Page 1 INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 03/02/2010 Report No.: AC5003 1. Basic Project Data Original Project ID: P073488 Original Project Name: ARMM Social Fund Project Country: Philippines Project ID: P118910 Project Name: ARMM Social Fund Project Task Team Leader: Mary P. Judd Estimated Appraisal Date: March 4, 2010 Estimated Board Date: May 25, 2010 Managing Unit: EASPS Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Other social services (100%) Theme: Conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction (40%);Other rural development (35%);Participation and civic engagement (25%) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 30.00 IDA Amount (US$m.): 0.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: Borrower 8.86 8.86 Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [X] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies) Yes [ ] No [X] 2. Project Objectives The development goal of the proposed Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao Social Fund Project Additional Financing, herein after known as the ARMM Social Fund (ASF) Project is to improve the welfare of people and support mechanisms for the promotion of a peaceful environment in the conflict-affected areas in the ARMM Region. Specific project objectives relating to targeted communities are to: (a) improve access to social and economic infrastructure and livelihood opportunities; (b) strengthen social cohesion and partnerships between and within targeted communities; and (c) improve local governance and institutional capacities for implementation in the ARMM Region, with a focus on improved transparency and accountability in the allocation and management of public resources by the participating communities, local government units (LGU) and ARMM Regional Government. 3. Project Description The project has the following components: Page 2 Community Development Assistance (CDA): This component aims to provide opportunities to community groups for increased participation in implementing and managing subprojects addressing their priority socio-economic needs. The subprojects will be selected from an open menu derived from a needs assessment by communities themselves in Mindanao, and will be formulated within the framework of a prioritized community plan and an allocation ceiling to be phased in tranches. The proposed approach will involve community management of funds accompanied by various accountability mechanisms to ensure efficient and transparent use of funds, to empower and benefit vulnerable target groups including men, women and out-of school youth. Institutional Strengthening and Governance (ISG): This component supports a strong information, education and information component including regular workshops and media sessions on the good governance aspect of a community-driven development approach. Another aspect of ISG is institutional strengthening to promote improved governance in ARMM, LGUs and other partner institutions; technical assistance provided to ARMM municipalities and will include training on participatory multi-year planning, financial management and procurement. ISG also supports project management of ASF with a small core of technical staff. This component activity will continue to promote open, transparent and accountability processes and mechanisms into the ARMM administration. LGUs will also receive capacity building assistance in improving local governance through training on participatory barangay development planning, financial management, procurement and CDD approaches. The component will organize cross-visits to expose ARMM and LGU officials to best practices in local governance and public service delivery in other regions. A strong information advocacy and dissemination program throughout ARMM will be promoted. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis The Project is located in all five provinces of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao of the Southern Philippines, covering about 20% of Mindanao's main island in terms of land area and population (or about 4 million persons). The people benefitting from the project will be mainly Muslim groups in the rural areas. There are Indigenous Peoples living among the Muslims who have either intermarried or converted to Islam. There are a minority of Christians settlers (from other parts of the Philippines) living in the Muslim communities. The Muslims consider themselves mainstream ethnic groups and not as Indigenous Peoples. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Mr Roberto B. Tordecilla (EASPS) Mr Gerardo F. Parco (EASPS) Page 3 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 will not have any large scale or irreversible impacts. The typical sub-projects, such as, rehabilitation and construction of small-scale community infrastructure (e.g., classrooms, daycare centers, concrete tire paths, health posts, community meeting places, and simple water supply systems) and livelihood activities have minimal adverse environmental and social impacts. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: No negative impact foreseen. Potential long-term positive impact includes the re-building of trust and social capital among community members in a conflict-affected area of Mindanao. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. NA 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. Potential for adverse environmental impact will continue to be closely monitored as in the original loan. Under local regulations by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), most of these projects are not considered to be critical. Some of the projects have also been classified as Not Covered, and therefore does not require any government permit. The environmental and social safeguards staff of the Project does the initial screening of the projects and coordinates with the DENR in the event that a sub- project would require local environmental permits. A negative list from the Project already prohibits certain items outright, such as, purchase of chainsaws and explosives, financing of sawmills, purchase of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, asbestos and other potentially and dangerous materials and equipment, purchase of motorized fishing boats and equipment/materials related to dynamite fishing, and road rehabilitation or Page 4 construction into protected areas. The People#s Organization receives training and conducts a screening of the environmental impact of the particular sub-project. The Municipal Multi-sectoral Committee appraises the sub-project proposals including a review of all the screening and required safeguard documents. The Bank#s supervision also monitors the safeguards aspects of the Project by making field visits to a sample of sub-projects. In the original loan, care was taken to ensure indigenous people (IP) were adequately represented and their needs addressed through community planning processes. As in the original loan, the additional financing will ensure that IP groups are part of the beneficiaries in the overall project, especially in the sub-component of Literacy, Livelihood and Food Sufficiency. The Project also ensures that they are active participants in the community planning and sub-project identification and management processes. Baseline survey of the project community collects ethnic affiliation information and it helps community design its sub-projects accordingly. The Municipal Multi-sectoral Committee, that appraises community proposals, includes an IP representative in its 9 member committee. The community sub-projects have little or no impacts on involuntary resettlement. Community participation in site selection proved to be helpful in avoiding conflict with land ownership and location of sub-projects. Particular attention was given to ensuring that all land used for the sub-projects was covered by an official deed of donation and that such were recorded correctly. The attention to social safeguard issues has been guided by a detailed operations manual. The same attention including regular safeguards training and monitoring will be continued in the new phase of the project. Similarly, as in the environmental safeguards above, a negative list from the Project already prohibits certain items outright, such as, projects requiring resettlement or displacement of people. The People#s Organization receives training and conducts a screening of the resettlement impact of the particular sub-project. The Municipal Multi-sectoral Committee appraises the sub-project proposals including a review of all the screening and required safeguard documents, such as a deed of donation for land, usually from the village administration or from a wealthy landowner in the community. Any sub-project proposal without the required documents will not be funded. The staff of ARMM Dept of Social Welfare and Development has the capacity to implement the safeguard policies and all sub-project proposals are reviewed for proper mitigation and/or deed of land donation, if appropriate, before approval is provided. The project has had a full time dedicated staff for environmental and social safeguards since the early years of the implementation. He has benefited from numerous training and safeguard forum organized by the Bank. He will continue to be part of the project staff in the AF phase. Page 5 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 the communities in ARMM as well as the Local Government Units (LGUs). The Project has a very strong Information, Education and Communication (IEC) component. The Project provides IEC material, orientation and training on safeguards to the communities during the initial step of community mobilization. There are monthly meetings with LGUs where Project information is provided. This includes information on safeguards. Regular newsletters and radio addresses are also provided about the Project, including safeguards. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 01/25/2010 Date of "in-country" disclosure 02/09/2010 Date of submission to InfoShop 03/02/2001 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 01/29/2010 Date of "in-country" disclosure 02/09/2010 Date of submission to InfoShop 03/02/2010 Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 02/09/2001 Date of "in-country" disclosure 02/09/2010 Date of submission to InfoShop 03/02/2010 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: C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (to be filled in when the ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting) Page 6 OP/BP/GP 4.01 - Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? Yes If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? Yes Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? Yes OP/BP 4.10 - Indigenous Peoples Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework (as appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples? Yes 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 or Sector Manager? N/A OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? Yes If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? Yes 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 7 D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Ms Mary P. Judd 02/15/2010 Environmental Specialist: Mr Gerardo F. Parco 02/04/2010 Social Development Specialist Mr Roberto B. Tordecilla 02/04/2010 Additional Environmental and/or Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Mr Panneer Selvam Lakshminarayanan 02/26/2010 Comments: Sector Manager: Mr Mark C. Woodward 02/22/2010 Comments: