed impact cultural property. This up by a reconnaissance survey if cultural includes sites having property may exist. archeological (prehistoric), paleontological, historical, religious, and unique cultural values. Indigenous Peoples The EA checklists should identify Where EA checklists indicate indigenous peoples in proposed micro- indigenous peoples may be project areas: adversely affected, micro-project a. Close attachment to ancestral proposals will not be eligible for territories and to the natural resources financing in these areas b. Self-identification and identification by others as members of a distinct cultural group c. An indigenous language, often different from the national language, d. Presence of customary social and political institutions e. Primarily subsistence-oriented .production Involuntary Not Applicable - The community Not Applicable Resettlement extension teams, PMUs and micro-credit facilities should double-check to insure any proposed land acquisition does not include resettlement, and the site was selected by the community through a participatory and consultative process and that communities/individuals voluntarily contribute land. Safety of Dams Not Applicable Not Applicable Projects in Not Applicable Not Applicable International Waters Projects in Not Applicable Not Applicable Disputed Areas Social At the beginning of the project, community Community Facilitators should insure Considerations extension teams will conduct participatory that activities continue to include social assessments that summarize the key participatory processes and social issues related to proposed micro- consultations in all aspects of the projects: m icro-project. a. Traditions, values and social organization of intended beneficiaries b. Tenure rights over land, tree and water resources and how this affects use c. Dominant attitudes and values towards growth, environmental and community participation d. Patterns of interactions between 26 SAFEGUARD REQUIREMENTS FOR EA CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS FOR EMP group members e. Capacity of local institutions to participate in decisions, operations, etc. 27 6. THE EA PROCESS FOR COREMAP PHASE II 6.1 Incorporating EA into the design of micro-projects SETOs and Community Facilitators will be trained intensively in environmental analysis so that they can help communities identify potential environmental impacts resulting from micro-projects in the early stages of design and preparation. The Community Facilitators will be trained, and will be able to contract any expertise necessary, to identify potential environmental impacts for specific types of micro-projects. The bottom line is that the Community Facilitators and extension teams will work with communities to identify potential environmental impacts of proposed micro-projects and assist them to redesign the proposals or include mitigation measures, so that the environmental impacts are prevented in the preparation stages. For example, if a community decides building a jetty is a priority, the Community Facilitator (and any expertise the Community Facilitator feels it necessary to recruit) would immediately begin to work with them to think about how to design the proposal so that shoreline erosion will be prevented or mitigated, using the EA Checklist provided by the PMU. The Community Facilitator might work with the PMU to contract a coastal geologist to examine the site with the community and recommend specific criteria for sediment transport and removal, siting, etc. to be included in the proposal. Thus, the EA would thus be mainstreamed into the micro-project cycle in a process as follows: As communities and extension teams identify potential basic needs and alternative livelihood micro-projects, the Community Facilitators will use the EA checklists to help the communities and individuals identify potential environmental impacts that might be associated with the proposed micro-projects. Then the Community Facilitators and any recruited experts would help communities either redesign the micro-projects to avoid such impacts, or include all necessary mitigation measures in the proposal. 6.2 Review by Project Management Units Completed basic needs micro-project proposals and proposals for alternative livelihood enterprises will be submitted to the PMU in each district. In each case, the PMU will review the micro-project proposal and the EA Checklist included in the proposal to insure that an EIA is not required and the micro-project has been designed sustainably. Micro- projects requiring an EIA will not be eligible for funding. For the micro-project proposals, this review will consist of 2 stages: a desk appraisal to insure all of the necessary information is included in the proposal, and a field appraisal to verify the information included in the proposal. During the desk appraisal, staff of the PMU will insure that the EA checklist has been filled out correctly and completely. Some micro-project proposals can be automatically rejected based on this information alone, such as if the checklist describes resettlement. However, extension teams will have worked with the communities to design micro- project proposals, which would not require the EA checklist be filled out in such a way as to disqualify the proposal. During the field appraisal, the staff from the PMU will independently verify all of the information provided in the micro-project proposal and EA checklist. 28 Based on the desk and field appraisal, the PMU will approve the micro-project as directed by the information provided in the EA checklist (or perhaps based on minor adjustments or additional mitigation measures being included in the proposal) and disburse funds. If a particular aspect is triggered by the checklist, the PMU will have the option to contract specialists for re-design of the micro-project to conform to checklist requirements. 6.3 Monitoring and Evaluation The PMUs will monitor and evaluate micro-projects as indicated in the following steps: 1. Funds for the basic needs micro-projects will be disbursed to communities in three tranches, with 70 percent of funds being disbursed in the first two tranches. Prior to disbursement of the last tranche, or within 1 Year from proposal depending on which comes first, the staff member from the PMU that is responsible for EAs will conduct an environmental audit of the implementation of the micro-project. This audit will be a form that will be made public so that it is transparent and available to all interested parties. The audit will verify that the information provided in the proposal and EA checklist is still accurate, and that all mitigation measures and environmental design aspects included in the micro-project proposal are being implemented with micro-project. 2. For projects requiring an EMP, the above steps will be followed, except that during PMU visits and audits, staff will be checking to insure the mitigation measures included in the EMP are being implemented properly, according to schedule. 3. For the first few years of implementation, the World Bank may request all of the information collected in some of the PMU audits, as yet another independent check on the EA process. 29 ANNEX 1: DRAFT EA CHECKLIST FOR MICRO-PROJECTS Micro-Project(s) Proposed: [For each micro-project proposed, fill out corresponding section of checklist, or if not listed, fill out the other category] MICRO- QUESTIONS TO ANSWER YES NO IF YES, PROJECT Renovation or Are adequate waste disposal services (for cement Rehabilitation of and paint, engine oil, etc.) provided for during the Buildings construction? Will construction sites be cleaned regularly? Using water to control dust? Is a schedule in place to clean drains regularly? Will any vegetation be lost during construction? Is there a plan for revegetation? Will safety and first aid materials or facilities be available during construction? Will refuse generated during construction be cleaned up? Construction of Is the construction site located in sensitive or New Buildings critical habitats and areas, as determined by the baseline assessment? No Approval Is there any cultural property, as defined by No Approval World Bank Safeguard OPN 11.03, that will be impacted by the construction? Will anyone be resettled from the land used for No Approval the new school building? Will safety and first aid materials or facilities be available during construction? Are adequate waste disposal services (for cement and paint, engine oil, etc.) provided for during the construction? Has the site been selected and the building design planned, to minimize soil erosion, according to the procedures provided in the EA Procedures Handbook? Is adequate drainage provided? Will construction sites be cleaned regularly? Using water to control dust? Is the school, and the latrines therein, sited at the minimum distance from the nearest water source, according to the criteria in the EA Procedures Handbook? 30 MICRO- QUESTIONS TO ANSWER YES NO IF YES, PROJECT Is there a maintenance plan and schedule for the Latrines? Is there a plan for revegetation and reforestation on site and around building, upon completion? Construction of Is the construction site located in sensitive or No Approval New Health critical habitats and areas, as determined by the Centers baseline assessment? Is there any cultural property, as defined by No Approval World Bank Safeguard OPN 11.03, that will be impacted by the construction? Will anyone be resettled from the land used for No Approval the new health center? Will safety and first aid materials or facilities be available during construction? Are adequate waste disposal services (for cement and paint, engine oil, etc.) provided for during the construction? Has the site been selected and the building design planned, to minimize soil erosion, according to the procedures provided in the EA Procedures Handbook? Is adequate drainage provided? Will construction sites be cleaned regularly? Using water to control dust? Is the center, and the latrines therein, sited at the minimum distance from the nearest water source, according to the criteria in the EA Procedures Handbook? Is there a maintenance plan and schedule for the latrines? Is there a plan for revegetation and reforestation on site and around building, upon completion? Are special measures for medical waste disposal included? Rehabilitation of Is the road to be rehabilitated site located in No Approval Roads sensitive or critical habitats and areas, as determined by the baseline assessment? Is there a plan for revegetation and reforestation along the side of the road? Will safety and first aid materials or facilities be I available during construction? 31 MICRO- QUESTIONS TO ANSWER YES NO IF YES, PROJECT Will the road embankment be constructed or rehabilitated in such a way as to allow a free flow of water? Is drainage provided to the flow route of flood and runoff water? Are adequate waste disposal services (for engine oil, etc.) provided for during the rehabilitation? Water Supply Is there a plan for revegetation and physical stabilization of soils and vegetation affected by construction? Is there a plan or measures to insure adequate protection of the water source from livestock? Is the well or water source located at a minimum distance from settlements and farms, according to the criteria in the EA Procedures Handbook? Is the well lined, and casting extended above the ground level, in order to prevent seepage of water back into well? Will a hand pump be installed, or if not will the well be covered? Will the storage tank(s) be covered? Is there adequate drainage around the well? Is there accurate information to verify that the well(s) will not overexploit the aquifer? Will there be training in water and sanitation provided for the community/users Rural Is the construction site located in sensitive or No Approval Electrification critical habitats and areas, as determined by the baseline assessment? Is there any cultural property, as defined by No Approval World Bank Safeguard OPN 11.03, that will be impacted by the construction? Will anyone be resettled from the land used for No Approval the new health center? Will safety and first aid materials or facilities be available during construction? Are adequate waste disposal services (for engine oil, etc.) provided for during the construction and operation? Will construction and operation sites be cleaned regularly? 32 MICRO- QUESTIONS TO ANSWER YES NO IF YES, PROJECT Does the planned installation meet with safe practices such as contact breakers? Will the installation team be qualified in good Is there a plan for installation practices? revegetation? Is there a maintenance plan with schedule? Is there a plan for revegetation on site and around building, upon completion? Mariculture, Has the site been selected and the facility design Agriculture, planned, to minimize soil erosion, according to the Agro-Processing, procedures provided in the EA Procedures Cottage Handbook? Industries Is there a plan for maintenance? Are there adequate waste disposal facilities or measures included? Are there adequate measures or plans for handling of raw materials? Has adequate training been given in fiberglass construction techniques and is safety and first aid equipment available? Is the site or facility located at the minimum distance from the nearest water source, according to the criteria in the EA Procedures Handbook? Have agricultural residues been properly removed from discharge water? Is livestock, minimal distance from settlements and farms, insure water at source is not used for bathing,laundering, animal watering, etc.? Are mariculture operations properly sited distant from habitation and navigation? Are fertilizers and pesticides be manufactured, Is there a plan for packaged, labeled, handled, stored, disposed of, revegetation? and applied according to international standards? Will any vegetation be lost due to activity? Drainage Is the drainage site located in sensitive or critical No Approval habitats and areas, as determined by the baseline assessment? Are any canals or drainage ditches designed so as to minimize the risk of sedimentation? Will the canals be lined, and weeds periodically removed? 33 MICRO- QUESTIONS TO ANSWER YES NO IF YES, PROJECT Private and Will the facilities be located in sensitive or critical No Approval Public Sanitation habitats and areas, as determined by the baseline Facilities assessment? Will the design of the latrines take into account local soil and water table conditions, so as to prevent contamination, according to procedures provided in the EA Procedures Handbook? Is a maintenance plan and schedule included, and will the community be educated on the need and procedures to sanitarily maintain latrine? Will any vegetation be lost during construction? Is there a plan for revegetation? Are the facilities located at the minimum distance from the nearest water source, according to the criteria in the EA Procedures Handbook? Solid Waste Mgt. Will the site be located in sensitive or critical No Approval habitats and areas, as determined by the baseline assessment? Is the site design planned in order to prevent point source pollution and seepage into aquifers, according to the criteria in the EA Procedures Handbook? Will the garbage be covered properly, and burning controlled? Markets Will the site be located in sensitive or critical No Approval (Construction of habitats and areas, as determined by the baseline Stalls, Fencing) assessment? Are adequate waste disposal services (for cement and paint, engine oil, etc.) provided for during the construction? Will construction sites be cleaned regularly? Using water to control dust? Is a schedule in place to clean drains regularly? Will any vegetation be lost during construction? Is there a plan for revegetation? Will safety and first aid materials or facilities be available during construction? Will refuse generated during construction be cleaned up? Other Is the micro-project located in sensitive or critical No Approval habitats and areas, as determined by the baseline assessment? 34 MICRO- QUESTIONS TO ANSWER YES NO IF YES, PROJECT Is there any cultural property, as defined by No Approval World Bank Safeguard OPN 11.03, that will be impacted by the micro-project? Will any land have to be acquired for micro- No Approval project? Will the micro-project generate any waste? Are adequate waste disposal services provided? Is there any soil erosion expected to result from Has the site been the micro-project? selected and the micro-project design planned, to minimize soil erosion, according to the procedures provided in the EA Procedures Handbook? Other Is adequate drainage provided for the micro- project? Is the micro-project sited at the minimum distance from the nearest water source, according to the criteria in the EA Procedures Handbook? Is there a maintenance plan and schedule for the Micro-project? Will any vegetation or trees be lost as a result of Is there a plan for I the micro-project? revegetation? 35 1-