Download DOC

INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET
CONCEPT STAGE
Report No.: AC1065
Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: September 29, 2004
I. BASIC INFORMATION
A. Basic Project Data
Country: Kiribati
Project Name: Kiribati Adaptation Project Implementation Phase (KAP II)
GEF Focal Area:
Estimated Appraisal Date: June 1, 2005
Managing Unit: EASRD
Project ID: P089326
Task Team Leader: Sofia U. Bettencourt
Global Supplemental ID:
Estimated Board Date: September 30, 2005
Lending Instrument: Specific Investment
Loan
Theme: Vulnerability assessment and
monitoring (P);Climate change (P);Natural
disaster management (P)
Sector: General agriculture, fishing and
forestry sector (40%);General water,
sanitation and flood protection sector
(40%);General public administration sector
(20%)
Safeguard Policies Specialists in the task team:
Loan/Credit amount ($m.): GEF US$1.54 million
Other financing amounts by source:
Government of Kiribati
Co-Financiers (e.g. EC)
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
JAPAN: MINISTRY OF FINANCE - PHRD GRANTS
.86
TBD
1.54
.68
B. Project Objectives
The key goal of the Kiribati Adaptation Program is to reduce Kiribati’s vulnerability to climate change,
climate variability, and sea level rise.
The first Phase of the Program (Preparation, KAP I) is on-going, and funding the initial mainstreaming of
climate change adaptation into national economic planning, as well as preparation for the Investment Phase
(KAP II).
The objective of the proposed Pilot Implementation Phase of KAP (KAP II) is to implement pilot adaptation
measures, and consolidate mainstreaming of adaptation into national economic planning.
C. Project Description
The project is expected to include the following components:

Component 1. Priority National Adaptation Investments (US$1.5 million). This component would finance public
adaptation investments in key vulnerable sectors, identified as national priorities and mainstreamed into
sectoral Ministries’ Operational Plans. Its objective would be to progressively reinforce adaptation
investments across the Government’s budget and sectoral plans, making the national economy less
vulnerable to climate change impacts. The goods, works and services funded by the component will be
relatively modest during KAP II, and focus on public sector programs in Tarawa. They are likely to
include: information materials on early climate warning and climate change; improved water management to
protect wells and reduce piping leakage; coastal management and protection, including mangrove replantation
and protection of public infrastructure; strengthened regulations, particularly on coastal aggregates removal,
infrastructure zonation, and fisheries; population settlement planning; and waste management in vulnerable
areas. The process for prioritization of these investments is on-going and is expected to be concluded
by January 2005.

Component 2. Pilot Island Adaptation (US$0.2 million). This component would fund community adaptation
investments in two selected outer islands, in order to engage local communities in the adaptation process,
and test a whole-island approach to adaptation planning. It would fund small grants provided directly to
communities for integrated activities which they could do themselves with little outside help, identified
through participatory planning.

Component 3.
National Consultation and Mainstreaming (US$0.4 million). This component would
consolidate the mainstreaming and adaptation process initiated under KAP I and prepare the expansion
phase (KAP III) of the program. It is expected to include: technical assistance for continued
mainstreaming of adaptation priorities into national and sectoral planning processes; local consultations on outer
islands not included in Component 2, to prepare for the expansion phase; national consultations and
workshops to continue to inform the mainstreaming of adaptation priorities into government
operations; and awareness campaigns.

Component 4. Program Management and Capacity Building (US$0.7 million). This component would provide
overall support to the project. It would include: workshops and training to raise capacity in adaptationrelated areas; studies on the technical, social and economic analysis of vulnerability and adaptation
options in priority sectors and islands (to advise the adaptation process and prepare for the expansion
phase); and project management support, including technical assistance, facilitators for the island pilots, and
incremental operating costs.
Through the experience acquired in the pilot investments, and the awareness, consultation, and
mainstreaming processes of Component 2, the project is expected to help modify adaptation practices and
behaviors in two key ways: (a) directly, by helping people cope more effectively with vulnerability and change;
and (b) indirectly, through a process that is expected to contribute to further inclusiveness of traditional
governance structures into national economic planning.
D. Project location (if known)
The project would take place in the Republic of Kiribati, an extremely isolated nation of 93,000 inhabitants
spread over 33 islands covering an area of ocean 2,000 km north to south and 4,000 km east to west. As a
country consisting primarily of small coral atolls, Kiribati is one of the countries most threatened by rising sea
levels and climate change. In the absence of adaptation measures, a recent Bank-funded study estimated that
Kiribati could suffer damages equivalent to 17 to 34 percent of the 1998 GDP. The main impacts are likely
to be periodic inundation of atoll islands due to rising sea levels (compounded by storm surges), health and
agriculture impacts due to more intense droughts and floods, and loss of revenue from offshore fisheries as
tuna stocks move westward. The proposed project would help the Government of Kiribati in adopting risk
minimization strategies and prioritizing adaptation options to handle climate change impacts.
There are no particular critical natural habitats in Kiribati; however, the atoll systems are naturally fragile.
Given the extreme isolation of the outer islands, traditional systems of decision making remain important.
The lack of freshwater in many outer islands and job opportunities is exacerbating problems of overcrowding
in the main islands of Tarawa and Kiritimati (Christmas).
E. Borrower’s Institutional Capacity for Safeguard Policies
Key Safeguard Issues and Their Management
E.1
Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify
and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts
Environmental impacts of the project are expected to be small, as the main intent is to mitigate potential
negative impacts resulting from climate change. There may be some small scale construction associated with
the project, but this is not expected to have major negative environmental consequences.
The major social issue that Kiribati will need to consider in the long term is whether sea level rise warrants
population evacuation or shifts in settlement patterns for specific atolls or areas that might become partially
or fully submerged as a result of climate change. At present, the Government is considering incentives to
attract population settlement to Kiritimati Island (where all land belongs to the Government). Such
settlement would be voluntary and dependent on the attractiveness of Kiritimati as a new growth center – an
issue which will be studied under a proposed Technical Assistance Grant from the Asian Development Bank.
Population relocation within Kiribati (and possible migration to neighboring countries) is a long term
solution, and will very likely fall outside the lifetime and scope of KAP II – however, the project would help
identify areas of high vulnerability to coastal populations, strengthen population policies, and stimulate a
national debate on adaptation options which would include relocation or emigration of parts of the
population. In the unlikely case that population relocation would need to be considered during the project
(due to a major disaster), the provisions of a Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework, to be
developed under the project, would apply.
Within the life of the project, the main social issues include possible land acquisition and resettlement
concerns arising from the need to relocate infrastructure or housing away from vulnerable areas and
conflicts which might arise when communities adopt adaptation options affecting others. These would
similarly be addressed through the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework.
In cases where public programs funded under the project during the implementation phase might cause social
impacts, they would be assessed and appropriate mitigation measures determined and implemented. The
process of decision-making in adaptation has already progressed considerably under the preparation phase of
the project through a series of comprehensive national and local consultations and the achievement of a
national consensus on the prioritization of adaptation options. A social assessment has been conducted
which has identified the major areas of vulnerability on different kinds of islands (atoll and non-atoll, islands
in different climatic zones, etc.) and potential adaptive strategies to address those vulnerabilities. The social
assessment has also identified decisionmaking mechanisms at the local, island and national levels which can
be used to address, inter alia, safeguards issues.
E.2
Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities
in the project area.
No negative impacts anticipated
E.3
Describe the treatment of alternatives (if relevant)
The main alternative scenario considered was to work exclusively with the Ministry of Environment, Land
and Agriculture Development. However, this was rejected as it would not promote mainstreaming of
adaptation strategies into overall development planning in the country. Instead, the project is expected to be
coordinated by the Office of the President, and involve key sectoral Ministries involved in adaptation
(Environment, Lands and Agriculture Development; Public Works and Utilities; Fisheries and Marine
Resources Development; Internal and Social Affairs; and Ministry of Line and Phoenix Islands
Development).
E.4
Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard issues. Provide an
assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described.
A. Environmental Assessment
An Environmental Analysis will be conducted during preparation which will (i) identify the potential
environmental impacts of the national adaptation investments and propose appropriate mitigation solutions;
(ii) identify the procedures for conducting an environmental screening of sub-grants under the Pilot
Adaptation Component; (iii) describe the monitoring system to be put in place to evaluate the potential
environmental impact of the investments; and (iv) identify and describe the capacity building efforts to allow
for proper environmental monitoring in compliance with Government of Kiribati (GOK) and World Bank’s
EA requirements and procedures. Criteria for adaptation investments to be funded during KAP II would
exclude those with significant environmental impacts (as this is a leading cause of island vulnerability).
B. Involuntary Resettlement
A Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework will be drafted which will form the basis of
agreement with government concerning approaches to be taken in the event land acquisition and/or
resettlement becomes necessary during the project implementation. The approach taken during the
preparation phase of the project has ensured that the safeguard approaches are developed in the context of an
overall adaptation strategy which make sense within the Kiribati context, are genuinely “owned” by the I-Kiribati,
while at the same time meeting Bank requirements.
E.5
Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure
on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people.
The key stakeholders are the people of Kiribati, including those at the community level on individual islands
(the unimanwe, or councils of elders, church groups, women’s groups, youth groups, etc.), island-level bodies
such as Island Councils and councils of churches, and national level bodies including government, civil
society, the private sector. The Adaptation Steering Committee includes the Chairman of the Kiribati
Association of NGOs (KANGO), the Chamber of Commerce (representing the private sector), as well as
government officials from key ministries and agencies. The preparation phase of the project included an
iterative process of national and local workshops in key islands designed to stir national debate and consensus
on adaptation options, and how to best mainstream them into national programs, including Ministry
Operational Plans (MOPs) and the National Development Strategy. This process has institutionalized
expectations of regular exchanges of information, opinions and concerns among all levels of Kiribati society.
The EA and Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework will detail mechanisms for dealing with
environmental or social impacts of the project, including ongoing consultation strategies, grievance
procedures, and participation in decision making processes.
Environmental Assessment Category:
[ ] A [X] B [ ] C [ ] FI [ ] TBD (to be determined)
Comments: The project is not expected to have significant environmental impacts, as it favors 'no regrets'
environmental management measures to diminish island vulnerability. However, there may be cases where
the best adaptation option may be structural solutions or infrastructure set-backs away from the coast to
minimize exposure to storms. The environmental analysis would identify potential impacts and propose
appropriate mitigation measures.
F. Disclosure Requirements
Environmental Analysis:
Date of receipt by the Bank
Date of “in-country” disclosure
Date
03/30/2005
05/30/2005
Date of submission to InfoShop
06/15/2005
For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive
Directors
…/…/…
Not Applicable
Resettlement Policy Framework:
Date of receipt by the Bank
Date of “in-country” disclosure
03/30/2005
05/30/2005
Date of submission to InfoShop
06/15/2005
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.
II. SAFEGUARD POLICIES THAT MIGHT APPLY
YES
Safeguard Policy
If Applicable, How Might It Apply?
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01)
NO
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04)
NO
Pest Management (OP 4.09)
YES
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
NO
Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20)
Applicable?
NO
Forests (OP/BP 4.36)
NO
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37)
NO
Cultural Property (draft OP 4.11 - OPN 11.03)
NO
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)*
NO
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50)
III. SAFEGUARD PREPARATION PLAN
Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (To be filled in when the ISDS is
finalized by the project decision meeting)
OP/BP 4.01 - Environment Assessment:
Yes
No
OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats:
Yes
No
OP 4.09 - Pest Management:
Yes
No
Draft OP 4.11 (OPN 11.03) - Cultural Property:
Yes
No
OD 4.20 - Indigenous Peoples:
Yes
No
Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report?
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?
Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation of critical
natural habitats?
If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of other (noncritical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to
the Bank?
Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues?
Is a separate PMP required?
If yes, are PMP requirements included in project design?
Does the EA include adequate measures?
Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse
impacts on physical cultural resources?
Has a separate indigenous people development plan been prepared in consultation
with the Indigenous People?
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?
*
By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties' claims on the
disputed areas
OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement:
Yes
No
OP/BP 4.36 – Forests:
Yes
No
OP/BP 4.37 - Safety of Dams:
Yes
No
OP 7.50 - Projects on International Waterways:
Yes
No
Yes
No
BP 17.50 - Public Disclosure:
Yes
No
All Safeguard Policies:
Yes
No
Has a resettlement action plan, policy framework or policy process been prepared?
If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and approve the
plan / policy framework / policy process?
Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional issues and constraints been
carried out?
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?
Have dam safety plans been prepared?
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?
Have the other riparians been notified of the project?
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:
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?
Does the PAD/MOP include the standard disclaimer referred to in the OP?
Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's
Infoshop?
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?
Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities been
prepared for the implementation of the safeguard measures?
Have safeguard measures costs been included in project cost?
Will the safeguard measures costs be funded as part of project implementation?
Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring
of safeguard impacts and measures?
Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower
and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents?
IV. APPROVALS
Signed and submitted by:
Task Team Leader:
Approved by:
Regional Safeguards
Coordinator:
Comments
Sector Manager:
Comments
Sofia U. Bettencourt
Date
Name
Date
Name
Date