82217 OF THE WORLD BANKGROUP’S EVALUATION EXPERIENCE WITH SAFEGUARD AND SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES (1999-2008) APPROACH PAPER Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank February 26, 2009 1. Background, Rationale and Scope BACKGROUND 1. Environmental and social concerns about public and private sector investments in developing countries have increased significantly in recent decades with a growing societal awareness o f the potential risks if the wider impacts o f projects are not fully considered. Over time the World Bank Group (WBG) and other IFIs have developed safeguard and sustainability policies (from hereon safeguard policies) to address these concerns and associated risks. They have, moreover, aimed to build the capacity o f country and private sector clients in implementing such safeguard policies and encouraged a common framework to be adopted globally. The WBG remains publicly accountable for i t s guidance in ensuring the effective implementation o f safeguard policies for the projects that it supports, but WBG projects are a relatively small proportion o f all investment projects in developing countries. Thus the WBG has considered it important to promote i t s safeguard policies as global standards and encourage their use by other interested financial institutions. 2. Environmental issues f i r s t entered the IBRD/IDA developmental agenda following the first United Nations Conference o n the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972’, and gradually moved center-stage in response to growing awareness from civil society and NGOs o f the environmental and social impacts o f projects and concerns over negative impacts associated with a few high-profile projects and programs financed in the early 1980s. By the late 198Os, the donor community had also reinforced this high priority for the environment by linking IDA replenishments to greater Bank efforts for, inter alia, integrating environmental concerns into broader operational and analytical activities, upgrading the identification and assessment o f sensitive projects, and ensuring the disclosure o f project information and consultations with the affected population and I,This was followed by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (also known as the “Earth Summit”) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and the World Summit o n Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. For both events the IBRD/IDA contributed a W o r l d Development Report devoted t o environment and development, thus firmly establishing the conceptual ii-amework for the convergence o f environmental and economic development as an essential element in sustainable development. The WBG’s first explicit strategy for the environment, entitled “Making Sustainable Commitments”, was presented to the Board in July 200 1. 1 other stakeholders. IBRD/IDA accordingly established an Environment Department at i t s center as well as Environmental Divisions in each o f i t s operational regions. 3. In parallel, the Bank was also evolving towards a greater focus o n the social aspects o f projects, so as to contribute not only to economic development, but also to improved welfare and poverty alleviation. In 1980, the Bank was the first international development agency to issue a policy statement concerning involuntary resettlement. IBRD/IDA also developed social policies regarding Indigenous Peoples. From the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s-as the potentially adverse social impacts o f large scale development projects became more evident, and the complex causes o f poverty became better understood- methods and tools were developed to incorporate social considerations into project design, aiming to ensure that the poor benefittedfrom the project as well as those people directly affected by Bank-financed projects. 4. In 1989, formal policies and procedures were introduced in the Bank for environmental assessment o f all projects through the Operational Directive (OD) 4.00, updated as O D 4.01 in 1991. This was replaced in 1999 by Operational Policy (OP) 4.01 to create a common framework for environmental assessment for the WBG including IFC. IBRD/IDA currently has ten “Safeguard Policies” consisting o f six environmental, two social and two legal policies as well as an additional policy o n public disclosure (see Table 1). Many multilateral development banks have based their policies for public sector lending o n those o f the IBRD/IDA or have used specialized Bank policies in place o f developing their own policies. Table 1 World Bank’s Safeguard Policies I Environmental Policies Social Policies OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment OP 4.10 Indigenous Peoples OP 4.04 Natural Habitats OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement OP 4.09 Pest Management OP 4.1 1 Physical Cultural Resources OP 4.36 Forests OP 4.37 Safety of Dams Legal Policies Information Disclosure Policy OP 7.50 International Waterways Handbook on Public Disclosure OP 7.60 Disputed Areas 5. IFC’s involvement with environment issues dates back to 1988 when the institution hired i t s f i r s t environmental specialist. IFC’s strategies have addressed environmental and social sustainability since 2000. Until 2006, I F C used the ten WBG safeguard policies and the Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) guidelines in the WBG’s Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook (1998)’ together with i t s own guidelines and policies, and the 1998 procedures for environmental and social review o f projects, as i t s safeguard policy framework. In 2003 the I F C safeguard policy framework was reviewed by the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) who proposed ways to enhance i t s performance. In line with the C A O recommendations and following comprehensive public and WBG consultation, the Board approved in April 2006 a new 2 “Policy and Performance Standards on Social & Environmental Sustainability”, and a “Policy o n Disclosure o f Information” for the I F C to promote sustainable private sector development in developing countries, helping to reduce poverty and improve people’s lives. In 2006 I F C management approved the “IFC Environment and Social Review Procedures” (ESRP), which were revised in July 2007. This new safeguard policy framework defines the roles and responsibilities for I F C and i t s clients -requiring clients to meet eight applicable outcome-based I F C Performance Standards, and project-specific legal requirements. It also outlines the process through which I F C staff implements investment and advisory service projects. I F C has prepared Guidance Notes that supports the eight Performance Standards and in cooperation with the Bank revised the EHS Guidelines in 2008, which together with the 2006 Policy, Performance Standards and ESRP comprise the building blocks o f IFC’s present safeguard policy framework, the focus o f the I F C part o f the evaluation. 6. In June, 2003 I F C advised and guided ten leading banks from seven countries in the adoption o f the Equator Principles, a voluntary set o f guidelines based o n I F C policies. A revised set o f principles (EP2) was launched in July 2006, reflecting IFC’s 2006 Policy and Performance Standards o n Social and Environmental Sustainability. By March 2008, sixty banks representing the majority o f project investments in developing countries had declared adherence to the Principles and Performance Standards. IFC’s strategy also encourages other multilateral development banks to adopt the Performance Standards in emerging markets. EBRD, for example, issued i t s own requirements in 2008 based on I F C Performance Standards. Table 2 IFC Performance Standards ~~ 0 Social and EnvironmentalAssessment and Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management System Natural Resource Management Labor and Working Conditions 0 Indigenous Peoples Pollution Prevention and Abatement 0 Cultural Heritage 0 Community Health, Safety and Security 0 Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement 7. Since i t s inception in fiscal 1990, MIGA used World Bank safeguard policies to assess i t s projects and used IFC staff for the environmental review o f i t s projects. MIGA hired i t s first environmental specialist in 1997, and soon thereafter, the Board approved i t s Environmental Assessment and Disclosure Policies (1999). In 2002, MIGA adopted- o n an interim basis-its own versions o f the issue-specific policies, adapted to i t s business. MIGA adopted a new Policy o n Social and Environmental Sustainability and Performance Standards in October 2007, which are almost identical to IFC’s policy and standards o f 2006. These new policy and standards superseded MIGA’s 1999 policies and the intention was to harmonize MIGA and I F C policies and standards to the fullest extent possible. They require certain MIGA clients to undertake a baseline assessment and periodic monitoring o f impacts o n local communities for projects where such impacts 3 are expected to be significant. For the first time, the policies also covered the environmental performance o f MIGA’ s financial sector projects2. 8. The WBG classifies proposed projects into one o f four categories (A, ByC3, and FI or Financial Intermediary4)depending on the significance and sensitivity o f potential environmental impacts, the scale o f the project, as well as the nature and magnitude o f potential safeguard impacts. The client i s responsible for the implementation o f safeguards under the guidance o f the WBG. Among IBRD/IDA projects approved during 1999-2008, the shares for each category were: A (10%); B (50%); C (36%); FI (4%)5. For IFC, the figures (for the period 1999-2008 covering 2,886 projects) were: A (3%); B (42%); C (23%); FI (27%). The high proportion o f FI projects in the I F C portfolio compared with the WB suggests that IFC’s FI projects deserve a closer look in this study. 9. The Quality Assurance and Compliance Unit (QACU) in the Operations Policy and Country Services (OPCS) network6co-ordinates IBRD/IDA’s efforts to promote effective implementation o f safeguard policies in Bank-supported operations. There i s also an Inspection Panel, an independent body for the benefit o f people who believe they have been harmed or may be harmed by I B R D / I D A projects. The panel gives such persons direct access to the World Bank’s Board o f Executive Directors. 10. For I F C and MIGA the C A O oversees project-level audits o f the social and environmental performance o f I F C and MIGA to ensure compliance with policies, standards, guidelines, procedures, and conditions for IFC/MIGA involvement. In i t s advisory role C A O has reviewed IFC’s progress reports on implementation o f the safeguard policy framework. The CAO’s most important and resource intensive role i s as ombudsman, mediating and seeking to resolve disputes on environmental and social issues raised by local stakeholders. RATIONALE 11. Over the last ten years several issues have arisen which motivate the proposed evaluation: (a) Stakeholders: C i v i l society, donor countries and NGOs continue to raise concerns about the interpretation, application, and effectiveness o f safeguard policies7. O n 2. MIGA also requires compliance w i t h EHS Guidelines (as prepared by IFC), linked to implementation o f applicable Performance Standards, as well as compliance with the relevant IFC Industry and Sector Guidelines, whether they are those o f the host country or MIGA. 3. Category A projects are likely t o have significant adverse impacts that are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented; category B projects can have potentially adverse environmental impacts; category C are likely to have minimal or no adverse impacts 4. Commercial banks and other private sector financial institutions 5. World Bank database 6. Q A C U was located i n the Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Vice Presidency until 2006; now it i s located in the OPCS network (OPCQC) 7. For example, Oxfam International www.oxfam.org/en/policy 4 the other hand, client countries demand greater flexibility to suit local conditions and capacity8. In response to such stakeholder concerns, the Bank i s implementinga three-year second phase o f the pilot’ program for expanding the use o f country systems in implementing i t s safeguard policies, and the impact o f this effort has not yet been independently evaluated. (b) WBG management and task teams: Initial discussions with operational staff have identified a need for the WBG to clarify the optimum balance between safeguard requirements and business imperatives. I t will thus be informative to study how the costs due to sustainability requirements are currently weighed against value- added in risk mitigation, providing a “stamp o f approval” for the client,”and/or avoiding or reducing well-understood negative impacts known to be associated with a particular type o f operation. Moreover, for IBRD and IDA there i s a need to establish whether the current operational policies are fully relevant to today’s issues, experiences and challenges, as circumstances may n o w differ from when the policies were first developed. Since these policies may also be interpreted differently in different regions, this aspect should also be addressed. (c) IFC/MIGA’ s performance standards: IFC/MIGA’ s adoption o f performance standards (including use through trust funds) and their rapid adoption by Equator Principle Financial Institutions, EBRD and other financiers investing in developing countries represent a new development since OD 4.01 (1997). The impact o f this development needs to be examined and taken into account in future efforts to develop common principles for environmental assessments and other environmental procedures by IFIS”. (d) Renewed emphasis o n infrastructure: In terms o f IBRD/IDA lending and I F C investment priorities, there i s an increasing emphasis o n assistance for large scale infrastructure, hydropower, extractive industries and the forestry sector which are the most safeguards-intensive o f all areas supported by the WBG, and can benefit from an examination o f the experience so far. (e) Institutional changes in the WBG: The merger o f Infrastructure (INF) with the Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (ES SD) into a new Sustainable Development Network (SDN), and transfer o f Q A C U from ESSD to the OPCS Vice-presidency in 2006 raise some questions as to the impact o f these organizational changes o n enforcement and oversight o f the Bank’s safeguards system. 8. World Bank external website: “Expanding the use o f Country Systems in Bank-supported Operations” 9. “Use o f Country Systems in Bank-Supported Operations” Board Paper, January 2008. 10. Clients view IFC’s environmental and social expertise and inputs primarily as helpful rather than a requirement; the 2007 Client Survey revealed the highest score in the seven years when the question on importance o f IFC’s sustainability stamp o f approval was asked in the surveys. This was true with 75% and 80% o f loan and equity clients respectively. 11. See for example “Rome Declaration o n Harmonization, Rome, Italy, February 25, 2003” o n “effort to harmonize the operational policies, procedures, and practices o f our institutions [IFIs]” and “A Common Framework For Environmental Assessment, A Good Practice Note, Multilateral Financial Institutions Working Group o n Environment February 28,2005”. 5 (0 N o previous WBG-wide comprehensive evaluations o f Bank’s Safeguard policies. There has not been a comprehensive evaluation o f the Bank’s safeguard policies’2 since their first formulation in 1989. IFC’s progress report o n the first 18 months o f the application o f performance standards was reviewed by C A O in December 2007. 12. With the above issues in mind, the proposed evaluation will carry out an in-depth and forward-looking analysis o f the effectiveness o f WBG and clients’ safeguard policy frameworks, the r o l l out o f IFC’s and MIGA’s performance standards, as well the emerging experience o f the Bank’s pilots in the use o f country systems. Issues such as internal quality controls, WBG competitiveness, and the extent o f client ownership will also be addressed. 13. The evaluation i s part o f a medium to long term IEG program to systematically explore the WBG role and effectiveness in the environmental and social aspects o f development work. In FY08, IEG presented to CODE a report entitled “Environmental Sustainability: An Evaluation o f WBG Support”, which looked at the effectiveness o f WBG support to the environment from 1990 to 2007. This study will build on the work relevant to safeguards and standards undertaken in the Environmental Sustainability Evaluation and refine the findings further. In 2008, IEG also launched a series o f studies on WBG experience in the area o f climate change with a report on WBG involvement with key win-win policies in the energy sector. The second phase o f this work will look at project level experience o f the WBG in promoting technologies for renewable energy or energy efficiency including findings from a parallel study on forestry. The final phase will examine adaptation to climate change. SCOPE 14. The study will cover safeguards and standards issues across the entire WBG and cover the period from FY99 (the time o f approval o f the current safeguards policies) through FY08. Evaluation o f IFC’s policies, procedures and projects will be divided according to whether they fall within IFC’s pre or post 2006 safeguard policy frameworks. Since IFC projects approved after April 2006 and MICA projects for which applications were received after October 1,2007, using the new safeguard policy framework are not yet mature for ex-post evaluation o f environmental and social effects- possible only from 20 11 onwards-this evaluation will focus o n analyzing differences between the old and new safeguard policy frameworks at appraisal and during 12. The Quality Assurance Group (QAG) has used sample project assessments and surveys to study the application o f safeguard policies, as part o f the wider canvas o f i t s annual Quality at Entry Assessments (QEA) and Quality o f Supervision Assessments (QSA) since 1999. Three Reviews o f Environmental Assessment have been prepared by the Bank’s Environment Department (1993, 1997, and 2002). IEG prepared a process review o f Environmental Assessments and National Environmental Action Plans in 1996. Further, some IEG sector studies (e.g. Extractive Industries (2003), Community-Driven Development; L I C U S Study (2006), Development Results in Middle-Income Countries (2007), Environmental Sustainability (2008), and some Country Assistance Evaluations (CAE) have included background papers or significant discussions o n safeguard issues. At the project level, IEG Project Performance Assessment Reports (PPARs) have covered safeguard issues where relevant. 6 implementation. Thematically, the study i s linked to IEG’s recent and ongoing evaluations on environmental sustainability, climate change and forestry. 15. The evaluation will be carried out jointly by staff from IEGWB, IEG-IFC and IEG-MIGA; team members will review results both within and across the three organizations. While ensuring the independence o f IEG’s evaluation, the study will apply an interactive and collaborative approach with the appropriate WB central units and operational regions as well as I F C and MIGA operational departments to ensure the approach i s methodologically sound and that all available data can be accessed. Workshops and structured interviews will be held with appropriate operational staff. 2. Overarching Questions and Issues OVERARCHINGQUESTIONS 16. The overarching evaluative questions are: H o w effective has the safeguard policy framework o f the WBG been in preventing and mitigating adverse environmental and social impacts? What has been i t s impact o n client capacity? What are the benefits as well as costs o f safeguards, and how might the benefits be strengthened and costs reduced going forward? 17. Four supplementary questions have been derived from this main question: i. H o w has the WBG safeguard policy framework evolved from 1999 to 2008? 1 What have been the main drivers and changes to introduce I F C 2006 E&S Policy and Performance Standards? H o w have IBRD/IDA safeguards evolved in this time frame? 1 What are the coverage and main differences between the WB, I F C and MIGA’s current safeguard policy frameworks? What are the main features and differences o f other IFIs’ safeguard policies compared with WBG’s? ii. H o w well have the safeguards been complied with? 1 To what extent have the safeguard policy frameworks and their implementation been effective in ensuring that each project meets WBG safeguard policy objectives? Have the WBG safeguard policy frameworks been implemented consistently . by the respective organizations? Are the responsibilities for implementingthe safeguard policy frameworks clearly stated? To what extent have WBG internal capacity and mainstreaming contributed to implementation o f the safeguard policy frameworks during project preparation and implementation? * To what extent do countries/clients have sufficient capacity to implement the WBG safeguard policy frameworks and h o w has WBG analyzed and addressed the matter? 7 9 Has the monitoring and evaluation o f the implementation o f the safeguard frameworks been effective in the WBG? iii.What have been the effects o f the safeguard policies and standards o f the three WBG institutions? . To what extent has compliance with safeguards policies led to improved environmental and social performance and impacts at the project and/or sector level? Have the current IFC/MIGA Policy and Performance Standards led to improved environmental and social appraisal and supervision or not compared with the approach used prior to 2006 or 2007 for I F C and MIGA, respectively? To what extent have WB safeguard policies and I F C Performance Standards helped improve environmental and social policy frameworks o f other institutions that have adopted them, particularly the Equator Principle Financial Institutions and other IFIs? iv. What have been the benefits and costs to the WBG and i t s clients o f having the safeguards? 1 To what extent have the WB’s safeguards policies or other Bank assistance helped strengthen the countries’ own capacities for safeguards, and use o f country safeguards systems? What are the financial benefits and costs to the clients o f having a ‘stamp o f approval’? What actions were triggered by safeguard policies and what were their benefits and costs? Would the actions have been triggered without WBG interventionlsafeguard policies? H o w do . Category A and B projects compare? What are other benefits and costs to the countries/clients, in terms o f project design, l i n k s to other projects, diversion o f activities to other sources o f finance, and risk management? 1 What are the financial benefits and costs to WBG for developing and implementing the safeguard policy framework? 9 Looking forward, i s there a need to improve efficiency (costs, timeliness, integration) o f safeguard policy frameworks as well as strengthen benefits? 18. The methodological section below (paragraphs 19-23) explains the approach that will be used to answer the questions posed above and to narrow down the scope o f the review relating to questions ii)to iv), depending on the information available from the three institutions. METHODOLOGY 19. The methodology to evaluate these questions i s described in more detail below and i s shown for supplementary questions in tabular form in Annex 2. Most steps are sequential. The portfolio review will establish what information i s available internally within the WBG, and then the study will address the external environment to verify in the field the portfolio findings through selected case studies, PPARs, and stakeholder 8 discussions. Incisive questions to be put to the stakeholders will be developed as the study evolves. The ultimate test o f the safeguards program concerns outcomes at the project and country levels. T o this end the study will make a comparison between safeguards and performance standards in the WBG, and identify key differences. For selected types o f W B G projects, an assessment will be made o f the costs and impacts associated with these differences and through case studies o f WBG supported projects compared with counterfactual projects funded from other sources. Compliance analysis will focus o n work quality in environmental due diligence to identify applicable safeguard policies, performance standards and EHS guidelines, the establishment o f clear E&S objectives and performance indicators, and appropriate project supervision. Portfolio Review: 20. T o the extent possible, a common methodology for evaluating IBRD/IDA, I F C and MIGA projects will be developed and used. The evaluation team will develop a matrix o n compliance with key safeguard policy requirements during the project cycle using selected evaluative questions. The importance o f good design will also be assessed. In general, a stratified sample o f projects will be selected for each o f the three portfolios, for projects approved during the period FY99-08. The samples will be stratified based o n the significance o f the expected environmental and social impacts (as indicated by the environmental categorization o f the project). The initial findings o f the portfolio review will be compared with those o f earlier evaluations and quasi- evaluation^,'^ and differences, if any, will be identified and discussed. 21. For the IBRD/IDA portfolio, the evaluation will review the key appraisal and supervision documentation, including Integrated Safeguards Data Sheets (ISDS) for all projects approved during FY99-08 to uncover trends within and across sectors and regions. Information on safeguards will be extracted from all Implementation Status Reports, Implementation Completion Reports and Project Performance Assessment Reports as available for all projects in the review period (see also Annex 2 for link between questions and methodological tasks). Based o n the methodology used in IEG’s extractive industries evaluation, a stratified random sample o f projects will be reviewed (see also paragraph 27) in respect o f the quality, applicability, and usage o f Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), Environmental Management Plans (EMPs), Resettlement Action Plans (RAPS), and Indigenous Peoples Development Plans (IPDPs). The results will be compared with the safeguards content from earlier studies undertaken by IEG (such as the Extractive Industries Evaluation), Q A G (e.g., Annual Quality at Entry Assessments and Quality o f Supervision Assessments), and reports o f the Inspection Panel concerning complaints from the public about the compliance o f I B R D / I D A projects. 22. The IFC/MIGA portfolio review will parallel that o f IBRD/IDA as far as possible, especially with regard to quality at appraisal and supervision. All IEG’s Environmental & Social Review Reports (ESRs) linked to Expanded Project Supervision Reports 13. For example Community-drivenDevelopment Study, Extractive Industries Study, Environmental Sustainability Study and various background papers 9 (XPSRs) on I F C projects approved FY99-03 (the latest appraisal year for reports in XPSR08 program) and a representative sample o f projects approved in FY04-08 will be reviewed. The Environmental and Social Review Documents (ESRDs) will be used as the main database to assess I F C projects that have been appraised and supervised under the 2006 Policy and Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability. The key environmental documentation include Environmental Review Summaries (ESRs), Environmental and Social Clearance Memoranda (ESCMs), environmental covenants in Legal Documents, Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), EnvironmentaKorrection Action Plans (EAPs/CAPs), RAPS, Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs), Annual Environmental Performance Reports (AEPRs) and their reviews, various project supervision documents and C A O documentation. For MIGA, attention will be given to all ex post project evaluations and quality at entry assessments o f a sample o f guarantee projects insured during the study period. The findings will be compared with those o f earlier studies undertaken by the C A O (Reports and reviews on the implementation o f I F C Performance Standards and project-level audits, advisory and complaint reports), and Internal Audit reports o n I F C Environment and Social Development Department. Literature Survey: 23. A survey o f key WBG and non-WBG documents addressing safeguard issues will be carried out, covering the following document categories beginning from FY98: WBG documents: Research and publications (including the Environment Department’s Environmental Assessment Reviews, publications, external evaluations and newsletters - around 150 documents/papers/newsletters) that addressed safeguard issues between 1998 and 2006. In addition, relevant work will be reviewed o n the usefulness o f indicators for measuring outcomes o f inter alia environmental mitigations and resettlement initiatives. Background papers on safeguards from previous IEG studies (there are about 15 such studies) will also be perused (such as Extractive Industries, Community-Driven Development, Low-Income Countries under Stress, Middle Income Countries Study, Environmental Sustainability Study14;Water and Sanitation Study) as well as relevant Country Assistance Evaluations (CAE); 0 Nun- WBG Documents: In preparation for discussions with IFIs the safeguard policies and procedures o f the main multilateral and bilateral institutions will be mapped and compared with those o f the WBG. Significant publications and research output from outside the Bank directly relevant to the conduct o f safeguard policies will be studied (this i s estimated from a test analysis to be in the order o f 50-75 publications/papers). One example o f interest would be papers that give a better insight o f the impacts o f various mitigation measures. 14. Although this environmental study had a section o n safeguards, it did not analyze WBG safeguards experience in depth, stating that this was to be covered in a future IEG evaluation (the subject o f this Approach Paper). 10 Internal Focus Groups: 24. Focus group meetings (entry workshops) will be convened in the WBG’s Washington D C headquarters (HQ)bringing together Regional Safeguards Coordinators, I F C Environmental Specialists, MIGA Environmental and Social staff, and representative task managers from the HQand the regions through video-conference link-up, where necessary. These meetings, supplemented by a number o f structured interviews, will be used to obtain a reality check o f current experience and thinking o n safeguard policies and their implementation. Discussions with IFIs: 25. Visits will be made to other multilateral, bilateral and private sector institutions to elicit their opinions, advice and experience concerning safeguard policy frameworks and practices. Evaluation reports, policy documents, and any other relevant information obtained, will also be reviewed and the findings will be presented as a background document. In-depth Project Performance Assessments, 26. About 15 PPARs undertaken in FY09- 10 across a range o f sectors will include an analysis o f safeguard issues. In addition some 8-10 PPARs will be purposefully selected for projects with substantial safeguard issues. Each o f these assessments will contain a specific safeguards section. The PPARs will be selected to ensure a reasonable geographical spread across all relevant sectors, and also to ensure that the full spectrum o f safeguard types i s covered. Project Case Studies and Stakeholder Interviews: 27. A random sample o f cornpleted projects will be used as a basis for the initial selection o f Bank project desk case studies. These will be screened under the portfolio review for process compliance and then a stratified sample will be chosen for field visits once the stakeholder questions have been clarified; the projects chosen will be stratified according to region, sector and safeguard type. Similarly, a representative sample o f I F C and MIGA projects will be used for IFC/MIGA case studies. In addition the team will look at the more high impact, (Le. high success or high failure) projects, since such extreme projects attract considerable attention and their impact may be controversial or have positive or negative reputational implications. The case studies will consist o f a combination o f short desk studies, supplementedby more detailed in-country visits and stakeholder interviews (e.g. with government entities, project-affected persons, NGO’s, project managers and other interested parties) within the envelope o f time and budget constraints. Analysis o f costs and benefits o f safeguard policy frameworks will be conducted using multiple approaches; client surveys, case studies, stakeholder interviews and analyzing WBG cost structure. Given the strongly decentralized project management responsibilities in the Bank, these discussions will also draw o n inputs and experience from country-based project staff and management as well as local consultants to provide additional material and to widen the stakeholder coverage. Comparisons between selected subsectors will be made to the extent possible. 11 Study of Country Systems Pilot: 28. Up to five o f the countries involved in the Country Systems Pilot will be visited, the interim progress reports will be reviewed and discussions held with stakeholders about the effectiveness o f the pilot in respect o f safeguards in this concept. The findings will be summarized in a background paper. Website and Internet Discussion Forum: 29. A website will be maintained during the study implementation and dissemination period. There will be an opportunity for interested parties to post their views o n the site for consideration by the task team. Peer Review and Advisory Panel: 30. The draft report and background papers will be peer reviewed. An international advisory panel will also be established to advise IEG management and the task team o n the evaluation. 3. Timetable and Budget TIMETABLE 31. The following timeline for the Safeguards Evaluation i s proposed: Table 3: Time line for safeguards evaluation A ctivity/Phase Dates Approach Paper to CODE February 2009 Draft Report to WB/IFC/MIGA Managements for October 2009 comments I Draft Report to CODE December 2009 RESOURCES 32. The following team i s to be assembled: Peter Freeman Task Manager IEG-WB and coordinator Stoyan Tenev Head, Macro Unit IEG-IFC Jouni Eerikainen Co-Task Manager IEG-IFC Ethel Tarazona Co-Task Manager IEG-MIGA Stephan Wegner Sr. Evaluation Officer IEG-MICA Richard Worden Sr. Environment Specialist IEGSE Ramachandra Jammi Evaluation Analyst IEGSE H. Ade Freeman Principal Evaluation Officer IEG-IFC Consultants/Research Assistants as required 33. Overall study costs combining the costs for IEG/WB, I F C and MIGA are estimated at $1,000,000. The IBRD/IDA portion i s estimated at $650,000 with $150,000 to be financed from Trust Funds. IFC/MIGA costs are estimated at $374,000. Website, contingency and dissemination costs are excluded. 12 ANNEX 1 Distribution of IBRD/IDA Projects by E A Category - by Approval FY, Region, and Network Distribution o f all World Bank Projects by Environmental Assessment Category (FY 1998-2008) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Fiscal Year Distribution ofprojects by E A Category by Region (FY1998-2008) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% AFR EAP ECA LCR MNA SAR 13 Distribution o f Projects by EA Category by Network (FY1998-2008) loo% i--- 58 +-- 16 0% FPD SDN A 0B0C F 0 Not Applicable/Not Assigned I Distribution of 2,886 IFC projects by Environmental Assessment Category (FY98 FY08) - 60% .- 50% 2 - 2 m 40% % 30% a g 20% S a 2 10% a n 0% 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Approval PI 14 Distribution of 2,886 IFC Projects by Environmental Assessment Category and by Region (FY98 FY08) - 100% Central and East Asia Latin Middle East South Asia Southern Sub- WORLD Eastern and Pacific A m r i c a & and North Europe and Saharan Europe Caribbean Africa Central Africa Asia 15 x x x x X X X X X X x x x x x x x X x x X X X X x x x x x x x x x x x X X X X X X X - m W Q E a a X x x x x x x x X X X X age sku x x x x x x x X X X X X x x ea 4cn ? x x x x x x x x x X X x x x x x x x X X X