INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET ADDITIONAL FINANCING Report No.: ISDSA4602 Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 11-Sep-2013 Date ISDS Approved/Disclosed: 20-Sep-2013 I. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Basic Project Data Country: Montenegro Project ID: P145399 Parent P107992 Project ID: Project Name: Montenegro Energy Efficiency Additional Financing (P145399) Parent Project Energy Efficiency (P107992) Name: Task Team Jari Vayrynen Leader: Estimated 24-Jul-2013 Estimated 07-Nov-2013 Appraisal Date: Board Date: Managing Unit: ECSEG Lending Specific Investment Loan Instrument: Sector(s): Energy efficiency in Heat and Power (92%), Public administration- Energy and mining (8%) Theme(s): Climate change (80%), Other social development (15%), Pollution management and environmental health (5%) 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: 6.60 Total Bank Financing: 6.60 Financing Gap: 0.00 Financing Source Amount Borrower 0.00 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 6.60 Total 6.60 Environmental B - Partial Assessment Category: Is this a No Repeater project? Page 1 of 7 2. Project Development Objective(s) A. Current Project Development Objectives – Parent B. Proposed Project Development Objectives – Additional Financing (AF) The project development objective is to improve energy efficiency performance in public sector buildings to provide a demonstrated basis to improve energy efficiency implementation practices and capacity in public institutions and service providers in Montenegro. 3. Project Description The proposed additional financing (AF) would scale up project activities to enhance the impact of a well performing project and finance costs associated with the retrofitting of important health sector facilities in the country to make them more energy efficient. The AF would finance 15-16 subprojects at hospitals and health care centers throughout the country, and at the Clinic Center Montenegro in Podgorica. The Project Development Objective (PDO) would not change, but the results framework would be updated to reflect the scaled up number of subprojects. As all the proposed AF subprojects are in the health sector, the Ministry of Education would not continue to be part of the institutional and implementation arrangements of the AF; minor changes to the procurement approach and methods are also proposed. It is expected that all the subprojects as well technical and social monitoring and evaluation would be completed by January 2017, and the closing date is therefore proposed to be extended to March 30, 2017, i.e., by three years from the current MEEP Closing Date of March 30, 2014. 4. Project location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis (if known) The energy efficiency investments are targeted all over Montenegro, focusing on energy efficiency improvements in hospital buildings. At the present stage locations of activities are expected to include, among others, hospitals and/or health centers in Podgorica, Kotor, Bar, Cetinje, Budva, Ulcinj, Niksic, Danilovgrad, Kolasin, Berane and Andrijevica. While the MEEP subprojects have been tentatively pre-identified, the preparation and disclosure of the subproject EMPs can only be meaningfully done after the detailed energy audits and technical designs become available (there are detailed designs for a part of the works at the Clinic Center Montenegro but only for about half of what the subproject measures will eventually cover). The EMP variations can in some cases be significant; e.g., some of the buildings may previously have had low-radioactivity fluorescent lighting rods, some asbestos containing materials, old oil tanks etc. Therefore, disclosure of EMPs when the scope of works is not yet fully known would likely require further changes to EMPs in later stages and re-disclosure of the updated documents. MEEP AF will therefore follow the approach already used in MEEP where an agreed generic sample EMP is adjusted, as needed, for each subproject. Site-specific EMPs will be prepared for each specific sub-project only after or in parallel to detailed design stage. These will be based on already adopted Environmental Management Framework Document, which was prepared for the Project in 2008. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Page 2 of 7 Nikola Ille (ECSEN) Sandra Schlossar (ECSSO) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered? Explanation (Optional) Environmental Assessment OP/ Yes Project is rated category B. Environmental BP 4.01 Management Framework has been prepared for the Project and disclosed in 2008. The implementation of the energy efficiency measures on retrofitting public buildings is not expected to have any significant negative environmental impact. The issues related to this type of activities include noise, dust, vibrations, and management of construction waste during civil engineering activities - which could be successfully managed and mitigated by application of good engineering practices. In some cases, however, the presence of asbestos, crude oil and old fuel tanks may require specific handling procedures, which will be defined in site-specific EMPs. As required by the EMF, the implementing groups in the Ministry of Healthwill ensure that construction contracts will include clauses that will require contractors to comply with building safety rules in Montenegro and safeguards standards of Montenegro as well as of the Bank. No new constructions are envisioned under the project. The responses in Section II-C of this ISDS refer to the Environmental Framework Document, prepared and disclosed during 2008 for the original Project. This document will continue to be used for the Additional Financing Project, as it remains adequate and fully relevant for it. Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 No No works within or near protected habitats are anticipated. Forests OP/BP 4.36 No No works within or near forests are anticipated. Pest Management OP 4.09 No Not relevant Physical Cultural Resources OP/ No During project preparation it will be confirmed BP 4.11 whether any of the buildings chosen for rehabilitation are designated cultural property. As provided for in the sample EMP, in these cases the site-specific EMPs will include clauses related to heritage protection and conservation. The civil engineering works will have to be reviewed and approved by competent national cultural heritage institutions. Page 3 of 7 Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 No Not relevant. Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP No The EE measures implemented at the subproject 4.12 sites include retrofitting of existing structures and equipment and do not require land acquisition or resettlement, or lead to loss of access or income. Accordingly, no social safeguards issues related to land acquisition or resettlement issues are foreseen under the AF. Energy efficiency measures are done through retrofitting of systems and installations; therefore, no job losses are envisaged and instead a positive employment impact is expected in the construction sector. Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 No Not relevant. Projects on International No Not relevant. Waterways OP/BP 7.50 Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP No Not relevant. 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 Restructured project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: The implementation of the energy efficiency measures is not expected to have any significant negative environmental impact. The issues related to this type of activities include noise, dust, vibrations, and management of construction waste during civil engineering activities - which could be successfully managed and mitigated by application of good engineering practices. In some cases, however, the presence of asbestos, crude oil and old fuel tanks may require specific handling procedures, which will be defined in site-specific EMPs. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: There will be no long-term negative environmental impacts if project activities are executed as designed. The minor temporary negative effects (noise, vibrations, dust, construction waste) are of limited duration and can be successfully mitigated by application of good engineering practices and application of site-specific EMPs, which will be based on Environmental Framework Document and tailored for each specific site. The positive environmental impacts will be manifested by reduction of fuel consumption and consequential reduction of air pollution load, improved comfort and working conditions for the patients and hospital/health center staff. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. Project design and specifications will ensure that materials and equipment used in retrofitting Page 4 of 7 comply with requirements of the EMP, which will be included in the bidding documents and 4. contract Describe work. ofmeasures taken by the borrower to address safeguard policy issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. An Environmental Management Framework (EMF) including a sample Environmental Management Plan (EMP)/Checklist was prepared for the Project and adopted in 2008. The Project implementation team prepared site-specific EMPs for each of the sub-projects executed up to now, which were reviewed and approved by the Bank. Monitoring and reporting on contractor’s compliance with site-specific EMPs on the existing Project is undertaken on a monthly basis by the supervising engineer and reports sent to the Project Implementation Team. Reporting from PIT to the Bank is undertaken twice per year, and more frequently in case of particular issues or problems. Review of the environmental compliance monthly reports and reality check on sample sub-projects is undertaken by the Bank’s safeguards specialist at least once per year, during the regular implementation support missions. Until now there were no major deviations from the measures determined in the site-specific EMPs. While undertaking the above activities, the Project’s implementation team has developed an understanding and capacity to successfully deal with the environmentally-related activities, which was documented during Bank’s regular implementation support missions. The Additional Financing part of the Project will continue to use the same arrangements for preparation, implementation and monitoring of site-specific EMPs as already used on the Project. This will include (i) preparation of draft site-specific EMPs by the Project Implementation Team; (ii) review and approval of site-specific EMPs by the Bank’s team; (iii) inclusion of site-specific EMP as a part of the Bidding Document, and subsequent contract; (iv) execution of EMP-related measures by the respective contractor(s); (v) monitoring and reporting of compliance with EMP- related measures by supervising engineer (to the Project Implementation Team); (vi) reporting on compliance with EMP to the Bank (by the Project Implementation Team). 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Consultation on the EMF was carried in 2008. In country disclosure of the EMF was completed on July 25, 2008. The EMF was submitted for disclosure in the World Bank infoshop on July 31, 2008. The existing EMF will continue to be used for the Additional Financing part of the Project. While the MEEP subprojects have been tentatively pre-identified, the preparation and disclosure of the subproject EMPs can only be meaningfully done after the detailed energy audits and technical designs become available. Accordingly, disclosure of site-specific EMPs will be done in parallel or on completion of design activities for each particular sub-project. The public disclosure activities will be coordinated with the social team and undertaken simultaneously. Project-related activities are to be implemented within the existing foot-print of the building(s), and as such interested stakeholders are limited to building users, administrators and immediate neighboring community. However, in case where the buildings may be under some regime of protection, the wider audience of stakeholders can be interested. B. Disclosure Requirements Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other Date of receipt by the Bank 28-Jul-2008 Page 5 of 7 Date of submission to InfoShop 31-Jul-2008 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors "In country" Disclosure Montenegro 28-Jul-2008 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: 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? 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: Jari Vayrynen Approved By Page 6 of 7 Regional Safeguards Name: Date: Advisor: Sector Manager: Name: Date: Page 7 of 7