INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET



INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET

APPRAISAL STAGE

I. Basic Information

|Date prepared/updated: 09/24/2012 |Report No.: 83838 |

| | |

|1. Basic Project Data | |

|Original Project ID: P106768 |Original Project Name: Rio de Janeiro Public Sector Modernization|

|Country: Brazil |Project ID: P126735 |

|Project Name: Rio State TAL AF - PROGET |

|Task Team Leader: Alessandra Campanaro |

|Estimated Appraisal Date: August 28, 2012 |Estimated Board Date: February 28, 2013 |

|Managing Unit: LCSDU |Lending Instrument: Technical Assistance Loan |

|Sector: Sub-national government administration (34%);Public administration- Other social services (25%);Public administration- |

|Water, sanitation and flood protection (25%);General education sector (8%);Health (8%) |

|Theme: Other urban development (34%);Other social development (25%);Natural disaster management (25%);Health system performance |

|(8%);Education for all (8%) |

|IBRD Amount (US$m.): 48 |

|IDA Amount (US$m.): 0 |

|GEF Amount (US$m.): 0 |

|PCF Amount (US$m.): 0 |

|Other financing amounts by source: |

|Borrower 0.00 |

|0.00 |

|Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment |

|Simplified Processing |Simple [] |Repeater [] |

|Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to |Yes [ ] |No [ ] |

|Crises and Emergencies) | | |

2. Project Objectives

The proposed Additional Financing operation reflects the vital need to support the integrated delivery of services at the state level. The objective is to improve service delivery through introducing performance-based management, information technologies and an integrated territorial development approach in key public services.

3. Project Description

The restructured and scaled up project will be organized into seven thematic components, plus an eighth small component to support overall project administration. The proposed activities will encompass the following areas: public sector management, public financial management, metropolitan and territorial governance, housing and land regularization, education, health, the environment and disaster risk management, and social development. The proposed changes and new activities are presented below according to the project components. The original project will be restructured to include all the new components and make changes to the original components, as described below.

Component 1: Core government systems and management tools for improved performance and efficiency (restructuring from US$11.87 to US$7.65 million). This component supports activities to revise and strengthen existing public sector management procedures and administrative systems and introduce results-based management practices. This component will support the following three lines of activities: (i) introduction of results-based management; (ii) improvement of real estate management; and (iii) strengthening the management of the social security system.

Component 2: Strengthening education management capacity and secondary school quality (scaling up from US$2.77 million to US$7.83 million). This component supports activities to strengthen SEEDUC's technical capacity for evidence-based policy-making, the management of school infrastructure and the quality of secondary education. The component will be scaled up to include activities to support diagnostic studies, the benchmarking of relevant experiences, and the strengthening of the school infrastructure management practices.

Component 3: Health Management and Information Systems (scaling up from US$3.21 million to US$8.37 million). This component supports four activities for strengthening health monitoring and to improve evaluation processes and hospital information systems. This component will support the design of business intelligence systems (BI) required to support the improvement of internal hospital processes and workflows by generating and managing information and enhancing routines and protocols.

Component 4: Strengthening metropolitan management through integration and coordination in urban development, housing, and transport (US$13 million). This component will support activities for the development of a framework for metropolitan governance and structural studies in the areas of housing, transport, and land tenure. This component will trigger a collective learning process among private and public stakeholders in the metropolitan region, involving policy roundtables, strategic planning processes, workshops, and study tours coordinated by the state government in the three sectors mentioned above.

Component 5: Strengthening the state's disaster risk management capacity (US$10.4 million). This component supports activities aimed at improving DRM capacity as well as the state's early warning system for high rainfall events. DRM activities will include support for the development of a disaster risk management policy/program, which will entail a participatory process to institutionalize DRM in the state. The activities will include preventive measures, institutional capacity improvements, technical support for risk reduction, and improved risk communication.

Component 6: Improving living conditions in the most vulnerable social settings (US$ 9.9 million). This component will support activities aimed at strengthening the capacity of the Secretariat of Social Assistance and Human Rights (SEASDH) to implement an integrated and evidence-based medium-term social development strategy and to support activities by the Public Prosecutor (MP) to combat drugs in the municipalities. The component will have two main subcomponents. The first will focus on activities carried out by the Secretariat of Social Assistance and Human Rights (SEASDH), including (i) organizational restructuring and formulation of a strategic planning process; and (ii) support to the five strategic priorities of SEASDH. The second subcomponent will strengthen the capacity of state and municipal governments to treat drug addiction by (i) mapping the supply of and demand for the network of specialized drug treatment centers; (ii) building capacities within the Public Prosecutor and drug user attention network; and (iii) monitoring and evaluation of prevention measures adopted by the municipalities.

Component 7: Strengthening core finance and taxation functions (US$ 6.1 million). This component supports the State Secretariat of Finance (SEFAZ) in carrying out studies and adopting new practices aimed at strengthening tax administration and financial management systems. Activities under this component will strengthen procedures needed to maintain fiscal discipline and strategic allocation of resources that is aligned with Government priorities and efficient service delivery, including tax policy, tax administration and public investment management and costing.

Component 8: Support for project management (US$2.323million; allocation of US$0.6 million from the original loan and US$1.723 million from additional financing). This new component will finance activities related to the overall administration of the project. The original project allocated funds to the expenditure category "operating costs" to cover project administration costs. However, some of the required expenditures are related to goods, consultant services, non-consultant services, and training. Therefore, a new component will be created and reallocations between expenditure categories made to adequately reflect the project's administration needs.

4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis

The Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Region environmental problems are diverse and comparative to its magnitude. Key environmental issues in the RJMR are related to a massive urban development in an environmentally sensitive area. The RJMR area is characterized by a diverse topography, with high mountains separating the coastline from the west side lowlands (Baixada). A significant portion of the Region is formed by mountains and low lands, with unfavorable conditions for urban development. Natural vegetation remains in the mountains and steep terrains. Most low land has urban use.

The RJMR faces numerous environmental problems, such as unplanned occupation of steep slopes and river margins, water quality degradation, air quality problems in specific areas and progressive degradation of the remaining preserved Atlantic Forest spots. The recent landslides in Niteroi and Nova Friburgo reinforce the importance of the ongoing State policies to improve urban development planning, environmental management and risk mitigation.

The RJMR has Atlantic Forest ecosystems with high rates of biodiversity. Natural vegetation still responds for approximately one fourth of the area, including forests, mangroves, salt marshes and beaches, essential to the environmental equilibrium. The most significant remaining forest and conservation units are located in the foothills of the central mountainous region or close to the shoreline, in swampy areas in the vicinity of the Guanabara Bay, and the western city of Rio de Janeiro. The forests, marshes and mangroves are located in regions where physical obstacles placed limits on expansion of economic activities or where they have stagnated due to socioeconomic realities and political conditions, allowing native vegetation to regenerate.

The RJMR shares with other metropolitan areas in Brazil the problems of water pollution, and the need to improve sanitation, solid waste collection and disposal. Problems with sewerage and solid waste collection services are aggravated by the region topographic conditions. Sanitation coverage is not universal. It is higher in the affluent and consolidated portions of the RJMR, but deficient in peri-urban areas, slums (favelas), occupied mainly by lower-income populations.

In summary, urban expansion in RJMR takes place in a unique and fragile natural environment, characterized by diverse topography and encroachment of urban settlements into environmentally sensitive areas, causing progressive environmental degradation. The GORJ sector policies addressed by this TAL focus on the region urban degradation causes, improving urban planning and environmental management.

During preparation, the Bank undertook a social analysis to explore the potential social impacts of the project on different stakeholder groups. It relied on secondary sources – mostly social assessments and poverty and social impact analyses carried out for previous DPL operations with the state and municipality of Rio de Janeiro. These previous assessments relied on demographic and census data, ethnographic studies of the conditions of daily life of poor people, youth, women and vulnerable groups, and consultations with key stakeholders. They show that, despite having recently begun to turn the corner after decades of economic stagnation and social deterioration, the State of Rio de Janeiro and its metropolitan region have not been able to convert economic growth into widespread, improved social well-being. Although the proportion of poor and extremely poor people in the State's population is smaller than in the rest of the country, social and economic inequality remains high in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Both metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions present relevant challenges to further reduce poverty and improve well-being.

These assessments tend to concur with the proposition that lower incomes, poverty and extreme poverty are closely and meaningfully correlated with race, generation and gender issues, lower levels of education, more limited access to public services, inadequate housing and higher vulnerability to violence and crime. Also, there is strong evidence that poverty and extreme poverty are considerably more widespread in the metropolitan region and disproportionately and overwhelmingly affect female-headed households with children (a trend towards a feminization of poverty) and afro-descendants who reside in precarious settlements and at-risk areas. The metropolitan region has expanded in the last decade toward peripheral zones and vertically within the favelas in a unique and fragile natural environment. The absence of a formal housing market and state policies for low-income housing has led poor families to locate themselves in underserviced peripheral areas. These "solutions" have increased social exclusion and promoted "favelization" in most peripheral areas. Thus, the percentage of people living in substandard housing under precarious conditions and in at-risk areas has increased and, in recent years, at a rate three times faster than the growth rate of the city's population. Additionally, the available data show that, since 1985, increasing numbers of precarious, poor and informal settlements have fallen under the rule of drug lords and militias, with devastating effects for the residents. Crime and violence are focused in these settlements and surrounding areas, and victimize young people the most. Finally, this research, consultations with stakeholders and public opinion polls have pointed out rampant violence and criminality – closely related with drug dealing and addiction – are conceived of as the main social concerns and the key obstacles to new business attraction, economic recovery and social development in the state.

Previous research and consultations with key stakeholders – reviewed on the social assessment for this operation – show the metropolitan population agrees that (a) social and economic inequality is the main issue in the metropolitan region of Rio de Janeiro and (b) it is reflected in a spatial distribution of inequality that is reinforced by the lack of state investments in public services and infrastructure in most settlements. The data available from qualitative research and consultations with key stakeholders show broad public support for policies driven towards urban upgrading of favelas and the reduction of settlements in at-risk areas. Many studies also suggest that the metropolitan population agrees that the re-taking of informal settlements previously controlled by drug dealers and militias was essential for improving the living conditions of poor residents, recovering their citizenship rights, and improving their participation in civil society. Finally, the available sources reveal that the metropolitan population and, in particular, the people living in violence ridden communities previously or currently controlled by drug dealers and militias strongly support the view that police activities should be complemented with other social interventions, including policies to improve low-income housing, upgrade informal settlements and promote social development. Thus, the feedback from residents of informal settlements about UPP policies has been mostly positive, but they remain concerned with the potential migration of crime and violence to other neighborhoods. They express fears that UPP interventions may not endure and that drug traffickers and militias might return and retaliate against residents. They also fear that traffickers might prevail over both government and nongovernment programs that promote social and youth development, strengthen citizenship rights among a population that has been socialized under the culture of violence, and return drug users to their everyday family life.

5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists

Mr Gunars H. Platais (LCSEN)

Mr Alberto Coelho Gomes Costa (LCSSO)

|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 project does not entail any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible negative impacts.

2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area:

A number of studies included under the housing and metropolitan governance aspect of the project could potentially have indirect environmental and/or social impacts. These studies will be developed in accordance to the Environmental and Social Management Framework guidelines, taking into consideration the Bank Social and Environmental Safeguards.

Adverse social consequences and disputes may arise from the government's disaster risk management and urban territorial development policies that could involve the resettlement of families living in precarious settlements and/or areas at very high risk of massive landslides. The State of Rio de Janeiro s current practices of resettlement – as defined by State Decree 41.148/2008 (and its complementary legislation) and implemented in large programs such as PAC – have been assessed in the preparation of the Urban and Housing Development Policy Loan (P122391). The gaps between these practices and their regulatory framework have been properly addressed and covered at the project s Involuntary Resettlement Policy Framework.

3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts.

N/A

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 Rio de Janeiro State is making significant progress to improve its environmental management system. The Environmental and Social Management Framework proposes institutional capacity strengthening measures and an institutional arrangement to implement the Project. INEA is the State Environmental Agency and is fully involved in the preparation of the project. It will also be responsible for Component 5 which might have potentially impact natural habitats.

Each Project Implementation Unit is responsible for their environmental management and will follow the guidelines established in the ESMF under guidance from INEA. Each Secretariat has its own environmental staff and the Project implementation will have staff dedicated to following compliance as stipulated in the ESMF and also according to State and National legislation.

The state of Rio de Janeiro has notably improved its involuntary resettlement legislation and procedures in the past few years. Decree 41148/2008 introduces as its main guidelines: (a) the participation of the affected people in all stages of the resettlement process; (b) the provision of resettlement options; (c) strong mechanisms of communication with the population; and, (d) extensive consultation processes with main stakeholders to address their concerns during implementation. These procedures, guidelines and mechanisms potentially advance socially responsible resettlement processes and are in accordance with most of the provisions of the Bank's resettlement policies. However, they have been recently introduced in state practices in a learning-by-doing basis and there are still some gaps between this state regulatory framework and the Bank s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP/BP 4.12), that have been properly addressed at the project s Involuntary Resettlement Policy Framework.

5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people.

The state of Rio de Janeiro has undertaken strong consultation with people in informal settlements that may be affected by the Rio State Metropolitan Urban and Housing Development Policy Loan (P122391). This process involved public consultations on urban and housing upgrading and disaster management policies. A participatory method for risk identification and assessment of families potentially subject to resettlement was also developed. In addition to this, the state has a well-developed environmental policy framework and the necessary environmental institutional capacity to minimize any negative impacts that may be associated with the project. As mentioned above, the ESMF emphasizes the use of consultative processes.

|B. Disclosure Requirements Date | | |

|Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: |

|Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? |Yes | |

|Date of receipt by the Bank |12/13/2011 | |

|Date of "in-country" disclosure |12/19/2011 | |

|Date of submission to InfoShop |08/22/2012 | |

|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? |Yes | |

|Date of receipt by the Bank |12/06/2011 | |

|Date of "in-country" disclosure |12/20/2011 | |

|Date of submission to InfoShop |08/22/2012 | |

|Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: |

|Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? | | |

|Date of receipt by the Bank | | |

|Date of "in-country" disclosure | | |

|Date of submission to InfoShop | | |

|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? |Yes |

|If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) review and approve the EA report? |Yes |

|Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? |Yes |

|OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats | |

|Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats? |No |

|If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of other (non-critical) natural habitats, |N/A |

|does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank? | |

|OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement | |

|Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process framework (as appropriate) been prepared? |Yes |

|If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Manager review the plan? |Yes |

|The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information | |

|Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Infoshop? |Yes |

|Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a form and language that are |Yes |

|understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? | |

|All Safeguard Policies | |

|Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities been prepared for the implementation |Yes |

|of measures related to safeguard policies? | |

|Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project cost? |Yes |

|Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures|Yes |

|related to safeguard policies? | |

|Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately |Yes |

|reflected in the project legal documents? | |

D. Approvals

|Signed and submitted by: |Name |Date |

|Task Team Leader: |Ms Alessandra Campanaro |05/07/2012 |

|Environmental Specialist: |Mr Gunars H. Platais |12/19/2011 |

|Social Development Specialist |Mr Alberto Coelho Gomes Costa |12/19/2011 |

|Additional Environmental and/or Social Development| | |

|Specialist(s): | | |

| | | |

|Approved by: | | |

|Regional Safeguards Coordinator: |Mr Glenn S. Morgan |08/15/2012 |

|Comments: |

|Sector Manager: |Ms Anna Wellenstein |07/07/2012 |

|Comments: |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download