INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 03/20/2013 Report No.: AC6880 1. Basic Project Data Original Project ID: P113441 Original Project Name: Nepal: School Sector Reform Program Country: Nepal Project ID: P125610 Project Name: Nepal: School Sector Reform Program Additional Financing Task Team Leader: Afrah Alawi Al-Ahmadi Estimated Appraisal Date: March 14, 2013 Estimated Board Date: May 14, 2013 Managing Unit: SASSP Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Primary education (70%);Secondary education (30%) Theme: Education for all (67%);Other social development (33%) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 0 IDA Amount (US$m.): 75 GEF Amount (US$m.): 0 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0 Other financing amounts by source: BORROWER/RECIPIENT 3,895.27 Bilateral Agencies (unidentified) 436.33 Financing Gap 547.70 4,879.30 Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) Yes [ ] No [X] or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies) 2. Project Objectives The Development Objective is to increase access to and improve quality of school education, particularly basic education (Grades 1-8), especially for children from marginalized groups. 3. Project Description The original project uses a Sector Wide Approach (SWAp) to support the implementation of the Government of Nepal's (GON) School Sector Reform Program (SSRP). The three main components of the program are Basic Education, Secondary Education and Strengthening Institutional Capacity. The program finances both the recurrent and the development expenditures (investments) for school education. The proposed Additional Financing (AF) will support the GON in the implementation of the seven year SSRP through the same three original components. The AF will also support restructuring of the original project to address key quality, governance and accountability challenges in the school system. The restructuring will include: (i) introduction of Incentive Linked Indicators (ILIs) to partially finance the Annual Workplan and Budget (AWPB) in order to further improve service delivery and enhance key quality and governance and accountability outcomes; (ii) revision of the Results Framework; and (iii) extension of the original project Closing Date from December 15, 2014 to July 15, 2016, in order to fully implement the governance and accountability measures. The proposed Closing Date would align with the Government's 7-year timeframe for School Sector Reform Program (FY2010-2016) and the GON's fiscal year. 4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis The SSRP aims to provide access to, and equity in, quality basic education programs. The program will be implemented nationwide. No irreversible or large scale environmental impacts are foreseen. Civil works to be supported under the Additional Financing are typically small scale and may include construction/upgrading of small school blocks or new/additional classrooms or may be related to providing drinking water or sanitation facilities. An Environmental Management Framework (EMF) was prepared by the GON for the original project and is adequate to provide environmental guidance to the Additional Financing as well. 5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Mr Drona Raj Ghimire (SASDI) Mr Parthapriya Ghosh (SASDS) 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 Additional Financing of the School Sector Reform Program will not be associated with any large scale, irreversible environmental damage. Any environmental concerns of the Additional Financing are related to the civil works. The type of civil works to be supported remains the same as in the original project. These include construction or upgrading of small school blocks or new/additional classrooms or may be related to providing facilities such as drinking water and sanitation. These works are relatively small-scale, spread in different parts of the country, have low environmental risks, and are therefore categorized as Environmental Category B. Hence, the provisions in the Environmental Management Framework (EMF) of the original project are adequate to provide environmental guidance to the proposed Additional Financing. 2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: No expected indirect or direct long term impacts. 3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. No alternative proposals were feasible for the small scale infrastructure being considered under this program. 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. The GON prepared an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) for the original project and some training on the EMF has been carried out. Recently, the Department of Education recruited a full-time dedicated Environmental Officer to provide country-wide oversight on implementation of the EMF. The structural design of the two and four room blocks consider earthquake risks. Water supply and sanitation facilities are provided if they do not exist already. With support from the Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, the quality of water supplied to schools is being checked. The review during preparation of Additional Financing indicated that further effort is needed to fully and effectively implement the EMF. For example, additional targeted orientations and trainings on the EMF are needed. In addition, the DoE Environmental Officer and an independent agency/person need to monitor the implementation of the EMF to ensure that the School Improvement Plan incorporates environmental considerations. Finally, printed copies of the EMF need to be disseminated to all stakeholders/ users, and each new school block must use EMF environmental criteria for siting, planning, design and construction. The Vulnerable Community Development Framework (VCDF) prepared under the original project to ensure that the most vulnerable groups including girls, Dalits, disadvantaged Janajatis, etc., benefit from the implementation and outcomes of the project activities will apply under the AF. The VCDF was developed based on national policies/strategies and the SSRP with the aim of meeting IDA's OP/BP 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples (IP) and to ensure that there are repeated opportunities for free, prior, and informed consultations specifically with IP groups, and more generally with other marginalized and disadvantaged groups during program implementation. The VCDF has been reviewed and remains valid for the AF. As in the parent project, there will be no involuntary land acquisition under the program, and hence, the AF will not trigger OP 4.12 on involuntary resettlement. However, since there will be voluntary land acquisition, a set of guidelines acceptable to IDA for such acquisition were prepared by the GON for the original project. The same will apply for the Additional Financing as well. 5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. The EMF has been shared by the Ministry of Education with other concerned institutions, Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, and civil society. The Department of Education has re-disclosed the EMF, the VCDP and the Framework for Land Acquisition on its website. The EMF was translated into Nepali. The EMF was included in the original project's Program Implementation manual. DOE will disseminate the EMF to stakeholders including engineers / sub-engineers, district education officers, etc. B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 08/11/2009 Date of "in-country" disclosure 02/15/2013 Date of submission to InfoShop 03/14/2013 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? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 08/11/2009 Date of "in-country" disclosure 02/15/2013 Date of submission to InfoShop 03/14/2013 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) OP/BP/GP 4.01 - Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? No If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) N/A review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the Yes credit/loan? OP/BP 4.10 - Indigenous Peoples Has a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework (as Yes appropriate) been prepared in consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Yes Manager review the plan? If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been reviewed N/A and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit or Sector Manager? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Yes Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a Yes 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 responsibilities Yes been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project Yes cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the Yes monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the Yes borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? D. Approvals Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Ms Afrah Alawi Al-Ahmadi 03/13/2013 Environmental Specialist: Mr Drona Raj Ghimire 02/13/2013 Social Development Specialist Mr Parthapriya Ghosh 02/15/2013 Additional Environmental and/or Ms Bandita Sijapati 02/21/2013 Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Ms Zia Al Jalaly 03/18/2013 Comments: Cleared. Please refer to Sanjay's email of March 7, 2013 for details. Sector Manager: Mr Pablo Gottret 03/15/2013 Comments: Approved. Please refer to email from Pablo of March 15, 2013.