INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET ADDITIONAL FINANCING Report No.: ISDSA8013 Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 11-Mar-2014 Date ISDS Approved/Disclosed: 11-Mar-2014 I. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Basic Project Data Country: Azerbaijan Project ID: P147861 Parent P122944 Project ID: Project Name: Second Rural Investment Project Additional Financing (P147861) Parent Project Second Rural Investment Project (P122944) Name: Task Team Daniel P. Owen Leader: Estimated 10-Mar-2014 Estimated 30-May-2014 Appraisal Date: Board Date: Managing Unit: ECSSO Lending Investment Project Financing Instrument: Sector(s): Rural and Inter-Urban Roads and Highways (40%), Other social services (30%), General water, sanitation and flood protection sector ( 30%) Theme(s): Rural services and infrastructure (60%), Participation and civic engagement (15%), Gender (10%), Social Inclusion (8%), Rural non-fa rm income generation (7%) Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP No 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies)? Financing (In USD Million) Total Project Cost: 50.00 Total Bank Financing: 50.00 Financing Gap: 0.00 Financing Source Amount Borrower 0.00 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 50.00 Total 50.00 Environmental B - Partial Assessment Category: Is this a Yes Repeater project? Page 1 of 7 2. Project Development Objective(s) A. Original Project Development Objectives – Parent B. Current Project Development Objectives – Parent C. Proposed Project Development Objectives – Additional Financing (AF) 3. Project Description The original project is a multi-sector investment loan that scales up AzRIP both geographically into currently un-serviced Rayons and vertically through the inc lusion of second generation institutional support in previous AzRIP active proje ct areas. The original project has three components: Component A - Rural Community Infrastructure. This component will support demand-driven micro-projects (MPs) in rural infrastructure. Potential investments incl ude basic economic (e.g., rehabilitation of secondary roads, potable water syste ms, irrigation infrastructure, electricity transformers) and social (e.g., schoo l and clinic rehabilitation and construction) infrastructure, based on priority needs identified by communities. The average size of MPs will be US$ 70,000, while MPs over US$85,000 will r equire prior review. Component B - Technical Assistance for Rural Infrastructure. This component will fund support services for micro project implementation as well livelihood suppo rt services (SWOT analysis, business plan preparation, legal and institutional a nalysis, business training). Component C - Project Management and Results Monitoring. This component will finance the administrative and operational project implementation and management co sts. The proposed Additional Financing (AF) would comprise three components which are: (i) to extend delivery of community rural infrastructure to 2 new Rayons and t o provide additional grants toexisting AzRIP communities; (ii) to scale up the l ivelihood pilots; (iii) to pilot a connector roads concept, with clusters of com munities and a focus on local connecting roads under the jurisdiction of the Mun icipality. 4. Project location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis (if known) The coverage for the original Project scales up the previous Project to encompass the 11 currently un-serviced rayons and include 56 rayons in total. With the o riginal project envelope of roughly US$ 30 million, the project can support appr oximately 650 sub-projects in 650 communities. Given the almost nationwide cover age of the project, activities take place in all of the Country's agro-ecologica l zones (Lowland Plains, Upland Rainfed, and Highlands). The AF will expand to c Page 2 of 7 urrently unservices areas in Fizuli and Agdam. An additional 4 to 6 areas will b e selected to participate in the connector road pilot scheme, connecting communi ties within rayons. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Gulana Enar Hajiyeva (ECSEN) Kosuke Anan (ECSSO) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered? Explanation (Optional) Environmental Assessment OP/ Yes Due to the scale and nature of the eligible micro- BP 4.01 projects, the project is not expected to result in significant environmental impacts. Instead, the experience with the activities under the original project indicates that many of the micro-projects produced environmental benefits (for example, reduction in erosion through proper road rehabilitation or small-scale wastewater treatment.) Since the micro-projects for AZRIP II are not pre-identified, specific environmental impacts will only be identified in the course of project implementation. Therefore, a framework mechanism for screening environmental impacts, developing mitigation plans and monitoring environmental progress is required. Examples of potential environmental impacts include excessive dust or noise during construction/ rehabilitation, the removal or disturbance of natural vegetation, waste disposal and the aesthetic degradation of a landscape. Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 No The project will not finance activities which would involve conversion of natural habitats. Forests OP/BP 4.36 No The project will not finance activities which would involve conversion or use of forests. Pest Management OP 4.09 No The project will not provide financing for pesticides or for activities likely to lead to increased pesticide use. Physical Cultural Resources OP/ No The project will not finance activities on cultural BP 4.11 sensitive sites or sites of archeological importance. The Environmental Management Framework will contain provisions for chance finds. Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 No Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP No The project will not finance activities that will 4.12 require land acquisition or the displacement of livelihoods or residences. Page 3 of 7 Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 No Projects on International Yes Since small scale irrigation schemes are eligible Waterways OP/BP 7.50 for financing under the project, the policy on international waters is triggered. Riparian states have been notified accordingly when processing the original AzRIP-2. Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP No 7.60 II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues 1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: The original project does not raise any significant adverse environmental concerns. Experience derived from the first and second AzRIP indicates that positive e nvironmental impacts resulted from the implementation of such micro-projects as improved irrigation, water supply and sewerage systems. The potentially adverse environmental impacts of AzRIP-2 are mainly associated with civil works during micro-projects implementation, and include, inter alia, dust, noise, soil and water pollution, generation of waste materials, waste disposal (including medical waste), damage to soil by excavation works. Environmental Assessment. These potential negative environmental impacts trigger the Operational Policy OP 4.01. The impacts are minor and can be prevented or minimized through appropriate preventive actions and mitigation measures. Therefore, the project is classified as environmental category "B", requiring partial assessment. Since micro-projects were not pre-identified and are determined in the course of project implementation by applicant communities through intensive participatory processes, an environmental management framework is applied which establishes screening mechanisms and governs the process of development and implementation of specific mitigation plans. The Environmental Management Framework for the first AzRIP was updated by the Borrower to address impacts from the AZRIP 2 activities to strengthen rural livelihoods and to reflect the expanded geographical coverage. This updated framework includes screening mechanisms to exclude the possibility of land acquisition and resettlement resulting from sub- project implementation. The updated EMF for the original project has been discussed with stakeholders and publicly disclosed by the Borrower. For the purposes of the AF the EMF has been updated again to reflect the expanded geographical coverage and been subject to public consultation. Projects in International Waters. As was the case with AzRIP and AzRIP-2, the AF will support activities on rehabilitation or construction of irrigation and drainage systems,water supply improvement and wastewater treatment. Such activities are likely to be developed inter- alia on rivers flowing into theCaspian Sea and trans boundary rivers, which are international waterways for the purposes of the World Bank Operational Policy on Projects on International Waters (OP 7.50). It is expected (and also based on the experience under the original project) that proposed micro-projects would not Page 4 of 7 produce a noticeable change for the abstraction volumes of the systems and would not have an adverse change to the quality or quantity of river flows, while the works would not change the nature of the original systems. With OP 7.50 being triggered, riparian states have been notified accordingly when processing the original AzRIP-2. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: The long-term and indirect impacts are expected to be highly positive as will result from better rural communal services and infrastructure such as safe drinking water, better sewage systems, etc. 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 AF will be implemented by the same PMU which is implementing AzRIP-2 and was implementing AzRIP and AzRIP Additional Financing.Capacity for the EMF implementation has been built under the previous projects through series of training regularly provided to thePMU, its Regional Offices and potential beneficiary communities. The PMU Environmental Specialist is responsible for training delivery, assists the Regional Offices and applicant communities throughout the whole cycle of micro-project development and implementation and closely supervises implementation of specific preventive and mitigation measures by project beneficiaries. As a result of the implementation of capacity building assistance, the PMU staff i n the Regional Offices are competent to guide project applicants as to the eligibility of proposed activity from the environmental perspective, to provide advice on environmental documents and permits to be prepared/obtained by applicants. The Environmental Specialist is screening all the proposals for potential adverse impacts and provides guidance at a very early stage of preparation of proposals with respect to site assessment and selection, potential environmental sensitivities and alternative solutions, if any. Only those micro-project proposals meeting all the environmental requirements (no sensitivities identified at the early stage, specific EMPs available and of good quality, permits obtained) are cleared for further evaluation. Each micro-project has been supervised by the Environmental Specialist at least twice during the implementation period. Micro project completion is certified by the Environmental Specialist, along with other technical specialists of the PMU. Close supervision of micro projects has ensured that proposed mitigation measures are properly implemented by contractors and communities (e.g., proper site selection, quick removal and disposal of construction and medical wastes, non-use of toxic materials in construction). The awareness-raising seminars among potential beneficiaries have been periodically undertaken in the project area and have significantly improved communities' understanding o f, and commitment to environmental compliance. Community members with appropriate background (medical, biological) are selected to monitor contractors' environmental performance. The same good practice will continue under AzRIP-2 AF. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. The primary stakeholders driving this project are the communities themselves, who are actively supported in identifying, selecting,planning, implementing and maintaining infrastructure micro- projects. Public meetings were held in March 2011 at the rayon level for disclosure of the EMF for the original AzRIP-2. The consultation meetings were attended by representatives from communities, municipalities, the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, Regional NGOs and Regional ExComms of the areas where the Project will be active. The updated EMF has been Page 5 of 7 publicly disclosed on March 6th and 7th, 2014. The updated EMF will be posted onthe official site of the implementing agency, prior to the AF appraisal. B. Disclosure Requirements Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other Date of receipt by the Bank 07-Mar-2014 Date of submission to InfoShop 07-Mar-2014 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors "In country" Disclosure Azerbaijan 04-Mar-2011 Comments: The EMPF for the original project AzRIP 2 P122944 was duly disclosed on 04/15/2011. The EMPF updated for the purposes of the Additional Financing was disclosed in-country at the public consultation meetings held during between March 4 and 7, 2014. 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 OP/BP/GP 4.01 - Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] report? If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] in the credit/loan? OP 7.50 - Projects on International Waterways Have the other riparians been notified of the project? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] If the project falls under one of the exceptions to the Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] notification requirement, has this been cleared with the Legal Department, and the memo to the RVP prepared and sent? Has the RVP approved such an exception? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] World Bank's Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] place in a form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? All Safeguard Policies Page 6 of 7 Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] in the project cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? III. APPROVALS Task Team Leader: Name: Daniel P. Owen Approved By Regional Safeguards Name: Agnes I. Kiss (RSA) Date: 10-Mar-2014 Advisor: Sector Manager: Name: Elisabeth Huybens (SM) Date: 11-Mar-2014 Page 7 of 7