Page 1 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 01/10/2011 Report No.: AC5954 1. Basic Project Data Country: Chad Project ID: P113030 Project Name: Local Development Program Support Project II Task Team Leader: Soulemane Fofana Estimated Appraisal Date: December 16, 2010 Estimated Board Date: March 22, 2011 Managing Unit: AFTAR Lending Instrument: Adaptable Program Loan Sector: General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (50%);Health (15%);Primary education (15%);Water supply (15%);Public administration- Finance (5%) Theme: Rural services and infrastructure (50%);Rural policies and institutions (25%);Decentralization (25%) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 0.00 IDA Amount (US$m.): 25.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: BORROWER/RECIPIENT 50.00 Local Communities 2.25 52.25 Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies) Yes [ ] No [X] 2. Project Objectives The overall purpose of the Government's Local Development Program, as reflected in the (revised) APL program objective, is to provide improved access to infrastructure and basic social services in targeted districts, as well as improved planning, management and monitoring by local communities and communes of decentralized investments. The Project Development Objectives for Phase 2 are: (1) improved access to basic infrastructures and social services in targeted districts, and (2) improved planning, management and monitoring by local communities and communes of decentralized investments. 3. Project Description The proposed operation includes two major technical components: (i) capacity building of local communities and communes and support to decentralization; and (ii) decentralized financing of micro-projects. The Project also includes a project Page 2 management component to support project implementation activities. The estimated cost of the Project is USD 77.25 million, of which IDA financing is USD 25 million. Component 1: Capacity building of local communities and communes and support to decentralization (US$12 million, of which IDA US$4 million) The objective of Component 1 is to provide improved technical and fiduciary skills needed at the different decentralized levels and the national institutions responsible for decentralization. The estimated cost of Component 1 is USD 12 million. It will include two sub-components. Sub-component 1.1: Strengthening capacity of communal and local communities Under this sub-component, the Project will finance capacity-building activities to benefit targeted communes and local communities. These will include: (a) participatory identification and prioritization of capacity-building needs to improve local governance; participatory diagnosis for the elaboration of Local Development Plans (LDPs) and Communal Development Plans (CDPs); (b) identification, submission, implementation, and monitoring of local and communal micro-projects as defined in the Local Development Plans (LDP) and Communal Development Plans (CDP); and (c) strengthening of civil society organizations in participatory local development management. Sub-component 1.2: Support to decentralization Under this sub-component, the Project will provide technical assistance to strengthen the capacity of the national institutions responsible for decentralization, focusing especially on newly elected leaders, who will be empowered to assume their mission regarding local development. These will help with the consolidation of priority activities of the Ministry Charged with Decentralization (MCD). Component 2: Decentralized financing of micro-projects (US$56.25 million, of which IDA US$18 million) The objective of Component 2 is: increased availability of basic infrastructures in targeted districts. It will support targeted financing of demand-driven micro-projects based on Local Development Plans (LDPs) and Annual Investment Plans (AIPs). All micro-projects will be identified through participatory processes and included in the integrated Local Development Plans (LDPs). The micro-projects, to be financed through a matching grant mechanism, will promote access to basic socio-economic services, income-generating activities, and sustainable natural resources management through the adoption and application of innovative technologies. The Project will channel funds to communes and local communities to be used for financing: (i) socio-economic infrastructure micro-projects (education, health, water facilities, etc), (ii) environmental and natural resources management micro-projects (acacia plantations, sustainable land management, Sahelian gardens, etc.), and (iii) rural income-generating micro-projects Page 3 (improved seeds, agricultural equipment, drying facilities, small transformation and storage facilities, etc.. The estimated cost of Component 2 is USD 56.25 million. Component 3: Project coordination and management (US$ 9 million, of which IDA US$ 3 million) The objective of Component 3 is to support the successful implementation of the project. It will support project coordination and management activities, including: (i) administrative activities; (ii) fiduciary activities including financial management and procurement; (iii) technical execution; and (iv) monitoring and evaluation of project performance and impact. The PMU will provide general coordination functions with all national institutions, especially those charged with decentralization, environmental stewardship, and natural resources management. It will further ensure compliance with the World Bank#s procurement, disbursement, financial management, and safeguards policies and procedures. The estimated cost of Component 3 is USD 9.0 million. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis The Project will be implemented in all 61 districts of the country. In the 19 districts in which LDPSP 1 was already active, the Project will support additional capacity building and finance additional micro-projects. In the other 42 districts, the Project will initiate operations. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Mr Abdoul-Wahab Seyni (AFTCS) Mr Amadou Konare (AFTEN) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) X Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) X Forests (OP/BP 4.36) X Pest Management (OP 4.09) X Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) X Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) X Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) X Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) X Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) X Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) X Page 4 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: The safeguards studies noted that the introduction of agricultural income-generating activities such as small-scale irrigation among the potential micro-projects to be financed in the zones of the Chari River, the Logone River, and Lake Chad, which are international water bodies, may have a cumulative effect on their use. Agricultural intensification due to Project-financed rehabilitation of irrigation works and capacity building may lead to increased use of pesticides and / or other agro-chemicals, which could have adverse impacts on water quality. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: No significant adverse impacts are expected. 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 Government of Chad has updated and disclosed, under a designated Inter-ministerial Project Preparation Committee, an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF), and a Pest Management Plan (PMP). These documents were prepared during the first phase of the program (PROADEL-1) and have been updated as necessary for use during the second phase (PROADEL-2). The ESMF specifies standards, methods and procedures, specifying how unidentified future micro-projects (whose locations are still unknown) will systematically address environmental and social issues in the screening and categorization, sitting, design, implementation, operational phases and maintenance of the micro-project lifecycle. The project team and implementers will ensure that the proposed mitigation measures are derived from micro-project-specific ESIAs/EMPs, and more specifically: (i) have been discussed and agreed upon by concerned parties; (ii) include an assessment of the capacity to implement the measures; and (iii) are acceptable within the national regulatory and legal framework, including laws and regulations concerning cultural heritage and antiquities. The Pest Management Plan (PMP) assesses relevant pest issues in Chad and evaluates current farmer pest control practices. It calls for the use of IPM practices and details those IPM practices which have been shown to be efficacious. The PMP also provides guidance for limited and appropriate use of pesticides when non-chemical means are insufficient and chemical means are technically and economically justified. It highlights Page 5 the criteria to be used in processing micro-projects, from preparation to approval, implementation, and monitoring, as well as the official institutions that should be involved, depending on the nature and contents of micro-projects. Micro-projects with potentially negative environmental and social impacts are required to formulate environmental impact assessments and are subject to public consultations. The PMP also recommends some specific training and practice modules on IPM and provides a comprehensive Action Plan for the implementation of its key requirements. Following clearance by the Bank, the updated PMP was disclosed in-country on November 29, 2010 and at the Bank InfoShop on December 2, 2010, prior to appraisal. The RPF deals with policy, legal, and regulatory mechanisms on how to address cases of land acquisition, loss of livelihoods, and restriction of access in protected areas, on the part of affected people, as a result of project activities, in case they happen. It also provides a coherent framework, eligibility criteria and asset valuation methods for compensation and/or resettlement of affected people, as well as grievance mechanisms of affected persons, in case of unsatisfactory arrangements between the parties involved. OP 4.11 is triggered because Chad, as a country, is viewed as a vast country with a rich cultural heritage. In view of the lack of specifics on the number, sites and scale of micro- projects, it was judged prudent to use caution when implementing the various social and productive investments. This involves ensuring that ESIAs consultants and contractors are able to do due diligence on, or are teamed up with PCR experts, to ensure that impacts on PCR are assessed and mitigation measures commensurate to those impacts, including proper handling of chance finds are implemented in the design, screening, implementation, monitoring and maintenance of subprojects, in accordance with national and Bank policies and procedures. Together, these safeguard instruments provide both a set of planning tools and the means for harmonious integration of the Project in its bio-physical and socio-economic environments, with the objective of maximizing positive impacts effects on these environments. The ESMF, RPF and PMP include institutional arrangements, outlining the roles and responsibilities for the various stakeholder groups involved, for screening, reviewing and approving micro-projects, as well as for implementing and monitoring their mitigation measures. They also include provisions for capacity strengthening, to ensure that safeguard measures are adequately implemented. All of the aforementioned instruments were cleared and disclosed in the country and at the World Bank Infoshop, prior to appraisal. Prior to disclosure, a stakeholders' workshop was organized by the Preparation Committee. This approach was used to share the results of the updated studies, mainstreaming ownership, and seeking input from these stakeholders in order to improve quality and soundness of these instruments. Recommendations from both ASPEN and the stakeholders' workshop were incorporated into the final safeguard reports prior to disclosure. In the main, stakeholders' recommendations include: (i) Providing the various actors sufficient means to carry out the follow-up and the supervision of of micro-projects' Page 6 EMPs and/or RAPs; (ii) sharing as much as possible projects safeguards instruments with projects stakeholders; (iii) strengthening the capacity of the various stakeholder groups in environmental assessment and monitoring and reporting procedures, through training and sensitization programs; (iv) ensuring that proposed mitigations measures are effectively implemented; (v) ensuring that local communities are involved in the implementation and monitoring of subprojects; and making sure that the project implementation include an environmental and social sub-unit, whose role and responsibilities are cleared defined, to ensure that the project safeguard function will effectively be coordinated and carried out. These recommendations have been reflected in the ESMF. Relevant provisions from the three sets of report will be reflected in Project Implementation Manual (PIM). International Waterways: The safeguards studies concluded that the introduction of agricultural income-generating activities such as small-scale irrigation among the potential micro-projects to be financed in the zones of the Chari River, the Logone River, and Lake Chad, which are international water bodies, may have a cumulative effect on their use. Therefore, in conformity with OP7.50, on November 30, 2010 the Government sent a notification to the Lake Chad Basin Commission to inform riparian countries about the proposed project activities. The Chad Basin Commission responded to the Government on December 3, 2010, authorizing the latter to implement the proposed PROADEL-2. The Commission invited the Government to inform the Commission before implementing small-scale irrigation micro-projects in order to agree on the best and suitable techniques to be used. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. The ESMF, the RPF and the PMP were prepared following a broad-based consultation framework, involving all relevant stakeholders, including local communities and their representatives, farmers, herders, local services service providers, local NGOs, representatives from various Ministries including Ministry of Livestock, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Economics and Planning, Ministry of Water, the Ministry of Land Management, and the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Project Preparation . This participatory approach will continue and will be carried out throughout project implementation. All instruments were cleared and disclosed in the country and at the World Bank InfoShop, prior to appraisal. Prior to disclosure, a stakeholder's workshop was organized by the Project Preparation Committee. This approach was used to share the results of the studies, to mainstream ownership and seek input from these stakeholders in order to improve quality and soundness of the instruments. The recommendations and relevant provisions from the set of safeguard documents will be reflected in Project Implementation Manual (PIM). B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Page 7 Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 12/02/2010 Date of "in-country" disclosure 11/29/2010 Date of submission to InfoShop 12/02/2010 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? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 12/02/2010 Date of "in-country" disclosure 11/29/2010 Date of submission to InfoShop 12/02/2010 Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Pest Management Plan: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 12/02/2010 Date of "in-country" disclosure 11/29/2010 Date of submission to InfoShop 12/02/2010 * 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 4.01 - Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? Yes If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? Yes Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? Yes OP 4.09 - Pest Management Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues? Yes Is a separate PMP required? Yes If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a safeguards specialist or SM? Are PMP requirements included in project design? If yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? Yes OP/BP 4.11 - Physical Cultural Resources Does the EA include adequate measures related to cultural property? Yes Page 8 Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on cultural property? Yes OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? Yes If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? Yes OP 7.50 - Projects on International Waterways Have the other riparians been notified of the project? Yes If the project falls under one of the exceptions to the notification requirement, has this been cleared with the Legal Department, and the memo to the RVP prepared and sent? N/A Has the RVP approved such an exception? N/A The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop? Yes 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? Yes All Safeguard Policies Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Yes Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project cost? Yes Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Yes Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? Yes D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Mr Soulemane Fofana 12/07/2010 Environmental Specialist: Mr Amadou Konare 12/16/2010 Social Development Specialist Mr Abdoul-Wahab Seyni 12/21/2010 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Ms Alexandra C. Bezeredi 01/10/2011 Comments: Sector Manager: Ms Karen Mcconnell Brooks 01/10/2011 Comments: Page 9