Environmental and Social Analysis in World Bank Projects Challenges to implementing more strategic approaches Glenn Morgan Regional Safeguards Advisor, Latin America and Caribbean Region The World Bank October 10, 2013

Moving Assessments Upstream The presentations all represent the more general problem that investment projects as development interventions often do not provide a sufficient mechanism for evaluating strategic issues even though investments usually support important strategic objectives Instruments like SEA; CIA; analysis of country partnerships strategies are all attempts to work beyond transactional, project level constraints

Policy Basis for Upstream Assessments From a policy perspective the World Bank OP 4.01 recognizes and encourages projects to use of upstream assessments such as REA, SEA (see Annex A paras 6 and 8) which are referred to in different parts of the policy on EA The policy further encourages the use of and findings of country environmental studies, national environmental action plans, country’s overall policy framework, and so on (para 3 and 4) Policy recognizes, encourages and provides for flexibility to use and adapt different approaches matched to the specific context (para 7 EIA, Regional / Sectoral EA) Annex B para (d) lays out the suggested content of an EA including the articulation of baseline data that takes into account current and proposed development activities in the project area but not directly connected to the project (related and/or cumulative effects) Recognizes the legitimacy of other analytical tools such as regional development plans or least-cost power expansion planning (footnote 1-3 in Annex A)

Operational Challenges Projects are defined and/or constrained by – Short term temporal boundaries 3-5 years; – Limited geographic boundaries (depending on definition of area of influence) – project specific budgets which reinforce a silo approach – the bureaucratic imperatives of their proponents who are trying to meet short deadlines, budget cycles, election cycles etc. – project proponents often are only concerned about their own project and not the interaction with others All of these factors – to varying degrees - work against moving to a more strategic approach

Cumulative Impact Assessment Appropriateness of the CIA instrument and analytical approach in a project context. Strategic questions are often beyond the mandate of individual projects owners Lack of common or accepted methodology for CIA or other forms of strategic analysis often raise doubts about efficacy or relevance CIA /SEA can take many forms – the hydro example shows the accumulation of several projects in one basin; other CIA look at the cumulative interactions across sectors – e.g., irrigation, mining, land use, industrial/domestic water demands CIA could be more effective if we first set out our environmental and social management objectives and then evaluate the accumulation of interventions against those objectives. The application of strategic analytical approaches has been opportunistic in nature often involving task teams that take advantage of the specific context

Implementation Challenges Sequencing and timing of upstream work… – When and by whom? – How does the upstream work relate to project investments? – Financing and resources for strategic assessments How to ensure cost-effectiveness Knowledge and experience relevant to specific tasks. Do we have experienced technical people? Approaches which move forward with some investments while supporting strategic planning

Some operational approaches Capacity building and training of counterparts through investment projects Greater recognition of previous work that has been done by the client in the form of master plans, strategies, Working on safeguards more systematically at the country level. Gap analysis studies, portfolio risk reviews, thematic supervision Use P4R or other programmatic lending to address systemic issues, especially related to capacity building