INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 02/25/2010 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE Report No.: AC Basic Project Data Country: Indonesia Project ID: P Project Name: Second National Program for Community Empowerment in Urban Areas II Task Team Leader: George Soraya Estimated Appraisal Date: February 8, Estimated Board Date: March 30, Managing Unit: EASIS Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Other social services (25%);General water, sanitation and flood protection sector (20%);Health (20%);General transportation sector (20%);Sub-national government administration (15%) Theme: Access to urban services and housing (45%);Participation and civic engagement (25%);Other urban development (15%);Municipal governance and institution building (15%) IBRD Amount (US$m.): IDA Amount (US$m.): 0.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: Borrower Financing Gap Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies) [ ] No [] 2. Project Objectives A community empowerment program. The overall project#s objectives and components are based on the predecessor project, PNPM-Urban I (and Additional Financing), and innovations to deepen the effectiveness of the program will be pursued. The overall objective is to assist GOI to ensure that the urban poor benefit from improved socio-economic and local governance conditions. Indicators of progress. This will continue to be achieved through: (a) the formation and institutionalization of elected representative organizations that are accountable to communities; (b) provision of grants to communities directly and transparently to finance poverty alleviation activities, especially infrastructure services; (c) enhancing the capacity of central and local governments to partner with community organizations in

2 service provision; (d) increasing awareness of disaster risk mitigation and mainstreaming of measures for resilience; and (e) increasing consolidation of CDD programs for effectiveness. 3. Project Description In 2006, the Government of Indonesia launched a national program for poverty reduction. A pillar of this program is the National Community Empowerment Program or PNPM, which is the Government of Indonesia#s (GOI) operational umbrella for all poverty programs which use a community empowerment approach. The program was built primarily upon the successful experience with the Bank funded KDPs and UPPs. Since then, there have been two windows of PNPM program implemented by the GOI, i.e. PNPM rural and PNPM urban. Today PNPM has nationwide coverage in all rural villages (57,266) and urban wards (=kelurahans, nearly 13,000) in Indonesia. The ongoing PNPM-Urban I and PNPM additional financing cover 11,126 kelurahans. The project is planning to cover 4,140 urban wards in 137 urban local governments in 19 provinces with activities focusing at strengthening the capacity of the community and local government and improving the design of the block grants (see below, project components) The program#s core design follows closely its predecessor PNPM-Urban I. The proposed project will continue to support (a) community and local government capacity building; (b) kelurahan block grants, and, (c) implementation support. Project Component Component 1: Community and Local Government Capacity Building ($28 million + $3 million GFDRR co-financing). The locally elected BKMs have been successful in carrying out their role of assisting and guiding community members with (i) project awareness building; (ii) developing Community Development Plans (CDPs); and (iii) channeling kelurahan grant funds for local infrastructure investments, training, and micro-financed income generating activities. This component will primarily carry out two activities: (i) finance the cost of facilitators to carry out social intermediation activities and community training and in supporting BKMs; and (ii) finance training and capacity building of local government (lurah and Bappeda) to strengthen their support to PNPM. 1A: Facilitation assistance to BKMs that have received PNPM grants less than three times. This sub-activity will provide facilitation assistance or PNPM #Core# Grants under the existing PNPM framework to BKMs in kelurahans that have not yet received all three grant allocations (the maximum under the PNPM program). For #new# kelurahans receiving grants for the first time, the focus will be on setting up BKMs, familiarization with the program, and development of the CDP. For already existing #advanced# BKMs that are receiving grants for the second or third time, the focus will be on forging links to other sectoral programs and on creating coordination capacity. As previously, these #advanced# kelurahans will also be eligible for PAPG. In addition, facilitators will be given training to improve performance in the areas of (i) disaster risk reduction and preparedness; and (ii) revolving funds.

3 1B: Facilitation assistance to #graduated# BKMs. One of the key goals of GOI#s PNPM program is to consolidate various poverty alleviation and CDD programs under one umbrella in order to streamline processes and increase impact on the ground. The proposed project will finance the BKM consolidation process, and initiate a dialogue with different sectoral agencies and donors to institute the BKM as a coordinating body at the local ward/kelurahan level to assist in coordinating various sectoral programs. BKMs that will benefit are those that have received and disbursed all three grant allocations and that demonstrate good performance (defined by the following criteria- BKM member is elected by min 30% adult voters,rlf performance is good with RR>90%,BKM bookkeeping is audited annually by independent auditor with qualified opinion, BKM carry out annual accountability report, BKM member carry out bimonthly routine meeting). The component will finance facilitation to BKMs that have #graduated# and assumed the role of a coordinating and channeling body for all CDD-based poverty alleviation programs. IC: Capacity building of local government. Specialized training programs will be developed for the lurah in each kelurahan (ward) as well government officials at the kecamatan (sub-district), kabupaten (district), and kota (city) levels. At the kota level, deeper engagement with the mayors will be exploited and learning exchange between cities will be facilitated through a mayors# dialogue on PNPM-urban. In addition, incentive schemes will be developed # e.g. awards for the best performing cities (those with the highest aggregate kelurahan performance. Facilitation will also be provided to Bappeda with the goal of coordinating CDPs with the city#s development plans to promote greater scale of infrastructure (i.e. links to networks rather than isolated works). A pre-condition for #advanced# kelurahans to receive block grants would be that the CDP is included in Bappeda#s investment plans. At the kecamatan and kabupaten levels, facilitation would be provided to local government leaders to stimulate discussion on pooling funds (or at least coordinating activities) across kelurahans to increase the scale of impact. Finally, the lurah will be provided with intensive facilitation on his role in providing two-way communication between the government and the community (so that the CDP reflects measures that can leverage planned city investments). He will also be provided with intensive training related to enforcing building codes to ensure that community infrastructure is resilient to disasters. ID: Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) is providing a $5 million grant to the Ministry of Public Works in support of raising community awareness for disaster risk reduction and mainstreaming resilience into investments financed under the project. This program will support PNPM- Urban II by focusing on activities related to preparedness and risk mitigation, including: (i) development and delivery of an in-depth training module for facilitators on mainstreaming DRM into CDPs; (ii) recruitment and financing of engineers to oversee project preparation and implementation to ensure appropriate standards; (iii) public awareness-raising campaigns; and (iv) training activities for local government (lurah and Bappeda) in cooperation with BPBD (Disaster Management Authority at Local level).

4 Component 2: Kelurahan Grants ($115 million). This component supports block grants to kelurahans # the value of which depends on the size of the population and disbursements. Typical activities for this component fall into three categories: (a) tertiary infrastructure investments pre-identified by the community in the CDP; (b) BKM managed revolving loan funds provided to the poor for income generating activities and who typically do not have access to other lending sources; and (c) provision of social assistance, including training, to the poorest and most vulnerable in the community. Under this activity the project will continue to be provide funds to existing kelurahans that have only received one or two grant allocations thus far. Rather than an open menu of activities, the grants will only be disbursed against an eligible set of activities, focused primarily on infrastructure services. In term of the revolving loan funds (RLF), as in the past, up to 30% of block grants can be allocated towards the RLF for kelurahans receiving grants for the first time, and only up to 20% for existing RLFs that have a repayment rate of at least 90%. For #advanced# BKMs, at least 20% of block grants will have to be used toward programs that leverage funding from other sectoral programs, to promote channeling; in addition, these BKMs will need to identify activities in coordination with the city#s investment plans (rather than in isolation or these broader plans) Component 3: Implementation and Technical Assistance ($7 million + $2 million GFDRR financing). This component will finance the following activities: 3A Project Management and Technical Assistance. The PMU will hire consultants and facilitators to assist in project implementation. This arrangement would be evaluated and expanded to deal with the scaling up and new features of the PNPM-Urban 2. In addition, the GFDRR grant will finance hiring of consultants who will support the PMU and facilitators in implementing and provide oversight on DRR capacity building efforts at the community level. 3B M&E Capacity Building. A comprehensive M&E sub-component will be designed under the new project to ensure careful monitoring of ongoing implementation, as well as process evaluation to assess implementation issues in a timely manner with feedback mechanisms to the project team. 3C Evaluation. 3C: Evaluation. The comprehensive evaluation would aim to understand how the CDD approach addresses the needs of the urban poor, the PNPM urban program in the context of other urban poverty programs in Indonesia, institutional issues, implementation issues, the role of local government, approaches to capacity building, and other relevant issues that would provide input to future project design. The study would attempt to identify strengths and weaknesses of the program, document good practice, and distill lessons learned. The evaluation would draw on the rich monitoring data that exists through the MIS, as well as new qualitative data which would specifically be designed and collected for the purposes of the study. In carrying out this evaluation, the World Bank would take the lead, providing oversight and ensuring objectivity. Further details on the design of the study will be developed before project effectiveness.

5 3D: New measures for accountability and transparency. In order to institute greater transparency in community decision-making and accountability with regard to flow of funds, the following measures have been implemented since PNPM urban was introduced in 2008: (i) randomized audits; (ii) severe penalties for misuse of funds; and (iii) rewards for well performing BKMs and KSMs; establishment of accountability matrix for all operations, and launch of a publicly accessible website based information gathered from the MIS management system. Component 4: Contingency for Disaster Risk Response ($0). Due to the high risk of catastrophic events in Indonesia, a provisional zero dollar component will be added under this project that will allow for rapid reallocation of the loan during an emergency, under streamlined procurement and disbursement procedures. Other Supplemental Poverty Alleviation Programs. In addition to the core PNPM urbanprojects, the overall PNPM program of the Government include various supplemental programs in urban areas that evolved based on the platform of the UPP process with the intention of furthering the impact of poverty alleviation intervention efforts under the PNPM Framework. These supplemental programs include the following: (a) PAPG. The Poverty Alleviation Partnership Grant fund (PAPG) encourages partnerships between local governments and communities and attempt to institutionalize a consultative process between the two for future activities undertaken by local governments using their own funds. It finances poverty alleviation activities that are too big to be financed by the kelurahan grants, or that require local government involvement (e.g. networked infrastructure); and that cover more than one kelurahan. About 100 Local Governments have been selected to participate in the PAPG. Selected cities will be eligible to receive amounts ranging from a total of US$450,000 to 750,000 over three years. PAPG implementation begins on third year in order to give cities a chance to familiarize themselves with the BKMs and to develop the RPAS (Regional Poverty Alleviation Strategy). Financing of PAPG comes from UPP2, UPP3, Local Government, and community contribution. (b) Neighborhood Upgrading Schemes (NUS). The NUS were initiated on a pilot basis in UPP3 and in the Java Reconstruction Fund housing project to improve the living conditions in the poorest communities within the framework of the Community Development Plans. NUS differ from traditional community investments (that are more dispersed) in its focus on a geographic area of the ward, in which a combination of improvements was undertaken # similar to block redevelopment. NUS starts with the preparation a detailed Community Settlement Plan (CSP) and is followed by implementation of priority investments (which requires funding from the city government) to upgrade the living conditions of the area. The program initially started with 18 pilots, and the Government is now keen on expanding the NUS to 200 additional kelurahans that demonstrate good performance under the PNPM Program. Financing for the additional NUS projects is expected to come from savings from various on-going PNPM programs (including the on-going World Bank financed PNPM-Urban project), ADB projects and government financing. (c) Housing projects. For areas affected by natural disaster, supplemental settlement recovery program has been added, although is based on UPP design, has

6 specific purpose and objective. So far the program has operated in Aceh, Yogjakarta, and now West Sumatra. In most cases the supports are aimed at the poorest victims. (d) Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) is providing a $5 million grant to the Ministry of Public Works in support of raising community awareness for disaster risk reduction and mainstreaming resilience into investments financed under the project. This program will support PNPM- Urban II by focusing on activities related to preparedness and risk mitigation, including: (i) development and delivery of an in-depth training module for facilitators on mainstreaming DRM into CDPs; (ii) recruitment and financing of engineers to oversee project preparation and implementation to ensure appropriate standards; (iii) public awareness-raising campaigns; and (iv) training activities for local government (lurah and Bappeda) in cooperation with BPBD (Disaster Management Authority at Local level). There are several ongoing DRM activities in Indonesia, including the GFDRR-supported Climate Resilient Cities program, and coordination activities will be pursued. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis: The PNPM-Urban II will cover nearly 4,140 urban wards in 137 urban local governments in 19 provinces, which includes those under PNPM-Urban I, PNPM-Urban Additional Financing (AF) and UPP-2 Additional Financing. Salient physical characteristics relevant to safeguard analysis are activities financed under Component 2, i.e. Kelurahan Block Grants. Typical activities for this component fall into three categories: (a) small scale infrastructure investments pre-identified by the community; (b) BKM managed revolving loan funds provided to the poor for income generating activities and who typically do not have access to other lending sources; and (c) provision of social assistance, including training, to the poorest and most vulnerable in the community. Experiences from the UPP series and ongoing PNPM-Urban I and AF confirm that activities financed by the block grants are mostly small-scale physical infrastructure, such as community sanitation, toilet and water supply, tertiary drainage, and tertiary roads, that has limited service area (neighborhoods) within the kelurahan. There are two kinds of activities that contribute to environmental risks: (a) those related to tertiary roads, bridges and drainage activities, and (b) those related to public toilets, sanitation and water supply. Similar to the experiences in the previous UPP series and PNPM-Urban I and AF, potential impacts of activities that will be financed under kelurahan grants of the PNPM- Urban II are likely to be site specific, not significant and can be managed locally by the community by adopting good engineering design and construction practices. The project will adopt the environmental guidelines for mitigating and managing potential environmental impacts. In terms of land acquisition and resettlement, it is very likely that there will be no significant amount of land acquisition is foreseen for investments of the community infrastructure. Similar to the previous UPP series and ongoing PNPM-Urban I and AF, most of land needed to build small-scale infrastructure are likely contribution from the beneficiaries. There is no report on IP are affected or involved in the ongoing UPPs and

7 PNPM Urban I and AF as of to date. The project area covers Kalimantan and Papua, whereby some IP exist in a dispersed villages or communities. In these two islands, urban areas in many cases are very small villages scattered in remote areas within a vast region. The small villages consist of concentration of people in vast areas. As these "urbanized" villages are usually centers of growths in the region, there could be some sort of social and economic linkages between the people who live in these villages and those IP who live farther away, or, IP who had migrated to these urbanized villages. The IPs who had migrated to these urban villages are believed to still maintain their own cultural values and way of life, and continue to have relationships with their village of origins. As a natural-resource rich islands there are many newly-developed towns or small urbanized villages as results of the extractions of these natural resources. This would make the IPs in the region are surrounded by the urbanized villages. As the project will support some of these urbanized villages, it will trigger the IP policy. The project will adopt the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework and IP Framework that have been adopted by the UPPs and the PNPM-Urban I and AF. These frameworks including the Environmental Guidelines have been elaborated in the project implementation manual and technical guidelines for infrastructure activities. The operation manual will be updated as necessary to accommodate new development as more experiences are taking place. Given the above, the project environmental category will remain B. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Ms Indira Dharmapatni (EASIS) Mr Andrew Daniel Sembel (EASIS) Mr Virza S. Sasmitawidjaja (EASIS) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Forests (OP/BP 4.36) Pest Management (OP 4.09) Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) 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: A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues

8 1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: The proposed project is an urban Community Development Driven/CDD program and similar to PNPM Urban-I and AF, it will finance small-scale community infrastructure sub-projects such as tertiary roads, minor road/bridge repairs, footpaths, tertiary drainage, community water supply, and sanitation/public toilet. The project will likely have similar characteristics of environmental impacts and land needed for sub-projects with those of in UPPs and PNPM Urban-I and AF. These types of sub-projects are not likely to have any large scale, significant or irreversible environmental impacts. Potential impacts are likely to be site specific, not significant and can be managed by good engineering design and construction practices. Observations in some projects under previous UPPs and ongoing PNPM Urban I and AF suggest that environmental related-issues mainly occur due to inadequate guidance, monitoring and supervision by the facilitators and OCs (Oversight Consultants) during the planning and implementation stages. The proper mitigation and prevention methods proposed are proper training (on specific technical environmental impact mitigation measures) and monitoring of the supervising field engineers, especially on site selection for water and sanitation projects, use of tested water quality from wells, and maintenance of the facilities. As the project will continue to finance small scale infrastructure sub-projects (mostly tertiary level infrastructure such as tertiary roads, minor road/bridge repairs, footpaths, tertiary drainage, community water supply, and sanitation/public toilets) it is very unlikely that significant amount of land will be needed. Although vary in size, experiences from the UPPs and PNPM Urban-I and AF revealed that area of land needed for each sub-project is generally very small. Field observation suggested that for a public toilet for instance, the average land size is 30 m2. For road or drainage channel improvement, usually land is needed for widening the existing alignment. Similar to the previous UPP series and ongoing PNPM-Urban I and AF, most of land needed by subprojects that will be financed by the project is likely contribution from the beneficiaries. Decision for land contribution was made based on active participatory consultation among the members of the community groups during the preparation of the sub-project proposals. Documentation of the consultation process and supporting information will be included in the sub-project proposals, and consolidated at the regional and national levels. Learning from the UPP series and ongoing PNPM-Urban I and AF documentation are available but will have to be improved. The project will cover 4,140 urban wards in 137 urban local governments in 19 provinces. There is no report on IP are affected or involved in the ongoing UPPs and PNPM Urban I and AF as of to date. The project area covers Kalimantan and Papua, whereby some IP exist in a dispersed villages or communities. In these two islands, urban areas in many cases are very small villages scattered in remote areas within a vast region. The small villages consist of concentration of people in vast areas. As these "urbanized" villages are usually centers of growths in the region, there could be some sort of social and economic linkages between the people who live in these villages and those IP who live farther

9 away, or, IP who had migrated to these urbanized villages. The IPs who had migrated to these urban villages are believed to still maintain their own cultural values and way of life, and continue to have relationships with their village of origins. As a natural-resource rich islands there are many newly-developed towns or small urbanized villages as results of the extractions of these natural resources. This would make the IPs in the region are surrounded by the urbanized villages. As the project will support some of these urbanized villages, it will trigger the IP policy. The project will adopt the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework and IP Framework that have been adopted by the UPPs and the PNPM-Urban I and AF. These frameworks including the Environmental Guidelines have been elaborated in the project implementation manual and technical guidelines for infrastructure activities. The operation manual will be updated as necessary to accommodate new development as more experiences are taking place. As it is a CDD project, the affected IP will be fully consulted in the decision making during the planning and implementation stage of the sub-projects. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: Overall and in the long-term, the project is expected to have a positive impact on the environment and on the beneficiaries# quality of life. With an improved access to basic services and community infrastructure provided by the project, beneficiaries will improve their health condition while at the same time reducing their expenditures to get basic services that are located farther away prior to the project and have better access to economic and social facilities. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. N/A 4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard policy issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. The Borrower is familiar and has the capacity to implement the environmental guidelines, land acquisition and resettlement frameworks as well as IP framework, as they have managed the implementation of UPPs and PNPM-Urban I and AF over the last 10 years. The National Consultant Team (NMC) who is currently assisting the PMU of the Executing Agency will have experts who have sufficient experiences in environmental management, social issues including land acquisition and gender, and, in handling IP. The project will adopt the Environmental Guidelines, Land Acquisition and Resettlement Framework, IP Policy Framework of the ongoing PNPM urban, which an adoption of the UPP-3 and UPP-2 additional financing (UPP2-AF) frameworks. These frameworks are an umbrella environmental and social safeguard guidelines for the UPPs and PNPM- Urban series, which anticipate the supplemental activities to the ongoing UPPs and PNPM Urban-I and AF. The operationalization of these frameworks is included in the project operation manual/technical guidelines. The project operation manual/technical guidelines will be continuously updated based on lessons learned and implementation experiences on environmental and social safeguards.

10 The project will continue strengthening the capacity of project management staff, consultants and facilitators in environmental and social safeguards. Learning from experiences of the UPPs and PNPM Urban-I and AF, the project will improve the documentation of the consultation process and supporting information pertaining environmental and social safeguards. Web-based reporting will be improved. The Project will not finance sub-projects that use items listed in the negative list, that will have potential negative impacts on cultural property and, that will have potential large-scale land acquisition/ resettlement. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. The main key stakeholders are the community members of the group who are beneficiaries of the project. Participatory consultation are taking place in the formation of the community board of trustees (BKMs), community groups (KSMs), preparation of the sub-project proposals and implementation of sub-projects. The role of the facilitators and volunteers is important in this consultation process. Environmental screening and mitigation measures are identified and agreed among the beneficiaries during the preparation of the sub-project proposals. Similarly, the need and mechanisms for obtaining land are identified and agreed among the beneficiaries through participatory consultations during the preparation of sub-project proposals. Facilitation and verification of the process and documentation included in the sub-project proposals are done by the BKM and facilitators. The Environmental Guidelines, Land Acquisition and Resettlement Framework as well as the IP Framework and the project operation manual/technical guidelines are uploaded in the project website The project operation manual and technical guidelines are distributed to all project management staff, consultants, facilitators, and the BKMs. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank 01/23/2010 Date of "in-country" disclosure 01/29/2010 Date of submission to InfoShop 02/25/2010 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 01/23/2010 Date of "in-country" disclosure 01/29/2010 Date of submission to InfoShop 02/25/2010 Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework:

11 Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank 01/23/2010 Date of "in-country" disclosure 01/29/2010 Date of submission to InfoShop 02/25/2010 Pest Management Plan: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop * If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources, the respective issues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of the Environmental Assessment/Audit/or EMP. If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why: C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (to be filled in when the ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting) OP/BP/GP Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including 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 Indigenous Peoples Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning 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 or Sector Manager? OP/BP Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to 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 responsibilities N/A N/A

12 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? N/A D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Mr George Soraya 01/29/2010 Environmental Specialist: Mr Andrew Daniel Sembel 01/29/2010 Social Development Specialist Ms Indira Dharmapatni 01/29/2010 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Mr Virza S. Sasmitawidjaja 01/29/2010 Approved by: Sector Manager: Ms Sonia Hammam 02/06/2010 Comments: