Page  1
Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (ISDS) 
Section I 
–
Basic Information 
Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: May 28, 2004 
Report No.:AC256
A. Basic Project Data 
 
A.1. Project Statistics 
Country: Bulgaria 
Project ID: P084831 
Project: ENERGY EFFICIENCY 
TTL: Istvan Dobozi 
Total project cost (by component): 
Appraisal Date: June 15, 2004 (planned) 
Loan/Credit amount($m):  
Board Date: September 10, 2004 (planned) 
  
Other financing amounts by source: 
 
($m.) 
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY 
10 
BILATERAL AGENCIES 
(UNIDENTIFIED) 
5.75 
GOVERNMENT OF BULGARIA 
1.80 
Managing Unit: ECSIE 
Sector: General energy sector (100%) 
Lending Instruments: Specific Investment 
Loan 
 
Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency 
recovery? 
Yes?
[] No?
[X ] 
Environmental Category: Financial 
Intermediary 
Safeguard Classification: S
F
(Fin. 
Intermediary) 
A.2. Project Objectives 
 
The objective of the proposed project is to support a large increase in energy efficiency 
(EE) investment in Bulgaria through development of a self-sustaining, market-based 
financing mechanism.  The project is focused on the development and implementation of 
financially profitable EE projects, which can provide sustainable and increasing 
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. 
 
A.3. Project Description 
 
The project supports the establishment and operation of the Bulgarian Energy Efficiency Fund (BEEF) in a 
public-private partnership.  BEEF combines both technical project development capacity and financial 
structuring capacity into one entity, thereby addressing the current weak capacity to develop bankable EE 
projects.  It  will be a flexible design, offering financial products demanded by the evolving EE finance 
market.  It is expected that the BEEF would consist of three components: 
 
·
Partial Credit Guarantees: to share in the credit risk of EE finance transactions.  
·
Loan Financing: to co-finance bankable EE projects on a profit-oriented commercial lending basis. 
·
Technical Assistance: to initially finance on a grant basis a portion of EE project development and 
set-up and operating costs of BEEF in the early years. 
Designed as a demand-driven facility, BEEF would make available both loans and partial credit guarantees 
for EE projects.  The Fund Manager of BEEF is expected to make rational choices about the appropriate 
financing tool based on specific project circumstances and overall project portfolio management 
Page  2
considerations. 
 
On May 19, 2004, the GEF Council approved the project for work program inclusion.  
A.4. Project location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard 
analysis: 
 
The subprojects supported by BEEF will be implemented countrywide in Bulgaria.  
Geographic location, information about key environmental and social characteristics of 
the area, and population likely to be affected, proximity to protected areas, etc., will be 
dealt with in the process of environmental assessment of the individual subprojects. 
 
B. Check Environmental Category 
A
[
], B [ ], C [], FI [x]  
Comments:  
C. Safeguard Policies Triggered 
 
Yes No 
 
Environmental Assessment
(
OP
/
BP
/
GP
4.01) [x] 
[ 
]  
Natural Habitats (
OP
/
BP
4.04) [ 
] 
[x] 
 
Pest Management (
OP 4.09
)
[
]
[x]  
Cultural Property (draft OP 4.11 
–
OPN 
11.03
-) 
[
]
[x]  
Involuntary Resettlement (
OP
/
BP
4.12) [ 
]  [x] 
 
Indigenous Peoples (
OD 4.20
)
[
]
[x]  
Forests (
OP
/
BP
4.36) [ 
] 
[x] 
 
Safety of Dams (
OP
/
BP
4.37) [ 
] 
[x] 
 
Projects in Disputed Areas (
OP
/
BP
/
GP
7.60)
*
[
]
[x]  
Projects on International Waterways 
(
OP
/
BP
/
GP
7.50) 
[
]
[x]  
Section II 
–
Key Safeguard Issues and Their Management  
D. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues
.
D.1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. 
Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts. 
 
No significant negative environmental impacts will be caused by the project, which is 
specifically designed to mitigate GHG emissions through energy savings.  Only those 
projects are eligible for BEEF support for which at least half of the financial benefits 
come from measurable energy savings.  Environmental benefits associated with these 
savings will be systematically monitored and reported by BEEF.  Likely subproject 
*
By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties' 
claims on the disputed areas
 
Page  3
candidates are: street lighting improvements, installation of heat exchangers and 
automatic temperature control and metering in DH systems, improved thermal insulation 
of buildings, replacement of network pipes, fuel switching, power factor correction, 
reconstruction of boilers, economizers, steam traps and fuel switching.  Typically, the 
subprojects are expected to be relatively small.  With investment costs generally not 
higher than US$1 million, none of them will have any adverse large-scale, significant 
and/or irreversible environmental impacts.  
 
D.2 Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future 
activities in the project area. 
N/A 
D.3. Describe the treatment of alternatives (if relevant) 
N/A 
D.4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard issues. Provide an 
assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. 
 
As described in the Environmental Chapter of the OM, compliance with Bulgarian 
environmental law, policies and procedures will be, in most cases, a necessary and 
sufficient condition for the Bank’s endorsement of financing of subprojects under BEEF.  
The Fund Manager of BEEF will include at least one staff appointed to deal with the EIA 
and environmental management aspects of the subprojects supported by BEEF.  Under 
the environmental chapter of the OM, every subproject proposal should contain a 
questionnaire completed by the developer/sponsor, which allows to determine the 
applicable course of action. 
D.5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and 
disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. 
 
Key project stakeholder groups are as follows: (i) SMEs mostly in the industrial and the 
service sector, municipalities and housing cooperatives/associations as potential 
subproject clients (project sponsors); (ii) equipment/materials manufacturers, building 
design and retrofit contractors, ESCOs and EE consultancies as business partners; (iii) 
companies in the financial sector, particularly banks, mortgage and leasing companies as 
co-financiers; and (iv) local environmental and EE advocacy groups and NGOs.   
 
During project preparation, most of these stakeholders were consulted to seek their views 
on the objectives and design of BE
EF and to generate larger public interest in the facility.  
In June 2002, the project concept was presented to the NGO community in a special 
workshop.  Further outreach actions, including an investors’ workshop, are envisaged 
during further stages of project preparation.  Broad-based participation and public 
involvement are incorporated in the project design.  Organized outreach and public 
information campaigns are included in the TA component.  Primarily, the Fund Manager 
will be in charge of these  activities.  In addition, during the EE market assessment 
(funded from the GEF PDF-B project preparation grant), top management and energy 
managers of companies in the industrial, service and municipal sectors as well ESCOs 
will be engaged with the purpose of both information dissemination and initial project 
pipeline development.      
Page  4
E. Safeguards Classification
 (select one)
 
[
]
S
1
.
–The project has significant, cumulative and/or irreversible impacts; where there 
are significant potential impacts related to several safeguard policies.  
[
]
S
2
.
–
One or more safeguard policies are triggered, but effects are limited to their 
impact and are technically and institutionally manageable.  
[] S
3
.
–
No safeguard issues 
[x] S
F
.
–
Financial intermediary projects 
F. Disclosure Requirements  Date
 
Environmental Chapter of BEEF’s Operational Manual 
Date of receipt by the Bank 
04/26/04      
Date of “in-country” disclosure 
05/13/04      
Date of submission to InfoShop 
05/13/04      
For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the 
Executive Directors: Not Applicable 
Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: 
Date of receipt by the Bank 
Not Applicable 
Date of “in-country” disclosure 
Not Applicable 
Date of submission to InfoShop 
Not Applicable 
Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework:  
Date of receipt by the Bank 
Not Applicable 
Date of “in-country” disclosure 
Not Applicable 
Date of submission to InfoShop 
Not Applicable 
Pest Management Plan:  
 
Date of receipt by the Bank 
Not Applicable 
Date of “in-country” disclosure 
Not Applicable 
Date of submission to InfoShop 
Not Applicable 
Dam Safety Management Plan:  
  
Date of receipt by the Bank 
Not Applicable 
Date of “in-country” disclosure 
Not Applicable 
Date of submission to InfoShop 
Not Applicable 
If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain 
why. 
 
Section III 
–
Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level 
OP/BP 4.01 - Environment Assessment:
 
Yes
No
Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? 
 
x 
If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit review and approve 
the EA report? 
 
Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the 
credit/loan? 
Comment: the Operations Manual of BEEF includes an 
environmental chapter which meets EA requirements. 
 
OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats: 
Yes
No
Would the project result in any significant conversion  or degradation 
 
x 
Page  5
of critical natural habitats? 
If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of 
other (non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include 
mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank? 
 x 
OP 4.09 - Pest Management: 
Yes
No
Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues? 
 
x 
Is a separate PMP required? 
 
x 
If yes,  are PMP requirements included in project design? 
 
 
Draft OP 4.11 (OPN 11.03) - Cultural Property: 
Yes
No
Does the EA include adequate measures? 
 
 
Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential 
adverse impacts on physical cultural resources? 
 
OD 4.20 - Indigenous Peoples: 
Yes
No
Has a separate indigenous people development plan been prepared in 
consultation with the Indigenous People? 
 x 
If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and 
approve the plan? 
 
If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been 
reviewed and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit? 
 
OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement: 
Yes
No
Has a resettlement action plan, policy framework or policy process 
been prepared? 
 x 
If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and 
approve the plan / policy framework / policy process? 
 
OP/BP 4.36 
–
Forests: 
Yes
No
Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional issues and 
constraints been carried out? 
 x 
Does the project design include satisfactory measures to overcome 
these constraints? 
 
Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, does it 
include provisions for certification system? 
 
OP/BP 4.37 - Safety of Dams: 
Yes
No
Have dam safety plans been prepared? 
 
x 
Have the TORs as well as composition for the independent Panel of 
Experts (POE) been reviewed and approved by the Bank? 
 
Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) been prepared and 
arrangements been made for public awareness and training? 
 
OP 7.50 - Projects on International Waterways: 
Yes
No
Have the other riparians been notified of the project? 
 
x 
If the project falls under one of the exceptions to the notification 
requirement, then has this been cleared with the Legal Department, 
and the memo to the RVP prepared and sent? 
 
What are the reasons for the exception? 
 
 
Please explain: 
 
 
Has the RVP approved such an exception? 
 
 
OP 7.60 - Projects in Disputed Areas
:
Yes
No
Page  6
Has the memo conveying all pertinent information on the international 
aspects of the project, including the procedures to be followed, and the 
recommendations for dealing with the issue, been prepared, cleared 
with the Legal Department and sent to the RVP? 
 x 
Does the PAD/MOP include the standard disclaimer referred to in the 
OP? 
x
BP 17.50 - Public Disclosure: 
Yes
No
Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World 
Bank's Infoshop? 
x
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? 
x
All Safeguard Policies: 
Yes
No
Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional 
responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of the safeguard 
measures? 
x
Have safeguard measures costs been included in project cost? 
x 
 
Will the safeguard measures costs be funded as part of project 
implementation? 
x
Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the 
monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures? 
x
Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the 
borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal 
documents? 
x
Signed and submitted by:
 Name
Date
Task Team Leader: 
Istvan Dobozi 
06/01/04 
Project Safeguards Specialist 
1: 
Victor Loksha 
06/01/04 
Project Safeguards Specialist 
2: 
 
Project Safeguards Specialist 
3: 
 
Approved by:
 Name
Date
Regional Safeguards 
Coordinator: 
Ronald N. Hoffer 
06/01/04 
Comments: 
Sector Manager: 
Henk Busz 
06/01/04 
Comments: 
WB76413 
P:\BULGARIA\ENERGY\EN-EFFICIENCY\2LENA\Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet final - Appraisal Stage.doc 
June 2, 2004 4:24 PM