Page 1 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 02/28/2008 Report No.: AC3344 1. Basic Project Data Country: Iraq Project ID: P109296 Project Name: IQ-EMERGENCY COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE REHAB ADDITIONAL FINANCING Task Team Leader: Ahmed Shawky M. Abdel Ghany Estimated Appraisal Date: January 24, 2008 Estimated Board Date: March 25, 2008 Managing Unit: MNSSD Lending Instrument: Emergency Recovery Loan Sector: Irrigation and drainage (75%);Water supply (25%) Theme: Other social development (P);Rural services and infrastructure (S) SPF Amount (US$m): 0.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: Borrower 0.00 Iraq Reconstruction Trust Fund 26.00 26.00 Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [X] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies) Yes [X] No [ ] 2. Project Objectives Iraq water sector has been plunged into crisis, with dramatic effect on the incomes and health status of the Iraqi people. The lack of preventative maintenance since the 1980s and the heavy dependence on public budgetary support have both diminished the effectiveness of service organizations to meet the day-to-day needs of households and farmers. The normal response in such a human and economic crisis is to invest in infrastructure, and this is clearly imperative for Iraq’sdegraded water assets. Further, global experience with post-conflict situations shows that the crisis provides an opportunity for instituting sensible reforms on the policy front. The Bank’s line counterpart mandated to address rural water and irrigation services has been the Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR). The Bank, through the multi-donor Iraq Trust Funds (ITF) program, has been supporting MOWR since September 2004 through the ECIRP, with the size of US$20 million, implemented through a Project Management Team (PMT) of MOWR. The ECIRP was effective in December 2004 and due to close on March 31, 2008. The additional financing requires extending the closing date to December 31, 2010. Page 2 The overall development objective of the ECIRP is to finance emergency water rehabilitation works in rural areas of Iraq. The ECIRP will employ a flexible programmatic approach and also develop feasibility studies for expanding future interventions. To the extent possible, community involvement will be encouraged and technical assistance will be provided to strengthen the capacity of local institutions. The three specific objectives of the Project are: (i) to restore some of the basic small- scale water supply and drainage facilities in the rural areas that are currently in a damaged state and causing hardship to the rural inhabitants; (ii) to carry out the restoration works in a manner that creates short-term employment in communities where the sub-projects are located; and (iii) to increase community involvement in small- scale water infrastructure rehabilitation that will eventually result in decentralization through community planning, implementation and operation and maintenance of these infrastructures. These objectives are to be accomplished by means of piloting and financing labor- intensive civil work programs in the form of many small sub-projects that are based on immediate infrastructure rehabilitation needs and priorities of communities particularly those located in low-income areas. The principal outputs of the project would thus be: (i) increased short-term employment in project areas; (ii) improved access to community infrastructure and services; (iii) enhanced capacity to implement infrastructure programs; and (iv) increased private sector activity in rural areas through opportunities for local contractors and suppliers. Project Approach and Description The ECIRP became effective in December 2004 and is due to close on December 31, 2008. The project employs a flexible programmatic approach that allows interventions to adapt to the changing realities on the ground and to the interventions of other donors. Although the project’s focus is on job creation and local socioeconomic impact, it helped lay the groundwork for irrigation and drainage sector rehabilitation and reform. Project Development Objective (PDO) and Description: ECIRP aims to generate near- term employment while addressing urgent rural infrastructure rehabilitation needs. It is designed through a flexible program of labor-intensive civil works to restore and improve rural water supply and irrigation infrastructure. The project finances 22 civil-work subprojects and 11 goods contracts, and few consultancy contracts (for auditing and training). Geographic Coverage: The project benefits thirteen governorates including the Kurdistan region: Al Muthana, Baghdad, Thi-Qar, Sulaymaniyah, Wasset, Najaf, Diyala, Karbala, Erbil, Salahuddin, Babel, Dahook and El-Qadisiah. Project Costs by Category of Expenditure: Page 3 1. Civil works in 13 governorates (22 contracts): US$17 million; 2. Related goods and equipments, e.g., earthmoving equipment and vehicles (11 contracts): US$2.3 million; and 3. Project management and training: US$0.7 million. Reallocations and changes in scope: In December 2005, and upon the MoWR request, a re-allocation of the TF proceeds was undertaken. The disbursement categories covering consultancy services and project management were rationalized in favor of the civil-works category. The aim was to increase the impact on the ground and provide more employment opportunities in rural areas. Overall, there have been cost savings achieved throughout the course of project implementation, which enabled the project to finance two additional civil-work subprojects, beyond what has been agreed upon amid the appraisal and negotiation. Two minor reallocations took place in May 2006 and January 2008 to cater for few additional expenses related to civil works (i.e., the Variation Orders). The closing date has recently been extended from June 30, 2007 to December 31, 2008 to allow sufficient time to complete few civil-work contracts plus a major goods contract (earthmoving equipments imported from Japan). Implementation Arrangements: The Iraq Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation (MOPDC) reviewed ECIRP and, through the Iraq Strategic Review Board (ISRB), ensured harmonization with the programs of the other donors. The MoWR has been implementing ECIRP through its Project Management Team (PMT) housed in MoWR in Baghdad. Subproject designs have been performed by MoWR in Baghdad through consultation with its regional directorates respective to each subproject. The day-to-day supervision of subproject activities has been undertaken by the resident staff of MoWR’s regional directorates, with occasional oversight through the field visits made by the PMT. The agricultural data, both for subproject design and for Monitoring and Evaluation, have been obtained by MoWR in coordination with the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and with the General Directorate of Agriculture and Water of MOPDC. The Bank task team, assisted by the Fiduciary Monitoring Agent (FMA) , has been regularly supervising the project (in Amman, Cairo or Beirut) through meeting the PMT and their peers in the other pertinent ministries. The Bank’s supervisionhas been supported by a Satellite Imagery System developed through the MNSSD and the task team. This system involved extensive “leg work” (by national consultants) for “ground truthing”, followed by procuring and processing of satellite images and vetting these images against the corresponding digital photos taken during the ground truthing. The processed and analyzed images and photos attested to the satisfactory impact of the project. A sample of the results is provided on the images presented in Annex 6. Outputs and outcomes achieved to date: The project finances 22 rehabilitation subprojects (for irrigation, drainage and rural water supply), of which 20 subprojects are Page 4 already completed and 2 are expected to be completed by early 2008.The project also finances 11 goods/equipment contracts, of which 10 have been procured. Total contract commitments and disbursements reached 100% and 80% respectively. As for impacts on the ground, the project is progressing toward meeting fully the PDO targets by the spring of 2008. Thus far the project: 1. Created an estimated 176,000 man-days of local employment against a completion- date target of 181,000; 2. Improved an estimated 70,000 hectares of irrigated areas (e.g., referred to by the sample images in Annex 6) against a completion-date target of 89,000 hectares; 3. Benefited about 121,000 of end beneficiaries, against a completion-date target of 153,000; and 4. Achieved an average of 7 bidders per contract, indicating a competitive procurement environment. This importantly contributes to the development of Iraq’s Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). 3. Project Description Description of the Grant Additional Financing (GAF-ECIRP) The GAF-ECIRP will contribute to the socio-economic recovery of the rural poor, through aiming at Project Development Objectives (PDOs) similar to the current phase: 1. Urgent restoration of the irrigation, drainage and rural-water supply infrastructure; 2. Fast creation of local employment. There will be small improvements as to project design and implementation (including procurement and FM), not entailing project restructuring. These improvements aim to further expedite implementation, enhance decentralization, improve impacts and ownership of the end beneficiaries, and improve the capacity of MoWR. The same components and disbursement categories as of the ongoing project will be used. The additional financing will implicate no changes as to safeguards (i.e., as to the Environmental and Social Screening and Assessment Framework, ESSAF, revised in August 2005). The GAF-ECIRP closing date will be June 30, 2010, six months prior to the ITF closing date (as required by Bank policy). 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis Like the current phase of ECIRP, the activities financed by GAF-ECIRP will be implemented in a number of governorates across the north, middle and south of Iraq. The size of each subproject will range from US$1 to US$2 million. Borrower’s Institutional Capacity for Safeguard Policies Technical Assistance and Capacity Building activities in the context of the environmental and social safeguards are included in the Project Management and Capacity Building component. These comprise environmental and social studies covering areas such as Assessment of Related Environmental Regulations in Iraq, Monitoring and Page 5 Enforcement Capabilities, Development of TORs for Monitoring Department in charge of Enforcement of Environmental and Social Safeguards, etc. Training on various topics such as Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Auditing and Site Remediation has been provided before and after effectiveness. The training has been conducted through classrooms, seminars, workshops on-the-job training, and coaching. There is also a provision for consultancy services as needs arise. Such services could include preparing Baseline Studies, conducting EIAs and preparing EMPs (if any). In that respect, two departments of the MOWR (besides the PMT) have been capacitated towards meeting their mandates in relation to the current project and the potential pipeline projects. The two are the Environmental Analysis Center (which will be notified with sub-project identification and entrusted with co-review of Designs and Drawings), and the Environmental Policy & Compliance department (that would provide inputs on preliminary project estimates and screening, and co-approves the final technical, economical, and enviro-social appraisals). Capacity Building on the safeguards and on the Environmental and Social Screening and Assessment Framework (ESSAF) took place in March 2004 with the Ministry of the Environment and the environmental units in the line ministries (assigned Focal Points by the line ministries). During the pre-appraisal mission in May 2004 further capacity building has been carried out (one-to-one meetings and a general plenary session) with all the participants from the MOWR and the Ministry of Municipalities and Public Works, as well as with two potential consulting firms. During the appraisal mission for the Additional Financing part, the Bank Task Team informed the PMT with the revised version of ESSAF (revised September 2005). A training budget will be included as a line item in the project budget. For the Social sub- sector the MNSSD Social Development Group has completed a Social Analysis of Iraq and prepared a tool set to develop participatory development. TA and Capacity Building activities may target community representatives to be trained in the principles of participatory approach, community development, empowerment and improved governance. Training-the-Trainers sessions could also be included. Special attention should be paid to the consultation process with communities/beneficiaries provided in the ESSAF as well as the "good practice" of undertaking Social Assessments (SAs) to define and target beneficiaries, and to sharpen and realize the social outcomes of the project. Since the communities are not primarily consulted in selecting the interventions, SA becomes rather needed to understand how best the communities could be involved. As the project is not a CDD type, a good practice is to engage the communities in: (1) co-superintending the contractors, thus ensuring transparency and standards, and (2) sharing the M&E with the PMT, thus verifying the project outputs towards meeting its D.O. Engaging communities/beneficiaries would be effectuated through strengthening and mobilizing the outreach functions of MOWR Directorates, within the Regional Governorates. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Mr Colin S. Scott (MNSSD) Page 6 Ms Dahlia Lotayef (MNSSD) 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 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 Project recognizes the emergency nature of the proposed relief and reconstruction interventions, and the related need for immediate assistance, while at the same time ensures due diligence in managing potential environmental and social risks. The proposed additional financing operation will be used in executing a number of small- scale rehabilitation subprojects, each in the range of US$2,000,000 maximum. These subprojects are anticipated to have no major environmental or social impacts. Furthermore, the proposed Project is being processed under emergency procedures OP 8.00, and the environmental and social safeguard assessments are expected to be carried out during implementation under an environmental and social safeguards framework (revised ESSAF), which has been specifically tuned for the Iraq situation and has already been disclosed in Iraq and in the Bank’s InfoShop. The proposed Additional Financing, as compared to the ongoing project, will implicate no changes as to ESSAF. For preparation and appraisal of each subproject financed through the Additional Financing, the client has been responsible for: (1) vetting the subproject against ESSAF, (2) explaining how to address the safeguards issues if any, and (3) sharing the results with the Bank towards completing the appraisal. Post project effectiveness, and to account for any safeguards issue that may emerge after starting the field works, the client is to insert the related clauses (Attachment #2 of the revised ESSAF) in the respective civil- work biding documents, thus mandating the contractor to address this issue. Environmental Assessment and Safeguards The project supports localized/small-scale rehabilitation of exiting rural irrigation/WS&S facilities (as opposed to infrastructure development or canal realignment/expansion), whereas, it supports the development of feasibility studies for pipeline infrastructure projects. As such, the current project is rated as a Category B. Recognizing the emergency nature of the proposed relief and reconstruction operation, Page 7 the need for providing immediate assistance and at the same time to ensure due diligence, the Environmental and Social Screening and Assessment Framework (ESSAF) that has been developed for Iraq will be applied. The Ministry of Water Resources will be responsible for applying safeguard screening and mitigation requirements in its own sub- projects. A Safeguards Focal Point (SFP) will be identified with responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the framework. Social Safeguards Social safeguards are not likely triggered within the current project, but again, the provisions in the ESSAF ought to be perused to ensure compliance should any issues of cultural property, resettlement, land acquisition, or restriction of access to resources arise during preparation and appraisal of each subproject. In case rehabilitation would require re-alignment of the irrigation and drainage schemes, the revised ESSAF stipulates that all subprojects operate in public domains and in lands free of squatters. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: 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 preparation/appraisal and implementation procedures of the Grant Additional Financing for ECIRP (GAF-ECIRP) are consistent with the new World Bank OP/BP 8.0 for “Rapid Responses to Crises and Emergencies” (replacing OP/BP 8.5 for “Emergency Recovery Assistance”, based on which ECIRP was prepared and implemented).For screening and appraising the proposed subprojects as to the social and environmental aspects, the MoWR (through consulting the respective regional directorate) submitted to the Bank the aforementioned Annex 1 for each subproject (see sample in Annex 2 of this Project Paper). The assessment indicated that GAF-ECIRP will entail no significant changes as to social and environmental safeguards (i.e., re the ESSAF as provided in Annex 4). Category “A” is not triggered because: (i) all subprojects under GAF-ECIRP involve rehabilitation of existing structures, without development of new structures; (ii) there are no dams or headworks higher than five meters; and (iii) the triggers and thresholds implied in “Attachment 1” of the revised ESSAF (i.e., on Irrigation, Drainage, Aquaculture, Marine Culture, River Basin Management, and Land Reclamation or New land Development) will not apply. The environmental safeguards category therefore remains “B”. Page 8 The MoWR/PMT will continue to address the ESSAF by including the revised “Attachment #2” within the Technical Specifications of the civil works bidding documents. The Regional Engineer responsible for overseeing the construction works is also responsible (being the Safeguards Specialist on the PMT) for ensuring that the ESSAF provisions are addressed by the contractor and by the pertinent MoWR regional directorate. In that respect he/she may occasionally need to coordinate with the Ministry of Environment through the two environmental arms of MoWR: • The Environmental Analysis Center of MoWR; and • The Environmental Policy & Compliance Unit of MoWR. For sub-projects with potential adverse impacts, a limited Environmental Analysis will be done during project implementation as needs arise. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. The ESSAF, as revised by the Bank in August 2005, has implied that no works can be executed in private lands, and that adverse impacts on cultural properties should be averted, both of which are the case in ECIRP and its additional financing. The ESSAF, as revised by the Bank in August 2005, has implied that no works can be executed in private lands, and that adverse impacts on cultural properties should be averted, both of which are the case in GAF-ECIRP. Moreover, the PMT consulted the farmer representatives and other decentralized entities on the designs and objectives of the proposed subprojects, and obtained their signature off each respective subproject, which signaled their consent to its design and objectives. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 07/21/2004 Date of "in-country" disclosure 07/21/2004 Date of submission to InfoShop 07/23/2004 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 Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop 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 Page 9 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: OP/BP 8.0 for “Rapid Responses to Crises and Emergencies” 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? No If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? N/A Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? Yes 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 Page 10 D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Mr Ahmed Shawky M. Abdel Ghany 02/26/2008 Environmental Specialist: Ms Samia Al-Duaij 02/27/2008 Social Development Specialist Ms Laila Al-Hamad 02/27/2008 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Mr Hocine Chalal 02/27/2008 Comments: Sector Manager: Mr Narasimham Vijay Jagannathan 02/27/2008 Comments: