INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET
APPRAISAL STAGE
Report No.:
Date prepared/updated: September 6, 2013
I. Basic Information
2. Project Objectives:
The project development objective is to contribute to confidence-building between communities and sub-district authorities in southern Thailand through participatory local development approaches in six sub-districts, and through capacity building of selected local government officials as well as selected civil society networks and organizations.
To this end, the Project will seek to:
(i) expand participatory community development planning in six sub-districts to cover sub-district development planning in partnership with local government agencies;
(ii) enhance the capacity of local authorities to undertake participatory local development activities; and
(iii) strengthen civil society organizations and civil society networks to engage in dialogue on policy issues and in activities related to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
3. Project Description:
The proposed project will consist of four components.
Component 1: Community and Tambon Block Grants (US$2,290,000, Recipient Executed)
The project will expand the coverage of Village Development Grants (VDGs) from 27 villages in six sub-districts (tambons) that received grant support in the pilot phase to cover all 43 villages in these sub-districts. Three cycles of block grants will be provided to 43 villages and six sub-districts (tambons) to finance priority needs identified by local communities at the communities and at the sub-district levels.
Village level grants
All villages in the six selected sub-districts will receive Village Development Grants (VDGs, approx. US$8,000 -10,000 per year), the use of which will be determined by community-level participatory processes. The Village Development Planning (VDP) and sub-project prioritization processes will emphasize the inclusion of the poor and vulnerable (women and men). Trained village facilitators will work closely with villagers to help them develop proposals for consideration at a village meeting for sub-project selection. Planning, prioritization and execution of sub-projects would be undertaken by villagers. Proposals would be prioritized through a voting process, drawing on criteria that would encourage inclusion of conflict-affected households, youth and unemployed. Special capacity building will be provided for poor and vulnerable groups to effectively participate in planning, prioritization and implementation processes
Sub-district level grants
The Project would also provide three rounds of grants at the sub-district level (approx.. US$30,000 per grant) that would help six target tambons to implement cross-village activities. These grants would be based on Tambon Development Plans (TDPs), which would be developed through inclusive processes in which village representatives would participate at the sub-district level. Plans would take into consideration village-level development plans developed under the Project, and would seek to encourage inter-village activities that would also foster local authorities’ engagement with communities.
Component 2 – Peace-building Partnership Fund (US$800,000, Recipient Executed)
Strengthening civil society organizations and networks for building trust and peace. Building directly on the accomplishments and lessons of the pilot phase, the Project would focus strategically and in a sustained manner on strengthening the capacity of (i) four networks (approx. US$40,000 per year for the Civil Society Council of the Southernmost Thailand (CSCS), and The Women Network of the Three Southern Provinces, the Youth Network and the Natural Resource Management Network), and (ii) approximately ten civil society organizations (approx.. US$10,000 per grant), of which five would be organizations that have demonstrated potential during the pilot phase, all of whom are working on issues related to peace-building, addressing grievances and aspirations of the local population, and demand for good governance.
This component would also provide financing for the four networks to undertake “peace dialogue” events on key issues such as decentralization, education, role of women and peace, youth and peace, and justice. This support for peace dialogues would aim to strengthen the voice of civil society and social accountability in the conflict-affected areas.
Component 3: Project Management and Learning (US$1,110,000, Recipient Executed)
This component would finance project management costs of LDI, including administration and logistical support for project implementation, consultants, monitoring, reporting and communications.
LDI will maintain a project office in Pattani, with a dedicated team working full time on Project activities. This will include a Project manager, coordinators for each of the components, provincial coordinators, village facilitators, M&E personnel and administrative staff.
In addition, this component will support learning exchange among communities and local government. An annual south-south learning visit on key issues to other conflict-affected areas in the region, such as Aceh, Mindanao and relevant areas of Myanmar, will also be organized.
Based on lessons from the pilot phase, LDI will strengthen its communication, publications and information dissemination efforts. In this regard, LDI will conduct a series of lessons learned workshops, and will produce a number of publications, as well as videos (in collaboration with the national Thai Public Broadcasting Service), with a view to increasing awareness in other parts of Thailand of the challenges confronting communities and development projects in the conflict-affected areas.
Component 4: Implementation Support, Technical Assistance, Evaluation and Knowledge Management (US$490,000).
As during the pilot phase, the World Bank would continue to provide enhanced supervision, select technical assistance, and evaluation support to the Project. Activities would include:
a) Provision of technical assistance to stakeholders, including with respect to conflict-sensitive participatory methods, conflict monitoring, fiduciary capacity, M&E, and communications;;
b) Conduct rigorous applied research and project evaluation efforts;
c) Facilitate access to and linkages with relevant international experience;
d) Financial management, procurement and safeguards supervision;
e) Information dissemination among interested stakeholders and awareness raising of key policy issues and project lessons. This would include a series of semi-annual reflection workshops with policymakers and interested development partners arranged through the Institute of Security and International Studies of Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok.
Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis:
The project will be scaling up to cover 43 communities from the existing six sub-districts in Yala, Narathiwas and Pattani provinces.
4. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists on the Team:
Waraporn Hirunwatsiri (Environmental Specialist, EASTS)
Pamornrat Tansanguanwong (Social Development Specialist, EASTS)
Satoshi Ishihara (Senior Social Development Specialist, EASTS)
|
5. Safeguard Policies Triggered (please explain why) |
Yes |
No |
|
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) The project will provide support for small-scale basic infrastructure construction and livelihood project, which impacts cannot be determined until the details have been identified and may result in temporary, minor and site-specific impacts on environment. Due to the small size of the sub-projects, the project that the impact can be mitigated through site specific measures has, therefore, been assigned an Environmental Assessment Category B. An Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and Operational Guidance on Environmental Safeguards have been prepared including the negative list of sub-projects and environmental screening mechanism to ensure that activities with significant adverse environmental impacts are made ineligible and the appropriate mitigation measures will be conducted during project implementation.
|
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) Malays in southern Thailand are considered to be an ethnic minority in Thailand. However, in the three provinces of southern Thailand where the Project has been implemented, Malays are ethnically the majority as they make up about 80% of the total population of 1.8 million people. The project will not cause significant negative impact on ethnic minorities except for minor land take or asset loss that will be addressed under the project Resettlement Policy Framework. Nonetheless, in order to ensure that the opinions and interest of vulnerable households within communities are well reflected under the project, the participatory Social Assessment (SA) will be carried out as part of the participatory planning process at the community level that targets all sub-groups. The participatory SA will begin with self-identification of the ethnicity of beneficiary communities, to be followed by participatory assessment of issues facing the communities and measures to address them. In the community where diverse ethnic groups reside, representatives of minority ethnic groups will be elected to be members of the Village Implementing Committee. Grievance mechanisms will be developed and its effectiveness be monitored to ensure that negative impacts that may occur will be duly addressed transparently and equitably. Subproject specific Indigenous People Plans (IPP) will not be developed, following the practice under the previous phase and because the predominant majority of project beneficiaries/ affected people are ethnic Malay. However, subproject proposals will be developed by communities, under the support of the implementation agency, which will include a summary of participatory SA and address all requirements of IPP under OP 4.10. Subproject proposals will be developed by beneficiary/ affected communities and their copies made available locally.
|
X |
|
|
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) The project will support small scale civil works identified by beneficiary communities such as water supply, child care center, multi-purpose hall, small grain mill plant, small organic fertilizer plant, and community shop and community library. The impact of such small civil works will be limited and temporary in nature, but may require limited sizes of land, temporarily or permanently. Most of such small scale land acquisition will be obtained through voluntary private land donations, transactions between willing-seller-willing-buyer and access to use vacant community or government land. Private land of limited size may have to be acquired if measures such as those mentioned above cannot be implemented.
The project developed a simple Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) in order to help beneficiary communities avoid or minimize potential land acquisition and other negative impacts in subprojects and provide them guidance on how to address negative impacts if unavoidable, The guiding principle of the RPF is that no family will experience a material reduction in their income, living standards, or livelihoods as a result of subproject implementation, the details of which will be spelled out in the project’s Operations Manual (OM) and the terms of reference of community facilitators, and the project will provide both internal and independent monitoring of their implementation.
|
X |
|
|
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37)
|
|
X |
|
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50)
|
|
X |
|
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60)
|
|
X |
II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management
A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues
1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts:
Under the recently completed pilot phase, 107 sub-projects were implemented in 27 villages, of which 15 concerned simple and small scale community infrastructures, rehabilitation or repair of existing community infrastructure. Facilitators and the Village Implementing Committees used the safeguards screening forms and received all required/ relevant documents for private and government land donations. In addition, relevant information including on entitlements of affected people was provided to the communities, and discussions held and agreements reached at community meetings were properly documented. With regard to environmental safeguards, the Project has consulted and worked with the WB safeguards specialists in identified possible environmental risks for small scale sub-projects. Mitigation measures were identified and were implemented such as providing the oil trap containers for income generating activities of women’s cooking groups, relocation of organic fertilizer production area to a distance away from the public water way to avoid the adverse impact to surface water quality.
A beneficiary assessment was carried out at the end of the pilot phase, including consultations with beneficiary communities to identify key project achievements, challenges faced and lessons learned, including about implementation and effectiveness of safeguard measures. The findings of the beneficiary assessment were used in the design of this phase of the project.
Beneficiary communities confirmed that no significant negative impacts occurred or remain unaddressed, and expressed support to the project which they felt empowered them. Records of land donations were properly filed and adequately demonstrated that those who donated lands benefited from subprojects and expressed their consent to donating land knowingly and willingly, without coercion or under duress. The Project’s Village Implementing Committee that comprises representatives of various social and ethnic backgrounds proved to be a useful vehicle to ensure that the views and interests of vulnerable groups including minority groups in ethnically mixed communities are adequately reflected in the identification of priority issues and the development of subprojects. Local government officials generally appreciated the project’s support .
The project will support small scale civil works identified by beneficiary communities. The exact nature and scale of impact, if any, is unknown since subprojects will be identified based on a demand driven process, however, they may include water supply, child care center, multipurpose hall, small grain mill plant, small organic fertilizer plant, community shop and community library. The impact of such small civil works will be limited, reversible, temporary and site specific, and can be easily managed by adequate mitigation measures. An Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) was prepared which includes a negative list to ensure that sub-projects would not be supported if they cause significant environmental or social impacts and that minor impacts that may occur would be adequately addressed
No significant social impacts are expected to occur under the project as subprojects that require physical relocation of households and large scale land acquisition or significant asset loss are in the negative list. Limited sizes of land, however, may have to be acquired, temporarily or permanently. Most of such small scale land acquisition will be obtained through voluntary private land donations, voluntary private long-term leases at a nominal cost, transactions between willing-seller-willing-buyer, or access to use vacant community or government land. Private land of limited size may have to be acquired if measures such as those mentioned above cannot be implemented.
The project developed a simple Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) which aims to help beneficiary communities avoid or minimize potential land acquisition and other negative impacts in subprojects and provide them guidance on how to address negative impacts if unavoidable. The guiding principle of the framework is that no family will experience a material reduction in their income, living standards, or livelihoods as a result of subproject implementation, the details of which will be spelled out in the project’s Operations Manual (OM) and the terms of reference of community facilitators, and the project will provide both internal and independent monitoring of their implementation. The OM will also include a checklist for reviewing, appraising and monitoring the sub-projects for social impacts that should be filled by communities. This will be verified by LDI, the grant recipient and implementation agency, as part of the sub-project approval process.
As mentioned above, a beneficiary assessment and consultations were carried out at the end of the pilot phase the findings of which were used to improve the design of this project which will be implemented in the same sub-districts with the same ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic characteristics. The majority of project beneficiaries under this project will be ethnic Malays who meet the eligibility criteria under OP 4.10. The Indigenous Peoples policy will therefore be triggered. The majority of beneficiary communities use Yawee language or a dialect of Malay as their spoken language, go to Thai schools, and can speak, read and write Thai which is an official language of the country. They have their own customary culture which is similar to Malaysia, and all most all are Muslim. They live mostly in ethnically homogenous villages but some of villages also include ethnic Thai. At the village level, people of different ethnic and social backgrounds have historically cooperated. However, social cohesion has suffered in some areas as a result of conflict dynamics.
The Project will carry out participatory Social Assessment as part of the participatory planning process in all beneficiary communities. Thisbegins with the self-identification of the ethnicity of beneficiary communities, to be followed by participatory assessment of issues facing the communities and measures to address them. Subproject specific Indigenous People Plans (IPP) will not be developed, following the practice of the original project, since the majority of local population/ project beneficiaries are Malays. The participatory SA will address all requirements under OP 4.10 that have to be carried out under SA, including self-ethnic identification by communities, identification of priority issues and measures to enhance benefits for disadvantaged people, potential negative impacts of prioritized subprojects and measures to mitigate them, and so on. The result of participatory SA will be provided in respective subproject proposals which will also address all requirements of IPP as defined under OP 4.10. Details of participatory SA, the format of subproject proposals and narrative description of what subproject proposals should include will be provided in OM. The sub-project proposals that do not provide mitigation measures agreeable to affected people will not be approved. Sub-project proposals will also include monitoring mechanisms to ensure that all community members especially vulnerable people will receive project benefits and that negative impacts are adequately mitigated. Grievance redress arrangements will also be developed and described in sub-project proposals that provide an avenue for complainants if they feel bypassed or marginalized in the sub-project planning or selection process. Detailed participatory planning process at the community level will be spelled out in OM.
In the previous phase, there are only two communities that have mix ethnic groups in the areas. It is expected that a small number of mix ethnic groups will be eligible for support under the project too. In such ethnically mixed communities, all ethnic groups within the communities will be represented in the Village Implementing Committee that oversees all aspects of the project implementation and monitoring, following the practice of the previous phase.
In summary, given the scale and types of investment, negative environmental and social impacts such as increased dust, noise and generation of construction wastes, are expected to be short-term, limited, localized and manageable, which can be addressed through proper design and good mitigation measures during construction and/or rehabilitation.
2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area:
No adverse long term impacts are foreseen.
3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts:
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 Project will be implemented by Local Development Institute (LDI), the Grant Recipient and Implementation Agency. The World Bank has been working with the LDI since 2009 to implement CDD block grants to communities and small grants for civil society and networks. LDI staffs have been trained on safeguards and have included safeguard checklist in the Project’s operations manual. LDI also trained its facilitators and local technical specialists about safeguards related issues and measures. Facilitators and village implementing committee used safeguards guideline and checklist during the implementation stage of the project. Therefore, LDI and its local staff have experience in addressing environmental and social impacts according to the World Bank safeguards policies.
The Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and the Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF) have been prepared by LDI to ensure that no significant social or environmental impact will occur under the project in planning and implementing sub-projects. The World Bank will also provide additional support to LDI in terms of training on safeguards policies to ensure staff understand the issues and are able to implement mitigation measures. Training will aim to ensure that all Project executors fully understand the World Bank’s environmental and social safeguard policies and provide them adequate guidance for identifying and effectively addressing environmental and social risks arising from the project. LDI staff will be in charge of the compliance with social and environmental safeguards requirements as stipulated in the Grant Agreements. Implementation progress reports will include a section on safeguard compliance.
5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people
The key stakeholders are 43 communities in conflict affected areas in Pattani, Yala and Narathiwas provinces. These communities will be consulted through a participatory planning process to define the small scale infrastructure and livelihood related activities. Project facilitation will emphasize the inclusion of vulnerable groups within the community and environmental protection consideration. Participating communities will sign an agreement with LDI outlining the scope of activities to be undertaken and the level of community participation. The project principle of full transparency will be implemented through a program of disclosure of plans, budgets and expenditures supplemented by independent monitoring. Safeguards guidelines and measures will be included in the project’s operation manual, by LDI in Thai language and the ESMF and RPF will be disclosed through the World Bank Info shop and in Country.
|
B. Disclosure Requirements Date |
|
|
Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? |
Yes |
|
Date of receipt by the Bank |
09/13/2013 |
|
Date of “in-country” disclosure |
09/13/2013 |
|
Date of submission to InfoShop |
|
|
For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors |
|
|
Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? |
Yes |
|
Date of receipt by the Bank |
|
|
Date of “in-country” disclosure |
|
|
Date of submission to InfoShop |
|
|
Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? |
Yes |
|
Date of receipt by the Bank |
|
|
Date of “in-country” disclosure
|
|
|
Date of submission to InfoShop |
|
|
Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? |
N/A |
|
Date of receipt by the Bank |
|
|
Date of “in-country” disclosure |
|
|
Date of submission to InfoShop |
|
|
* If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources policies, the respective issues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of the Environmental Assessment/Audit/or EMP. |
|
|
If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why: |
|
C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (to be filled in when the ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting)
|
Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP/ESMF) report? |
Yes [ X ] No[ ] N/A [ ] |
|
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/BP 4.04 – Natural Habitats |
|
|
Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats? |
Yes [ ] No [ x ] N/A [ ] |
|
If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of other (non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank? |
|
|
OP 4.09 – Pest Management |
|
|
Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues? |
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ x ] |
|
Is a separate PMP required? |
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ x ] |
|
If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a safeguards specialist or Sector Manager? Are PMP requirements included in project design? If yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? |
|
|
OP/BP 4.11 – Physical Cultural Resources |
|
|
Does the EA include adequate measures related to cultural property? |
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [X] |
|
Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on physical cultural resources? |
|
|
OP/BP 4.10 – Indigenous Peoples |
|
|
Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework (as appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples? |
Yes [ X ] No [ ] N/A [ ]
|
|
If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? |
Yes |
|
If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been reviewed and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit?
|
Yes |
|
OP/BP 4.12 – Involuntary Resettlement |
|
|
Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? |
Yes [X ] No [ ] N/A [ ] |
|
If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review and approve the plan/policy framework/process framework? |
Yes |
|
OP/BP 4.36 – Forests |
|
|
Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional issues and constraints been carried out? |
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ x] |
|
Does the project design include satisfactory measures to overcome these constraints? |
|
|
Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, does it include provisions for certification system? |
|
|
OP/BP 4.37 – Safety of Dams |
|
|
Have dam safety plans been prepared? |
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ x] |
|
Have the TORs as well as composition for the independent Panel of Experts (POE) been reviewed and approved by the Bank? |
|
|
Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) been prepared and arrangements been made for public awareness and training? |
|
|
OP/BP 7.50 – Projects on International Waterways |
|
|
Have the other riparians been notified of the project? |
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ x ] |
|
If the project falls under one of the exceptions to the notification requirement, has this been cleared with the Legal Department, and the memo to the RVP prepared and sent? |
|
|
What are the reasons for the exception? Please explain: |
|
|
Has the RVP approved such an exception? |
|
|
OP/BP 7.60 – Projects in Disputed Areas |
|
|
Has the memo conveying all pertinent information on the international aspects of the project, including the procedures to be followed, and the recommendations for dealing with the issue, been prepared |
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ x ] |
|
Does the PAD/MOP include the standard disclaimer referred to in the OP? |
|
|
The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information |
|
|
Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank’s Infoshop? |
Yes[ X ] No [ X ] N/A [ ] |
|
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 [X] No [ ] N/A [ ]
|
|
All Safeguard Policies |
|
|
Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? |
Yes [ x ] No [ ] N/A [ ] |
|
Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project cost? |
Yes [ x ] No [ ] N/A [ ] |
|
Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? |
Yes [ x ] No [ ] N/A [ ] |
|
Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? |
Yes [ x ] No [ ] N/A [ ] |
D. Approvals