ISDS THE WORLD BANK GROUP AWorld Frea ol rovtrty 1 "InfoShop Report No AC22 Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (Initial) Date ISDS Prepared/Updated 04/09/2003 Section I - Basic Information A. Basic Project Data Country: MADAGASCAR Project ID: P074235 Global Supplemenital ID: P074236 Project: Third Environmenit Program Support Project Task Team Leader. Martien Van Nieuxwkoop Authorized to Appraise Date May 26, 2003 IBRD Amount ($m): Bank Approval August 6, 2003 IDA Amounlt ($m) 35.00 Global Supplemenital AmouLnt ($m): 8.00 Managing Unit: AFI'ES Sector. Forestry (80%); Renewable energy (20%) Lendinig Instrumnent Specific Investmenit Loan (SIL) Themile: Biodiversity (P), Environmenital policies and Status: Lendinig institutiolns (P); Other environ-ment and natural resources management (P) I.A 2. Project Objectives The proposed project supports finanlcing the third phase of the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). The NEAP was adopted by the Governmenit of Madagascar in 1989, while implementationi started in 1991 with the support of a broad coalition of bilateral donors (Germany, France, Switzerland, USA), international agencies (GEF, IDA, UNDP) and NGOs (WWF, Conservation Interinationial) Ahead of its timie, the NEAP was designed from its inception as a fifteen year investimienit progradivided into three five-year phases. The first five year phase aimed at creating a proper policy, regulatory and institutional framework so as to generate the conditionis for genuine country ownership of the environmenltal agenda whichi prior to the NEAP used to be set and driven by the donor commuillty The second phase of the NEAP aimied at consolidatinig the programs initiated ulider the first phase by puttil1g the established national institutions firmily in the driver's seat. The third phase aims to achieve the mainistreamiilg of environment inito macr-oeconomic management and sector programs as well as putting into place sustainable finanicinig mechaniisms for the environlmienlt The project finaniced by the World Bank and GEF is geared towards assisting the GoM in the implemenitation of selective elements of the thir-d pilase of the NEAP. It is against this backgrOuLind that the development objective of the project is specified as: setting natural resources managemiienit and biodiversity protection in critical ecological regions on an effective and sustainable footing withi active participation from local populations and other relevant stakeholders, while at the same time incorporatilng environmenital dimensionis in public policy making and investimenit decisions. 2 ISDS I A.3. Project Description: The goal of EP3 is stated as follows: "The importanlce and the quality of natural resources are conserved and developed in support of sustainable economic growthl and a better quality of life". It distinguishes seven results that are stated as (1) sustainiable development activities are developed; (2) forest ecosystems and water resources are sustainably managed; (3) sensitive ecosystems are conseived and made valuable as protected areas and "conservation sites"; (4) the potential of coastal and marine ecosystems is sustainably maniaged; (5) a positive chanige in behavior vis a vis the environimlenit is observed, (6) the financial basis for sustainable financing of rational managemenit of natural resources and the environimienit is established, and (7) better environmental policies and governance are developed The proposed project to be finanlced by IDA and GEF would support selected elements EP3 by focusinlg on results (2), (3), and a number of activities ulider (5), (6) and (7). Based on this orientation, the project would be organized into three components, (i) protected areas management, (ii) forest ecosystems management, and (iii) environimiiental mahistreamililg. GEF financing administered by the Bank would be concentrated under componenit (i): protected areas managemilenit. The IDA/GEF project would not focus on result (1) as it is felt that the on-going IDA-financed Rural Development Support Project could assist the EP3 in this field. The lAD/GEF project would not cover resLilt (4) as it has been agreed that GEF financing administered by UNDP would be concenitrated in this area Protected areas management (i) Aligillenit and representativeniess of the Protected Area System GEF and IDA resources will finance the implementation of the Protected Areas Code (COAP) and the Protected Areas Management Plan (Plan "GRAP") ained at ensurinlg the representativeness of ecosystems under the nationial protected area system Implementationi of the plan would include creating a limited number of new protected areas as well as re-delineating boundaries of a numliber of existing protected areas The contributioni to implementationi of EP3 will also support research activities aimed at developing a better understandinig of practices for biodiversity conservation and managemilent. (ii) Conservation, surveillance, monitorinlt and investments to consolidate the emerging PA System: IDA/GEF would also finance consolidationi of monitorinig and surveillanice activities as well as conservation practices and infrastr-ucture IDA/GEF would finance the establishment of critical visitor infrastructure and services so as to increase revenues from park entrance fees as well as to stimulate the local (eco)-tourist industry. (0ii) Community participation and capacity building IDA/GEF would ain to increase participation of local commullities In the maniagement of protected areas by strengthening and expanding the mandate of the Regional Orientationi Committees, partnerships with NGOs, and community-driven initiatives. IDA/GEF would also help developing the establishmenit of so-called volunitary private and comillunial protected areas. Last but not least, IDA/GEF would finance participatory biodiversity conservation training and investment program for communities located in the buffer zones of protected areas. (iv) Long-term finanicial sustaiiability of the PA system: IDA/GEF would support the emergence of a Foulidationl to be tasked with the financial management of the protected area system. A Trust Fund Steerinig Committee (TFSC) appointed by the Minister of the Environment in 2001 is currenitly workinig on the establishment of a trust fund for protected areas In Madagascar. This prospective trust fund will be managed by a Madagascar Protected Areas Founidation to be set up by the end of 2002 and will represent a pillar to the larger sustainiable finanice agenda. The Foundation is expected to lead to mobilizatioll of substantial fuLidinig necessary to gradually cover the core costs of the protected area network and its expansion, selected projects in support zones, and thc sustainable development of priority ecological corridors The proposed "Madagascar Protected Areas Foundation", would be established as a fouLidation under the Malagasy Foundation Law No 95-028. It is expected that the proposed Madagascar Protected Areas Foundationi would be established initially with 3 ISDS pledged seed money from WWF and Cf. Forest ecosystems management Under this component, the project would address the mountinig governance problems of the sector by (i) setting the concession rights allocation and fee collection system on a more competitive and transparenit footing, (ii) institutional capacity building, and (iii) improving the mandate and capacity of the forest sector observatory. The project would finance the fornulationi and implementation of forest zoninlg and managemenit plans, includinig the set-up of a viable eco-ceitificationi schemile. An important activity under this component, would be the transfer of forestry management rights to local communities under GELOSE/GCF contracts. The project would also puL-sue the creation of conservation sites, reforestation reserves (Reserves Foncieres pour le Reboisement, RFRs) and support reforestation and forestry management activities for carbon sequestrationl purposes. To reduce pressure on forest ecosystems, the project would also support introducing improved fuel wood management utilization practices as well as communication and extension activities ained inducilIg local populations to discontinue ecologically hanrful slash-anid burin practices These activities would be accompanied with the development and establishmenit of alternative energy sources (other than rural electrification) to reduce pressure on forest resources and lower green house gas emissions. Specific energy issues to be covered include among other: (i) fuelwood supply policy and "filiere" maniagement; (ii) charcoal supply policy, technology and "filiere" management, (iii) improved stoves; (iv) inter-fuel substitutioll options to (a)woodfuels and (b) imported petroleum-based household fuels; and, (v) other demand side manlagemenit support activities To allow for improved detection of forest fires, the project would set-up surveillance capacity based on satellite imagery. The project would stiminulate diversification of revenue-generating opportunities in critical eco-regions by launciiing a research and development program for non-wood forestry products. Finally, the project would support activities aimed at protecting and improving the management of wetlands under this component. Environmental Mainstreamning Under this componenit, the project would finance a series of st-ategic ElAs aimed at improving the consistenicy of environmental legislation and procedures across sectors and in line with interinational conventionls. To improve application of and complianice with environmental impact legislation and procedures (MECIE), the project would strengtheni existing environmental units in the sector ministries. To enilanice monitoring of environimental quality at the field level, the project would finance the establishment of a comprehelisive environmental management inlforimiationi system and support "greening" of the nationial accounts To ensure improved public support for the environment, the project would fiiiance a program of environmental education and communication. Under this componient, the project would also support numerous initiatives to put financinig for the environment on a more sustainable footing. First, the project would help establishing a trust fund for the national parks system. Second, the project would develop and help setting-up markets for environimienital services, coveriig areas sucih as bioprospectiig, carbon sequestrationi and the like Third, the project would support a program aimed at improving cost-efficiency of enviroiinmental institutions by streamlining and realigning existing structures Fourtil, the project would pursue initiatives aimed at "greening" the tax system so as to respectively maximize positive and nminimize negative external effects of taxation on the environment Fifth, the project would support the establishment of autoregulation mechanisms for environmienital management through eco-certification/labeling schemes, ISO certification etc. I A.4 Project Location: (Geographic location, inforimiationi about the key envirolimental and social characteristics of the area and population likely to be affected, and proximity to any protected areas, or sites or critical natural habitats, or any other cuiltul-ally or socially sensitive areas.) 4 ISDS Activities under the EP3 would be carried out in so-called Priority Intervenition Zones (ZPls). AlthougIl a final agreement about the definition of ZPls has not yet been reached, they are currently identified following four criteria (i) biodiversity importance, (ii) degree of pressure and threats, (ill) experience of previous project interventions; and (iv) dynamics of local and regional enviromnental initiatives. Based on these four criteria, the proposed intervenition area of the EP3 would cover up to 571 communILes (out of 1,359 or 42%), thereby encompassinig about 5 million people or about one-tlhird of the Malagasy population It would include the three major habitats that are commonly distinguished as key priorities for biodiversity conservation in Madagascar: (i) the dense, humnid forests of low and median altitudes; (iH) the dry forests in western Madagascar; and (iii) mangroves and coral reef resources. All existing protected areas (about 1.7 million ha or 3% of the counltry's surface) as well as future protected areas are covered under the ZPls. In addition, it includes the vast majority of the country's classified forests as well as about 3 million ha of forests that could potentially be transferred to communlities under corresponding managelmlenit contracts. However, because of criteria (iii) and (iv), it is felt that the ZPIs are defined too broadly and that there is scope to narrow them down, wvithout excludinig key conservation priorities. B. Clheck Environmenttal Classification: B (Partial Assessment) Comments Althoughi the previous phase of the Project had environimenital classification C, it is considered that for the proposed thilrd phase a category B designation wvould be more appropriate in light of identified social issues The project is being designed to ensure complianice with the requirements of the Bank umbrella policy on Environmental Assessment ( OP, BP and GP 4. 01, OP, BP and GP 4.04, GD 4.20 ). As the GoM is committed to the principle of "parks with people", relocation of people as stated in OP/BP 4 12. is not expected to take place. However, in order to guide restrictions of access to natural resources in protected areras, a resettlemenit process framework will be put in place in line with OP/BNP 4.12. OD 4 20 on indigenious people is considered applicable as far as the establishment of the Mikea forest protected area is concerned where a relatively small populationi referred to the as the "Mikea people" is locally and nationally recognized as being indigenious Despite the largely positive or reversible project impacts anticipated, submission of an EA and respective EMP is considered prudent to ensure confornmity with the aforementioned Bank Policy. The borrower submitted the draft EA in November 18, 2002 and will deliver a more complete draft early 2003. Key provisions of the EA will be incorporated within the project's operational manual whichi will be a condition of effectiveness. In view of the exclusively protective nature of the proposed forest related activities unlder the project, the actual applicable "old" version of OP4.36 would not be triggered. However, with the new OP4 36 launched shortly after the PCD Review Meeting of the project (on December 1 0, 2002), the intention of the task team would be to prepare the Forest Ecosystems Managemenit componenit in the spirit of the new OP. C. Safeguard Policies Triggered Policy Applicability Environlmiiental Assessmiient (OP/BP/GP 4.01) 0 Yes IC No C, TBD Natural Habitats (OP/BP/GP 4 04) * Yes C No C, TBD Forestry (OP/GP 4 36) CJ Yes * No C, TBD Pest Managemiient (OP 4.09) 0 Yes * No Q TBD Cultural Property (OPN 1 1.03) 0 Yes * No C, TBD Indigenous Peoples (OD 4 20) * Yes 0' No C TBD Involulitary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) * Yes No C TBD Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) ZYes *No C'TBD Projects in lnternationlal Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) 0 Yes * No TBD Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7 60)* C Yes * No C' TBD *By stuppor ting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties' clainms 5 ISDS on the dispuited areas Section II - Key Safeguard Issues and Their Management D. Suimmary of Key Safeguard Issues. Pleasefill in all relevant qluestions If information is not available, describe steps to be taken lo obtain necessary data II.D. la. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible ilmpacts Being a stand-alone environmenital operation, the project is specifically geared towards achieving a positive impact on the environmenit compared to the witilout situationi A draft EA prepared by the GoM pursuant to OP4.01 confirms that large-scale, significanit and/or- irreversible environimenital impacts are not expected The EA does point out a numiiber of relatively minor environmental and social issues that should be taken care of in the design of the project and its implementationl arrangements. Protected Areas Managemenit The project would actively pursue the conservation of natural habitats under the proposed protected areas component. Field activities ulider this component are small scale, involving the construction of guard posts, small buildings and trails in protected areas. There may be impacts from induced activities related to tourism developmenit in buffer zones. Sustainable economic activities planiled within buffer zones (e g. agro-ecological production, sustainable harvesting of non-timber products, bioprospecting activities, etc.) may also generate minor impacts. The issue of modifying protected areas' boundaries for the sake of improving the representativeness of the system in terms of ecosystems coverage as proposed tlider the project would trigger OP4 04 concerning Natural Habitats. As far as the establishmenit of new protected areas is concerned, this agenda is relatively limited ulider the project. It is proposed that three newv terrestrial protected areas would be established in Mikea, Anjozorobe, and Maorolambo. In addition, four new marine parks would be created, covering. Nosy -lara, Nosy Ve, Nosy Radama-Sahamalaza, aiid Belo-sur-Mer. Even thoughi existing revenue sharing and income and employment-generating activities should provide benrefits to local communities, there could be negative impacts affecting them in the short-term. These would include both the local poor who presently engage in clandestine exploitation of protected area resources and influenitial business interests who also benefit from these activities. Key potential negative impacts on these social groups may mnvolve- (i) restrictions on the use of natural resouices within protected areas, and (ii) the need to set up an agreement witlh local communities through transfer of management and/or any contiactual instrumenit to rationalize the use of public forest areas in buffer zones and corridor areas. The GoM is committed to the principle of "parks with people" and therefore no resettlement is expected to take place Therefore, in Ine with OP 4.12, a resettlemenit process framework would be developed as part of the project preparation process. Under this framework, the arrangemenits for compensation for loss of access and property to people within protected areas would be specified. The creation of the Mikea protected area requires special attention as the dry Mikea forest in the south-west of Madagascar is inhabited by the Mikea people who are generally considered as indigenous people with an identity linked to living in the forest and using forest resources as a means of subsistence Althoughi the livelihood of the Mikea people is being progressively redtIced throughi deforestation caused by in-moving migrants practicing slash-and-burin productioll practices and they stand to gain from improved protection of the Mikea forest under PA status, there is a need to ensure that corresponidinig PA managemenit plans and envisaged PA use (e.g. eco-tourism, bio-prospecting etc.) do recognize and are in line with the long-term interests of the Mikea people. In line with OP 4.20, an indigenous peoples development plan would be elaborated as part of the project preparation process so as to ensure that the establishment of the Mike forest protected area benefits the livelihood of the Mikea people in ways and 6 ISDS means that they themselves consider important. Forest Ecosystems Management As far as the forest ecosystems management component is concerned, the project is considered exclusively environmentally protective in that it seeks the conservation and sustainable management of natural forests with the active participation of communities throughi among other the transfer of management rights under GELOSE/GCF contracts The latter is expected to induce expansion of village and comimluniity-based plantationi efforts and the rehabilitationi of woodlands. The project aims at bringing logging activities under strict forest maniagement rules, full law enforcement, transparent procedures and active participation of local populationls. The project would not directly or indirectly stimulate, promote, encourage or finanice activities leading to increased levels of logging in Madagascar. The project would actively work to stop all commercial forest use activities that are conducted outside the framework of approved forest managemenlt plans. Consequenitly, negative impacts on those that are currently engaged in illegal logging activities are to be expected. The zoning plan would better clarify the challenge of maintaininlg the forest cover and the mandate and role of each stakeholder involved in the maniagemenit of a particular forest area. lf.D.I b. Describe any potential cumulative impacts due to application of more than one safeguard policy or due to multiple project component Cumulative impacts are not expected, except for the Mikea PA vli'ere construction of eco-tourism park infrastructure in the to be newly established Mikea Forest PA should be done in a manner so as to both conserve natural habitats as well as ensure the way of life of the Mikea people in accordance with their preferences. However, at this point in the project preparation process the scope and nature of eco-tourism infi-astructure in the area, if any, has not yet been determined Il.D.lc Describe any potential long term Impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area Long-term impacts are those that may be associated with induced activities related to tourism development in buffer zones. However, it would be quite a stretch to envisage at this point in time that the environmental impact of large-scale tourism infrastructure development would be among the most critical determinants of sustainable natural resource managemenit in PA buffer zones Besides, the GoM has already put in place enablling environmental legislation (MECIE) that calls for EA and corresponding mitigation measures in case such developments might be proposed at some point in the future. Another category of long tern impacts would be those that are associated with the sustainability of natural resources management Linder GELOSE/GCF contracts. Commullnity-based natural resources managemlienit has only been formalized and introduced in the recent past ulider the Environment Program. Althougil initial results are promisinig and positive, there is a need to ensure that transferred responsibilities represent an appropriately balanced mix of rights and obligations; and that existing institutional capacity of communities is adequate to meet obligations and enforce rights under GELOSE/GCF contracts This observation is also relevant concerninlg natural resources that are expected to be transferred to the private sector under concessionls lI.D.2. In light of 1, describe the proposed treatment of alternatives (if requiired) To address potential impacts, an Environmental Managemilent Plan would be developed during the project preparation process. As far as protected areas are concerned, the Plan would include: (i) a diagnosis of potential environmenital impacts due to infrastructure construction in protected areas, covering among other building ancd campsites, road and trail maintenance, ecotourism, (ii) a definitioni of preventative, corrective and compensatory measures to manage identified potential impacts, (iii) a specification of envirolimental criteria that would guide boundar-y re-delineating of protected areas; and (iv) a description of environilimenital assessmenlt procedures in protected areas As far as the financinlg of small sub-projects 7 ISDS in buffer zones are concerned, the Plan would incorporate environmiental screening procedures along the liies that are currently being applied by ANAE as well as the Bank supported Rural Development Support Project This Plan would subsequelntly form the basis for the implemenitation of site-specific environmental screening and assessments in relation to investimients that are proposed to be finaniced under the project as part of aniually agreed operative plans As far as identified social issues (resettlement, indigenotis peoples) are concerned, a social assessment will be carried out as part of the project preparation process. The assessment would. (i) examinle the social opportunities, constrainits and likely impacts relevant to the project; (ii) assess the role of key stakeliolders mainly commuLnities living in and around project areas in project design and implemiientationi; (in) identify and monitor the project's expected social development outcomes and social risks; and (iv) identify measures to mitigate adverse impacts and address social tensions and conflicts regarding mainly land and natural resource uses. 11 D.3. Describe arrangemenit for the borrower to address safeguard issues Systematic screening mechanisiims would be put in place for subprojects in buffer zones and in park tourism infrastructure. A transparent system of logging permits would be set-up in line with specifications of the corresponding forest managemilenit plan. Environmental units in sector ministries as well as the independenit Forest Observatory would be strengthiened so as to be better positioned to enforce environimental legislation on the groulid. Lastly, EA would be maiistreanied systematically in key sectors at national and decentralized levels (mining, fisheries, agriculture, livestock, minilng, tourism, forestry, industry, transport ) and managed by the corresponding environiment units. As far as social issues are concerned, the following measures would be developed during the project preparation process and subsequently put in place during implementationi. First, to ensure effective feedback concerning the application of the resettlemenit process framework and the Mikea indigenous peoples developmenit, the proposed M&E system of the Environment Program would include arrangements for participatory M&E assessments with relevant stakeholders. Second, an adequate conflict resolutioll system would be developed in close collaboration with all stakeholders concerned that would seek to resolve disputes througil mediation and arbitrage by an agreed third party Third, the Environment Program wouIld contract the necessary human resources to effectively deal with social Issues. Fourthi, restrictions of access to resources within newly established protected areas would be effectuated in line with the agreed resettlement process framework. 11 D.4 Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. The principal stakeholders of EP IIl will be the following (i) the commuLilties in the Priority Intervention Zones, (includinig the peripheral zones of PAs). Support will be provided to these communlities to enable them to become legally empowered to control access to their common resources, to protect these resources and to develop sustainable, commercially oriented, maniagemiient of these resources. (ii) The communlity-miianiageinenit structures will be key stakeholders as will user groups and the private sector businesses that transport, process and market the products coming from these managed resources. (iii) Voluntary, m,ulti-stakeholder, participatory planniniig structures (especially at regional, fivondronania and commune levels) focused on the Priority Intervention Zones (iv) Service delivery institutions like SAGE - especially those providing services to commnunities to assist them in developiig local capacities for planning, natural resource managemilenit, business managemenit and good governance. (v) The National Park Service (ANGAP). (vi) The Ministzy of Waters and Forests and the Directorate of Waters and Forest. (vii) The Miistry of the Environmenit. (viii) The National Office of the Environimilenit (ix) Inter-Ministerial Committee for Environiiient (CIME). (x) The National Council for the Environmenit (CN E). As the active participation of all interest groups with a stake in the manlagemilenit of natural resources is essential to the success of the project, a stakeholders analysis is being conducted to identify and analyze 8 ISDS the key stakeholders and plan for their participation in the design and implemenitationi of the project. Preliminary results of the stakeholders analysis have been used to develop the participatory approach described below As far as the management of protected areas is concerined, a key objective of the project would be to strengtheni the participation of local communities In the management of protected areas. For this purpose, the project aims to strengtheni and expand the Regional Orientationl Committees in wlhicih communities and ANGAP collaborate under a model of joit decision-makinig as far as the managemilenit of protected areas is concerned To facilitate collaboration between ANGAP and communities at a more strategic level, these Committees would select one or more representatives to ANGAP's Board of Directors As far as the management of forest ecosystems is concerned, the project aims to move aggressively in transferring the management of forest resources Linder GELOSE/GCFs arrangements Doing so would contribute to the empowermieit of local communities. To facilitate resolving conflicts about natural resources, the project would help establishing conflict resolution mechanisms that do not impose high transactioni costs on affected parties As far as the disclosure of safeguards policies is concerned, the draft EA report, corresponding Environmenital Managemiient Plan, the resettlement process framework, as well as the Mikea indigenous peoples development plan would be presented to the National Council of the Environimenlt for feedback. It would be presented and discussed among government agencies and donors that participate in the on-going second phase of the NEAP In addition, representatives from local governments as well civil society would be consulted throughi public events to be organized during the project preparation process. The EA documents: Environimenital Assessment, Environimental Managemilent Plan, Resettlement Process Framework, and Indigenous Peoples Development Plan will be disclosed In country and at the InfoShop prior to Appraisal E. Safeguardis Classification Category is determined by the higilest impact in any policy. Or on basis of cumulative impacts from multiple safeguards. Whenever an individual safeguard policy is triggered the provisionis of that policy apply. [ ] SI. - Significant, cullulative and/or irreversible impacts, or significanit technical and institutionial risks in management of one or more safeguard areas [X] S2 - One or more safeguard policies are triggered, but effects are limited in their impact and are technically and institutionally manageable [ ] S3. -No safeguard issues [ ] SF. - Finanicial intermediary projects, social development funds, communlity driven development or similar projects which require a safeguard framework or programmatic approacih to address safeguard issues F. Disclosure Requirenents Environmental Asse.ssment/An7alysis/Mancagemiienit Plan. Expected Actulal Date of receipt by the Bank 3/31/2003 Date of "in-country" disclosure 4/30/2003 Date of submission to InfoShop 5/30/2003 Date of distributing the Exec Summary of the EA to the ED Not Applicable Not Applicable (For categomy A projectss) ResettlemiientActcon7 Plan/Fi-citneivork: Expected Actutal 9 ISDS Date of receipt by the Bank 3/31/2003 Date of "in-country" disclosure 4/30/2003 Date of submission to lnfoSlhop 5/30/2003 Indigenous Peoples Development Plan?/Franmewvork. Expectecl Actual Date of receipt by the Bank 3/31/2003 Date of "in-country" disclosure 4/30/2003 Date of submission to InfoShop 5/30/2003 Pest Management Plan Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Not Applicable Date of "in-couLntry" disclosure Not Applicable Not Applicable Date of submission to InfoShop Not Applicable Not Applicable Dam Safety Management Plan. Expected Actual Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Not Applicable Date of "in-country" disclosure Not Applicable Not Applicable Date of submissioni to InfoShop Not Applicable Not Applicable If in-country disclosLire of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why Signed and submitted by Name Date Task Team Leader: Martien Van Nieuwkoop 01/30/2003 Project Safeguards Specialists 1 Project Safeguards Specialists 2. Project Safeguards Specialists 3. Approved by: Name Date Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Charlotte S Binghamii 01/31/2003 Sector Manager/Director. Richard G. Scobey 01/31/2003 For a list of World Bank news releases on projects and reports, click here JEAFRCH __ FEEDBACK _ L srrE MAP ; 5HOWCA^SE