Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (Appraisal Stage) - SLU Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project (Additional Finance) - P155324

INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET ADDITIONAL FINANCING Report No.: ISDSA15981 Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 17-Mar-2016 Date ISDS Approved/Disclosed: 13-Apr-2016 I. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Basic Project Data Country: St. Lucia Project ID: P155324 Parent P127226 Project ID: Project Name: SLU Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project (Additional Finance) (P155324) Parent Project Saint Lucia Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project (P127226) Name: Task Team Tiguist Fisseha Leader(s): Estimated 18-Mar-2016 Estimated 22-Apr-2016 Appraisal Date: Board Date: Managing Unit: GSU10 Lending Investment Project Financing Instrument: Sector(s): Rural and Inter-Urban Roads and Highways (50%), Flood protection (50%) Theme(s): Natural disaster management (50%), Climate change (50%) 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: 7.56 Total Bank Financing: 1.16 Financing Gap: 0.00 Financing Source Amount BORROWER/RECIPIENT 0.00 International Development Association (IDA) 1.16 EC European Development Fund (EDF) 6.40 Total 7.56 Environmental B - Partial Assessment Category: Is this a No Repeater project? 2. Project Development Objective(s) Page 1 of 10  A. Original Project Development Objectives – Parent The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to reduce vulnerability to natural hazards and climate change impacts in Saint Lucia. B. Proposed Project Development Objectives – Additional Financing (AF) 3. Project Description The Project Development Objective (PDO) of the Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project (DVRP) is to reduce vulnerability to natural hazards and climate change impacts in Saint Lucia. The achievement of the PDO is supported by the following five project components: (1) Risk Reduction and Adaptation Measures; (2) Technical Assistance for Improved Assessment and Application of Disaster and Climate Risk Information in Decision-Making; (3) Climate Adaptation Financing Facility (CAFF) ; (4) Contingent Emergency Response Component (CERC) ; and (5) Project Management and Implementation Support. The original financing for the DVRP in the amount of USD 68 million equivalent, comprised a USD 41 million equivalent in IDA Credit, USD 12 million in Grant from the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF) through the Climate Investment Fund’s (CIF) Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) and USD 15 million in PPCR concessional loan. AF and EDF grant funds will, however, exclusively support Component 1 and Component 5 of the DVRP, with the additional USD 8.00 million equivalent. Activities financed by the proposed AF and EDF grant are consistent with interventions included under the original DVRP in that they focus on investments in the transport, health and education sectors. Specifically, AF and EDF grant activities under Component 1 (USD 7.6 million equivalent) would further reduce climate change vulnerability by potentially financing: (i) construction of a new Piaye Bridge (22 meters); (ii) reconstruction of the Venus – Anse La Raye Road (8.2 km); (iii) rehabilitation and reconstruction of prioritized schools and health centers; and (iv) technical assessments and supervision of works; while AF activities under Component 5 (USD 0.4 million equivalent) will scale-up overall project management. 4. Project location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis (if known) The AF and EDF grant will primarily finance a road rehabilitation project (Venus – Anse La Raye) which was assessed in the original EMF developed for the Parent project (disclosed on January 2014), a bridge reconstruction project (Piaye) and rehabilitations of select education and health facilities. All sites were field-visited and preliminarily assessed by World Bank safeguards specialists. The road segment will traverse interior areas with well-preserved natural habitat, and will therefore require additional assessment work once detailed designs are known, as already described in the original EMF; and, the bridge is relatively simple and may rely on standard measures already outlined in the existing EMF. The EMF for the Parent Project include environmental management procedures for project typologies which are very similar to the new AF and EDF grant works. Therefore, the EMF (updated in February and March 2016) did not need to be substantively revised for the AF and EDF grant, as the protocols to be followed have already been adequately described, and only a brief discussion and update to the list of sub-projects was required, as well as a clarification that the Pest Management Policy would be triggered to allow for incidental pesticide use or purchase through licensed registered professional contractors (e.g. termite treatments for building foundations). With respect to Social Safeguards, a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF - disclosed on January 2014) was developed for the Parent Project to provide guidelines for the development of instruments (e.g. Resettlement Action Plans, Temporary Resettlement Plans, Compensation Plans) to mitigate Page 2 of 10 land acquisition and/or other social issues that arise from works undertaken under the parent DVRP. Given that the activities planned under the AF are similar in nature and extent to those under the parent project, the RPF did not require substantive revision, and was updated to reflect the additional investments under AF and EDF grant. A discrete amount of land acquisition is envisaged under the AF, so the existing RPF will guide the development and implementation of Resettlement Action Plans and associated compensatory and mitigation measures . 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Cristina Elizabeth Coirolo (GSU04) M. Yaa Pokua Afriyie Oppong (GSU04) Michael J. Darr (GEN04) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered? Explanation (Optional) Environmental Yes An Environmental Assessment (EA) as well as an Assessment OP/BP 4.01 environmental safeguards instrument (Environmental Management Framework – EMF) have been prepared by an external consultant, to preliminarily assess potential subprojects and to present appropriate screening methods and procedures for the application of Bank safeguards, including guidance on the scope of studies required to complete for each subproject as well as criteria for triggering additional studies in the case of complex or significant activities (e.g, Venus – Anse La Raye Road) once design details are known. For relatively simple projects, a generic Environmental Management Plan (EMP) will suffice and is already included in the EMF. The studies and management plans related to each subproject should be completed prior to commencement of any work. The majority of works will likely be small- scale and simple in nature with environmental impacts limited to the construction phase, requiring only the application of the standardized and generic EMP. Any exceptions will be identified during the screening phase (as detailed in the EMF) and additional assessment work will be done during project implementation, if required. Natural Habitats OP/BP Yes OP/BP 4.04 has been triggered as a precaution to ensure 4.04 the development and inclusion of clear screening criteria related to natural habitats within the EMF. Work in forest reserve areas, along coastlines, and in sensitive riparian areas may activate this policy and require additional assessment. Forests OP/BP 4.36 No Additional research and subsequent definition of subprojects during project preparation have shown that this safeguard will not be triggered. Planned watershed management activities and slope stabilization works will not impact the management, protection and/or utilization of forests nor are any projects involving harvesting or Page 3 of 10  converting forest resources considered under the project. Pest Management OP 4.09 Yes The Pest Management Policy has been triggered to allow for incidental pesticide use (e.g. termite treatment for building foundations), as needed, using licensed professional contractors. The use or purchase of significant amounts of pesticide will be excluded in the screening process described in the updated EMF. Accordingly, no separate Pest Management Plan is needed; rather the EMF includes appropriate procedures in the form of a generic standardized EMP for incorporation into contract clauses. Physical Cultural Yes Chance-find procedures as well as historic building Resources OP/BP 4.11 screening procedures have been included in the environmental safeguards instruments. Stakeholder contribution to conceptual design of building rehabilitation will also be solicited, if deemed necessary. Indigenous Peoples OP/ No Screening was conducted by the World Bank and an BP 4.10 independent consultant during project preparation to determine whether Indigenous Populations are present in the project area. The screening confirmed that while populations who claim indigenous descent exist in the project area, these groups no longer retain the minimum characteristics necessary to claim indigenous group affiliation under Bank Policy OP/BP 4.10. Involuntary Resettlement Yes A discrete amount of land acquisition is envisaged and OP/BP 4.12 any potentially negative impacts will be mitigated. The PCU is in the process of hiring a Social Development Specialist and already has a Communications / Liaison Officer on the team. The PCU has experience with the Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12), through the implementation of other Bank financed projects, and core members of the PCU have also recently received capacity building in the implementation of OP 4.12. Should the development of Resettlement Plans become necessary, the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF), developed prior to the appraisal of the Parent Project, will guide the development and implementation of Resettlement Action Plans and associated compensatory and mitigatory measures. Given the activities planned under the AF are similar in nature and extent to those under the Parent Project, the RPF does not require substantive revision, however will be updated to reflect the additional investments under AF. Project funds will not finance land acquisition/ compensation/resettlement costs. Page 4 of 10  Safety of Dams OP/BP No OP/BP 4.37 has not been triggered as flood control works 4.37 and river defense structures are a few meters high (at most). Projects on International No Planned works under the project are exclusively located Waterways OP/BP 7.50 on the island of Saint Lucia and not in the proximity of any International Waterways, as defined by OP/BP 7.50. Projects in Disputed No Planned works under the project are exclusively located Areas OP/BP 7.60 on the island of Saint Lucia and not in the proximity of any Disputed Areas, as defined by OP/BP 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: In accordance with Bank environmental safeguards requirements, the project is classified as Category B, and the policy on Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) is triggered. Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) was also triggered and the EMF requires additional assessment work for the Venus – Anse La Raye road which traverses sensitive ecosystems, as already detailed in the EMF. Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) was also triggered as a precaution in case of chance finds of historically or culturally significant resources during construction of works, particularly during activities such as major excavations, road realignments or similar works where such assets could be affected. In addition, Pest Management (OP/BP 4.09) has been triggered under the AF to allow for incidental pesticide use (e.g. termite treatment for building foundations) applied by licensed professional contractors, if needed. The use or purchase of significant amounts of pesticide will be excluded in the screening process described in the updated EMF. Given the small amounts of pesticides expected to be used under the Project, a separate Pest Management Plan will not be required; instead, the EMF includes appropriate procedures in the form of a generic standardized EMP for incorporation into contract clauses. Overall, there are no large scale, significant, or irreversible impacts identified. In accordance with Bank Social Safeguards requirements, OP/BP 4.12 is triggered given the likelihood that sub-project sites financed by the AF and EDF grant could lead to land acquisition, depending on final designs. Any potentially negative impacts with respect to land acquisition and/ or resettlement would be minor in nature and will be mitigated by the presence of a Social Development Specialist within the PCU, tasked with community outreach and consultation to affected persons, and the development and implementation of Resettlement Action Plans and associated compensatory and mitigatory measures in line with the RPF developed for the Parent Project (dated January 2014). The RPF has been updated (March 2016) to reflect the new AF project suite. The findings of the social assessment, conducted during the preparation of the Parent Project, remain valid, given that the activities planned under the AF and EDF grant are similar in nature and extent to those under the parent. The social benefits of the parent project are expected to be positive and will remain so under with the expanded scope of activities. Improved infrastructure resilience as a result of bridge and road rehabilitation will likely lead to reduced exposure of beneficiaries to natural disaster-related disruptions in the lives of the beneficiary communities and school and hospital upgrades should promote an increased sense of safety and security. There are no large scale, significant, or irreversible impacts identified from a social Page 5 of 10  perspective. Project funds will not be used to finance land acquisition/resettlement/compensation costs. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: The project neither stimulates negative indirect impacts nor induces future activities in the project areas. Benefits and positive impacts will accrue from the improved resiliency of infrastructure and the increased capacity of GoSL in managing environmental aspects. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. Studies for road works will include alternative evaluations as part of the engineering and design efforts, to avoid or minimize potentially adverse social and environmental 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. Environmental: The PCU has prepared an EMF (January 2014) for the Parent project which includes an inventory and preliminary scoping of potential activities and sub-projects as well as improved screening procedures to (i) generate standardized Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) for relatively simple situations such as new building construction or minor road repairs; and (ii) identify conditions where more complex or sensitive environmental conditions exist, such as water pipelines or road clearing in forest reserves or other well-preserved ecosystems (e.g. Venus – Anse la Raye Road). Such activities would therefore require additional planning and management through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) specific to that subproject. The triggering of OP4.09 for Pest Management does not fundamentally alter the subproject portfolio, but instead allows flexibility for use or purchase of minor amounts of pesticide (e.g. for termite treatment) using licensed professional contractors.The EMF has been updated (February and March 2016) to reflect the new AF project suite, and the triggering of the Pest Management Policy. Specific EMPs will be developed during implementation, and the Operations Manual will reference the EMF and its screening and management procedures. The PCU will manage the supervision of environmental compliance through its Project Engineer and the Ministry of Infrastructure, Port Services and Transport (MIPST) which is the primary line ministry responsible for technical supervision of civil works. The PCU’s capacity to implement environmental safeguards is expected to increase with the eventual addition of an environmental specialist, at least half-time. Continuous training on environmental safeguards will be provided to the MIPS&T as it will be the primary ministry responsible for management and supervision of project works. Finally, regional safeguards training workshops have also been recently conducted, focusing on practical environmental management for DVRP projects in OECS countries, to strengthen ties and enhance practice within the region. A World Bank Environmental Specialist will further provide additional technical support with periodic field supervision. Environmental Assessments TORs will be forwarded to the Bank for review. EIAs produced will also be forwarded to the Bank for review prior to the development of specific works contracts. All works contracts requiring an EIA will be subject to prior review and supervision missions will review project activities with respect to environmental compliance. Social: Findings of the social assessment conducted during the preparation of the Parent Project, remain valid, given that the activities financed by the AF and EDF grant are similar in nature and extent to Page 6 of 10  those under the DVRP. The social benefits of the Project are expected to be positive and will remain so under the AF and EDF grant. The Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF - January 2014), developed under the Parent Project will remain relevant with some updates to reflect the additional investments which are, in scope and nature, the same as investments under the Parent Project. The RPF was updated accordingly in March 2016. Should the development of Resettlement Plans become necessary, the RPF will guide the development and implementation of Resettlement Action Plans and associated compensatory and mitigation measures. (Project funds will not be used for project-induced land acquisition/compensation). Social safeguards management will be handled by the PCU, which has experience with the Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12) through the implementation of other Bank-financed projects. Specifically, the newly hired Social Development Specialist will be in charge of ensuring compliance on Social safeguards. In addition, core members of the PCU have also recently received capacity building in the implementation of OP 4.12, including a Climate Change Coordinator and Communications / Liaison Officer who are also in charge of direct communication with communities regarding project activities. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. The updated EMF and RPF have been disclosed and subject to public comment, as were the original EMF and RPF for the Parent Project. The EMF for the Parent Project was disclosed on January 15, 2014 while the updated EMF with AF activities was disclosed on March 17, 2016 . Similarly, the original RPF was disclosed on January 15, 2014, while the updated version for the AF was disclosed on March 15, 2016. The majority of works contemplated involve the repair and retrofitting of existing infrastructure. In these cases, impacts to stakeholders will relate to temporary inconveniences, and potential permanent or temporary land acquisition and/or resettlement, associated with construction activities and will be managed to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible. Advanced public notifications will inform potentially affected persons, who, if necessary, will be compensated prior to works. Relevant line ministries and agencies will assist the PCU, the Communications Officer and MIPS&T in these efforts. When subproject-specific safeguards instruments are required (Environmental Impact Assessments (EAs), Social Assessments (SA) or Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs)), specific stakeholders will be identified and public meetings will be conducted to enable the reflection of stakeholder concerns in project design. These requirements will be incorporated into the TORs for EAs and SAs. In the case of land acquisition and/or resettlement, RAPs will be consulted in the identification, development, and implementation of the mitigation measures. B. Disclosure Requirements Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other Date of receipt by the Bank 16-Mar-2016 Date of submission to InfoShop 17-Mar-2016 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors Page 7 of 10 "In country" Disclosure St. Lucia 17-Mar-2016 Comments: Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process Date of receipt by the Bank 10-Mar-2016 Date of submission to InfoShop 16-Mar-2016 "In country" Disclosure St. Lucia 16-Jan-2014 Comments: http://www.finance.gov.lc/resources/download/2028 Pest Management Plan Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? NA Date of receipt by the Bank NA Date of submission to InfoShop NA "In country" Disclosure Comments: 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: The Pest Management Policy has been triggered in case of incidental pesticide use (e.g. termite treatment for building foundations), as needed. As the quantities will not be significant, no separate Pest Management Plan has been developed; instead, the updated EMF includes appropriate procedures in the form of a generic standardized EMP for incorporation into contract clauses. 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 Practice Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] Manager (PM) review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] in the credit/loan? OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats Would the project result in any significant conversion or Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] degradation of critical natural habitats? If the project would result in significant conversion or Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] degradation of other (non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank? OP 4.09 - Pest Management Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] Is a separate PMP required? Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] Page 8 of 10  If yes, has the PMP been reviewed and approved by a Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] safeguards specialist or PM? Are PMP requirements included in project design?If yes, does the project team include a Pest Management Specialist? OP/BP 4.11 - Physical Cultural Resources Does the EA include adequate measures related to cultural Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] property? Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] potential adverse impacts on cultural property? OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/ Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Yes [ ] No [ ] NA [ ] Practice Manager review the plan? Is physical displacement/relocation expected? Yes [ ] No [ ] TBD [ ] Provided estimated number of people to be affected Is economic displacement expected? (loss of assets or access to Yes [ ] No [ ] TBD [ ] assets that leads to loss of income sources or other means of livelihoods) Provided estimated number of people to be affected 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 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(s): Name: Tiguist Fisseha Page 9 of 10 Approved By Safeguards Advisor: Name: Svend Jensby (SA) Date: 18-Mar-2016 Practice Manager/ Name: Niels B. Holm-Nielsen (PMGR) Date: 13-Apr-2016 Manager: Page 10 of 10