ICBSP Project Appraisal Document

Transcription

Document of
The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Report No: 34741-JM
PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT
FOR A
PROPOSED LOAN
IN THE AMOUNT OF USD 29.3 MILLION
TO
JAMAICA
FOR AN
INNER CITY BASIC SERVICES FOR THE POOR PROJECT
February 28, 2006
Finance, Private Sector and Infrastructure
Caribbean Country Management Unit
Latin America and the Caribbean Region
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the
performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World
Bank authorization.
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective February 28, 2006)
Currency Unit = Jamaica Dollars (J$)
65.12 J$ = US$1
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 – December 31
CAS
CBA
CBC
CBO
CDB
CDC
CDD
CDO
CEM
CFA
CIDA
CLO
CPAR
CPTED
CSI
DFID
DIME
EDCo
EIA
EMF
EMP
EU
FAU
FOSIS
GoJ
IADB
ICBSP
IRR
JBIC
JICA
JPS Co.
JSIF
JSLC
KMA
LAMP
LARPF
M&E
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Country Assistance Strategy
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Community-Based Contracting
Community-Based Organization
Caribbean Development Bank
Community Development Committees
Community-Driven Development
Community Development Officer
Country Economic Memorandum
Country Financial Accountability Assessment
Canadian International Development Agency
Community Liaison Officer
Country Procurement Assessment Report
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
Community Security Initiative
Department for International Development (UK)
Development Impact Evaluation
Estate Development Company
Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Management Framework
Environmental Management Plan
European Union
Finance and Administration Unit
Fondo de Solidaridad y Inversión Social (Social Investment and Solidarity Fund)
Government of Jamaica
Inter-American Development Bank
Inner Cities Basic Services for the Poor (Project)
Internal Rate of Return
Japan Bank for International Cooperation
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Jamaica Public Services Company
Jamaica Social Investment Fund
Jamaica Survey of Living Conditions
Kingston Metropolitan Area
Land Administration and Management Program
Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework
Monitoring and Evaluation
MDG
MFI
MIS
MTSEPF
NCDP
NEPA
NHDC
NHT
NLA
NSWMA
NWA
NWC
PCA
PDC
PIOJ
PMI
PPI
PRA
REP
SDC
SME
STATIN
UNDP
USAID
WTP
Millennium Development Goal
Microfinance Institution
Management Information System
Medium-Term Socio-Economic Policy Framework
National Community Development Project
National Environment and Planning Agency
National Housing Development Corporation
National Housing Trust
National Land Agency
National Solid Waste Management Agency
National Works Agency
National Water Commission
Procurement Capacity Assessment
Parish Development Committees
Planning Institute of Jamaica
Peace Management Initiative
Peace and Prosperity Initiative
Participatory Rapid Appraisals
Rural Electrification Programme
Social Development Commission
Small and Medium Enterprise
Statistical Institute of Jamaica
United Nations Development Programme
United Sates Agency for International Development
Willingness to Pay
Vice President:
Country Manager/Director:
Sector Manager:
Task Team Leader:
Pamela Cox
Caroline D. Anstey
John Henry Stein
Abhas Kumar Jha
JAMAICA
JM Inner City Basic Services for the Poor Project
CONTENTS
Page
A.
STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE ................................................................. 1
1.
Country and sector issues.................................................................................................... 1
2.
Rationale for Bank involvement ......................................................................................... 3
3.
Use of Borrower Systems ................................................................................................... 4
4.
Higher level objectives to which the project contributes .................................................... 4
B.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 5
1.
Lending instrument ............................................................................................................. 5
2.
Project development objective and key indicators.............................................................. 5
3.
Project components ............................................................................................................. 7
4.
Community consultations ................................................................................................. 17
5.
Lessons learned and reflected in the project design .......................................................... 17
6.
Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection ............................................................ 19
C.
IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................ 20
1.
Partnership arrangements .................................................................................................. 20
2.
Institutional and implementation arrangements ................................................................ 20
3.
Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results ................................................................ 22
4.
Sustainability..................................................................................................................... 23
5.
Critical risks and possible controversial aspects ............................................................... 24
6.
Loan/credit conditions and covenants ............................................................................... 25
D.
APPRAISAL SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 26
1.
Economic and financial analyses ...................................................................................... 26
2.
Technical ........................................................................................................................... 27
3.
Fiduciary ........................................................................................................................... 27
4.
Social................................................................................................................................. 28
5.
Environment ...................................................................................................................... 29
6.
Safeguard policies ............................................................................................................. 29
7.
Policy Exceptions and Readiness...................................................................................... 30
Annex 1: Country and Sector Background .............................................................................. 31
Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies ................. 35
Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring ........................................................................ 37
Annex 4: Detailed Project Description ...................................................................................... 43
Annex 5: Project Costs ............................................................................................................... 61
Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements ................................................................................. 62
Annex 7: Safeguards Policy Issues ............................................................................................ 65
Annex 8: Summary of Environment Management Framework............................................. 71
Annex 9: Summary of Land Acquisition & Resettlement Policy Framework ...................... 74
Annex 10: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements ................................... 79
Annex 11: Procurement Arrangements .................................................................................... 86
Annex 12: Economic and Financial Analysis ........................................................................... 91
Annex 13: Public Safety Diagnosis and Component Strategy .............................................. 102
Annex 14: Community Consultations ..................................................................................... 113
Annex 15: ISO 14000 Certification - Environmental Management System........................ 119
Annex 16: Related Donor, Government and Non-Governmental Programs ...................... 123
Annex 17: Documents in Project Files .................................................................................... 125
Annex 18: Project Preparation and Supervision ................................................................... 126
Annex 19: Statement of Loans and Credits ............................................................................ 127
Annex 20: Country at a Glance ............................................................................................... 128
Annex 21: Maps......................................................................................................................... 130
JAMAICA
INNER CITY BASIC SERVICES FOR THE POOR PROJECT
PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT
LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN
LCSFU
Date: February 23, 2006
Country Director: Caroline D. Anstey
Director: Makhtar Diop
Sector Manager: John Henry Stein
Team Leader: Abhas K. Jha
Sectors: Water supply (30%); Sanitation (30%);
Other social services (30%); Micro- and SME
finance (10%)
Project ID: P091299
Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan
[X] Loan
[ ] Credit
[ ] Grant
Themes: Access to urban services and housing (P);
Other urban development (S)
Environmental screening category: Partial
Assessment
Safeguard screening category: Limited impact
Project Financing Data
[ ] Guarantee
[ ] Other:
For Loans/Credits/Others:
Total Bank financing (US$m): 29.3
Proposed terms: Variable Spread Loan
Source
BORROWER
INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR
RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT
Total:
Financing Plan (US$m)
Local
2.9
23.4
Foreign
0.6
5.9
Total
3.5
29.3
6.5
32.8
26.3
Borrower: Jamaica
Responsible Agency: Jamaica Social Investment Fund (JSIF)
2nd Floor, IC-1F Pawsey Road
Kingston 5, Jamaica
Tel: (876) 926-2825
Estimated disbursements (Bank FY/US$m)
FY
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Annual
0.5
6.0
7.0
7.5
6.5
1.8
Cumulative
0.5
6.5
13.5
21.0
27.5
29.3
Project implementation period: Start – May 15, 2006 End – June 30, 2011
Expected effectiveness date: May 1, 2006
Expected closing date: December 31, 2011
Does the project depart from the CAS in content or other significant respects? Ref.
PAD A.3
Does the project require any exceptions from Bank policies?
Ref. PAD D.7
Have these been approved by Bank management?
Is approval for any policy exception sought from the Board?
Does the project include any critical risks rated ‗substantial‘ or ‗high‘?
Ref. PAD C.5
Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Ref.
PAD D.7
[ ]Yes [X] No
[ ] Yes [X] No
[ ] Yes [X] No
[ ] Yes [X] No
[X] Yes [ ] No
[X] Yes [ ] No
Project development objective Ref. PAD B.2, Technical Annex 3
The project development objective is to improve quality of life in 12 Jamaican inner-city areas and poor
urban informal settlements through improved access to basic urban infrastructure, financial services, land
tenure regularization, enhanced community capacity and improvements in public safety. Specifically, the
project will: (a) increase access and improve the quality of water, sanitation, solid waste collection
systems, electricity, roads, drainage and related community infrastructure for over 60,000 residents of
poor urban informal settlements through capital investments and innovative arrangements for operations
and maintenance; (b) facilitate access to microfinance for enterprise development and incremental home
improvement for entrepreneurs and residents in project areas; (c) increase security of tenure for eligible
households in project areas; and (d) enhance public safety through mediation services, community
capacity building, skills training and related social services.
Project description Ref. PAD B.3.a, Technical Annex 4
The Project is structured with three components. For a detailed Project description see Annex 4.
Component 1: Access to Services (US$ 21.85 million of Bank financing) will include three key
subcomponents:
Subcomponent 1.1: Basic Infrastructure (US$ 20.00 million): This subcomponent will finance: (i)
integrated network infrastructure in project areas for water, sanitation, drainage, and secondary and
tertiary roads; (ii) community centers; (iii) community-based infrastructure including the construction and
rehabilitation of recreational facilities, installation of community garbage receptacles, replacement of zinc
fencing with alternative perimeter fencing and the installation of in-house water and sanitation
connections; (iv) street lighting and the regularization of illegal electricity connections; (v) the
rehabilitation and construction of complimentary offsite network infrastructure; (vi) strengthening solid
waste collection systems through the procurement of compactor trucks to be operated by NSWMA and
the analysis of waste collection systems; and (vii) technical assistance to parish councils to strengthen
operations and maintenance capacity.
Subcomponent 1.2: Access to Financial Services (US$ 1.25 million): This subcomponent will facilitate
access to microfinance services in project areas for productive purposes and incremental home
improvements through performance-based service contracts aimed at creating incentives for existing
Financial Institutions (FIs) to provide microfinance services in project areas. Specifically, the
subcomponent will finance three activities: (i) a performance-based mechanism for the extension of
microfinance loans and technical assistance in project areas; (ii) consultant services for the orientation of
potential bidders and the technical evaluation of bids; and (iii) an independent technical audit of FI
portfolios.
Subcomponent 1.3: Land Tenure Regularization (US$ 0.60 million): This subcomponent will finance
the implementation of a pilot land titling initiative and technical assistance to the Government of Jamaica
for the preparation of a national policy on squatter management and informal urban settlements.
Component 2: Public Safety Enhancement and Capacity Building (US$ 3.90 million, all from Bank
financing) will finance integrated packages of consultant services, training and technical assistance
focused on both short-term mitigation and conflict resolution and medium-term social prevention and
capacity enhancement interventions. In particular, the component will finance the delivery of violence
prevention services in five core social prevention areas including: (i) mediation and conflict resolution;
(ii) alternative livelihoods and skills development; (iii) family support programs; (iv) youth education and
recreation; and (v) CBO capacity building. The component will also finance the mobilization of
community liaison officers in project areas to serve as facilitators.
Component 3: Project Management (US$ 6.33 million, with US$ 2.83 million in Bank financing) will
finance consultant services, training, goods and operating costs for project management and
administration.
Which safeguard policies are triggered, if any? Ref. PAD D.6, Technical Annex 7
The project will trigger the ‗Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address Environmental and Social
Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects‘ (OP.4.00) safeguard policy.
Significant, non-standard conditions, if any, for:
Appraisal:
Ref. PAD C.7
Finalization, adoption and in-country and Bank disclosure of the Environment Management
Framework (EMF) and the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework (LARPF)
(completed)
Presentation and Bank review of draft Operations Manual (completed)
Formation of the Microfinance Management Committee (MMC) (completed)
Board presentation:
Relevant amendments incorporating the Environment Management and Land Acquisition and
Resettlement Policy Frameworks to the JSIF Operations Manual have been reviewed by the Bank
and adopted by the JSIF Board. (completed)
Loan/credit effectiveness:
Signing and adoption of Subsidiary Loan Agreement between the Ministry of Finance and the
Jamaica Social Investment Fund (JSIF)
Covenants applicable to project implementation:
Training of JSIF staff designated to apply the EMF and LARPF in environmental management,
resettlement, and land acquisition is a condition for disbursement for subcomponent 1.1: Basic
Infrastructure
The securing by each community concerned of at least one public or private sponsor willing to
cover at minimum 50 percent of operating costs, for at least one year, for its community center
prior to the initiation of construction of any particular community center under subcomponent 1.1
The finalization of subproject agreements between JSIF and respective community organizations
is a condition for the execution of community infrastructure subprojects by project communities
under subcomponent 1.1 using community-based contracting methods
A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE
1. Country and sector issues
Country Background
Jamaica's economic performance has improved in recent years. Real annual GDP growth accelerated from
1.5 percent in 2001 to 2.3 percent in 2003 and is estimated at 1.8 percent for 2005. The recent
improvement in economic performance follows an extended period of stagnation during 1991-2000. The
improvement in growth is led by relatively strong performance in tourism, mining, agriculture and the
recovery in the manufacturing sector. At the same time the Jamaican economy has been undergoing a
gradual structural transformation. Between 1989 and 2002 the manufacturing sector declined from 20.0
percent of GDP to 13.9 percent while service sectors increased to 67.1 percent of GDP. A driving force
behind this transformation is the growing importance of the tourism sector, including the impact this has
on the construction and transportation sectors.
These changes in the economy have had an impact on the spatial organization of cities and towns.
Business and industrial activity – particularly in the capital of Kingston – has gradually left city centers
resulting in high levels of unemployment and declining investment in basic inner-city services.1 While,
the overall poverty rate fell from 19.1 percent in 2003 to 16.9 percent in 2004, it is estimated that pockets
of urban poverty persist.2 There is also a strong gender dimension to poverty. Female-headed households
account for about two-thirds of the households in poverty and generally show a higher incidence of
poverty in all surveys since 1989.3 The gender dimension of urban poverty in Jamaica is particularly
acute. Of 57 cities surveyed by the UN-Habitat, two Jamaican cities (Montego Bay and Kingston)
reported the highest difference in general poverty incidence and poverty amongst female-headed
households.4
Jamaica‘s inner cities are also at the center of the country‘s growing crime and violence problem. A
record 1,650 killings were reported in 2005. This amounts to 60.4 murders per 100,000 of the population.
Approximately 12.1 percent of all households in the 2002 the Jamaica Survey of Living Conditions
(JSLC) were victims of crime in 2001 and 1.2 percent of all households reported that a family member
had been murdered in the past 12 months.5 High levels of violent crime can be linked to a pattern of
politically motivated violence established in the 1970s and 1980s, and to the emergence of Jamaica as a
major point for the transshipment of drugs from South America to the US and Europe. The economic
stagnation during the 1990s contributed to high levels of unemployment and social deprivation. It also
drove many qualified and professional people, particularly from the healthcare sector, to migrate abroad.
This weakened the social infrastructure further. A complex relationship has evolved in recent years
between organized crime and inner-city communities. By the 1970s, many such communities had
become ‗garrisoned‘ or segregated along political lines through intimidation and patronage, under the
control of a local leader or ‗don‘ with links to one of the main political parties. However, by the 1990s,
the role of politics had diminished, and major criminal gangs – often involved in illegal narcotics and
1
The GoJ refers to ‗inner city communities‘ as the neighborhoods in the central area of the city in or bordering the
historic core and central business district. These inner city neighborhoods suffer from decaying physical
infrastructure, poor service provision, high population densities and sometimes considerable environmental hazards.
More generally, the term ‗inner city‘ is also used to describe slum settlements on the periphery of towns that suffer
the similar lack of access to services and social fragmentation.
2
PIOJ data.
3
World Bank. Country Economic Memorandum (2004)
4
http://www.unchs.org/publication/Analysis-Final.pdf, page 21
5
Jamaica Survey of Living Conditions (2002).
1
extortion - controlled many neighborhoods, under the command of a new breed of dons. These major
gangs have weakened in recent years, and many of the recent deaths are apparently due to intensifying
conflict between smaller local groups. See Annex 13 for greater detail on crime and violence in Jamaica.
Crime and violence – coupled with growing poverty – has further exacerbated social fragmentation and
the weakness of civic organizing in inner-city communities. A 1997 World Bank study of Urban Poverty
and Violence concluded that violence in poor urban communities erodes the two key assets vital to
poverty reduction – labor and social capital. The report recommended projects that integrate the delivery
of services with the development of civic institutions. The Government is also increasingly cognizant of
the economic impact of crime and violence in terms of a worsening investment climate and diminished
tourism sector revenues.
Jamaica has identified inner-city renewal – with a focus on crime and violence prevention – as a key
priority. In 2002, GoJ developed a comprehensive inner-city renewal program which aims to ‗provide a
general framework for integrating the dimensions of human, social, economic and environmental
development‘ of inner-city communities in Jamaica.6 The Government‘s Medium-Term SocioEconomic Policy Framework (MTSEPF) identifies inner-city renewal as a key priority.7 In 2000, the
Prime Minister of Jamaica established a committee of senior officials to oversee and coordinate all innercity renewal interventions in the country. This proposed project‘s focus on sustainable water and
sanitation provision, crime and violence prevention and improved mobility and safety complements the
GoJ program. Additionally, the Government has requested Bank assistance in parallel to Inner Cities
Basic Services for the Poor (ICBSP) implementation for the preparation of a policy and program for the
regularization and management of inner city, urban and peri-urban informal settlements.
The Government has demonstrated a commitment to civic participation and strong performance in
community-based service provision. The Social Development Commission of the GoJ has formulated a
framework to enhance civil society participation through a three-tiered system of public-civic committees.
Community Development Committees (CDC) and Development Area Clusters are being formed at the
neighborhood and neighborhood cluster levels, while Parish Development Committees (PDC) have
already been established in every parish in the country. Additionally, the Jamaica Social Investment Fund
(JSIF) was established in 1996 to reduce poverty and help create an environment for sustainable
development. JSIF is currently executing the National Community Development Project (NCDP),
financed by the World Bank and the Government of Jamaica. JSIF has considerable experience in
financing community infrastructure projects in inner city communities – including those for critically
needed water and sanitation, education, health and transport services. JSIF has also supported a range of
community-based capacity building initiatives in inner-city neighborhoods to build social capital. The
Government is committed to building upon the successful JSIF experience by deepening interventions in
inner-cities in the areas of water, sanitation, crime and violence prevention and traffic management.
Sector Background
Precise data on the quality of basic services in inner-city areas is not readily available. However, an
analysis of aggregate data and recent studies suggests that the quality and coverage of basic services in
inner-city communities is poor, with pockets of extreme deprivation in particular neighborhoods.
Additionally, a Public Expenditure Review for inner city areas (currently in draft) was conducted during
preparation to assess the quality and magnitude of public expenditure on inner city areas. Overall
performance and service quality in key basic infrastructure sectors are poor and, in many cases,
worsening. In particular:
6
7
http://www.pioj.gov.jm/piojdocs/special/finalWHOLEDOC.htm
http://www.pioj.gov.jm/piojdocs/special/Mediumterm.pdf, page 44
2
Water Supply: In 2004 approximately 80 percent of households had access to potable water
through either piped household connections or public standpipes. However, in 2002, only 59
percent of the poorest quintile had access to a reliable source of water supply. 8 For the water
sector there is a lack of enforcement of payments leading to a lack of investment (including even
ordinary maintenance) programs. Many target households either do not have a piped water
connection in their homes or suffer from a lack of adequate water pressure. Improved provision of
these services is high on all the communities‘ priority lists.
Sanitation: For the sanitation sector, the sewerage system in all project communities either does
not exist or is due for a major renewal. The household gray water is often separated from toilet
waste and allowed to flow into storm drainage, where this exists, or otherwise allowed to flow
along the sides of roads, thus polluting adjacent properties on an intermittent basis during heavy
rainfall. Where sewer networks do exist, they are badly maintained and in a very poor state; in
some cases they have been decommissioned without immediate replacement.
Drainage: For storm water drainage, the accumulation of solid waste still remains the number one
problem concerning flooding during periods of heavy rainfall. This can be of particular concern
in poorer communities where solid waste is not segregated by the community. The heavy metal
constituents (from batteries, petroleum products, cans etc) tend to accumulate on the ground after
local flooding subsides, which can lead to direct or indirect ingestion by humans, with obvious
long term health implications, particularly where there are public standpipes.
Solid Waste: Solid waste collection is a major area of concern in all the communities. The
associated health implications of limited and irregular solid waste collection are far reaching.
Electricity: In the electricity sector, unaccounted-for net generation during the past 10 years is
between 15 and 20 percent, most of which is attributable directly to theft of power (generally
through illegal connections). Some inner-city communities have as many as two to three
connections per house. Illegal connections are also a major safety issue in some of these
communities.
2. Rationale for Bank involvement
The Bank is well positioned to support the proposed operation. First, in August 2004 Jamaica formally
requested the assistance of the Bank to prepare and finance an urban infrastructure and public safety
enhancement operation targeting inner-city and informal urban communities. The proposed project has
been formulated in the context of the GoJ inner-city renewal program, formulated in 2002. A
commitment to inner-city renewal was reinforced in the Government‘s Medium-Term Socio-Economic
Policy Framework (MTSEPF) in 2004.
Second, the World Bank Group Country Assistance Strategy (CAS)9 for Jamaica is closely aligned with
the MTSEPF and focuses on three key pillars: (i) accelerating inclusive economic growth; (ii) improving
human development and opportunity; and (iii) crime prevention and reduction. The proposed operation is
closely aligned with all the pillars of the CAS and is specifically referenced in the strategy. In particular,
the ICBSP project will reinforce the first CAS pillar through investments to improve the quality of basic
infrastructure services for the poor. Additionally, the project is closely linked to the third CAS pillar on
crime violence prevention. In this regard, the project designed infrastructure investments in a manner that
8
9
JSLC (2002).
Discussed by the Board on April 20, 2005.
3
reinforces public safety. The public safety component will also finance technical assistance to support
mediation activities and multi-purpose community centers that would support youth and adult skills
training, homework classes and related community capacity-building initiatives. The proposed project
also reinforces the conclusions of the Country Economic Memorandum (CEM) which emphasized the
importance of reducing crime and violence as this has a major impact on the investment climate, the
competitiveness of Jamaican firms, and worker and firm productivity.
Third, the Bank will leverage its global experience in the preparation and implementation of integrated
urban infrastructure projects and its increasing experience and knowledge base on crime and violence
prevention.
Finally, the project will build upon the experience of the ongoing and successful Bank-supported National
Community Development Project (NCDP) – being implemented by JSIF. JSIF has successfully
implemented community infrastructure projects under NCDP in inner-city communities and has
developed an effective mechanism for community-based contracting that will be replicated in the ICBSP
project.
3. Use of Borrower Systems
GoJ and the Bank have agreed to prepare this project as a pilot for using Borrower environmental and
social safeguard systems, under the provision of OP/BP 4.00 on Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to
Address Environmental and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects. In the case of this
particular pilot, the Borrower systems refer to those the Jamaica Social Investment Fund (JSIF). As part
of project preparation, the Bank has carried out a safeguards diagnostic review and has prepared an
equivalence and acceptability assessment report. Based on the findings of this assessment, GoJ and the
Bank have agreed to the use of Jamaican environmental and social safeguard systems for two policy
areas: environmental assessment and involuntary resettlement. As part of this process, the Bank and GoJ
will work closely with other development partners such as USAID, DFID, IADB, EU and CIDA who are
active in the sector, to move towards harmonization of requirements.
A final report on the safeguards diagnostic review has been reviewed by the Bank and has been disclosed
in-country and by the Bank on February 17, 2006.10 Greater detail on the Use of Borrower Systems Pilot
is provided in Annex 7.11
4. Higher level objectives to which the project contributes
The project will contribute to four key higher-level objectives:
Achievement of Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets. The project will help achieve MDG
target 10 for improvements in the coverage and quality of water and sanitation services, and target 11 for
improvements in the quality of life for slum dwellers through improved infrastructure services, access to
secure tenure and reductions in levels of crime and violence.
Poverty Reduction. The percentage of urban residents living in poverty in Jamaica was estimated at 18.7
percent in 2002 – a sharp rise from 13.3 percent in the previous year. While specific disaggregated data is
not available, it is estimated that urban poverty is largely concentrated in inner city and urban informal
settlements. The project will directly contribute to the reduction of poverty in these areas through
improved basic service provision, access to microfinance and job skills training.
10
See http://jsif.org/disclosuredocs.asp for further in-country disclosure information.
This section on Use of Borrower Systems will be updated following the Regional Operations Committee meeting
and the full disclosure of all related documentation.
11
4
Crime and Violence Prevention. The project will also contribute to Jamaica‘s efforts to reduce levels of
crime and violence through a package of community strengthening, mediation, social infrastructure, youth
training and skills development interventions.
Health. The project will have a medium-term impact on the health outcomes of poor urban residents
through better quality water and sanitation services, enhanced solid waste collection systems and reduced
incidence of flooding through improved drainage infrastructure.
Support for the GoJ‘s Medium-Term Socio-Economic Policy Framework. The project will foster social
stability and cohesion, the promotion of which is a central pillar of the MTSEPF.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Lending instrument
The proposed operation will be structured as a Specific Investment Loan (SIL). The loan will finance
investments in basic infrastructure including water, sanitation, drainage, roads and related community
infrastructure. The loan will support through technical assistance and consultant services a series of
innovative initiatives to enhance public safety in project areas, facilitate access to microfinance, increase
the security of tenure and build the capacity of community and local government institutions.
2. Project development objective and key indicators
The project development objective is to improve quality of life in 12 Jamaican inner–city areas and poor
urban informal settlements through improved access to basic urban infrastructure, financial services, land
tenure regularization, enhanced community capacity and improvements in public safety. Specifically, the
project will: (a) increase access and improve the quality of water, sanitation, solid waste collection
systems, electricity, roads, drainage and related community infrastructure for over 60,000 residents of
poor urban informal settlements through capital investment and innovative arrangements for operation
and maintenance; (b) facilitate access to microfinance for enterprise development and incremental home
improvement for entrepreneurs and residents in project areas; (c) increase security of tenure for eligible
households in project areas; and (d) enhance public safety through mediation services, community
capacity building, skills training and related social services.
Eligibility Criteria and Selection of Beneficiaries
The selection of project communities was led by the Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) and involved
the Ministry of National Security, the Social Development Commission (SDC) and JSIF. The availability
of reliable and disaggregated quantitative data on poverty, access to basic infrastructure services and the
incidence of crime and violence for inner-city and urban informal settlements is limited in Jamaica. This
made it difficult for the GoJ to develop selection criteria solely on objective quantitative measures.
Additionally, the Government noted a preference to explicitly include certain qualitative measures to
ensure that areas of high priority with respect to public security were included and to avoid the perception
of political interference in selection.
The selection process involved as a first step the formulation of a shortlist of 32 settlements, including all
inner-city and peri-urban informal settlements with estimated populations of over 7,500 residents, based
on the Government‘s preference to implement the ICBSP project in larger inner-city communities. The
shortlist was then analyzed and ranked based on two available quantitative measures: (i) % of households
in the community in lowest poverty quintile; and (ii) % of households without access to piped water. A
combined ranking was formulated based on data for both indicators. The GoJ then applied a series of
5
qualitative criteria to this ranking to arrive at the final project selection. Qualitative criteria for selection
included:
Include at least one settlement from five parishes with large urban centers – Kingston, St.
Andrews, St. James, Clarendon and St. Catherine – to ensure that all parish councils develop
capacity in urban upgrading under the project. Based on poverty and access to water criteria
alone – the project would have selected project areas in only Kingston and St. Andrews.
Ensure that the final selection does not disproportionately favor communities allied with the
ruling political party to avoid accusations of preferential treatment based on political alliances.
Select communities that are of high priority based on Ministry of National Security public safety
criteria. The Ministry ranked for PIOJ the 32 settlements on the shortlist and indicated certain
high priority settlements that represented a significant security risk or had demonstrated efforts to
maintain peace. The final selection reflects, to the extent possible, Ministry of National Security
rankings.
The GoJ also excluded from final selection project areas that were either subject to major land
disputes or located on environmentally sensitive land.
Based on the above criteria, a draft selection was made using an estimated budget of US$500 per capita
including both project and administrative costs. This draft selection was further refined after field
assessment to focus in on discrete sub-communities where poverty, poor service levels and crime were
concentrated.12 Based on this methodology, a final selection of project areas was conducted and is
reflected in Table 1 below.
Table 1: ICBSP Project Selection
Kingston
and St.
Andrew
Density
Population
Households
Area
(ha)
Whitfield Town
21,650
4,330
126
(Persons/ha)
172
Passmore Town/Browns Town (Dunkirk)
5,982
1,196
29
201
Parish
Community
Federal Gardens (in Trench Town)
2,391
478
14
171
Jones Town
Tawes Pen
13,011
2,602
38
342
1,822
3,254
364
651
11
26
166
125
5,816
1,171
37
157
2,772
554
24
116
356
71
12
30
Bog Walk (Knollis)
1,120
224
49
23
Clarendon
Bucknor/Rectory Lands
1,150
230
51
23
St James
Flankers
St.
Catherine
March Pen (Africa)
Central Village (Andrews Lane, Big Lane,
Detroit and Little Lane)13
Dempshire Pen/Jones Pen (Shelter Rock)
Lauriston
Total
12
7,148
1430
37
193
66,472
13,301
454
155
For example, the draft selection included Trench Town with an estimated population of over 24,000 residents.
After field assessment, final project selection included only Federal Garden (a subset of Trench Town with over
2,300 residents) where access to basic services and crime and violence conditions are disproportionately poor.
13
The project will be implemented in the Central Village communities of Andrews Lane, Big Lane, Detroit and
Little Lane. For the purposes of the remainder of this document, the use of the term ‗Central Village‘ will refer to
these four communities.
6
3. Project components
The Project is structured with three components. For a detailed Project description see Annex 4.
subcomponents.
Subcomponent 1.1: Basic Infrastructure (US$ 20.00 million): The subcomponent will finance: (i)
integrated network infrastructure in project areas for water, sanitation, drainage, and secondary and
tertiary roads; (ii) community centers; (iii) community-based infrastructure including the construction and
rehabilitation of recreational facilities, installation of community garbage receptacles, replacement of zinc
fencing with alternative perimeter fencing and the installation of in-house water and sanitation
connections; (iv) street lighting and the regularization of illegal electricity connections; (v) the
rehabilitation and construction of complimentary offsite network infrastructure; (vi) strengthening solid
waste collection systems through the procurement of compactor trucks to be operated by NSWMA and
the analysis of waste collection systems; and (vii) technical assistance to parish councils to strengthen
operations and maintenance capacity.
Investments for the 12 eligible and selected project areas have been identified through an extensive
consultation process to prioritize infrastructure needs (see Annex 14) and detailed technical feasibility
work. Integrated Neighborhood Infrastructure Plans were prepared for each project area based on this
process. Each infrastructure plan outlines a series of investments and specific contract packages for
integrated network infrastructure, small community-based infrastructure works, community centers,
electrification and street lighting. During the process of project preparation, the need for a series of offsite or complementary investments was identified to ensure the sustainability of network and community
infrastructure proposed in project areas. Table 2 below provides a summary of the areas of estimated
expenditure under subcomponent 1.1.
Table 2: Estimated Costs by Activity
Subcomponent 1.1 - Basic Infrastructure
Estimated Investment
Activity
Cost (US$)
1. Integrated Network Infrastructure
2. Community Centers
3. Community Basic Infrastructure
4. Street Lighting and Electricity
5. Offsite Network Infrastructure
6. Solid Waste Collection Capacity Enhancement
7. Parish Council Support
TOTAL (US$)
11,350,508
2,579,229
1,821,171
1,303,450
2,035,000
567,800
300,000
19,957,158
(i) Integrated Network Infrastructure: This subcomponent will finance a demand-driven bundle of basic
tertiary network infrastructure investments for construction and maintenance of water, sewerage,
communal sanitation, roads and drainage infrastructure. Due to the integrated and sequenced nature of
these investments – i.e. sewerage systems and water networks will be installed followed by the paving of
roads and installation of curbside or submerged drains – they will be packaged together under one
contract for each community. Table 3 below outlines the estimated cost and the proposed areas of
investment by sector for each of each investment package. Further design and technical considerations
for each infrastructure area are outlined in Annex 4 below.
7
Table 3: Estimated Integrated Network Infrastructure Costs by Project Area
Community
Whitfield Town
Federal Gardens
Passmore
Town/Browns
Town (Dunkirk)
Jones Town
Tawes Pen
March Pen
(Africa)
Central Village
Dempshire Pen/
Jones Pen
(Shelter Rock)
Lauriston
Bog Walk
Bucknor
Flankers
Sectors14
TRAN, DRAIN and DMAIN
WAT, SAN, TRAN, DMAIN and CSAN
Investment Costs
(US$)
1,780,419
650,162
505,262
SAN, DRAIN, DMAIN and CSAN
WAT, SAN and DMAIN
WAT, SAN, DRAIN, TRAN and DMAIN
WAT, DMAIN, TRAN and DRAIN
WAT, TRAN, DRAIN and DMAIN
313,991
543,263
1,511,195
2,155,876
1,223,872
Total
646,096
813,714
518,152
688,507
11,350,508
(ii) Community Centers: The Project will finance basic multi-purpose community centers in seven
project areas. Adequate community facilities in other project areas have been identified. The community
centers will host conflict mitigation and mediation, youth education, skills development, recreation and
related capacity building programs financed under Component 2 of the operation as well as additional
programs run by external agencies when required. Arrangements for the operation and maintenance of
community centers and conditions for construction are described in Annex 4. The estimated costs and
locations for the seven community centers are outlined below in Table 4.
Table 4: Estimated Costs - Community Centers
Community
Estimated Investment Cost (US$)
364,639
364,639
544,900
277,886
277,886
364,639
364,639
1. Federal Gardens
2. Tawes Pen
3. Central Village
4. Lauriston
5. Bog Walk
6. Bucknor
7. Flankers
8. Site Preparation
20,000
2,579,229
TOTAL (US$)
14
WAT = Water, SAN = Sewerage and Sanitation, TRAN = Road Paving or Rehabilitation, CSAN = Communal
Sanitation Facilities, DRAIN = Drainage, and DMAIN = Deferred maintenance on existing drainage and community
infrastructure.
8
(iii) Community Basic Infrastructure: This subcomponent will finance community basic infrastructure
investments for: (i) household water and sanitation connections; (ii) zinc fence replacement with
alternative perimeter fencing; (iii) neighborhood improvement and recreational facilities; and (iv) the
installation of bins for solid waste collection. These small infrastructure investments complement broader
network infrastructure investments described above and will be implemented through community-based
contracting methods in order to strengthen CBO capacity, ensure demand-responsiveness, efficiencies and
achieve greater community involvement in implementation. Table 5 below outlines estimated costs for the
activity and further detail on the nature of each investment and implementation arrangements are outlined
below.
Table 5: Estimated Costs – Community Basic Infrastructure
Community
1. Household Water and Sanitation Connections
2. Zinc Fence Removal and Substitution
3. Neighborhood Improvement and Recreation Facilities
4. Waste Bin Installation
TOTAL (US$)
Estimated
Investment Cost
(US$)
414,811
1,200,000
133,000
73,360
1,303,450
Household Water and Sanitation Connections: This subcomponent will finance the extension of water and
sanitation connections to households from rehabilitated or newly constructed street water and sanitation
mains located in project areas. Under a small works contract supervised by the CBO, households without
adequate water and sanitation connections will receive one connection from mains to taps or sanitary
facilities located within the residential unit or yard.
Zinc Fencing Removal and Substitution: This subcomponent will finance a community-based program for
the replacement of zinc fencing with alternative perimeter fencing. JSIF will prepare during
implementation a menu of eligible and cost-effective design alternatives for the new fences and through a
consultative process communities will select the desired alternative. CBOs will procure materials based
on design specifications prepared by JSIF. Labor for the replacement of zinc fencing with alternative
perimeter fencing will be provided by resident beneficiaries and CBO members in the form of in-kind
community contributions. The program is designed to cover approximately 50 percent of all households
in project areas. The JSIF Operations Manual included in the project files includes additional details on
the administration of the program.
Neighborhood Improvements and Recreational Facilities: This subcomponent will finance small works
through CBC contracts for demand-driven minor neighborhood improvements and the rehabilitation and
installation of small recreation facilities and playgrounds. These small works contracts will be
implemented in the implementation cycle in each area. Further details on the eligible investments are
included in the JSIF Operations Manual.
Waste Bin Installation: This subcomponent will finance the installation of waste bins in project areas.
The specifications and recommended locations for all waste bins have been identified in the
Neighborhood Basic Infrastructure Plans in coordination with community representatives and NSWMA
in order to ensure an efficient waste collection system.
(iv) Street Lighting and Electricity: This subcomponent will finance the installation of street lighting, the
extension of the electricity network and the regularization of illegal connections. Works for the
installation of street lights and network extension will be executed under one umbrella contract for all
9
project areas in order to benefit from economies of scale in implementation. The location and
specifications for street lights have been identified in the infrastructure and public safety plans based on
feedback from community focus groups during preparation. In agreement with JPS Co., network
expansion investments will involve the incremental extension of existing network infrastructure as
required in areas where consumers agree to regularize illegal connections and pay regular utility bills.
The Project will work with the Rural Electrification Programmme (REP) to regularize illegal connections.
REP currently operates a regularization program in rural areas and will adapt and replicate the program in
ICBSP communities. The program is voluntary and requires consumers to repay through electricity bills
the full cost of installation of legal connections over a 48-month period. The component will finance both
the procurement of materials and capital costs for the installation of legal connections. Procurement will
be managed by JSIF with the involvement of REP in the definition of technical specifications and the
evaluation of bids. Further detail on the operating arrangements for the electricity regularization program
is included in the JSIF Operations Manual. The Project will also finance REP administrative costs
associated with implementation including the cost of work supervision, site preparation, technical
supervision and approvals through Force Account. An MoU between JSIF and REP establishing these
operating arrangements in greater detail has been negotiated and will be signed as part of implementation.
Annex 4 includes further details on the electricity program.
(v) Off-Site Network Infrastructure: The component will finance the construction and rehabilitation of
off-site infrastructure critical to maintaining adequate service levels in project areas. Planned off-site
infrastructure works include the: (i) rehabilitation of a water reservoir and trunk mains in Kingston
bordering Federal Gardens and Jones Town communities; and (ii) the upgrading and rehabilitation of a
wastewater treatment facility in Tawes Pen. The rehabilitation of off-site water infrastructure in the
Kingston area will have a direct impact in improving water pressure and the continuity of service in
Federal Gardens and Jones Town. The rehabilitation of the wastewater treatment plant in Tawes Pen will
enable the treatment of wastewater generated from the proposed sewerage network investments planned
for the area. The proposed investments will be procured by JSIF and linked to immediate improvements
in the quality of service provision in project areas.
(vi) Solid Waste Collection Systems: This subcomponent will strengthen solid waste collection systems
by financing the procurement of compactor trucks and providing technical assistance for the analysis of
the waste collection systems in project areas.15 The procurement of compactor trucks will be done by
JSIF for operation by the National Solid Waste Management Agency (NSWMA) or local service
providers that have entered into service contracts with NSWMA to operate waste collection systems in
project areas. The responsibility for operation and maintenance of the trucks will be vested in NSWMA
and JSIF will enter into an MoU with NSWMA to ensure that the trucks will be mobilized in project areas
for the duration of the investment. Additionally, the component will finance a study of the collection
system in ICBSP areas to assist NSWMA in the more efficient design and management of waste
collection systems.
(vi) Parish Council Support: The responsibility for the operation of secondary and tertiary roads,
drainage infrastructure, community recreation facilities and other basic infrastructure will lie with parish
councils. However, councils lack adequate management and O&M capacity to adequately maintain
community infrastructure. The component will support the procurement of basic equipment and the
provision of technical assistance to strengthen management, operations and maintenance capacity at the
parish council level. Equipment to be procured will include computers, software, maintenance equipment
and basic office supplies. The JSIF Operations Manual specifies in greater detail the areas of eligible
expenditure for the procurement of goods for parish council support. Additionally, the Project will
15
It is estimated that at least 3, but no more than 4 compactor trucks will be procured under the component.
10
support the training of parish council staff directly associated with the maintenance of community
infrastructure financed under the Project in management and technical skills to enhance basic O&M
capacity.
Subcomponent 1.2: Access to Financial Services (US$ 1.25m): This subcomponent will facilitate access
to microfinance services in project areas for productive purposes and incremental home improvements
through performance-based service contracts aimed to create incentives for existing Financial Institutions
(FIs) to provide microfinance services in project areas. Specifically, the subcomponent will finance three
activities: (i) a performance-based mechanism for the extension of microfinance loans and technical
assistance in project areas; (ii) consultant services for the orientation of potential bidders and the technical
evaluation of bids; and (iii) an independent technical audit of FI portfolios.
Design: Through the use of performance-based service contracts JSIF will award contracts to those FIs
that require the least-cost subsidies as a percentage of loan amount to reach a minimum target of
consumers specified for each bid. FIs will participate in a competitive tendering process and winning
firms will agree to disburse, service and collect a predetermined number of loans or dollars lent. The
awards to FIs will be structured as performance-based contracts and the contracts will disburse against an
agreed fixed payment for each loan. The design and operating procedures for the subcomponent have
been finalized and are reflected in the JSIF Operations Manual. The subcomponent has been designed to
maximize desired outputs and minimize market distortions. Additional key design features are outlined in
Annex 4.
The subcomponent is designed to include up to seven tender processes over a three to four year period.
The use of multiple tenders was selected given that the use of a performance-based least cost subsidy
contract for microfinance is new to Jamaica and follow-on tenders will enable JSIF to build on lessons
from initial awards and will also enhance competition amongst potential bidders and drive down subsidy
levels as FIs begin to understand the market. Follow-on tenders will also aim to encourage the provision
of microfinance loans for incremental home improvement.
Each performance-based service contract will also include a small package of technical assistance
services to be provided by the FI to clients. Technical assistance services will include credit counseling,
assistance in the preparation of business plans, financial management and related business support
services.
Subcomponent Management, Monitoring and Administration: Awards under the performance-based
contracts will be made through a competitive tender process in accordance with Bank policies and
procedures. A Microfinance Management Committee (MMC)16 has been formed. The committee will
have responsibility for reviewing the tender process and the selection of applicants, as well as approving
contracts. It will also review periodically results of the process and oversee changes to the follow-on
tenders and oversight mechanisms. Additional steps and procedures include:
Selection Criteria: Simple and transparent selection criteria for the bidding process will be
applied and the criteria will be adapted as the objectives of subsequent tender processes evolve.
The first tender will evaluate bids based on cost (40 percent), experience in and capacity to
service ICBSP communities (30 percent) and financial conditions of FIs (30 percent).
16
The proposed Microfinance Management Committee will be formed as a subcommittee to the JSIF Board and
would report directly to the Board. The Committee will be constituted by Board members and experienced
professionals in the commercial banking sector and government who do not have a direct interest in any of the
potential FIs eligible to access resources through the component.
11
Disbursement: Performance-based disbursement is the most effective when spread over the term
of the loan. Disbursement for the first tender will be as follows – 50 percent upon the
presentation of a list of qualified and approved loans from the FIs, 30 percent after three months
provided that the loan is not over 30 days past due, and 20 percent when the client is approved for
a second loan.
Reporting Requirements: A simplified reporting system has been outlined for participating FIs
and is summarized in Annex 4.
Audit and Verification: JSIF will conduct on-site visits to winning FIs to ensure that information
provided in the bid is accurate. After awards – on a semi-annual basis – JSIF will verify loan
reports by reviewing a sample of loans to assess performance. JSIF will also use independent
auditors to verify loan portfolio claims by FIs.
Subcomponent 1.3: Land Tenure Regularization (US$ 0.60m): This subcomponent will finance the
implementation of a pilot land titling initiative and technical assistance to the Government of Jamaica for
the preparation of a national policy on squatter management and informal urban settlements. The
initiative will target residents of ICBSP communities on public land only – given the lack of a clear, costeffective and expeditious legal framework for private land acquisition for the regularization of informal
occupants on private parcels.17 The component will not finance land acquisition or the actual payment of
the fee to receive a title – but rather only technical assistance and services. Implementation of the pilot
component will involve four activities:
(i)
Inventory of Land Ownership. JSIF will conduct – based on cadastral data obtained from the
National Lands Agency (NLA) – a cadastral audit for all ICBSP communities. The audit will
analyze approximately 13,000 parcels which will be overlaid on an aerial map of each
community and combined with attribute data (i.e. ownership and title details). The audit will
enable JSIF and partners to quantify the exact number of parcels eligible for titling and assess
requirements for the transfer of ownership of public lands.
(ii)
Development of a Titling Strategy and Program. A clear and transparent strategy and program
for titling will be developed based on the results of the complete cadastral audit. Key activities
will include the:
-
development of information campaigns and mechanisms for public consultations;
formal verification of field, legal and administrative procedures for transfer and costs;
clarification of operating arrangements between JSIF and partner agencies; and
extensive public communication to ensure the benefits and costs of titling are well
understood.
(iii)
Technical Assistance for Squatter Management Policy. Upon the request of the Government of
Jamaica, the project will also support technical assistance for the development of a broader
policy and program for the regularization of urban and peri-urban squatter areas.
(iv)
Titling Program. The implementation of the program will involve four key activities:
-
completion of register and cadastral searches;
completion of land surveys;
17
During preparation the National Lands Agency conducted a cadastral analysis for a sample of ICBSP
communities – Jones Town, Tawes Pen and Bucknor. The analysis found that both Tawes Pen and Bucknor were
located on single, non-subdivided public parcels while Jones Town is located on private land with detailed cadastral
data available on ownership for all parcels. A rapid analysis of this data, overlaid on aerial maps, suggests that these
parcels have been subdivided informally.
12
-
verification of occupancy information including names, addresses, leasing and subleasing arrangements; and
the provision of technical assistance to eligible beneficiaries in the processing of title
applications
Component 2: Public Safety Enhancement and Capacity Building (US$ 3.90 million, all from Bank
financing)
The component aims to enhance public safety in project communities by financing integrated packages of
consultant services, training and technical assistance focused on both short-term mitigation and conflict
resolution and medium-term social prevention and capacity enhancement interventions. In particular, the
component will finance the delivery of violence prevention services in five core social prevention areas
including: (i) mediation and conflict resolution; (ii) alternative livelihoods and skills development; (iii)
family support programs; (iv) youth education and recreation; and (v) CBO capacity building. The
component will also finance the mobilization of community liaison officers in project areas to serve as
facilitators.
Social prevention services in each of the five core areas will be procured through three to four contracts
each covering a group of project areas. Each contract will be designed and scoped to the specific crime
and violence prevention needs in project areas, as identified by diagnostic analysis conducted during
preparation and verified during implementation. Eligible providers of technical assistance services in each
of the five social prevention areas may be pre-qualified or short-listed on the basis of demonstrated
experience and a track record of good quality service provision at reasonable costs. The agencies will be
subject to an organizational assessment by JSIF to confirm their capacity to deliver one or more social
violence prevention services under the project. Specific service contract packages in the five social
prevention areas will include:
(i) Mediation and Conflict Resolution: The component will finance technical assistance services that
initiate and manage mediation initiatives in communities that experience chronic or periodic gang conflict
or intra-community feuding. This will support tested mediation and conflict management interventions
currently being implemented in Jamaica to broker ceasefires and build confidence between rival gang
factions such as actions to:
establish a community code of conduct;
form and supervise conflict mediation groups;
conduct peace-building meetings with inter-community groups;
obtain signed peace agreements between local area gangs in all relevant communities;
train and certify community residents as mediators to resolve interpersonal conflicts;
conduct conflict resolution and anger management sessions with each community
(individually and collectively); and
Train and build capacity in mediation, dispute resolution, and intra-personal conflict
management at the community level.
(ii) Alternative Livelihoods and Skills Development: The component will finance technical assistance
services that respond to high levels of youth unemployment and of dropping out of the formal education
system, as well as limited access to vocational skills development and apprenticing opportunities, as
noted during the public safety audits of ICBSP communities. Specifically, the component will finance:
vocational training (carpentry, cosmetology, service industry, information technology,
etc);
job skills development (basic literacy, personal presentation, etc.); and
related job placement programs.
13
(iii) Family Support Programs: The component will finance technical assistance services that respond to
the needs of children, youth, and heads of household from the most vulnerable segments of ICBSP
communities – with a particular focus on single-parent households. In particular, the component will
provide access to:
life skills programs;
good parenting programs;
family mediation services;
interventions that address gender-based, sexual, and domestic violence;
drug abuse and alcoholism prevention and rehabilitation;
reproductive health services; and
early childhood development and education and daycare services.
(iv) Youth Education and Recreation: The component will finance technical assistance services that will
deliver demand-driven and tested youth and adolescent educational and recreational programs through the
community centers and other community locations. Specific interventions may include:
after-school homework programs;
summer camps;
community libraries;
computer skills training;
guidance counseling;
sports programs and competitions; and
cultural programs such as in music, arts, and theater.
(v) Community Capacity Building and Public Awareness: The component will finance a series of
capacity-building activities for community-based organizations in project areas. Technical assistance
services for CBO capacity-building will include training in:
the objectives, goals and mechanisms of social participation;
financial management skills;
fundraising;
community-based contracting;
community-based crime and violence prevention;
situational crime and violence prevention;
monitoring and evaluation; and
training to perform routine operation and maintenance of basic infrastructure.
Additionally, the component will finance a series of social marketing and public awareness campaigns
aimed at improving awareness of the importance of sustainable use and management of public services
and infrastructure, informing community residents on project activities and fostering participation and
cooperation.
Lastly, the component will support the mobilization of community liaison officers (CLOs) assigned fulltime to each ICBSP community for the duration of the project. CLOs will staff the Community Centers
and will have expertise in community organization, basic infrastructure, and crime and violence
prevention. Specifically they will:
lead community consultations;
monitor the incidence of crime and violence in project areas;
14
update community safety plans and strategies;
coordinate the provision of technical assistance through external agencies;
coordinate project activities with relevant agencies and associations active in the
community including public schools, health clinics, social programs, Community
Development Councils and relevant security agencies;
facilitate the work of contractors of the infrastructure works to ensure integration of
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles;
identify and work closely with youth at-risk in the community;
organize and mobilize the community members around public safety campaigns; and
facilitate the implementation of additional social programs in the Community Centers
such as summer camps for at-risk youth, etc.
The implementation of component two will take place in the context of a broader preventive, multisectoral, and community-based approach to crime and violence prevention described in greater detail in
Annex 4.
Component 3: Project Management (US$6.33m, of which US$ 2.83m is Bank financing)
The component will finance consultant services, goods, training and operating costs for the project
management and administration. In particular, the component will include two subcomponents: (i) project
management, monitoring and evaluation; and (ii) operating costs and other services.
Subcomponent 3.1 - Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (US$ 4.73m, of which US$
2.83m is Bank financing) will finance goods, services and training for program management. In
particular, the component will finance services for technical and financial audits, citizen report cards,
mid-term and end-of-project evaluation, ISO 14000 certification and related external consultant services
for project administration. The subcomponent will also finance JSIF core professional and technical staff
for project management including a Program Manager, Supervision Engineers and specialists in the areas
of crime and violence prevention, social development, microfinance, safeguards compliance, finance,
procurement and related project management areas. Core staff will be recruited on time-bound contracts
not exceeding the life of the proposed Project. Lastly, the component will finance the procurement of
vehicles, office equipment and furniture.
Subcomponent 3.2 – Operating Costs and Other Services (US$ 1.60m, all counterpart financed) will be
financed 100 percent by the Government and will support operating costs and minor services. In
particular, with respect to operating costs, the subcomponent will finance office rental costs, utility fees,
stationary, vehicle maintenance and petrol, travel and per diem and the salaries of administrative staff in
addition to other basic operating expenses. Additionally, the subcomponent will finance the provision of
core CBO training services by the Social Development Commission.18
Operations, Maintenance and Cost Recovery
Two distinct strategies for operation and maintenance (O&M) are proposed under the project accounting
for differences between inner-city and peri-urban project areas. First, a strategy of community-led O&M
is proposed for smaller and more unified project areas that also have demonstrated CBO capacity.
Second, in larger, fragmented communities the project will develop with responsible agencies
18
The Social Development Commission (SDC) is a non-autonomous Government agency that cannot participate in a
competitive selection process for consultant services contracts for CBO capacity building under Component 2 of the
project. Nonetheless, the Government has requested that the SDC be incorporated into the project design and, given
limitations imposed by Bank procurement guidelines, has agreed to finance this activity in its entirety.
15
arrangements for adequate O&M. Under both O&M arrangements both community and service agencies
will have distinct responsibilities outlined in a series of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU).
Community-managed O&M: Under the first strategy for O&M in smaller and/or unified communities the
Project will support the formation of Community Committees and build the capacity of these committees
to perform routine maintenance tasks including drain cleaning, street sweeping, clearance of brush and
weeds and the maintenance of garbage bin sites. These committees will also liaise with service providers
to ensure that more substantial and technical periodic O&M requirements and service quality issues are
addressed. Project areas where a community-led O&M strategy is possible includes:
Tawes Pen
Central Village
Lauriston
Bog Walk
Bucknor
Flankers
O&M led by Service Providers: In larger and/or more fragmented inner-city areas with weaker
community institutions the project will support a strategy for O&M that relies to a greater extent on
service providers and parish councils while gradually building community capacity over time. MoU have
been negotiated with primary service providers to outline roles and responsibilities and will be finalized
and signed as part of implementation arrangements. Table 6 below identifies responsible agencies for
O&M in key sectors.
Table 6: O&M Responsibilities by Sectors
Minor and estate roads
Water supply
Sewerage and sewage disposal
Main drainage (structures)
Main drainage (clearing)
Solid waste collection
Electricity supply
Parish councils
National Water Commission (NWC)
National Works Agency (NWA)
National Solid Waste Management Authority (NSWMA)
Jamaica Public Services Company JPS Co. and Rural
Electrification Programme
Project areas where the service provider-led O&M arrangements will be employed include:
Whitfield Town
Jones Town
March Pen (Africa)
Cost Recovery: The project recognizes that cost recovery is critical to the sustainability of project
investments. A strategy for cost recovery is being formulated. This aims to develop mechanisms for
community contributions towards: (i) the cost of initial capital investments for basic infrastructure; and
(ii) ongoing user fees for the provision of water, solid waste, electricity and related services. The
approach of mobilizing community contributions towards initial capital investments builds on JSIF
experience under NCDP, in which communities have been required to provide up to 20 percent of project
costs in cash or in kind. JSIF has developed a methodology for valuing in-kind contributions and this has
been reflected in its Operations Manual.
16
Economic analysis conducted for this project (see Annex 12) found that certain infrastructure investments
were not economically feasible or affordable based on willingness-to-pay data at an estimated community
contribution of 20 percent. This finding was confirmed by JSIF experience with community contributions
under NCDP projects in inner city areas where the purchasing power of residents is particularly low.
Based on this analysis the ICBSP has determined a level of 5 to 10 percent for community contributions
towards capital costs.
4. Community consultations
An extensive process of community consultation and focus groups has informed project identification and
design. The consultation process was led by JSIF and consultants to the agency to ensure that the
selection of project investments was both demand-driven and the most appropriate and least-cost among
technical alternatives. The consultation process engaged over 1,000 community members through over
120 formal meetings and focus group discussions. Additional outreach has taken place though frequent
informal dialogue between JSIF community liaison officers (CLO), technical consultants and community
leaders and residents. Feedback from communities was also solicited through a rapid voluntary
questionnaire to which over 34 percent of households responded.
The community consultations provided a rich foundation of diagnostic information, needs assessment
feedback and public safety audit data upon which project planning and design were developed. Four key
phases of consultation took place during preparation: (i) public awareness-building, diagnosis and needs
assessment; (ii) participatory public safety audits and planning; (iii) infrastructure planning focus groups;
and (iv) focus group discussions in integrated neighborhood plans.19 The extensive consultation process
proved critical in building trust and confidence between JSIF and communities and also within project
areas – many of which are deeply fragmented according to political and gang affiliations. The dialogue
process was also partially successful in aiding community leaders to negotiate truces between rival gangs.
JSIF did encounter real limits to the extent to which communities and residents were willing to
communicate openly regarding crime and violence patterns; residents often did not feel comfortable
sharing information and data on the incidence and root causes of violent crime. Annex 14 provides a
more detailed discussion of the consultation process.
5. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design
The project design reflects important lessons from international best practice and Bank experience in
urban upgrading, crime and violence prevention, tenure regularization, microfinance, monitoring and
evaluation and environmental management. The project also builds upon lessons from the preparation
and implementation of the Bank-financed NCDP and other ongoing or recently implemented donorfinanced and Government urban infrastructure and crime and violence prevention programs. Key lessons
incorporated include:
Collaboration with local governments and service providers for effective technical solutions and
O&M arrangements. International experience with urban infrastructure interventions targeting the
poor has found that involving local governments and service providers in the planning, design and
negotiation of O&M arrangements is critical for the delivery and sustainability of basic services.
Extensive discussions with parish councils, NWC, NSWMA, JPS Co., NWA and other agencies
took place during preparation and both operating and maintenance agreements with key agencies
have been negotiated and will be formalized in signed MoU as part of implementation. In the
19
A further scientific Household Baseline Survey was conducted under the project and has also provided valuable
information on levels and access to services and preferences and perceptions of residents. The final report is
included in the project files.
17
course of these discussions with service providers an agreement was reached to pilot innovative,
low-cost solutions for service provision in poor informal settlements.
Community engagement in urban upgrading projects. Bank and donor experience with integrated
urban upgrading programs points to the need for extensive and continuous community consultation
in preparation, implementation and monitoring. Extensive community consultation has informed
project design (see section B.4 and Annex 14) as residents have articulated and jointly negotiated
investment priorities, arrangements for O&M and mechanisms for the collection of community
contributions. The project also aims to build the capacity of weak CBOs in project areas to assume
a broader role in operations and maintenance and the execution of community infrastructure
projects through community-based contracting.
Comprehensive approach to public safety enhancement. The project builds on lessons from
successful urban crime and violence prevention programs in Jamaica, South Africa, Brazil and
elsewhere in Latin America. Project design reflects principles of the CPTED approach to public
safety enhancement through improved physical planning. Based on this methodology, a diagnosis
of crime and violence patterns in all project areas was conducted to identify violent and gang
activity hotspots and physical characteristics correlated with higher crime, i.e. zinc fencing, lack of
street lighting and poor traffic management infrastructure. Findings are reflected in the design of
infrastructure investments. Additionally, the component aims to replicate mediation, CBO
capacity building, skill training early-childhood intervention, and recreational activities that have
proven successful in parallel crime prevention programs in Jamaica.
Clear, transparent mechanism to create incentives for microfinance. Project beneficiaries
identified a lack of access to capital as a key constraint to small firm growth and job creation. The
Bank evaluated two design alternatives to create incentives for microfinance institutions (MFIs) to
lend in project areas – a guarantee fund and a performance-based disbursement mechanism. A
review of international experience found that partial guarantee funds for microfinance had
frequently failed due to difficulties with complex fund administration and monitoring, the lack of a
direct incentive for lenders to increase exposure and the inherent disincentives to rigorous client
evaluation and loan servicing arising from the availability of a partial guarantee to offset default.
The Bank and the Government agreed on the use of a performance-based design for the
subcomponent. The use of a performance-based mechanism in the microfinance sector is a recent
innovation and has been tested successfully under the FOSIS 20 program in Chile. The design for
the component enables MFIs to bid on transparent, declining and time-bound subsidies to meet
certain lending and portfolio quality targets in project areas. This approach is much easier to
administer than a guarantee fund and rewards MFIs for increased lending and strong portfolio
performance. See section D.3 and Annex 4 for greater detail on component design and the benefits
of a performance-based approach.
Improved environmental management through ISO 14000. The project builds upon the growing
international experience of public sector agencies seeking ISO 14000 certification for
environmental management as a means to strengthen environmental performance, increase
efficiencies in operations and achieve international management standards. It also aims to increase
client satisfaction and attract international donor support. JSIF initiated the process of ISO 14000
certification during project preparation and plans to secure the ISO 14001 Environmental
Management Standard in 2008.
Participation and communication in tenure regularization. A pilot tenure regularization program
has been developed under the project building on lessons from international experience with urban
land titling programs and Jamaican initiatives with rural and urban land titling through the LAMP
20
Fondo de Solidaridad y Inversión Social (FOSIS).
18
and NHDC programs. Key lessons incorporated into the pilot include the need to link titling with
urban upgrading programs, engage communities actively in the process and provide information
through innovative campaigns on the benefits of titling amongst others.
Rigorous impact evaluation to measure results. The project incorporates best practice in impact
evaluation building on ongoing experience in Bank operations in Brazil, Indonesia, Swaziland,
Tanzania and Iran. The impact evaluation is also linked to a broader World Bank initiative,
Development Impact Evaluation (DIME), which is aimed at increasing the number of Bank
projects with impact evaluation components in particular strategic areas and themes, and building a
process of systematic learning on effective development interventions based on lessons learned
from solid evaluations. During preparation a household sample baseline survey was conducted in
12 project areas and four control group communities thereby enabling the Government to conduct
scientific impact evaluation at project mid-term, completion and five years after completion. The
use of best practice impact evaluation methodologies will allow Jamaica and the Bank to more
effectively measure results, identify successful components, chronicle unintended impacts and
provide concrete guidance for the design of future operations.
6. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection
A range of instruments was considered during identification and preparation prior to reaching agreement
with the Government on the current SIL. Alternatives were evaluated with respect to the technical
appropriateness of the instrument for meeting the Government‘s strategic priority of reducing poverty,
mitigating violent crime and reducing social isolation in poor urban neighborhoods. Alternatives
considered included:
(i)
A sector-specific standard investment loan (SIL) for water and sanitation, solid waste or
transportation was considered as a way to address important sector investment and reform
priorities that could have a direct impact on poor urban neighborhoods. A key limitation for such
an operation would have been the inability to address service deprivations faced by poor urban
residents across multiple sectors – water, sanitation, solid waste, drainage, roads and electricity
and the associated need for territorial planning and crime and violence mitigation initiatives.
(ii) A community infrastructure SIL building more closely on the successful NCDP design would
have enabled JSIF to leverage existing expertise, systems and procedures. NCDP relies heavily
on the capacity of community-based organizations (CBOs) to identify, prepare and implement
community infrastructure projects. Preliminary scoping for this operation, however, found that
CBO capacity in poor urban areas is extremely weak with many communities sharply divided
internally based on gang or political party affiliations.
(iii) A municipal development SIL with poverty-focused urban infrastructure investments and parish
council capacity-building was also considered given that parish councils have legal responsibility
for providing basic services to inner city and poor urban areas. However, central government
agencies have either failed to transfer responsibility for some decentralized public services or
have assumed this subsequently, due to poor management. Central government agencies – NWC,
NWA and NSWMA – are the primary providers of water and sanitation, solid waste, drainage
and transport infrastructure services. Additionally, parish councils lack access to adequate
revenue sources, and do not have tariff setting authority to ensure cost recovery.
(iv) A dedicated crime and violence prevention SIL, LIL or TAL to finance technical assistance and
consultant services to support mediation, community capacity-building, job skills training,
recreational activities and other public safety initiatives was considered during identification.
However, community consultations conducted during preparation revealed a strong demand for
improved basic infrastructure services and highlighted the strong correlation between inadequate
infrastructure services (poor street lighting, informal zinc fencing and traffic management
19
infrastructure) and vulnerability. Parallel USAID, DFID and IADB supported crime prevention
programs in Jamaica have also emphasized the importance of reinforcing public safety
enhancement initiatives with the provision of basic services.
(v)
An APL focusing on integrated inner city and urban development similar in scope and design to
the current project was considered. An APL would have enabled the Bank to support the
development of a Government policy framework and medium-term program to regularize,
upgrade and increase public safety in informal urban settlements. During preparation the Bank
provided advisory assistance to the Government toward initiating a process for policy and
program development in this area. However, the Government has indicated that it would prefer
to proceed with the development of a policy or program on urban informal settlements on a
parallel but separate track from proposed operation.
C. IMPLEMENTATION
1. Partnership arrangements
The project builds on important partnerships with international development partners, including the
Government of Japan, USAID, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and DFID. The
project has been prepared with a US$650,000 PHRD grant from the Government of Japan. The
Government engaged both USAID and DFID in the process of establishing criteria for the selection of
ICBSP project areas. CIDA has committed to assist with ISO 14000 activities and facilitate a partnership
between JSIF and a comparable Canadian agency.
Close cooperation will be maintained throughout the project period to maximize synergies with
complementary programs, particularly in the area of crime and violence prevention. The Ministry of
National Security has established a convergence group, to be chaired by the Managing Director of JSIF,
to promote communication and collaboration among crime and violence prevention programs, including
the ICBSP and the DFID-funded Community Security Initiative (CSI). USAID is currently preparing a
second phase of the successful Peace and Prosperity Initiative (PPI) and has agreed in principle to
coordinate investments in at least two of the 12 selected ICBSP project areas. The second phase of the
PPI will complement ICBSP interventions in these areas by implementing community policing and CBO
capacity building activities based on existing successful methodologies used in Grants Pen and other
areas. USAID has also expressed interest in exploring how its Healthy Lifestyles program- which
includes an element of crime and violence prevention among youth – could work with the ICBSP.
Similarly, the Bank and JSIF have collaborated closely with the UNDP-financed Civil Dialogue for
Democratic Governance Program. UNDP has also committed to mobilizing the dialogue initiative in
ICBSP to support community leaders to build advocacy, communications and partnership skills. Efforts
are also underway to promote complementarity among infrastructure investments.
Further details of related programs financed by Jamaica‘s international development partners are provided
in Annex 2.
2. Institutional and implementation arrangements
The JSIF serves as the implementing agency for the ICBSP project. JSIF has an established track record
in implementing GoJ poverty alleviation projects including the ongoing Bank-financed NCDP. Through
the implementation of NCDP, JSIF has developed a core competence in Bank safeguard policies and
financial management and procurement procedures. JSIF is also currently implementing OPEC, CDB and
EU-financed social investment programs along the lines of the NCDP initiative. JSIF has a well
20
established management structure that aims to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and innovation in
implementation. The Board of Directors, which meets on a monthly basis, will provide general oversight
and policy direction during project implementation and will review the results of periodic monitoring and
evaluation activities. During preparation a Steering Committee was formed. This includes representatives
from PIOJ, Cabinet Office, NSWMA, NHT, NHDC and the Ministries of Land and Environment, Water
and Housing and Local Government and other agencies. The Steering Committee has met on a bimonthly
basis to review progress in preparation. Upon effectiveness, the terms of reference and the composition of
the committee will be reviewed and possibly reformulated to ensure the involvement of all relevant
Government agencies and ministries to ensure effective oversight in implementation.
JSIF internal management will participate in internal management reviews and bid evaluation committees
and will give guidance to implementation activities. Management review and committee meetings are
held on a weekly basis. The ICBSP unit within JSIF will be led by a Project Manager and will oversee
daily implementation. The project will recruit a full staff of supervision engineers, finance specialists,
procurement specialists, community liaison officers, crime and violence specialists, social specialists,
environmental and safeguards specialists and other administrative staff. During recruitment the project
will consider the possibility of transitioning staff currently working on NCDP to ensure continuity and
staff capacity development. The two projects will overlap for approximately one year. The ICBSP
project will rely upon core or shared JSIF staff for MIS, human resources and finance and administration
functions.
Key management, monitoring and evaluation reports will include:
Monthly internal reports to JSIF Management and Board
Monthly Community Contribution Reports
Quarterly FMR to the World Bank and the Jamaican government
Bi-annual Reports on Gap Filling Measures with respect to Use of Borrower Systems compliance
Biannual reports based on Citizen Report Card
JSIF Annual Report to shareholders, also circulated to relevant stakeholders
Annual audit reports based on financial audit of the JSIF by external auditors
Technical Audit of quality of infrastructure at mid-term and end of project
Mid-term evaluation of ICBSP interventions
End-of-project evaluation
Operations Manual: Relevant amendments including the Environment Management and Land Acquisition
and Resettlement Policy Frameworks to the JSIF Operations Manual have been reviewed by the Bank and
adopted by the JSIF Board on February 22, 2006.
Coordination in Implementation: Due to the multi-sectoral nature of the project, a range of partner public
agencies, donors and external institutions will be associated with the implementation of project
components. The project will rely on cooperation agreements – or MoU – with key project partners. MoU
have been prepared and negotiated and signed versions of the agreements will be finalized as part of
implementation.. MoU JSIF and the following key agencies have been prepared:
Rural Electrification Programme (REP)
Jamaica Public Services Company (JPS Co.)
Parish councils
21
Implementation of Electricity Connection Regularization through a Public Agency: Under Component 1.1
the Project will support the provision of legal electricity connections through the Rural Electrification
Programme (REP), a limited liability company and an agency of the Ministry of Commerce, Science and
Technology. In this case a competitive process for selection is not feasible given that the regularization of
electricity connections can only be done by REP. The JSIF Operations Manual and the MoU between
JSIF and REP outline in detail specific activities, unit costs and arrangements of execution. A majority of
expenditures for the implementation of the activity will be procured through a competitive process from
contractors with the involvement of REP in the definition of specifications and the evaluation of bids.
Additionally, REP will have access to a Force Account for the administration of the activity to finance
administrative costs associated with implementation including the cost of work supervision, site
preparation, technical supervision and approvals.
Partnership arrangements with international donor programs: The project will include formal
collaboration with ongoing and planned USAID and UNDP interventions. USAID is currently preparing
a second phase of the successful Peace and Prosperity Initiative (PPI) and has agreed in principle to
coordinate investments in at least two of the 12 selected ICBSP project areas. The second phase of the
PPI will complement ICBSP interventions in these areas by implementing community policing and CBO
capacity building activities based on existing successful methodologies used in Grants Pen and other
areas. Similarly, the Bank and JSIF have collaborated closely with UNDP-financed Civil Dialogue for
Democratic Governance Program. UNDP has also committed to mobilizing the dialogue initiative in
ICBSP to support community leaders to build advocacy, communications and partnership skills.
Stakeholder coordination: Given the broad spectrum of agencies that will be involved in the project it is
envisioned that quarterly review meetings will be held with all partner agencies involved in
implementation. These include – but are not limited to – NWC, NSWMA, SDC, USAID, CSI, Parish
councils and the Ministry of National Security.
3. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results
A monitoring and evaluation framework has been developed for the project to effectively track progress
in implementation, measure intermediate outcomes and evaluate project impacts. The framework
incorporates and integrates mechanisms for ongoing process and operational monitoring, annual citizen
report card surveys and scientific impact evaluation. Annex 3 outlines the framework in detail including
key performance indicators, data collection methods, a timetable for collection, responsible agencies and
mechanisms for institutional review and feedback. Key elements of the M&E framework include:
Process Monitoring and Evaluation: A system of continuous project monitoring has been
developed based on inputs recorded in a Management Information System (MIS) and through biannual participatory rapid appraisals (PRA) and focus group discussions. Results will be presented
formally through bi-annual Project Progress Reports. These will measure progress against a series
of key indicators summarized in the results framework in Annex 3 and other key management and
operational indicators.
Biannual Citizen Report Cards: The project will measure consumer perceptions and satisfaction
with the project and the quality of basic services through citizen report cards – building on
international best practice with this instrument – biannually at the end of years one and three of
project implementation.
Baseline Survey and Impact Evaluation: A baseline sample household survey was conducted
during preparation in the 12 project communities and four control communities to serve as the
basis for impact evaluation and to establish quantitative targets for implementation. The project
aims to conduct a mid-term impact evaluation that will analyze through quarterly monitoring
22
information and involve a sample household survey focused on key performance indicators. An
end-of-project impact evaluation is also planned. Lastly, GoJ has agreed in principle to finance a
third impact evaluation five years after project completion to measure the sustainability of project
interventions.
The framework also outlines clear mechanisms for the review of monitoring and evaluation results and
feedback into management decision making. Results from operational monitoring activities will be
discussed in bi-weekly CLO meetings, monthly JSIF management reviews and quarterly ICBSP steering
committee meetings. Each level of review will be able to take appropriate decisions on adjusting
operating practices or adapting program strategies. JSIF will be responsible for overall management of
the monitoring mechanisms while PIOJ will provide technical supervision for impact evaluation.
4. Sustainability
The main factors associated with the sustainability of project interventions can be organized around three
key areas:
Basic Infrastructure Services: The sustainability of basic infrastructure investments and services provided
under the project will depend to a great degree on the quality and effectiveness of arrangements for
operations and maintenance, cost recovery and beneficiary involvement in the delivery and management
of community infrastructure. A key constraint in the Jamaican context is the poor track record of service
providers for water, sanitation, roads, solid waste and electricity in developing innovative mechanisms to
reach and service the urban poor. NWC, for example, declined to service inner city communities in the
near-term with metered individual connections due to crime and violence concerns and the unwillingness
of some consumers to pay tariffs and fees. Similar concerns were expressed by JPS Co. – the national
electricity utility.
The project is negotiating detailed arrangements for operation and maintenance of public services with the
utilities and local governments concerned. These arrangements aim to build confidence between service
providers and communities through innovative – and often interim – arrangements for maintenance and
cost recovery. In the case of water, the NWC has agreed to service ‗high-risk‘ ICBSP communities with
bulk water at a flat-rate tariff. Individual consumers will assume responsibility for paying their own bills.
Community-based organizations will also work to facilitate cost recovery from households through
community awareness and education campaigns. Based on a track record of solid repayment, NWC will
consider extending individual metered connections to consumers on a demand-driven basis. Similar
arrangements have been negotiated with NSWMA. Under these, the project will finance the purchase of
disposal trucks to be operated by the agency or subsequently be leased to private operators who secure
service contracts for ICBSP communities. Parish councils and CBOs will again work collaboratively to
ensure cost-recovery. Final arrangements for operations and maintenance and cost recovery are reflected
in the JSIF Operations Manual and in the MoU with each service provider.
Public Safety: The ability to enhance public safety in project areas will have a strong impact on the
sustainability of project investments. Violence and insecurity in inner city communities disrupts the
provision of water and sanitation service, regular solid waste collection and the delivery of other basic
services. Periods of extended street violence – in addition to causing indiscriminate injury and death –
limit freedom of movement causing children to miss school and residents to lose out on earning
opportunities through missed work or the lack of access to markets in the case of the self-employed. The
project will finance a series of crime and violence prevention interventions including mediation services,
youth and adult skills development and education, and recreation facilities as a means to ‗secure and
maintain the peace‘ in the short term. However, the extent to which enhanced public safety is achieved
and sustained beyond project implementation will depend to a large degree on the strength of community
23
organizations and their ability to mediate conflicts, advocate on behalf of communities and facilitate
access to services over time. The project will also finance an intensive program of capacity-building
initiatives for community organizations that aim to build these core mediation, advocacy and partnership
skills.
Microfinance: A key project objective is to catalyze a deeper and broader engagement of financial
institutions (FIs) in urban informal settlements. Microfinance institutions are currently unwilling to
service inner-city areas broadly due to high levels of crime and violence and the associated risks that
potential clients encounter – e.g. extortion and regular market closures. The component will pilot a
declining performance-based subsidy mechanism to create incentives in the short-term for FIs to seek and
service clients in the short-term. It is anticipated that a core group of FIs will develop during
implementation methodologies and practical experience in servicing inner city and poor urban clients that
will lead to the deepening of engagement in this market segment.
5. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects
Risk
Mitigation
Overall Risk Rating: Moderate
Increased crime and violence in project areas (High): In
recent years ICBSP project areas have to varying
degrees experienced waves of street violence driven
largely by turf wars between rival gangs. During these
periods – which can last for weeks and months – citizens
are at the risk of physical injury, unable to move freely
and have difficulty traveling to jobs, markets or school.
Similarly, parish councils and utilities are unable to
provide basic services, respond to complaints or collect
fees or charges.
Periods of street violence in project areas could: (i)
interrupt the implementation of capital works, social and
microfinance activities; (ii) threaten the safety of JSIF
project staff; and (iii) limit the possibility of regular
maintenance and/or the provision of basic services (e.g.
water, solid waste collection).
The project has developed a detailed methodology for
community participation and CBO capacity building that
aims to strengthen the role of local citizen groups in
mitigating and mediating an upsurge in violence. JSIF
community organizers have worked with local ‗area
leaders‘ and community volunteers during project
preparation to attempt to ensure that periodic violence
does not escalate or interfere with preparation activities.
In the event that violence escalates beyond the control of
community leaders, the project has an understanding
with the Ministry of National Security under which
security agencies will intervene to quell periods of
aggressive street violence and commit police officers to
patrol areas.
Additionally, the project incorporates a series of shortterm and medium-term initiatives that have a
demonstrated track record in mitigating crime and
violence in Jamaica and internationally. These include:
(i) public-safety-sensitive physical planning; (ii)
mediation initiatives; and (iii) job training and skills
development targeting vulnerable groups.
It is important to note that given the highly unpredictable
nature of gang-related crime and violence outbursts, a
residual risk will remain even after the implementation
of the above-stated mitigation measures.
Unsatisfactory use of borrower systems (Moderate):
This is one of the first and few pilot projects for the use
of country systems for environment and involuntary
resettlement safeguards. Although the potential impacts
related to the environment and involuntary resettlement
are expected to be relatively minor, there is some risk
that JSIF as the implementing agency may not be able to
sustain its past good performance in dealing with
environmental and social safeguard issues. This may be
brought about by changes in management or key staff, or
Environmental Management and Involuntary
Resettlement Frameworks acceptable to the Bank have
been approved by the JSIF Board and publicly disclosed
and incorporated into the JSIF Operations Manual. The
frameworks update JSIF procedures for the management
of environmental and social safeguards. Additionally,
staff has been designated to supervise safeguard
implementation and will be trained in Bank safeguards
policies early in implementation.
24
through insufficient government oversight and
monitoring.
Inability to establish cultures of community engagement,
ownership and payment (Moderate-High): Citizens in
ICBSP communities are largely disaffected with and
distrustful of public agencies. Levels of community
mobilization and participation in civic groups are
extremely low. A large proportion of residents also
argue that they should not pay for basic services, citing
political promises, histories of non-payment, and the
perception that middle-income neighborhoods receive
higher levels of service while also avoiding payment.
JSIF has initiated a program to achieve ISO 14000
certification over the next two to three years. Adoption
by JSIF of an internationally recognized environmental
management system specifically designed for
organizations will contribute to good environmental
performance by both management and staff.
The project aims to strengthen the capacity of
community organizations to assume greater
responsibility in mobilizing local residents and
maintaining basic services in collaboration with service
agencies. Additionally, residents will be required to
provide a 5 to 10 percent community contribution either
in cash or in kind for the provision of a bundle of
infrastructure services. The project – through JSIF
CLOs and education campaigns – will aim to increase
awareness of citizens about participating in construction
and provision, as well as maintaining and paying for
basic services.
Breakdown in cooperation agreements with service
providers, local governments and security agencies
(Moderate): The project aims to develop MoUs with
NSWMA, NWC, NWA, JPS Co., REP and parish
councils under which each agency agrees to provide
certain levels of service, implement a maintenance
program and undertake other mutual commitments.
MoU, however, are not legally binding and service
providers and/or local governments may fail to honor
agreements with respect to ICBSP project areas resulting
in a poor quality of service, inadequately maintained
assets and an increase in street violence.
During preparation JSIF has had extensive consultations
with service providers, parish councils and security
agencies to ensure that clear and realistic arrangements
were reflected in MoU. MoU also express and reiterate
agency responsibilities under the law to adequate service
communities. In order to reinforce the MoU with the
NSWMA – and given limited capacity in the agency –
the project will finance the purchase of garbage disposal
trucks that will be operated by NSWMA or leased to
private operators who are awarded service contracts for
the project areas. Similarly, as a means to create
incentives for NWC, the project will finance selective
off-site water and sanitation infrastructure that is both
part of the NWC capital investment program and
necessary to improve service levels in project areas.
Limited demand for microfinance and tenure
regularization sub-components (Moderate): The project
aims to pilot microfinance and tenure regularization subcomponents in ICBSP communities that have had
limited exposure to such instruments. There is a
potential risk that beneficiaries will not access
microfinance services given expectations that the project
will mobilize below-market interest rates. Similarly,
project beneficiaries may not seek land titling given
perceptions of de facto tenure in many areas and the cost
of processing such applications.
Results from the baseline survey indicate a high level of
demand for microfinance services – 62 percent of
respondents expressed a demand for credit. Similarly,
preliminary estimates suggest that 60 to 70 percent of
residents are without clear access to tenure.
Information and communication campaigns will be
developed and conducted in association with both
components to clearly communicate the benefits to
participation and the terms and conditions of each
subcomponent.
6. Loan/credit conditions and covenants
The following conditions and covenants have been determined:
Appraisal:
Finalization, adoption and in-country and Bank disclosure of the Environment Management
Framework (EMF) and the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework (LARPF)
(completed)
25
Presentation and Bank review of draft Operations Manual (completed)
Formation of the Microfinance Management Committee (MMC) (completed)
Board presentation:
Relevant amendments incorporating the Environment Management and Land Acquisition and
and adopted by the JSIF Board. (completed)
Loan/credit effectiveness:
Signing and adoption of Subsidiary Loan Agreement between the Ministry of Finance and the
Jamaica Social Investment Fund (JSIF)
Covenants applicable to project implementation:
Training of JSIF staff designated to apply the EMF and LARPF in environmental management,
resettlement, and land acquisition is a condition for disbursement for subcomponent 1.1: Basic
Infrastructure
The securing by each community concerned of at least one public or private sponsor willing to
cover at minimum 50 percent of operating costs, for at least one year, for its community center
prior to the initiation of construction of any particular community center under subcomponent 1.1
The finalization of subproject agreements between JSIF and respective community organizations
is a condition for the execution of community infrastructure subprojects by project communities
under subcomponent 1.1 using community-based contracting methods
Additionally, the project will have standard financial management requirements in legal agreements.
These include the requirements to maintain sound financial management system, for annual audits of JSIF
statutory financial statements and the consolidated projects financial statements, submission of FMRs to
the Bank on a quarterly basis no longer than 45 days after the end of each quarter.
D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY
1. Economic and financial analyses
An economic and financial analysis of the project has been undertaken to assess whether project
investments are in fact economically feasible. Results are presented in Annex 12. The approach for
economic analysis of the ICBSP was to conduct detailed cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for water and
sewerage services. A CBA for water supply was conducted for the Tawes Pen area. However, a number
of additional physical and social investments financed under the project did not lend themselves to a costbenefit analysis given the cost of carrying out such analyses for small projects of this nature and the
inherent difficulty in estimating the benefits from these investments. Therefore, willingness to pay data
was not collected for these variables through the Baseline Survey in order to avoid ‗respondent fatigue‘.
In such cases, a ‗reverse‘ economic analysis was carried out for project investments unsuitable for CBA.
This analysis aims to determine what the WTP would have to be to provide a 12 percent economic rate of
return.
The Baseline Survey field tested a WTP question for enhanced security. However, the results of the field
testing were inconclusive and it was decided not to apply such a question more widely. A similar
‗reverse‘ economic analysis exercise has been conducted for all areas. Results are included below and in
Annex 12. Lastly, the project includes pilot investments for microfinance and land titling. Due to the
small-scale, pilot nature of such investments – and the difficulty in quantifying the economic impact of
26
these investments – an economic analysis will not be attempted for these sub-components. The economic
analysis of the project found that that investment in water supply and sewerage are economically feasible
and details of these findings can be found in Annex 12. Additionally, the ‗reverse‘ economic analysis
found that, for most additional services that could not be subjected to CBA, the estimated WTP values
were in reasonable and affordable ranges.
2. Technical
A detailed technical review of proposed infrastructure investments was conducted during preparation by a
team of international consultants supervised by JSIF. The technical assessment involved an analysis of
the feasibility of different technical alternatives for the menu of eligible investments including water,
sanitation, sewerage, roads, drainage, electricity, solid waste collection, street lighting, community centers
and the replacement of zinc fencing with alternative perimeter fencing (see Annex 4). Detailed feasibility
studies for the selected investments were prepared in the form of Neighborhood Basic Infrastructure and
Public Safety Plans for each of the 12 selected project areas. Consultants to JSIF have also prepared
detailed engineering designs and bidding documentation for the tender of all work planned under the
operation. The detailed designs and bidding documentation have been reviewed by the Bank. A
committee of key service agencies – including NWC, NSWMA, JPS Co. and Parish councils – will also
review and approve the designs.
3. Fiduciary
Financial Management: The Bank conducted a Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA) in
Jamaica in 2001 and a joint CFAA/Country Procurement Assessment Report (CPAR) in 2005, the results
for which are currently being finalized. Both documents find that Jamaica has relatively well-established
traditions of institutions and adequate rules for efficient management of public resources, as well as a
relatively comprehensive framework for financial control and legislative oversight. In addition, Jamaica
has implemented several reforms to modernize its public financial management. While these reforms are
expected to result in increased efficiency and accountability in the use of public resources, a number of
weaknesses have been identified. However, as far as the ICBSP is concerned, the impact of these
weaknesses and risks is very limited given that the implementing entity, JSIF, has developed its own
financial management system. As a result the overall country risk is rated moderate.
The major inherent risks for the project relate to the CBC activity for the Basic Infrastructure
subcomponent and the performance-based disbursement mechanism for the Access to Financial Services
subcomponent. CBC activities are usually associated with greater risk because of the higher number of
low value transactions and weaker capacity of the communities in charge of managing the resources. In
the case of the ICBSP, the risk is mitigated by JSIF‘s long experience in dealing with this type of activity.
The project has made provision for capacity-building which will address weaknesses identified at the
communities‘ level. Although the FM capacity of the targeted communities has not been assessed yet,
their limited number and the current estimated amount for the CBC activities (US$1.0m) will be
mitigating factors. The assessment of the community FM capacity and subsequent capacity building is
part of JSIF‘s standard approach in dealing with communities. Regarding the performance-based contract,
detailed procedures have already been developed. The other activities do not present specific risks given
their nature and JSIF‘s experience in project management. Based on the above, the project fiduciary risk
is rated moderate.
JSIF already has in place an adequate financial management system which will not require much
adaptation to accommodate the needs of the ICBSP. The system already meets the Bank‘s financial
management requirements. For the ongoing NCDP, JSIF is up to date on the submission of the quarterly
FMR and the annual audit reports. The quarterly FMR are of good quality. The audit reports have not
raised any accountability issue or any significant internal control weakness. The main issue raised by the
27
auditors which can still affect the ICBSP is the fact that the cost of the communities‘ contributions in subproject activities are only partially accounted for in JSIF‘s financial statements. This issue has been
addressed as part of the MIS and the operations manual revisions.
Procurement: A procurement capacity assessment (PCA) of JSIF has been updated. JSIF is currently
rated ‗average‘ with procurement ex-post review missions required every six months. Procurement staff
has remained stable over the past two years and the procurement team consists of one Procurement/Legal
Officer and two Contracts Officers. The updated PCA focuses on JSIF's ability to manage an increased
project load, larger contract packages and the range of contracting activities that are envisioned under the
ICBSP. Infrastructure works under the project will be procured primarily through one of two mechanisms
– larger formal contracting packages for network and off-site infrastructure and community-based
contracting for small works. Procurement of larger contracting packages for works and goods will be the
responsibility of JSIF but will involve in the definition of technical specifications key sector agencies
with appropriate expertise including the NWC, NSWMA, JPS Co., REP and parish councils. JSIF has
considerable experience in the use of CBC under NCDP and will build on existing systems and
procedures. An assessment of CBO capacity to implement CBC has been included in the PCA.
The project will also contract NGOs and other providers of technical assistance to provide training and
technical assistance services in association with the public safety and community capacity building
component. Annex 11 details procurement procedures that will be followed for the project in addition to
agreed institutional strengthening requirements.
4. Social
The project will have a strong positive impact on over 60,000 residents of disproportionately poor innercity and urban informal settlements. The subproject selection is aimed to target interventions to
beneficiaries who are poor, lack adequate basic services and are disproportionately vulnerable to crime
and violence. Results from the Baseline Survey demonstrate that selection targeting has been successful
as only 43.2 percent of respondents in project areas reported having access to reliable water supply and
only 51.1 percent reported access to in-house sanitation facilities. The process of project preparation was
highly participatory and aimed to take into account views from a broad cross-section of community
members (see Annex 14 for greater detail on the community consultation process). Women participated
more than men in the consultative process and disproportionately emphasized the need for preventative
counseling and livelihood-based strategies focused on youth to enhance public safety. JSIF will adapt and
replicate this intensive consultative methodology for project implementation and the preparation of
investment programs in new project areas where applicable.
Crime and violence in project areas was identified as a major cause of fatalities, mortality, loss of
property and livelihoods, disruption to youth education and high levels of vulnerability for marginal
groups – particularly women and youth. The project design aims to increase public safety through a
series of infrastructure and social investments. The design of infrastructure investments has followed a
participatory methodology by which community members assessed the relationship between their
physical environment and levels of insecurity. Based on these consultations, physical investments in
community centers, street lighting, replacement of zinc fencing with alternative perimeter fencing and
traffic management measures were incorporated into project design. Additionally, the project has
identified a series of investments in mediation and conflict management, youth livelihood and life skills
development and education and recreation services that aim to enhance public safety in the medium term.
28
5. Environment
The full range of infrastructure investments proposed under the project focus on basic service provision to
poor communities for water and sanitation, drainage, street lighting, fencing etc., all of which are aimed at
improving living conditions within these poor neighborhoods and should in general have extremely
positive environmental impacts. It is, however, possible that some investments could result in minor
adverse environmental impacts unless appropriate design, construction and operational practices are
followed. These impacts would be few and site-specific and are reversible in nature. In all such cases
appropriate mitigating measures will be integrated as part of the technical designs of the respective
investments.
6. Safeguard policies
The Equivalence and Acceptability Assessment was carried out by a multidisciplinary team of Bank Staff
and consultants, in co-operation with NEPA and JSIF staff members, and consultants. The results of the
assessment indicate that the operational principles of EA policy (as stated in Table A1 of OP 4.00) and
the Jamaican EIA system (NRCA Act of 1991, and subsidiary legislation) are compatible in several
aspects. The differences/gaps that are pertinent to the proposed ICBSP are minimal (see Annex 7) and are
primarily due to a lack of clarity on EMP implementation arrangements. However, there are significant
differences between Jamaican law pertaining to land acquisition, and the operational principles set out in
Table A1 of OP 4.00. For example, the Land Acquisition Act of 1947 does not require the Government to
provide replacement land or housing, nor does it require it to provide economic rehabilitation assistance
to enable displaced persons to reestablish their livelihoods and incomes. And, cash compensation applies
only to those project affected persons who can produce either a registered certificate of title or some other
means of legal ownership, although there is a provision for Government to enter into equitable
arrangements other than payment of cash compensation with persons having a limited interest in the land
that is acquired.
JSIF Capacity for Implementation of Safeguard Policies: JSIF has a reasonably good track record for
implementing its current environmental guidelines, and has specified a set of actions for its staff to
address environmental concerns at every stage of project cycle. JSIF has recently recruited a full-time
environmental and resettlement officer and has access to the services of experienced senior environmental
consultants on a retainer basis. This combination of in-house staff, complemented by outside expertise
that can deal with more complex issues, is working well. On the other hand, there is no precedent for land
acquisition and involuntary resettlement in projects implemented by JSIF. However, it appears from a
review of JSIF‘s documentation and a site visit that the consultation and planning procedures followed for
infrastructure improvements in the target communities do indeed include consideration of land acquisition
and of alternatives to avoid such impacts. It is recognized that there is a need to clarify and document the
consultation process and how it is sequenced with, and integrated into, the community planning process
with indications of how and where in this process land acquisition is assessed, alternatives considered,
and possible acquisition methods and compensation agreements agreed.
Environmental Assessment: JSIF has prepared an Environmental Management Framework (EMF)
and a Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework (LARPF) to address the differences
(discussed above) between the Jamaican systems and the applicable operational principles as stated in
Table A1 of OP 4.00. The EMF and LARPF were adopted by JSIF‘s Board on January 25, 2006, and has
been integrated as a core part of the JSIF Operations Manual which was adopted with amendments by the
JSIF Board on February 22, 2006. Thereafter these Frameworks will be applicable to all JISF projects,
irrespective of the funding sources. In addition, as described in Annex 7, specific actions related to
training, monitoring and reporting have been agreed with JSIF to achieve and sustain equivalence and
acceptability. The Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) and NEPA have expressed interest in obtaining
29
support from the Bank and other development partners to go beyond the pilot and upgrade their national
EA system in line with the operational principles of EA policy as stated in OP 4.00.
Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01)
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04)
Pest Management (OP 4.09)
Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.11)
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20, being revised as OP 4.10)
Forests (OP/BP 4.36)
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37)
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)*
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50)
Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address Environmental
and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects (OP/BP
4.00)
Yes
[]
[]
[]
[]
[.]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
No
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[]
Cultural Property: The small-scale civil works sub-projects undertaken under the proposed project may
lead to chance finds in one of the project areas (Spanish Town / St. Catherine), and simple procedures to
assist identification and protection of such chance finds are described in JSIF Operations Manual, and will
constitute standard provisions in construction contracts.
Consultations: A public consultation workshop was organized to discuss the draft version of the
equivalence and acceptability assessment report in Kingston on November 1, 2005. A separate
consultation workshop with community members and government representatives was held January 13,
2006 to discuss the draft Resettlement Policy Framework and Environmental Management Framework.
Over 60 people attended each workshop. Participants expressed overall support for the pilot and agreed
with the findings and gap filling actions proposed to achieve and sustain equivalence. The final version of
the is full report and the final versions of EMF and LARPF have been disclosed in the following places:
(a) JSIF website; (b) the World Bank office in Kingston; and (c) the World Bank Infoshop in Washington
DC.
7. Policy Exceptions and Readiness
No policy exceptions are envisioned for the project.
At this stage of project preparation the team confirms that the implementing agency – JSIF – has taken
appropriate measures to strengthen technical, environmental and fiduciary capacity. A series of further
capacity-strengthening measures in the areas of environmental and social safeguards, procurement and
financial management were implemented or programmed and are outlined in this project document. The
task team also confirms that JSIF has taken appropriate measures to ensure the technical readiness of the
operation.
*
By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties' claims on the
disputed areas
30
Annex 1: Country and Sector Background
JAMAICA: JM Inner City Basic Services for the Poor Project
Country Background
Jamaica's economic performance has improved in recent years. Real annual GDP growth accelerated from
1.5 percent in 2001 to 2.3 percent in 2003 and is estimated at 1.5 percent for 2005. The recent
improvement in economic performance follows an extended period of stagnation during 1991-2000. The
improvement in growth is led by relatively strong performance in tourism, mining, agriculture and the
recovery in the manufacturing sector. At the same time the Jamaican economy has been undergoing a
gradual structural transformation. Between 1989 and 2002 the manufacturing sector declined from 20.0
percent of GDP to 15.4 percent while service sectors increased to 55.8 percent of GDP. A driving force
behind this transformation is the growing importance of the tourism sector, including the impact this has
on the construction and transportation sectors.
These changes in the economy have had an impact on the spatial organization of cities and towns.
Business and industrial activity – particularly in the capital of Kingston – has gradually left city centers
resulting in high levels of unemployment and declining investment in basic inner-city services.21 While,
the overall poverty rate fell from 19.1 percent in 2003 to 16.9 percent in 2004, it is estimated that pockets
of urban poverty persist.22 There is also a strong gender dimension to poverty. Female-headed households
account for about two-thirds of the households in poverty and generally show a higher incidence of
poverty in all surveys since 1989.23 The gender dimension of urban poverty in Jamaica is particularly
acute. Of 57 cities surveyed by the UN-Habitat, two Jamaican cities (Montego Bay and Kingston)
reported the highest difference in general poverty incidence and poverty amongst female-headed
households.24
Jamaica‘s inner cities are also at the center of the country‘s growing crime and violence problem. A
record 1,650 killings were reported in 2005. This amounts to 60.4 murders per 100,000 of the population.
Approximately 12.1 percent of all households in the 2002 the Jamaica Survey of Living Conditions
(JSLC) were victims of crime in 2001 and 1.2 percent of all households reported that a family member
had been murdered in the past 12 months.25 High levels of violent crime can be linked to a pattern of
politically motivated violence established in the 1970s and 1980s, and to the emergence of Jamaica as a
major point for the transshipment of drugs from South America to the US and Europe. The economic
stagnation during the 1990s contributed to high levels of unemployment and social deprivation. It also
drove many qualified and professional people, particularly from the healthcare sector, to migrate abroad.
This weakened the social infrastructure further. A complex relationship has evolved in recent years
between organized crime and inner-city communities. By the 1970s, many such communities had
become ‗garrisoned‘ or segregated along political lines through intimidation and patronage, under the
control of a local leader or ‗don‘ with links to one of the main political parties. However, by the 1990s,
the role of politics had diminished, and major criminal gangs – often involved in illegal narcotics and
21
The GoJ refers to ‗inner city communities‘ as the neighborhoods in the central area of the city in or bordering the
historic core and central business district. These inner city neighborhoods suffer from decaying physical
infrastructure, poor service provision, high population densities and sometimes considerable environmental hazards.
More generally, the term ‗inner city‘ is also used to describe slum settlements on the periphery of towns that suffer
the similar lack of access to services and social fragmentation.
22
PIOJ data.
23
World Bank. Country Economic Memorandum (2004)
24
http://www.unchs.org/publication/Analysis-Final.pdf, page 21
25
Jamaica Survey of Living Conditions (2002).
31
extortion - controlled many neighborhoods, under the command of a new breed of dons. These major
gangs have weakened in recent years, and many of the recent deaths are apparently due to intensifying
conflict between smaller local groups. See Annex 13 for greater detail on crime and violence in Jamaica.
Crime and violence – coupled with growing poverty – has further exacerbated social fragmentation and
the weakness of civic organizing in inner-city communities. A 1997 World Bank study of Urban Poverty
and Violence concluded that violence in poor urban communities erodes the two key assets vital to
poverty reduction – labor and social capital. The report recommended projects that integrate the delivery
of services with the development of civic institutions. The Government is also increasingly cognizant of
the economic impact of crime and violence in terms of a worsening investment climate and diminished
tourism sector revenues.
Jamaica has identified inner-city renewal – with a focus on crime and violence prevention – as a key
priority. In 2002, GoJ developed a comprehensive inner-city renewal program which aims to ‗provide a
general framework for integrating the dimensions of human, social, economic and environmental
development‘ of inner-city communities in Jamaica.26 The Government‘s Medium-Term SocioEconomic Policy Framework (MTSEPF) identifies inner-city renewal as a key priority.27 In 2000, the
Prime Minister of Jamaica established a committee of senior officials to oversee and coordinate all innercity renewal interventions in the country. This proposed project‘s focus on sustainable water and
sanitation provision, crime and violence prevention and improved mobility and safety complements the
GoJ program. Additionally, the Government has requested Bank assistance in parallel to Inner Cities
Basic Services for the Poor (ICBSP) implementation for the preparation of a policy and program for the
regularization and management of inner city, urban and peri-urban informal settlements.
The Government has demonstrated a commitment to civic participation and strong performance in
community-based service provision. The Social Development Commission of the GoJ has formulated a
framework to enhance civil society participation through a three-tiered system of public-civic committees.
Community Development Committees (CDC) and Development Area Clusters are being formed at the
neighborhood and neighborhood cluster levels, while Parish Development Committees (PDC) have
already been established in every parish in the country. Additionally, the Jamaica Social Investment Fund
(JSIF) was established in 1996 to reduce poverty and help create an environment for sustainable
development. JSIF is currently executing the National Community Development Project (NCDP),
financed by the World Bank and the Government of Jamaica. JSIF has considerable experience in
financing community infrastructure projects in inner city communities – including those for critically
needed water and sanitation, education, health and transport services. JSIF has also supported a range of
community-based capacity building initiatives in inner-city neighborhoods to build social capital. The
Government is committed to building upon the successful JSIF experience by deepening interventions in
inner-cities in the areas of water, sanitation, crime and violence prevention and traffic management.
Sector Background
Precise data on the quality of basic services in inner-city areas is not readily available. However, an
analysis of aggregate data and recent studies suggests that the quality and coverage of basic services in
inner-city communities is poor, with pockets of extreme deprivation in particular neighborhoods.
Additionally, a Public Expenditure Review for inner city areas (currently in draft) was conducted during
preparation to assess the quality and magnitude of public expenditure on inner city areas. Overall
performance and service quality in key basic infrastructure sectors are poor and, in many cases,
worsening. In particular:
26
27
http://www.pioj.gov.jm/piojdocs/special/finalWHOLEDOC.htm
http://www.pioj.gov.jm/piojdocs/special/Mediumterm.pdf, page 44
32
Water Supply: In 2004 approximately 80 percent of consumers had access to potable water
through either piped household connections or public standpipes, a decline from 84 percent in
2001.28 However, only 59 percent of the poorest quintile had access to a reliable source of water
supply. For the water sector there is a lack of enforcement of payments leading to a lack of
investment (including even ordinary maintenance) programs. Many target households either do
not have a piped water connection in their homes or suffer from a lack of adequate water
pressure. Improved provision of these services is high on all the communities‘ priority lists.
Sanitation: For the sanitation sector, the sewerage system in all project communities either does
not exist or is due for a major renewal. The household gray water is often separated from toilet
waste and allowed to flow into storm drainage, where this exists, or otherwise allowed to flow
along the sides of roads, thus polluting adjacent properties on an intermittent basis during heavy
rainfall. Where sewer networks do exist, they are badly maintained and in a very poor state; in
some cases they have been decommissioned without immediate replacement.
Drainage: For storm water drainage, the accumulation of solid waste still remains the number one
problem concerning flooding during periods of heavy rainfall. This can be of particular concern
in poorer communities where solid waste is not segregated by the community. The heavy metal
constituents (from batteries, petroleum products, cans etc) tend to accumulate on the ground after
local flooding subsides, which can lead to direct or indirect ingestion by humans, with obvious
long term health implications, particularly where there are public standpipes.
Solid Waste: Solid waste collection is a major area of concern in all the communities. The
associated health implications of limited and irregular solid waste collection are far reaching.
Electricity: In the electricity sector, unaccounted-for net generation during the past 10 years is
between 15 and 20 percent, most of which is attributable directly to theft of power (generally
through illegal connections). Some inner-city communities have as many as 2-3 connections per
house. Illegal connections are also a major safety issue in some of these communities.
Rationale for Bank Involvement
The Bank is well positioned to support the proposed operation. First, in August 2004 Jamaica formally
requested the assistance of the Bank to prepare and finance an urban infrastructure and public safety
enhancement operation targeting inner-city and informal urban communities. The proposed project has
been formulated in the context of the GoJ inner-city renewal program, formulated in 2002. A
commitment to inner-city renewal was reinforced in the Government‘s Medium-Term Socio-Economic
Policy Framework (MTSEPF) in 2004.
Second, the World Bank Group Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) 29 for Jamaica is closely aligned with
the MTSEPF and focuses on three key pillars: (i) accelerating inclusive economic growth; (ii) improving
human development and opportunity; and (iii) crime prevention and reduction. The proposed operation is
closely aligned with all the pillars of the CAS and is specifically referenced in the strategy. In particular,
the ICBSP project will reinforce the first CAS pillar through investments to improve the quality of basic
infrastructure services for the poor. Additionally, the project is closely linked to the third CAS pillar on
crime violence prevention. In this regard, the project has designed infrastructure investments in a manner
that reinforces public safety. The public safety component will also finance technical assistance to
28
29
JSLC (2002).
Discussed by the Board on April 20, 2005.
33
support mediation activities and multi-purpose community centers that would support youth and adult
skills training, homework classes and related community capacity-building initiatives. The proposed
project also reinforces the conclusions of the Country Economic Memorandum (CEM) which emphasized
the importance of reducing crime and violence as this has a major impact on the investment climate, the
competitiveness of Jamaican firms, and worker and firm productivity.
Third, the Bank will leverage its global experience in the preparation and implementation of integrated
urban infrastructure projects and its increasing experience and knowledge base on crime and violence
prevention.
Finally, the project will build upon the experience of the ongoing and successful Bank-supported National
Community Development Project (NCDP) – being implemented by JSIF. JSIF has successfully
implemented community infrastructure projects under NCDP in inner-city communities and has
developed an effective mechanism for community-based contracting that will be replicated in the ICBSP
project.
34
Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies
A. IBRD projects
IP/DO
Ratings
IP - S
DO - S
Project Name
National Community Development
(P076837)
Amount
US$15.0m
Focus
Other social services; water, sanitation and
flood; general education, health; and roads
and highways
Social Investment Fund (P039029)
US$20.0m
IP - S
DO - S
Central government administration; health;
roads and highways; water, sanitation and
flood prevention; community capacitybuilding; and other social services
Social Safety Net (P067774)
US$40.0m
IP - S
DO - S
Other social services, and central government
administration
Reform of Secondary Education II
(P071589)
US$39.8m
IP - U
DO - S
Secondary education
B. Other international development partners – urban upgrading and CDD
Project name
Amount
Lender / Donor
Focus
Poverty Reduction Program
6.0m Euro
EU
Community-driven infrastructure projects
Jamaica Urban Poverty
Program (JUPP)
n/a
DFID
Small community projects and policing for the
Inner City Development plan, of which the 1994
Jones Town Development Plan was a pilot
project
Basic Needs Trust Fund
US$ 2.8m
CIDA
Funds projects implemented by JSIF
Parish Infrastructure
Development
US$ 50.0m
IADB
Institutional strengthening, technical assistance
and improving project management for parish
based infrastructure.
Kingston Urban Renewal
US$ 1.5m
IADB
Urban upgrading, CBO building and economic
development and training in the Tel Aviv and
South side areas of downtown Kingston.
C. Other development partners – Roads, WSS, other major infrastructure projects
Project Name
Amount
Lender /
Donor
JBIC
Northern Jamaica Development
Project
US$
86.0m
Kingston Metropolitan Area
Water Supply and Rehab
US$ 6.0m
JBIC
National Road Services
Improvement
US$
18.5m
IADB
35
Focus
Port expansion at Ocho Rios; Northern Coastal
Highways improvement; Montego Bay drainage
and flood control; and the Lucea - Negril water
supply system.
Improvement of sewerage system in KSA and
Portmore.
Modernization and strengthening of road sector
administration.
Northern Coastal Highway
Improvement Projec (SEGII)t
US$ 110m
IADB
Rehabilitation and reconstruction of approximately
97 KM of Montego Bay - Ocho Rios highway
Northern Coastal Highway
Improvement Projec (SEGIII)t
US$
97.8m
EU
Rural Water Supply project
US$
13.0m
US$
35.0m
EU
Construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of
highway between Ocho Rios and Fair Prospect
(Portland)
Improving rural water supply
US$
20.0m
IADB
Flood Rehabilitation
Emergency Reconstruction
Facility
CDB
Rehabilitation of road infrastrustructure island-wide
to facilitate the restoration of productive capacity
and growth
Reconstruction and rehabilitation of flood-damaged
infrastructure
D. Other development partners - Crime and violence prevention, judicial strengthening
Project Name
Amount
Peace and Prosperity Initiative
Budget Support to Justice and
National Security Ministries
US$ 3.0m
US$ 4.0m
Lender /
Donor
USAID
EU
Community Security Initiative
(CSI)
GBP 3.15
DFID UK
Operation Kingfish
n/a
DFID UK
Citizen's Security and Justice
Program
US$
18.5m
IADB
Civil Dialogue for Democratic
Governance
US$ 3.5m
UNDP
Budget Support to the Ministry
of Justice and Ministry of
National Security
Human Rights Information
Assistance Program
Youth at Risk
Various programs
US$ 4m
EU
n/a
EU
n/a
n/a
EU
Other US
Govt.
agencies
36
Focus
Crime and violence prevention
Judicial strengthening
Key GoJ policy program to link police
modernization program and social development by
working with youths, communities etc. as well as
with police force to restore a sense of peace and
order in crime-ridden communities.
High profile GoJ program. Targets drug trafficking
and aims to disband major criminal gangs
Enhancing citizen security and justice through an
integrated national crime and violence prevention
strategy and building capacity of security agencies
and the criminal justice system.
Encouraging CBOs to work together and with
national interest groups, to find ways to tackle
crime, violence and corruption and create jobs
Building law courts, providing technical assistance
and implementing the nationwide Safe School
Program, which aims to reduce crime and violence
Country-wide program focusing on access to
information and assistance to prison inmates
Youth programs in St. Catherine
Training for the Jamaica Constabulary Force and
armed forces, and other initiatives vs. crime,
violence, drug trafficking, coastal water monitoring.
Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring
JAMAICA:JM Inner City Basic Services for the Poor Project
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
A monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework has been developed for the ICBSP project to track
progress in implementation, measure intermediate outcomes and evaluate project impacts. The
framework outlines key performance indicators, data collection methods, a timetable for collection, and
responsible agencies. It is reflected in detail in the revised JSIF Operations Manual. This framework
forms part of a project management and evaluation system that will be used to supervise and monitor the
implementation of the ICBSP project.
Methodology and Objectives
The M&E framework for the ICBSP aims to integrate process monitoring and both medium- and longerterm project impact evaluation, utilizing in the results framework a mixture of outcome and process
indicators. The framework aims to capture direct social, physical and human capital benefits in the
selected communities.
Monitoring will be carried out on a regular basis in all 12 ICBSP communities through a combination of
technical supervision, participatory focus group discussions, consumer satisfaction surveys and ongoing
project information management. The JSIF MIS will be the central vehicle through which the project will
track key operational and process monitoring indicators. A sample household baseline survey has been
conducted in the 12 project areas and three control communities to serve as a basis for effective impact
evaluation. Mid-term and end-of-project impact evaluations planned under the project will enable
Jamaica to effectively assess the overall success of the project and that of discrete components. These
lessons will be valuable in aiding the Government to identify critical investments and reforms that reduce
poverty, build community capacity and increase public safety in inner-city and peri-urban communities.
Baseline Household Survey: A socio-economic household baseline survey has been carried out in a
representative sample of households in the 12 ICBSP communities and in four control communities with
characteristics similar to the project communities. The survey measures the beneficiaries‘ current status
and perception of the availability and use of infrastructure services and utilities, level of social and human
capital, income (by proxy) and perceptions and incidence of crime and violence in their community.
Results from the survey are reflected in this project document and a complete report included in the
project files. Control communities were selected and surveyed based upon five key factors of similarity
with ICBSP communities including: (i) form and type of housing; (ii) population density; (iii) location
and location type (e.g. urban, peri-urban, rural); (iv) level of basic services available; and (v) prevailing
socio-economic conditions. The control communities for the ICBSP are Hayes (Clarendon), Ellerslie Pen
(St. Catherine), Delacree and Swallowfield (Kingston and St. Andrew). The baseline survey in project
and control areas enables the effective measurement of impact.
Process Monitoring and Evaluation: Continuous project monitoring will be based primarily on inputs
recorded in a Management Information System (MIS) and through quarterly participatory rapid appraisals
(PRA), focus group discussions and annual sample consumer satisfaction surveys of beneficiaries through
Community Committees and JSIF Liaison Officers. Results will be formally presented in Bi-annual
Project Progress Reports. These will measure progress against a series of key indicators summarized in
the results framework below and other key management and operational indicators to be identified
between JSIF and critical external stakeholders.
Mid-Term Evaluation: The mid-term evaluation will include an audit of the bi-annual Project Progress
Reports and a sample household survey in ICBSP communities. Progress and primary data will be
analyzed against key indicators in the results framework. In an effort to minimize costs, the mid-term
household survey will utilize a reduced survey instrument – as compared with that used for the baseline
37
study –focusing on key impact indicators. Additionally, the evaluation will be conducted in a reduced
sample of ICBSP communities.
Impact Evaluation: The Government aims to conduct two impact evaluations – at project completion and
five years after completion – to assess project impacts on beneficiary households and communities over
time. The end-of-project impact evaluation will be conducted in all 12 project areas and the control
groups. This survey will form the basis of an ICBSP impact evaluation and will be supplemented by a
mix of data sources including focus group discussions with beneficiaries and selected secondary sources
such as reported crime statistics, hospital admittance for violence-related injury in project areas.
Jamaica also aims to conduct a second impact evaluation five years after project completion to measure
the sustainability of project outcomes. A methodology for this impact evaluation will be developed
during project implementation.
Assessing Impact on the Incidence of Crime and Violence: The Project does not explicitly include as a
development objective the reduction of crime and violence in project areas given the complexity of causal
factors that influence crime and violence trends. Nonetheless, the Government does aim to measure the
impact of public safety enhancement activities under Component 2 of the Project on the incidence crime
and violence in project areas through the system of process monitoring and impact evaluation methods
described above. The baseline survey conducted during preparation did collect data on the incidence of
crime and violence in project and control areas thereby enabling subsequent evaluations to estimate the
real impact of project interventions that aim to enhance public safety. Additionally, the Project will aim
to develop during implementation a community-based system for monitoring the incidence of crime and
violence in project areas. This data could then be triangulated with official statistics and findings from
household sample surveys.
Data Collection Instruments
The key data resources to be used for monitoring and evaluation are outlined below:
MIS. JSIF currently uses a project MIS for the NCDP. This system will be updated and developed
further for the ICBSP project. The system will include complete information on disbursements,
material inputs, number of beneficiaries, numbers of CBOs involved with the project and a range of
additional operational indicators to track project status. This information system will be available on
a current basis and will feed into the process monitoring and evaluation system.
Focus Group Discussions. As part of process monitoring and evaluation, focus group discussions will
be held with beneficiaries in project communities (who may not be part of the Community
Committees) to build a profile of project impact. Bi-annual focus group discussions will take place in
each ICBSP community.
Citizen Report Cards. JSIF will implement Citizen Report Cards to monitor beneficiary perceptions
of project implementation. The report cards will be implemented at the end of years one and three of
project implementation – years in which either mid-term or end-of-project evaluation will not be
conducted. The report cards will serve as a bridge between the ongoing monitoring and impact
evaluation exercises. JSIF will develop during project implementation a methodology for conducting
citizen report card surveys based on international experience with the instrument.
Household Baseline and Impact Evaluation Surveys. A socio-economic household baseline survey
has been carried out for representative sample households in ICBSP communities and four control
communities as described above. A limited module or survey will be conducted at the mid-term.
Complete surveys to assess impact will be conducted at the end of the project and five years after
project completion.
Secondary Data. Existing data from the National Census, PIOJ, police records and other agencies will
38
be used to supplement the primary data collected from ICBSP communities and control communities
for process monitoring and impact evaluation.
Indicators
A set of indicators for process and impact monitoring have been outlined in the results framework below.
Additional key management indicators will be integrated into the MIS. The impact evaluation framework
also includes a series of indicators organized into the following areas:
Impact Indicator Areas
Household Composition
Housing
Tenure
Water and Sanitation
Solid Waste
Electricity
Roads and Street Lighting
Community Infrastructure
Health
Education
Social Capital and Community Participation
Employment, Income and Access to Financial Services
Crime, Violence and Public Safety
Institutional Arrangements
JSIF will be responsible for the overall management and implementation of the Monitoring and
Evaluation framework. This will include ensuring field teams provide timely monitoring reports with
operational data. JSIF Community Liaison Officers will be responsible for carrying out periodic focus
group and participatory exercises and the citizen report card surveys. Technical supervision for the midterm and end-of-project evaluations will be conducted by the Social Development and Research
Department of the Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) with support from consultants to be financed
under the ICBSP project. PIOJ will assume the role of technical supervision for project evaluation in
order to ensure the independence of the impact evaluation process. PIOJ will coordinate with and involve
STATIN on design and technical issues associated with the evaluations.
Mechanisms for Feedback: Results from ongoing process monitoring, focus group discussions, citizen
report cards and impact evaluations will be discussed at three levels. First, results from ongoing
operational monitoring and focus group exercises will be discussed at bi-weekly Community Organizer
meetings held with JSIF management and community liaison officers. At this stage key lessons from
monitoring will be reflected in revised work programs or special initiatives to address identified
operational weaknesses. Important results from ongoing operational monitoring and focus group
discussions will also be discussed during monthly JSIF management meetings, involving the ICBSP
Project Manager, key senior project staff and other JSIF management. The meetings will reflect lessons
from monitoring exercises in revised monthly work programs for the project and staff. Lastly, findings
from citizen report card surveys, impact evaluations and key lessons from ongoing operational monitoring
will be discussed at quarterly ICBSP Steering Committee meetings. The steering committee will include
JSIF management, notable figures and representatives from key agencies including PIOJ, Ministry of
Land and Environment, Ministry of National Security, National Lands Agency, Ministry of Housing and
Water, NWC, NSWMA, NWA and Parish councils. The Steering Committee will take decisions on
project implementation strategy based on findings from operational monitoring and impact evaluations.
39
Results Framework
PDO
Improve quality of life in inner
cities and poor urban informal
settlements through improved
access to basic services,
enhanced community capacity
and improvements in public
safety.
Intermediate Outcomes
Component One: Access to
Services
Increase access and improve
the quality of basic
infrastructure services for inner
city residents in project areas
Improve access for formal
financial services for
productive, incremental
housing improvements and
community infrastructure
investments
Increase tenure security in
project areas
Component Two: Public
Safety
Improve the perceptions of
public safety among
beneficiaries through
strengthening human and
social capital
Component Three: Project
Management
JSIF, parish councils and
community organizations
increase capacity and
effectively implement and
supervise project interventions
Project Outcome Indicators
1. Provide access to improved basic
infrastructure and financial services and
security of tenure for 60,000 inner city
residents
2. % of beneficiaries that feel safe or very
safe (differentiated between inside and
outside the home)
Intermediate Outcome Indicators
Use of Project Outcome
Information
Adapting and developing public
expenditures, programs and policies
targeting inner city and peri-urban
areas to reflect lessons from the
ICBSP project
Use of Intermediate Outcome
Monitoring
3. % of households that report access to
water with ‗good‘ pressure
4. % of beneficiaries satisfied with the
quality and pressure of water service
5. % of households in project areas with
access to in-house sanitation facilities
6. % of households satisfied with quality of
sanitation facility
7. % beneficiaries receiving solid waste
collection service at least once per week
8. Km of paved road surface rehabilitated
and maintained
9. % of street lights constructed under the
project in working order over time
10. Increase in levels of community
satisfaction with community and
recreational facilities
11. # of formal microfinance loans
disbursed in project communities
12. # of beneficiaries having opened bank
accounts
13. # of repeater loans provided in project
areas
14. Number of titles provided to project
beneficiaries
Measure effectiveness of physical
infrastructure sub-component and
adapt implementation strategy
accordingly
15. % of beneficiaries who feel safe or very
safe (differentiated between inside and
outside the home)
16. % increase in CBO membership
Inform Jamaican government
programs that aim to enhance
public safety in inner city areas
17. JSIF obtains and adheres to ISO 14000
certification
18. CBOs effectively implement
community-based subprojects
Identify actions and measures to
strengthen JSIF management and
quality control systems
Adapt and improve approach to
strengthening CBO capacity
40
Measure the sustainability of
project investments and adapt
arrangements for O&M developed
in collaboration with NWA,
NSWMA, NWC, JPS Co., Parish
councils and other related service
providers.
Inform GoJ strategy and parallel
efforts on best practice in providing
basic infrastructure services in
inner city areas
Develop improved strategies to
provide financial services in inner
city areas
Design tenure regularization
programs targeting inner city and
urban informal settlements
Arrangements for results monitoring
Target Values
Project Outcome Indicators
Baseline
YR1
YR2
YR3
YR4
Frequency and
Reports
Annual
Data Collection and Reporting
Data Collection
Responsibility for
Instruments
Data Collection
JSIF MIS
JSIF
1. Provide access to improved basic
infrastructure and financial
services and security of tenure for
60,000 inner city residents
0
7,500
18,000
40,000
60,000
2. % of beneficiaries who feel safe or
very safe
27.75%30
35.0%
45.0%
60.0%
75.0%
Mid-Term, End of
Project and End-ofProject + 5 Years31
Impact Evaluation
JSIF in consultation
with STATIN
43.2%
50.0%
55.0%
60.0%
65.0%
43.2%
50.0%
60.0%
75.0%
90.0%
JSIF Technical
Supervision and
Impact Evaluation
Consumer Satisfaction
Surveys and Impact
Evaluations
JSIF
4. % of beneficiaries satisfied with
the quality and pressure of water
service
Six-Monthly,
Mid-Term and End of
Project
Annual, Mid-Term and
End of Project
5. % of households in project area
with access to in-house sanitation
facilities
6. % of households satisfied with
quality of sanitation facility
7. % beneficiaries receiving solid
waste collection service at least
once per week
8. Km of paved road surface
rehabilitated and maintained
51.0%
55%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
JSIF Technical
Supervision
JSIF
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Six-Monthly, MidTerm and End of
Project
Annual
JSIF
71.7%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
90.0%
0
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Six-Monthly, MidTerm and End of
Project
Six-Monthly
Survey
JSIF Technical
Supervision, Impact
Evaluations
JSIF Technical
Supervision
9. % of street lights constructed
under the project in working order
over time
10. Increase in levels of community
satisfaction with community and
recreational facilities
11. % of households in which
0
70.0%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
Six-Monthly
JSIF Technical
Supervision
JSIF
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Annual
Survey
JSIF
4.4%
7.5%
10.0%
12.5%
15.0%
Six-Monthly
JSIF MIS
JSIF and
Intermediate Outcome Indicators
3. % of households that report access
to water with ‗good‘ pressure
30
JSIF
JSIF
JSIF
Data is based on responses from the Household Baseline Survey in which respondents were asked about perceptions of physical safety based on a subjective 5
point scale ranging from ‗not safe at all‘ to very safe. Results from the baseline survey suggest that 27.7 percent of respondents feel either ‗safe‘ or ‗very safe‘.
31
Control groups will be surveyed as part of the end of project and end-of-project + 5 year impact evaluations.
41
members have accessed loans
from a formal lending institution
12. # of beneficiaries having opened
bank accounts
13. # of repeater loans provided in
project areas
14. Number of titles provided to
project beneficiaries
15. % of beneficiaries who feel safe
or very safe (differentiated
between inside and outside the
home)
16. % of households that report
membership of a CBO
17. JSIF obtains and adheres to ISO
14000 certification
18. CBOs effectively implement
community-based subprojects
participating MFIs
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Six-Monthly
JSIF MIS
0
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Six-Monthly
JSIF MIS
0
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Six-Monthly
JSIF MIS
JSIF and
participating MFIs
JSIF and
participating MFIs
JSIF
27.7%32
35.0%
45.0%
60.0%
75.0%
Annual
Consumer Surveys
JSIF
13.6%
25.0%
35.0%
50.0%
65.0%
Annual
Consumer Surveys
JSIF
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Annual
JSIF Reports
JSIF
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Annual
JSIF MIS
JSIF
32
Data is based on responses to a question in the Baseline Survey conducted during preparation. The question does not differentiate between ‗inside‘ and
‗outside‘ the house perceptions of safety. Subsequent data collection exercise will differentiate between the two types of safety perceptions.
42
Annex 4: Detailed Project Description
Project Development Objectives
The project development objective is to improve quality of life in 12 Jamaican inner-city areas
and poor urban informal settlements through improved access to basic urban infrastructure,
financial services, land tenure regularization, enhanced community capacity and improvements in
public safety. The project will: (a) increase access and improve the quality of water, sanitation,
solid waste collection systems, electricity, roads, drainage and related community infrastructure
for over 60,000 residents of poor urban informal settlements through capital investment and
innovative arrangements for operation and maintenance; (b) facilitate access to microfinance for
enterprise development and incremental home improvement for entrepreneurs and residents; (c)
increase security of tenure for inner-city residents in project areas; and (d) enhance public safety
through mediation services, community capacity-building, skills training and related social
services. A results framework is included in Annex 3 with additional key performance indicators.
Eligibility Criteria and Selection of Beneficiaries
The selection of project communities was led by the Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) and
involved the Ministry of National Security, the Social Development Commission (SDC) and
JSIF. The availability of reliable and disaggregated quantitative data on poverty, access to basic
infrastructure services and the incidence of crime and violence for inner-city and urban informal
settlements is limited in Jamaica. This made it difficult for the GoJ to develop selection criteria
solely on objective quantitative measures. Additionally, the Government noted a preference to
explicitly include certain qualitative measures to ensure that areas of high priority with respect to
public security were included and to avoid the perception of political interference in selection.
The selection process involved as a first step the formulation of a shortlist of 32 settlements
including all inner-city and peri-urban informal settlements with estimated populations of over
7,500 residents based on the Government‘s preference to implement the ICBSP project in larger
inner-city communities. The shortlist was then analyzed and ranked based on two available
quantitative measures: (i) % of households in the community in lowest poverty quintile; and (ii)
% of households without access to piped water. A combined ranking was formulated based on
data for both indicators. The GoJ then applied a series of qualitative criteria to this ranking to
arrive at the final project selection. Qualitative criteria for selection specified that this should:
Include at least one settlement from all five urban parishes – Kingston, St. Andrews, St.
James, Clarendon and St. Catherine – to ensure that all parish councils develop capacity
in urban upgrading under the project. Based on poverty and access to water criteria alone
the project would have selected project areas in only Kingston and St. Andrews.
Ensure that the final selection does not disproportionately favor communities allied with
the ruling political party to avoid accusations of preferential treatment based on political
alliances.
Select communities that are of high priority based on Ministry of National Security
public safety criteria. The Ministry ranked for PIOJ the 32 settlements on the shortlist
and indicated certain high priority settlements that represented a significant security risk
or had either maintained fragile ceasefires. The final selection reflects, to the extent
possible, Ministry of National Security rankings.
43
The GoJ also excluded from final selection project areas that were either subject to major
land disputes or located on environmentally sensitive land.
Based on the above criteria, a draft selection was made using an estimated budget of US$500 per
capita including both project and administrative costs. This draft selection was further refined
after field assessment to focus in on discrete sub-communities where poverty, poor service levels
and crime were concentrated.33 Based on this methodology, a final selection of project areas was
conducted and is reflected in Table 1 below.
ICBSP Per Capita
Kingston
and St.
Andrew
St.
Catherine
Households
Area
(ha)
Whitfield Town
21,650
4,330
126
(Persons/ha)
172
5,982
1,196
29
201
Federal Gardens (in Trench Town)
2,391
478
14
171
Jones Town
Tawes Pen
13,011
2,602
38
342
March Pen (Africa)
1,822
3,254
364
651
11
26
166
125
Central Village
5,816
1,171
37
157
2,772
554
24
116
356
71
12
30
Bog Walk (Knollis)
1,120
224
49
23
Bucknor/Rectory Lands
1,150
230
51
23
Flankers
7,148
1430
37
193
66,472
13,301
454
155
Community
Lauriston
Clarendon
St James
Density
Population
Parish
Total
Project Components
The project is structured with three components:
subcomponents.
Subcomponent 1.1: Basic Infrastructure (US$ 20.00m): This subcomponent will primarily
finance the upgrading of basic tertiary network and community urban infrastructure in project
areas. Additional financing under the subcomponent will support the enhanced capacity of parish
councils and community organizations to adequately operate and maintain community
infrastructure.
Specifically, the subcomponent will support investments in seven areas: (i) integrated network
infrastructure in project areas for water, sanitation, drainage, and secondary and tertiary roads; (ii)
community centers; (iii) community-based infrastructure including the construction and
rehabilitation of recreational facilities, installation of community garbage receptacles,
33
For example, the draft selection included Trench Town with an estimated population of over 24,000
residents. After field assessment, final project selection included only Federal Garden (a subset of Trench
Town with over 2,300 residents) where access to basic services and crime and violence conditions are
disproportionately poor.
44
replacement of zinc fencing with alternative perimeter fencing and the installation of in-house
water and sanitation connections; (iv) street lighting and the regularization of illegal electricity
connections; (v) the rehabilitation and construction of complimentary offsite network
infrastructure; (vi) strengthening solid waste collection systems through the procurement of
compactor trucks to be operated by NSWMA and the analysis of waste collection systems; and
(vii) technical assistance to parish councils to strengthen operations and maintenance capacity.
The component is structured to finance a demand-driven bundle of infrastructure services in each
project area. Investments for the 12 eligible and selected project areas have been identified
through an extensive consultation process to prioritize infrastructure needs (see Annex 14) and
detailed feasibility work has been prepared and reviewed by the Bank. The table also summarizes
key considerations reviewed during the technical assessment for each investment priority.
Integrated Neighborhood Infrastructure Plans were prepared for each project area based on
demands articulated by community members and the technical assessment process outlined
above. Each infrastructure plan outlines a series of investments and specific contract packages for
integrated network infrastructure, small community-based infrastructure works, community
centers, electrification and street lighting. During the process of project preparation, the need for
a series of off-site or complementary investments was identified to ensure the sustainability of
network and community infrastructure proposed in project areas. Table 2 below provides a
summary of the areas of estimated expenditure under subcomponent 1.1. The sections below
describe each of these investments in greater detail.
Table 2: Estimated Costs by Activity
Subcomponent 1.1 - Basic Infrastructure
Estimated Investment
Activity
Cost (US$)
1. Integrated Network Infrastructure
2. Community Centers
3. Community Basic Infrastructure
4. Street Lighting and Electricity
5. Offsite Network Infrastructure
6. Solid Waste Collection Capacity Enhancement
7. Parish council Support
TOTAL (US$)
11,350,508
2,579,229
1,821,171
1,303,450
2,035,000
567,800
300,000
19,957,158
(i) Integrated Network Infrastructure: The component will finance a demand-driven bundle of
basic tertiary network infrastructure investments for construction and maintenance of water,
sewerage, communal sanitation, roads and drainage infrastructure. Due to the integrated and
sequenced nature of these investments – i.e. sewerage systems and water networks would be
installed followed by the paving of roads and installation of curbside or submerged drains – they
will be packaged together under one contract for each community. Table 3 below outlines the
estimated cost and the proposed areas of investment by sector for each investment package.
Further design and technical considerations are outlined below for the principal infrastructure
sectors.
Water Supply: The diagnosis of the water supply situation in each project area found specific
deficiencies in pressure, availability and condition of the piped network and the lack of complete
access to household connections. Investments in water supply planned under the Project were
45
designed to achieve a minimum level of service of 190 liters per day per person (Lpdpp) at a 5m
head and a optimal level of service of 250 Lpdpp at 10m head on 100mm diameter mains on
every street. Specific interventions proposed include the replacement of damaged water pipes,
installation of new lines, submerging of exposed water lines and the installation of pumping
systems. National Water Commission (NWC) will charge a flat rate to all households based on
actual levels of services in each project area. Each household will enter an individual consumer
contract with NWC for water service and will assume responsibility for repayment directly to the
utility. A memoranda of understanding (MoU) between NWC and JSIF outlining these
responsibilities and agreements has been prepared, finalized and signed.
Table 3: Estimated Integrated Network Infrastructure Costs by Project Area
Community
Whitfield Town
Federal Gardens
Passmore
Town/Browns
Town (Dunkirk)
Jones Town
Tawes Pen
March Pen
(Africa)
Central Village
Dempshire Pen/
Jones Pen
(Shelter Rock)
Lauriston
Bog Walk
Bucknor
Flankers
Sectors34
WAT, SAN, TRAN, DMAIN and CSAN
SAN, DRAIN, DMAIN and CSAN
WAT, SAN and DMAIN
WAT, SAN, DRAIN, TRAN and DMAIN
WAT, DMAIN, TRAN and DRAIN
Investment
Costs (US$)
1,780,419
650,162
505,262
313,991
543,263
1,511,195
2,155,876
1,223,872
Total
646,096
813,714
518,152
688,507
11,350,508
Investment Costs
per capita (US$)35
82
84
272
24
298
464
371
442
1815
727
451
96
171
Sanitation and Sewerage: The subcomponent will finance across project areas a combination of
the following: installation and rehabilitation of gravity sewerage systems, VIP or individual
septic tanks, household sanitary cores and communal sanitation facilities. An assessment of
sanitary infrastructure in project areas found a range of sanitation systems in place including full
or partial sewerage, septic tanks, communal washing facilities, VIP latrines and pit latrines. The
quality of existing infrastructure varied considerably. Other project areas or neighborhoods lacked
access to any form of sanitation system. Technical analysis during preparation examined the
feasibility of installing full gravity flow sewerage systems in all areas.
34
WAT = Water, SAN = Sewerage and Sanitation, TRAN = Road Paving or Rehabilitation, CSAN =
Communal Sanitation Facilities, DRAIN = Drainage, and DMAIN = Deferred maintenance on existing
drainage and community infrastructure.
35
Variations in investment costs per capita are considerable and are explained by population density and
variations in initial infrastructure endowments. Communities in Kingston and St. Andrew benefit from
increased access to basic infrastructure services – albeit of poor quality – and are also far more densely
populated on average. Conversely, settlements such as Lauriston are remotely located, sparsely populated
and have only modest prior infrastructure endowments.
46
In the Kingston and St. Andrew project areas sewer systems are in place but waste is not currently
being treated by the KMC. In these areas, the Project will finance rehabilitation and maintenance
of existing sewerage mains where required. Project areas of Central Village, March Pen (Africa)
and Bog Walk do not have sewerage networks. However, it was determined these areas would
require prohibitively deep excavation with pumping in order to bring discharge to water courses.
Specific technical limitations also made full sewerage of Lauriston and Dempshire Pen/Jones Pen
(Shelter Rock) not feasible. In these communities the Project will finance the rehabilitation and
installation of VIP or individual septic tanks where required. The Project will finance the
installation of sewerage networks in Bucknor and Tawes Pen. The maintenance of sewerage
networks installed and rehabilitated under the Project will be assumed by NWC and these
responsibilities will be outlined in the MoU with the agency. Additional sanitation investments
under the component will include sanitary cores and communal sanitation and washing facilities.
Sanitary cores will be installed for households without access to a washbasin, toilet and kitchen
but have access to available space for the cores. Communal sanitation facilities will be installed
where residents lack access to adequate available space for individual sanitation facilities.
Roads: The component will finance the widening, rehabilitation and paving of existing roads,
access tracks or footpaths. During preparation the possibility of widening all internal roads to 20
feet with curb and channel drains on both sides was examined in order to comply with Jamaican
guidelines to enable passage for fire engines, the largest public service vehicles that would
require access. Road investments under the Project will ensure 20 feet clearance for all roads
with a fire hydrant. In order to avoid extensive resettlement in project areas, all other internal
lanes and footpaths would be widened to ensure at least 15 and 5 feet of clearance respectively.
Road investments in project areas planned under the Project will enable the collection of solid
waste from all households as the 15 feet lanes are of adequate width to permit the passage of solid
waste min-compactor trucks used by NSWMA.36 Further detail on road sector investments in
each community is provided in the Neighborhood Basic Infrastructure Plans included in the
project files.
Drainage: The component will finance the rehabilitation and construction of drainage
infrastructure in project areas. Improved drainage in project areas will have the effect of
increasing the longevity of the road network, reduce the loss of solid waste at collection points,
mitigate the possibility of transporting contaminants from existing pit latrines and reduce the
possibility of the spread of disease through the buildup of solid waste deposits in and around the
water supply system. Specifically, rehabilitation of existing drains will include the clearance local
blockages and repair of permeable surfaces. Additionally, the component will finance the
construction of system of block and concrete wall open channel drains linked to curb and channel
drainage on road surfaces. Open channel drains were selected because of their relatively lower
cost, the ease by which communities and parish councils could maintain them and ease of
connection to roadside curb and channel runoff. Where open channel drains are not feasible, the
project will finance the underground pipe drains with surface road runoff connected to them
through gullies and manhole inlets.
(ii) Community Centers: The project will finance basic multi-purpose community centers in
seven project areas. Adequate community facilities in other project areas have been identified.
The community centers will host conflict mitigation and mediation, youth education, skills
development, recreation and related capacity building programs financed under Component 2 of
36
In order to accommodate households that only have access to lanes, the Project has identified locations
convenient for these households to place community garbage receptacles from which trash can be collected
by compactor trucks.
47
the operation and additional programs run by external agencies when required. Construction of
the centers has not been bundled into the contracts for integrated network infrastructure
(described above) in order to enable the involvement of highly qualified contractors with specific
experience in the construction of community facilities.
Operation and maintenance of community facilities will be the responsibility of community
organizations and external partners, with partial and time-bound financing available under the
Project. A minimum requirement for the construction of community centers will be that
community organizations secure an agreement with at least one external public or private entity
(e.g. post office, library, convenience store, etc.) to house parallel facilities and cover at least 50
percent of operating and maintenance costs for a period of at minimum one year. In order to
ensure that this requirement has been met the construction of all community centers will be
subject to Bank prior review. Prior review in these cases will include verification that JSIF and
communities have secured ‗third-party‘ commitments for the operations and maintenance of
centers as described above.37
Based on these arrangements, the Project will subsequently finance a portion of the remaining 50
percent in estimated operating costs on a declining scale for no longer than two years or until
project closing – whichever date comes first. Communities will also solicit additional
contributions from residents through donations or fees to finance operations of the center.
Arrangements and conditions governing the construction and operations and maintenance of
community centers are outlined in greater detail in the JSIF Operations Manual included in the
project files. A breakdown of the estimated costs for the seven community centers is outlined
below in Table 4.
Table 4: Estimated Costs - Community Centers
Estimated
Investment Cost
(US$)
364,639
364,639
544,900
277,886
277,886
364,639
364,639
Community
1. Federal Gardens
2. Tawes Pen
3. Central Village
4. Lauriston
5. Bog Walk
6. Bucknor
7. Flankers
8. Site Preparation
TOTAL (US$)
20,000
2,579,229
(iii) Community Basic Infrastructure: The subcomponent will finance community basic
infrastructure investments for: (i) household water and sanitation connections; (ii) zinc fence
removal and substitution; (iii) neighborhood improvement and recreational facilities; and (iv)
installation of community garbage receptacles for solid waste collection. These small
infrastructure investments complement broader network infrastructure investments described
above and will be implemented through community-based contracting methods in order to
37
The Bank project team has proposed requiring prior review of the works contracts for all community
centers as an alternative to including as a disbursement condition for each of the proposed community
centers the condition that third-party commitment to cover operations maintenance has been secured. This
proposal is still under the consideration the team‘s procurement specialist and management.
48
strengthen CBO capacity, ensure demand-responsiveness, promote efficiency and achieve greater
community involvement in implementation. Table 5 below outlines estimated costs for the
activity. Further detail on the nature of each investment as well as on implementation
arrangements is given below.
Table 5: Estimated Costs - Community Basic Infrastructure
Community
1. Household Water and Sanitation Connections
2. Zinc Fence Removal and Substitution
3. Neighborhood Improvement and Recreation Facilities
4. Waste Bin Installation
TOTAL (US$)
Estimated
Investment Cost
(US$)
414,811
1,200,000
133,000
73,360
1,303,450
Household Water and Sanitation Connections: The component will finance the extension of water
and sanitation connections to households from rehabilitated or newly constructed street water and
sanitation mains located in project areas. Under a small works contract supervised by a CBO,
households without adequate water and sanitation connections would receive one connection
from mains to taps or sanitary facilities located within the residential unit or yard.
Zinc Fencing Removal and Substitution: The importance of replacing zinc fencing with
appropriate permanent structures was noted during preparation by community members as a
means to enhance public safety and to overcome the perception that the community is informal or
‗blighted‘ area. The component will finance a community-based program for the replacement of
zinc fencing with alternative perimeter fencing. JSIF will prepare during implementation a menu
of eligible and cost-effective design alternatives for the new fences and through a consultative
process communities will select the desired alternative. It was estimated during preparation that
materials will account for approximately 70 percent of total program costs, with labor costs
accounting for the remaining 30 percent. Under the program, CBOs will procure materials based
on the design specifications prepared by JSIF for the selected alternative. Labor for the
replacement of zinc fencing with alternative perimeter fencing be provided by resident
beneficiaries and CBO members in the form of in-kind community contribution. The program is
designed to cover approximately 50 percent of all households in project areas. The JSIF
Operations Manual included in the project files includes additional details on the administration
of the program.
Neighborhood Improvements and Recreational Facilities: The component will finance small
works through CBC contracts for demand-driven minor neighborhood improvements and the
rehabilitation and installation of small recreation facilities and playgrounds. These small works
contracts will be implemented in the implementation cycle in each area. Further details on the
eligible investments are included in the JSIF Operations Manual.
Waste Bin Installation: The component will finance the installation of waste bins in project areas.
The specifications and recommended locations for all waste bins have been identified in the
Neighborhood Basic Infrastructure Plans in coordination with community representatives and
NSWMA in order to ensure an efficient waste collection system.
(iv) Street Lighting and Electricity: The component will finance the installation of street lighting,
extension of the electricity network and the regularization of illegal connections. Works for the
49
installation of street lights and network extension will be executed under one umbrella contract
for all project areas in order to benefit from economies of scale in implementation. The location
and specifications for street lights have been identified in the infrastructure and public safety
plans based on feedback from community focus groups during preparation. In agreement with
JPS Co., network expansion investments will involve the incremental extension of existing
network infrastructure as required in areas where consumers agree to regularize illegal
connections and pay regular utility bills.
The Project will work with the Rural Electrification Program (REP) to regularize illegal
connections. REP currently operates a regularization program in rural areas and will adapt and
replicate the program in ICBSP communities. The program is voluntary and requires consumers
to repay through electricity bills the full cost of installation of legal connections over a 48-month
period. It was estimated through a baseline survey conducted during preparation that
approximately 49 percent of households have illegal connections. Given the voluntary and fullcost recovery nature of the program, however, the Project estimates that 60 percent of all
households with illegal connections will participate in the program. The component will
subsequently finance both the procurement of materials and capital costs for the installation of
legal connections. Procurement will be managed by JSIF with the involvement of REP in the
definition of technical specifications and the evaluation of bids. The component will involve three
installation phases over a three year period. Each installation phase will aim to reach 1000
households. The Project will finance 100 percent of the capital cost requirement in the first
phase. However, in phases two and three the Project will finance the capital costs for a percentage
of 1000 legal connections. The gap in capital cost requirements will be financed directly by REP
through the reflow of resources received from billing and collection in ICBSP project areas. A
specific target for installation of legal connections financed 100 percent by REP in phases two
and three has been specified in the JSIF Operations Manual and in an MoU to be signed between
JSIF and REP. The Project will only finance capital costs in phases two and three once REP can
demonstrate that it has financed and installed this target number of legal connections.
Additionally, the Project will finance through Force Account REP administrative costs associated
with implementation including the cost of work supervision, site preparation, technical
supervision and approvals. Detailed unit cost information is specified in the JSIF Operations
Manual. An MoU between JSIF and REP has been prepared and negotiated specifying in greater
detail these implementation arrangements.
(v) Off-Site Network Infrastructure: The component will finance the construction and
rehabilitation of off-site infrastructure critical to maintain adequate service levels in project areas.
Planned off-site infrastructure includes the: (i) rehabilitation of a water reservoir and trunk mains
in Kingston bordering Federal Gardens and Jones Town communities; and (ii) the upgrading and
rehabilitation of a wastewater treatment facility in Tawes Pen. The rehabilitation of off-site water
infrastructure in the Kingston area will have a direct impact in improving water pressure and the
continuity of service in Federal Gardens and Jones Town. The rehabilitation of the wastewater
treatment plant in Tawes Pen will enable the treatment of wastewater generated from the
proposed sewerage network investments planned for the area. The proposed investments will be
procured by JSIF and linked to immediate improvements in the quality of service provision in
project areas.
(vi) Solid waste collection systems: The component will finance the procurement of compactor
trucks and the technical assistance for the analysis of the waste collection systems in project
50
areas.38 The procurement of compactor trucks will be done by JSIF for operation by the National
Solid Waste Management Agency (NSWMA) or local service providers that have entered into
service contracts with NSWMA to operate waste collection systems in project areas. The
responsibility for operation and maintenance of the trucks will be vested in NSWMA and the
JSIF will enter into an MoU with NSWMA to ensure that the trucks will be mobilized in project
areas for the duration of the investment. Additionally, the component will finance a study of the
collection system in ICBSP areas to assist NSWMA in the more efficient design and management
of waste collection systems.
(vi) Parish council Support: The responsibility for the operations of secondary and tertiary roads,
drainage infrastructure, community recreation facilities and other basic infrastructure will lie with
parish councils. However, councils lack the management and O&M capacity to adequately
maintain community infrastructure. The component will support the procurement of basic
equipment and the provision of technical assistance to strengthen management, operations and
maintenance capacity at the parish council level. Equipment to be procured will include
computers, software, maintenance equipment and basic office supplies. The JSIF Operations
Manual specifies in greater detail the areas of eligible expenditure for the procurement of goods
for parish council support. Additionally, the project will support the training of parish council
staff directly associated with the maintenance of community infrastructure financed under the
Project, in management and technical skills to enhance basic O&M capacity.
Subcomponent 1.2 - Access to Financial Services (US$ 1.25m):
Objectives: This subcomponent will facilitate access to microfinance services in project areas for
productive purposes and incremental home improvements through performance-based service
contracts aimed at creating incentives for existing Financial Institutions (FIs) to provide
microfinance services in project areas. Specifically, the component will finance three activities:
(i) a performance-based mechanism for the extension of microfinance loans and technical
assistance in project areas; (ii) consultant services for the orientation of potential bidders and the
technical evaluation of bids; and (iii) an independent technical audit of FI portfolios.
Instrument Design and Key Features: Under the subcomponent, JSIF will award performancebased service contracts to those FIs that require the least subsidies as a percentage of total loan
amount to reach the minimum target of consumers specified for each bid. The FIs will participate
in a competitive tendering process and winning firms will agree to disburse, service and collect a
predetermined number of loans or dollars lent. The awards to FIs will be structured as
performance-based contracts and the contracts will disburse against an agreed fixed payment for
each loan. The design and operating procedures for the subcomponent have been finalized and are
reflected in the JSIF Operations Manual. The component has being designed to maximize desired
outputs and minimize market distortions. In this regard, key features of the contract design
include:
only new clients are counted as qualified loans eligible for performance-based aid;
follow-on subsidies to the same institutions will require a lower subsidy rate;
performance-based contracts will be awarded through a competitive tender process with
interested and qualified clients submitting bids for the amounts of units (clients and/or
dollars) and the desired percentage of subsidy;
38
It is estimated that at least three, but no more than four compactor trucks will be procured under the
component.
51
subsidies are awarded to lowest bidder up to a pre-determined amount with any
remaining funds carrying over to the next auction period;
a third party (audit firm or similarly qualified institution) verifies a sample of the
portfolio claimed by participating FIs;
limited restrictions are placed on how the subsidies are used by FIs; and
the mechanism may be made available to non-financial services (e.g. Building Societies
and NGOs) active in home improvements.
The subcomponent is designed to include up to seven tender processes over a three to four year
period. The use of multiple tenders was selected given that the use of a performance-based least
cost subsidy contract for microfinance is new to Jamaica and follow-on tenders will enable JSIF
to build on lessons from initial awards and will also enhance competition amongst potential
bidders and drive down subsidy levels as FIs begin to understand the market. Follow-on tenders
will also aim to encourage the provision of microfinance loans for incremental home
improvement.
Each performance-based service contract will also include a small package of technical assistance
services to be provided by the FI to clients. Technical assistance services will include credit
counseling, assistance in the preparation of business plans, financial management and related
business support services.
Subcomponent Management, Monitoring and Administration: Awards under the subcomponent
will be made through a competitive tender process in accordance with Bank policies and
procedures. A Microfinance Management Committee (MMC)39 has been formed. The committee
will have responsibility for reviewing the tender process and the selection of applicants, as well as
approving contracts. It will also review periodically results of the process and oversee changes to
the follow-on tenders and oversight mechanisms. Additional steps and procedures include:
Selection Criteria: Simple and transparent selection criteria will be applied for the
bidding process. These criteria will be adapted as the objectives of subsequent tender
processes evolve. The first tender will evaluate bids based on cost (40 percent),
experience in and capacity to service ICBSP communities (30 percent) and financial
conditions of FIs (30 percent).
Disbursement: Performance-based disbursement is the most effective when spread over
the term of the loan. Disbursement for the first tender will be as follows: 50 percent upon
the presentation of a list of qualified and approved loans from the FIs, 30 percent after
three months provided that the loan is not over 30 days past due, and 20 percent when the
client is approved for a second loan.
Reporting Requirements: A simplified reporting system has been outlined for
participating FIs, which is summarized in the table below:
Report
List of approved loans
Breakdown of approved qualified loans
Purpose
Triggers performance-based
disbursement
Track business activities in
39
Frequency
Monthly
Monthly
The proposed Microfinance Management Committee will be formed as a subcommittee to the JSIF
Board and will report directly to the Board. The Committee will be constituted by JSIF management,
Board members and experienced professionals in the commercial banking sector who do not have a direct
interest in any of the potential FIs eligible to access resources through the component.
52
by types of business
List of qualified follow-up loans
List of qualified loans repaid in full
Aging schedule of qualified loans
Financial statements
Report of loan recovery activities
Audited financial statement
communities
disbursement
Track repayment rate
disbursement
Review financial condition
Review overall asset quality
Review financial condition
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annual
Audit and Verification: JSIF will conduct on-site visits to winning FIs to ensure that
information provided in the bid is accurate. After awards – on a semi-annual basis – JSIF
will verify loan reports by reviewing a sample of loans to assess performance. JSIF will
also use independent auditors to verify loan portfolio claims by FIs.
Subcomponent 1.3 – Land Tenure Regularization (US$ 0.60m): This subcomponent will
finance the implementation of a pilot land titling initiative and technical assistance to the
Government of Jamaica for the preparation of a national policy on squatter management and
informal urban settlements. This will target residents of ICBSP communities on public land only
– given the lack of a clear, cost-effective and expeditious legal framework for private land
acquisition for the regularization of informal occupants on private parcels.40 The project will
investigate with specialized agencies of the Government alternatives or interim methods to
increase tenure security on private land inclusive or short of formal titling. 41 The subcomponent
will not finance land acquisition or the actual payment of the fee to receive a title – but rather
only technical assistance and services. Implementation of the pilot component will involve three
activities:
(i)
Inventory of Land Ownership. JSIF will conduct, based on cadastral data obtained from
the National Lands Agency (NLA), a cadastral audit for all ICBSP communities. The
audit will analyze approximately 13,000 parcels which will be overlaid on an aerial map
of each community and combined with attribute data (i.e. ownership and title details).
The audit will enable JSIF and partners to quantify the exact number of parcels eligible
for titling and assess requirements for the transfer of ownership of public lands.
(ii)
Development of a Titling Strategy and Program. A clear and transparent strategy and
program for titling will be developed based on the results of the complete cadastral audit.
Key activities will include the:
-
development of information campaigns and mechanisms for public consultations;
formal verification of field, legal and administrative procedures for transfer and
costs;
clarification of operating arrangements between JSIF and partner agencies; and
40
During preparation the National Lands Agency conducted a cadastral analysis for a sample of ICBSP
communities: Jones Town, Tawes Pen and Bucknor. The analysis found that both Tawes Pen and Bucknor
are located on single, non-subdivided public parcels while Jones Town is located on private land with
detailed cadastral data available on ownership for all parcels. A rapid analysis if this data, overlaid on
aerial maps, suggests that these parcels have been subdivided informally.
41
A complete assessment of the legal framework for regularization on public lands will take place during
implementation and prior to disbursements under the component.
53
-
extensive public communication to ensure the benefits and costs of titling are
well understood.
Upon the request of the Government of Jamaica, the project will also support technical
assistance for the development of a broader policy and program for the regularization of
urban and peri-urban squatter areas.
(iii) Technical Assistance for Squatter Management Policy. Upon the request of the
Government of Jamaica, the project will also support technical assistance for the
development of a broader policy and program for the regularization of urban and periurban squatter areas.
(iv) Titling Program. The implementation of the program will involve four key activities:
-
completion of register and cadastral searches;
completion of land surveys;
verification of occupancy information including names, addresses, leasing and
sub-leasing arrangements; and
the provision of technical assistance to eligible beneficiaries in the processing of
title applications.
JSIF will recruit staff in-house to assist in finalizing the cadastral audit and in designing the titling
program. Two types of competitive contracts are envisioned under the subcomponent. First, the
Project will finance land surveys of eligible project areas. Second, the Project will finance
technical assistance to eligible beneficiaries in the preparation of titling applications.
Component 2: Public Safety Enhancement and Capacity-Building (US$ 3.90 million, all from
Bank financing)
The component aims to enhance public safety by financing integrated packages of consultant
services, training and technical assistance in project communities. The component focuses on
supporting both immediate mitigation and conflict resolution activities in addition to other
preventive and capacity enhancement interventions that will have a medium-term impact on
levels of public safety. In particular, the component will finance the delivery of violence
prevention services by NGOs and other eligible institutes and agencies in five core social
prevention areas, as well as the recruitment of community liaison officers. Social prevention
services in each of the five core areas will be procured under three to four umbrella contracts
covering a geographically contiguous set of areas. Each contract will be designed and scoped to
the specific crime and violence prevention needs in the project area as identified by diagnostic
analysis conducted during preparation and verified during implementation.
Eligible providers of technical assistance services in each of the five social prevention areas may
be pre-qualified or short-listed on the basis of demonstrated experience and a track record of good
quality service provision at a reasonable cost. The agencies will be subject to an organizational
assessment to confirm their capacity to deliver one or more social violence prevention services
under the project. A series of organizations was evaluated during preparation. These groups have
developed experience in this area through programs such as the IDB-financed Citizen Security
and Justice Programme and the USAID-financed Grant‘s Pen project. They include: the Dispute
Resolution Foundation (mediation and conflict resolution); PALS (conflict resolution in schools);
HEART (skills development); Addiction Alert Organization; Youth opportunities Unlimited
54
(family support programs); AWOJA (domestic violence); Kingston Restoration Company; and
SISTREN Theatre Collective. Selected agencies will be expected to:
Work closely with the Community Liaison Officers and the Community Development
Councils/Community Action Committee;
Formulate a detailed plan of action outlining: objectives; activities; number of
participants; expected outcomes; methodology of delivery; time-table and deadlines; and
the person(s) responsible for each activity;
Identify and mobilize participants from the community;
Identify and outline a strategy to mobilize the ‗most-at-risk‘ groups and individuals in
the communities; and
Produce a monthly progress report and attend meetings with JSIF and/or other parties
involved in the project.
Specific service contract packages in the five social prevention areas will include:
(i) Mediation and Conflict Resolution: The component will finance technical assistance services
that initiate and manage mediation initiatives in communities that experience chronic or periodic
gang conflict or intra-community feuding. This will support tested mediation and conflict
management interventions currently being implemented in Jamaica to broker ceasefires and build
confidence between rival gang factions such as:
establishing a community code of conduct;
forming and supervising conflict mediation groups;
conducting peace-building meetings with inter-community groups;
obtaining signed peace agreements between local area gangs in all relevant
communities;
training and certifying community residents as mediators to resolve
interpersonal conflicts;
conducting weekly conflict resolution and anger management sessions with each
community (individually and collectively).
Training and capacity building in mediation, dispute resolution, and intrapersonal conflict management. This is often a key variable in the escalation of
reprisal-driven community disputes and violence for community leaders and
CBOs.
(ii) Alternative Livelihoods and Skills Development: The component will finance technical
assistance services that respond to the high levels of youth unemployment and dropout from the
formal education system, and limited access to vocational skills development and apprenticing
opportunities, as noted during the public safety audits of ICBSP communities. The NGO services
will deliver tested skills development and job training initiatives targeted to male and female
youth particularly those susceptible to or already engaged in local gang culture, as a means of
providing access to alternative livelihood opportunities. Specifically, the component will finance:
vocational training (carpentry, cosmetology, service industry, information
technology, etc);
job skills development (basic literacy, personal presentation, etc.); and
related job placement programs.
55
(iii) Family Support Programs: The component will finance technical assistance services that
respond to the needs of children, youth, and their families (parents/guardians) in the most
vulnerable households in the communities with a particular focus on single-parent households.42
The selected agency, NGO or firm will deliver tested services that may include:
life-skills programs;
good parenting programs;
family mediation (therapy) services;
interventions that address gender-based; sexual, and domestic violence;
drug abuse and alcoholism prevention and rehabilitation;
reproductive health services; and
early childhood development and education and daycare services.
(iv) Youth Education and Recreation: The sub-component will finance technical assistance
services that will deliver demand-driven and tested youth and adolescent educational and
recreational programs through the community centers and other community locations. Specific
interventions may include:
after-school homework programs;
summer camps;
community libraries;
computer skills training;
guidance counseling;
sports programs and competitions; and
cultural programs such as in music, arts, and theater.
(v) Community Capacity Building and Public Awareness: The component will finance a series
of capacity-building activities for community-based organizations in project areas. Technical
assistance services for CBO capacity-building will include training in:
the objectives, goals and mechanisms of social participation;
financial management skills;
fundraising;
community-based contracting;
community-based crime and violence prevention;
situational crime and violence prevention;
monitoring and evaluation; and
training to perform routine operation and maintenance of basic infrastructure.
Additionally, the component will finance a series of social marketing and public awareness
campaigns aimed at improving awareness of the importance of sustainable use and management
of public services and infrastructure, informing community residents on project activities and
fostering participation and cooperation.
Lastly, the component will support the mobilization of community liaison officers (CLOs)
assigned full-time to each ICBSP community for the duration of the project. CLOs will staff the
42
Many recent reviews of impact evalutions emphasize that some of the most effective violence prevention
initiatives take place within the family. (Tolan. 2001, goes further, arguing that violence prevention
initiatives that do not include interventions at the family level run the risk of failure.)
56
Community Centers and will have expertise in community organization, basic infrastructure, and
crime and violence prevention. Specifically they will:
lead community consultations;
monitor the incidence of crime and violence in project areas;
update community safety plans and strategies;
coordinate the provision of technical assistance through external agencies;
coordinate project activities with relevant agencies and associations active in the
community including public schools, health clinics, social programs, Community
Development Councils and relevant security agencies;
facilitate the work of contractors of the infrastructure works to ensure integration
of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles;
identify and work closely with youth at-risk in the community;
organize and mobilize the community members around public safety campaigns;
and
facilitate the implementation of additional social programs in the Community
Centers such as summer camps for at-risk youth, etc.
Overall Component Implementation Approach: The above activities will be implemented in the
context of a broader implementation approach. The component adopts a preventive, multisectoral, and community-based approach to crime and violence prevention that is complementary
to, but goes beyond, traditional police responses. Particularly important are the synergies
between the infrastructure, upgrading, and the ‗situational prevention‘ - Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED) - and the community-based ‗social prevention‘
activities. The overall objective is a comprehensive intervention at the neighborhood level that is
also closely coordinated with other relevant government and non-governmental programs
addressing crime and violence and their associated risk factors in these neighborhoods. In
addition to the multi-sectoral social prevention activities and community organizers financed
under the component, the following elements supported throughout the ICBSP project will
complement the implementation of the public safety interventions:
(v)
Diagnostics: Crime and violence mapping of the project areas using police statistics and
where possible using GIS systems; the victimization section in the baseline surveys, and;
community based and situational diagnostics. The first round of diagnostics was carried
out during project preparation. However, this is an iterative process that will continue
throughout project implementation and will be conducted through the coordination of
community liaison officers and CBOs.
(vi) Situational Prevention: Measures that reduce opportunities for particular crime and
violence problems through spatial interventions such as the CPTED methodology. The
component will coordinate with and take advantage of the project‘s infrastructure
investments through a series of physical investments in public safety based on the
community diagnostics and ‗hot-spot‘ mapping: recreational facilities, street lighting,
traffic management and the replacement of zinc fencing with alternative perimeter
fencing (financed under component 1).
(vii) Community Centers: Rehabilitation of existing structures or construction of new
buildings for community centers. The centers will serve as community multi-purpose
facilities that host the community organizers, community events, training programs,
youth education classes and recreational activities, etc. To ensure the sustainability of the
community centers the project will identify public and private sector ‗sponsors‘ (e.g.
57
other government agencies such as the library service, non- and for-profit organizations)
that will also utilize the centers. The construction and rehabilitation of centers will be
financed under component 1 of the project.
(viii) Monitoring and Evaluation: As this is a relatively new area, good evaluation of the subcomponent is critical in order to learn from the various activities financed under this
component. Evaluation of this component is included in the overall project M&E
framework.
The component is designed with sufficient flexibility to enable community groups and JSIF to
respond to relevant additional needs as they emerge during implementation. The component aims
to build linkages with existing government and non-governmental programs where applicable and
feasible – particularly in areas where a core competency does not exist or cannot be costeffectively developed within JSIF. In addition to building on established programs, the
component aims to foster innovation by supporting on a pilot basis non-governmental initiatives
that aim to enhance public safety.
Component 3: Project Management (US$6.33m, of which US$ 2.83m is Bank financing)
This component will finance consultant services, goods, training and operating costs for project
management and administration. It will include two subcomponents: (i) project management,
monitoring and evaluation; and (ii) operating costs and other services.
Subcomponent 3.1 - Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (US$ 4.73m, of which
US$ 2.83m is Bank financing). This subcomponent will finance goods, services and training for
program management. This will include financing services for technical and financial audits,
citizen report cards, mid-term and end-of-project evaluation, ISO 14000 certification and related
external consultant services for project administration. The subcomponent will also finance JSIF
core professional and technical staff for project management, including a Program Manager,
Supervision Engineers and specialists in the areas of crime and violence prevention,
microfinance, safeguards compliance, finance, procurement and related project management
areas. Core staff will be recruited on time-bound contracts not exceeding the life of the proposed
Project. Lastly, the component will finance the procurement of vehicles, office equipment and
furniture.
Subcomponent 3.2 – Operating Costs and Other Services (US$ 1.60m, all counterpart
financed). This subcomponent will support operating costs and minor services. Among operating
costs, the subcomponent will finance office rental costs, utility fees, stationery, vehicle
maintenance and gasoline, travel, per diems and salaries of administrative staff in addition to
other basic operating expenses. Additionally, the subcomponent will finance the provision of core
CBO training services by the Social Development Commission.43
Operations, Maintenance and Cost Recovery
Two distinct strategies for operation and maintenance (O&M) are proposed under the project
accounting for differences between inner-city and peri-urban project areas. First, a strategy of
43
The Social Development Commission (SDC) is a non-autonomous Government agency that cannot
participate in a competitive selection process for consultant services contracts for CBO capacity building
under Component 2 of the project. Nonetheless, the Government has requested that the SDC be
incorporated into the project design and, given limitations imposed by Bank procurement guidelines, has
agreed to finance this activity in its entirety.
58
community-led O&M is proposed for smaller and more unified project areas that also have
demonstrated CBO capacity. Second, in larger, fragmented communities the project will develop
with responsible agencies arrangements for adequate O&M. Under both O&M arrangements
both community and service agencies will have distinct responsibilities outlined in a series of
Memoranda of Understanding (MoU).
Community-managed O&M: Under the first strategy for O&M in smaller and/or unified
communities the Project will support the formation of Community Committees and build the
capacity of these committees to perform routine maintenance tasks including drain cleaning,
street sweeping, clearance of brush and weeds and the maintenance of garbage bin sites. These
committees will also liaise with service providers to ensure that more substantial and technical
periodic O&M requirements and service quality issues are addressed. Project areas where a
community-led O&M strategy is possible include:
Tawes Pen
Central Village
Lauriston
Bog Walk
Bucknor
Flankers
O&M led by Service Providers: In larger and/or more fragmented inner-city areas with weaker
community institutions the project will support a strategy for O&M that relies to greater extent on
service providers and parish councils while gradually building community capacity over time.
MoU have been negotiated with primary service providers to outline roles and responsibilities
and will be finalized and signed as part of implementation arrangements. Table 6 below identifies
responsible agencies for O&M in key sectors.
Table 6: O&M Responsibilities by Sectors
Minor and estate roads
Water supply
Sewerage and sewage disposal
Main drainage (structures)
Main drainage (clearing)
Solid waste collection
Electricity supply
Parish councils
National Works Agency (NWA)
Jamaica Public Services Company JPS Co. and Rural
Electrification Programme
Project areas where the service provider-led O&M arrangements will be employed include:
Whitfield Town
Jones Town
March Pen (Africa)
Cost Recovery: The project recognizes that cost recovery is critical to the sustainability of project
investments. A strategy for cost recovery is being formulated. This aims to develop mechanisms
for community contributions towards: (i) the cost of initial capital investments for basic
59
infrastructure; and (ii) ongoing user fees for the provision of water, solid waste, electricity and
related services. The approach of mobilizing community contributions towards initial capital
investments builds on JSIF experience under NCDP, in which communities have been required to
provide up to 20 percent of project costs in cash or in kind. JSIF has developed a methodology
for valuing in-kind contributions and this has been reflected in its Operations Manual.
Economic analysis conducted for this project (see Annex 12) found that certain infrastructure
investments were not economically feasible or affordable based on willingness-to-pay data at an
estimated community contribution of 20 percent. This finding was confirmed by JSIF experience
with community contributions under NCDP projects in inner city areas where the purchasing
power of residents is particularly low. Based on this analysis the ICBSP has determined a level
of 5 to 10 percent for community contributions towards capital costs.
60
Annex 5: Project Costs
Project Cost By Component and/or Activity
Component 1: Access to Services
Total
US $million
Bank
Financing
US $million
Counterpart
Financing
US $million
21.85
21.85
0.00
1.1 Community Basic Infrastructure
20.00
20.00
0.00
1.2 Access to Financial Services
1.25
1.25
0.00
1.3 Tenure Regularization
0.60
0.60
0.00
Component 2: Public Safety Enhancement and
Capacity Building
3.90
3.90
0.00
Component 3: Project Management44
6.33
2.83
3.50
3.1 Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation
4.73
2.83
1.90
3.2 Operating Costs and Other Services
1.60
0.00
1.60
32.13
28.58
3.50
0.65
0.65
0.00
Total Baseline Cost
1
PPF Cost
1
Total Project Costs
32.73
29.23
3.50
Front-end Fee (0.25%)45
0.07
0.07
0.00
Total Financing Required
32.80
29.30
3.50
Includes price and physical contingencies
44
The estimated total cost for this component is US$ 6,326,750 and the estimated Bank financing
requirement is US$ 2,826,750. For the purposes of presentation these figures have been rounded to US$
6.33m and US$ 2.83m, respectively.
45
The exact front-end-fee is calculated at US$ 73,250 and for the purposes of presentation has been
rounded to US$ 0.07m here.
61
Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements
Background
The Government of Jamaica has designated the Jamaica Social Investment Fund (JSIF) to serve
as the implementing agency for the ICBSP project. JSIF has an established track record in
implementing GoJ poverty alleviation projects including the ongoing Bank-financed National
Community Development Project (NCDP). Through the implementation of NCDP, JSIF has
developed a core competence in Bank safeguard policies, financial management and procurement
procedures. JSIF performance in NCDP implementation has been sufficiently strong to the extent
that it is currently estimated that the project will successfully close prior to the scheduled closing
date. JSIF is also currently implementing OPEC, CDB and EU-financed social investment
programs along the lines of NCDP.
JSIF Governance and Management Structure for the ICBSP
JSIF has a well established management structure that aims to ensure efficiency, effectiveness
and innovation in implementation. A Board of Directors will provide general oversight and
policy direction during project implementation. The Board is comprised of senior public and
private sector representatives and includes three working sub-committees: (i) Procurement and
Contracts Committee; (ii) Project Committee; and (iii) Finance & Audit Committee. The Board
will meet on a monthly basis and will review the results of periodic monitoring and evaluation
activities. During preparation a Steering Committee was formed. It includes representatives from
PIOJ, NWA, NSWMA, NHT, NHDC and the Ministries of Land and Environment, Water and
Housing and Local Government and other relevant agencies. The Steering Committee has met on
a bimonthly basis to review progress in preparation. Upon effectiveness, the terms of reference
and the composition of the committee will be reviewed and possibly reformulated to ensure the
involvement of all relevant Government agencies and ministries to ensure effective oversight in
implementation.
JSIF internal management will participate in internal management reviews and bid evaluation
committees and will give guidance to the implementation of project activities. Management
review and committee meetings are held on a weekly basis. The ICBSP unit within JSIF will be
led by a Project Manager and will oversee daily implementation. The project will recruit a full
staff of supervision engineers, finance speciaists, procurement specialists, community liaison
officers, crime and violence specialists, social specialists, environmental and safeguards
specialists and other administrative staff. During recruitment the project will consider the
possibility of transitioning staff currently working on NCDP to ensure continuity and staff
capacity development. The two projects will overlap for approximately a year. The ICBSP
project will rely upon core or shared JSIF staff for MIS, human resources and finance and
administration functions.
The project will also procure the services of a range of consultants to support core program
management functions. Consultants will be recruited for the independent supervision of works,
technical and financial audits and impact evaluation amongst other key activities. The
Government will finance 100 percent of operating costs and core CBO training in organizational
management and record-keeping to be implemented through the Social Development
Commission.
62
Key management, monitoring and evaluation reports will include:
Monthly internal reports to JSIF Management and Board
Monthly Community Contribution Reports
Quarterly FMR to the World Bank and the Jamaican government
Biannual reports based on Citizen Report Card
JSIF Annual Report to shareholders, also circulated to relevant stakeholders
Annual audit reports based on financial audit of the JSIF by external auditors
Technical Audit of quality of infrastructure at mid-term and end of project
Mid-term evaluation of ICBSP interventions
End-of-project evaluation
Operations Manual
Relevant amendments including the Environment Management and Land Acquisition and
and were adopted by the JSIF Board on February 22, 2006.
Coordination in Implementation
JSIF will assume responsibility for all procurement under the ICBSP project. However, Due to
the multi-sectoral nature of the project, a range of partner public agencies, donors and external
institutions will be associated with the implementation of project components. The project will
rely on cooperation agreements – or MoU – with key project partners. MoU have been prepared
and negotiated and signed versions of the agreements will be finalized as part of implementation.
MoU between JSIF and the following key agencies have been prepared:
National Water Commission (NWC): Through its MoU with JSIF, NWC agrees to
provide sufficient bulk water supply in project areas. The MoU also reflects an agreement
that NWC will promptly service and maintain water supply and sewerage networks in
project areas. The MoU also specifies that ICBSP communities agree to pay user fees for
water and sanitation services in a timely manner.
National Solid Waste Management Authority (NSWMA): An MoU between JSIF and the
NSWMA reflects the agreement that the agency will service ICBSP communities at least
once a week by implementing two to three different garbage collection systems. Under
the agreement, NSWMA will replace and/or repair primary collection receptacles. The
MoU also outlines arrangements for the procurement and operation of compactor trucks
to be procured under the Project. Conversely, communities entering into MoU with
NSWMA agree to deposit solid waste in primary receptacles and ensure access to waste
collection sites.
Rural Electrification Programme: An MoU with REP specifies arrangements for the
implementation of the program to regularize illegal electricity connections in ICBSP
communities. In particular, the MoU specifies the contracts for works and the
procurement of goods to be financed under the Project. The agreement also outlines
annual targets for regularization of illegal connections to be financed by REP through
revenue from bill collection in project areas.
Jamaica Public Services Company (JPS Co.): Under an MoU with JPS Co. the company
agrees to approve designs for the installation of street lights and ensure a regular supply
of electricity to Project areas that have received regular electricity connections.
63
Parish councils: MoU with parish councils focus on coordination arrangements and
maintenance roles that councils will assume in the provision of basic services under the
project. Key parish council responsibilities will include the review and approval of
infrastructure plans, operating and maintaining minor roads, footpaths and drainage
structures and paying energy charges to JPS Co. for street lighting services.
The project will also enter a series of contractual arrangements for services with specialized
agencies. For example, under the microfinance component JSIF will contract a commercial bank
or similarly competent institution to serve as technical auditors of FI bidders and bids. Similarly,
a competent external commercial entity will be contracted to monitor the progress in
implementation of MFIs that have secured the bids. Under the public safety enhancement
component external organizations that have demonstrated a competence in crime and violence
mediation, skills development, capacity-building for CBOs and educational services will be
contracted to provide mediation and social prevention services.
Implementation of Electricity Connection Regularization through a Public Agency: Under
Component 1.1 the Project will support the provision of legal electricity connections through the
Rural Electrification Programme (REP), a limited liability company and an agency of the
Ministry of Commerce, Science and Technology. In this case a competitive process for selection
is not feasible given that the regularization of electricity connections can only be done by REP.
The JSIF Operations Manual and the MoU between JSIF and REP outline in detail specific
activities, unit costs and arrangements of execution. A majority of expenditures for the
implementation of the activity will be procured through a competitive process from contractors
with the involvement of REP in the definition of specifications and the evaluation of bids.
Additionally, REP will have access to a Force Account for the administration of the activity to
finance administrative costs associated with implementation including the cost of work
supervision, site preparation, technical supervision and approvals.
Partnership arrangements with international donor programs: The project will include formal
collaboration with ongoing and planned USAID and UNDP interventions. USAID is currently
preparing a second phase of the successful Peace and Prosperity Initiative (PPI) and has agreed in
principle to coordinate investments in at least two of the 12 selected ICBSP project areas. The
second phase of the PPI will complement ICBSP interventions in these areas by implementing
community policing and CBO capacity building activities based on existing successful
methodologies used in Grants Pen and other areas. Similarly, the Bank and JSIF have
collaborated closely with UNDP-financed Civil Dialogue for Democratic Governance Program.
UNDP has also committed to mobilizing the dialogue initiative in ICBSP to support community
leaders to build advocacy, communications and partnership skills.
Stakeholder coordination: Given the broad spectrum of agencies that will be involved in the
project it is envisioned that quarterly review meetings will be held with all partner agencies
involved in implementation. These include – but are not limited to – NWC, NSWMA, SDC,
USAID, CSI, parish councils and the Ministry of National Security.
64
Annex 7: Safeguards Policy Issues
A. Use of Country Systems Pilot
Starting in 2005 and extending over the next two years the Bank will be supporting a limited
number of pilot projects in which lending operations will be prepared using the borrowing
country‘s systems46 for selected environmental and social safeguards, rather than the Bank‘s
operational policies and procedures on safeguards. The rationale for using country systems is to
scale up development impact, increase country ownership, build institutional capacity, facilitate
harmonization and increase cost effectiveness. These pilot operations are governed by a new
operational policy (OP/BP 4.00) ‗Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address
Environmental and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects‘. This Policy elaborates
on the approach, enumerates the criteria for assessing country systems, and specifies
documentation and disclosure requirements and respective roles of the client country and the
Bank.
Under the pilot process the Bank considers a Borrower‘s environmental and social safeguard
system to be equivalent to the Bank‘s if the Borrower‘s system is designed to achieve the
objectives and adhere to the applicable operational principles set out in Table A1 of OP 4.00.
Since equivalence is determined on a policy-by-policy basis in accordance with Table A1, the
Bank may conclude that the Borrower‘s system is equivalent to the Bank‘s in specific
environmental or social safeguard areas in particular pilot projects, and not in other areas 47.
Before deciding on the use of Borrower systems, the Bank also assesses the acceptability of the
Borrower‘s implementation practices, track record, and institutional capacity. The above
approach and criteria for assessment were developed with inputs from external stakeholders such
as representatives of governments, bilateral and multilateral development institutions, civil
society organizations, and the private sector and are consistent with commitments made by the
development community in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in March 2005.
Jamaica is one of the initial countries that have been identified for piloting the use of country
systems, specifically in the Inner City Basic Services for the Poor project (ICBSP). The
engagement with Jamaica on the use of country systems dates back to activities undertaken prior
to the High Level Forum on Harmonization (Rome 2003) where Jamaica volunteered to pilot
harmonization of fiduciary and safeguard requirements. As part of this harmonization process, the
Bank initiated a dialogue with the Government of Jamaica and financed a comparative review48
of Jamaican, Bank and other key donors‘ safeguard policies. The proposed ICBSP is designed on
the basis of a Community Driven Development (CDD) approach and would be financing small
and medium scale infrastructure projects. Therefore, experience from this pilot operation would
be relevant to the Bank‘s growing portfolio in this sector, particularly in case of projects financed
in Caribbean nations and other small countries. The proposed pilot is expected to bring the added
benefit of moving towards harmonization of environmental and social safeguards requirements
among the Government of Jamaica (through JSIF), the World Bank and other development
46
Country systems is defined as the country‘s legal and institutional framework, consisting of its national,
subnational, or sectoral implementing institutions and relevant laws, regulations, rules, and procedures that
are applicable to the proposed pilot project.
47
The Bank‘s environmental and social safeguard policies will apply to the areas which the Bank has
determined not to be equivalent and will continue to apply to all projects that are not part of the pilot
program.
48
James R. Newman, Report on Jamaican Harmonization Analysis (2003).
65
partners, such as the USAID, DFID, IDB, EU and CIDA who also work in the sector. It is also
consistent with the guidance of the Board to include a small island state in the pilot program.
B. Environmental and Social Aspects
The project will support improvements in basic local infrastructure, services and facilities in
target inner-city communities and will finance the following types of investments:
Drinking water supply – public and household connections;
Sewerage or on-site sanitation, including small package treatment plants, if needed;
Sanitary cores for unserviceable housing stock;
Storm drainage;
Solid waste system improvements, such as collection points and pick-up service;
Small roads, within the participating communities;
Sidewalks;
Street lighting;
Replacement of zinc fencing with alternative perimeter fencing; and
Community centers and recreation facilities.
The above investments49 are expected to have generally positive environmental impacts, although
some could result in minor adverse environmental impacts that would be mostly local and
reversible. Site and project screening, appropriate design, environmental permitting, construction
and operational practices using environmental management plans (EMPs) are expected to
adequately address the environmental impacts of this project.
The proposed ICBSP is not expected to have any impacts on physical cultural property and the
areas and communities selected in the historic Spanish Town are away from historic buildings
and other monuments. However, there could be some chance finds of culturally important
artifacts, particularly in the Spanish town/ St. Catherine area.
At this stage of the planning process, the proposed interventions are not expected to result in any
involuntary land acquisition under eminent domain or in any major involuntary resettlement
(displacement of families or individuals). However, it is possible that smaller pieces of land may
be required for certain infrastructure components, or construction activities may infringe
temporarily on residential plots, structures, or businesses. Moreover, if land is required for
activities planned under sub-projects, it appears that it may be acquired from the municipal
authorities (vacant public land) or through sale/exchange by willing seller to willing buyer 50. An
additional option is land donations, which would need to be properly documented and verified.
Involuntary land acquisition under eminent domain will only be used as a last option. Thus, a
Resettlement Policy Framework is required to ensure that land acquisition impacts are mitigated
in accordance with the objectives and operational principles stated in OP 4.00.
49
No adverse impacts are anticipated from the investments proposed under the microfinance
subcomponent.
50
Neighborhood Basic Infrastructure and Public Safety Plans – Volume 7: St. Catherine: Central Village
(Andrews Lane, Little Lane, Detroit, Big Lane). JSIF, October 2005, p. 4, 37
66
C. Equivalence and Acceptability Assessment
The following sections describe the diagnostic review and the resulting equivalence and
acceptability assessments, carried out by an interdisciplinary team of Bank staff51 in co-operation
with the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), as well as JSIF staff, local
environmental legal specialist and consultants. The respective assessments were done for two
Bank policy areas (Environmental Assessment and Involuntary Resettlement) and their scope was
limited to the requirements of this specific operation.
Equivalence Assessment
The review of Jamaican laws and regulations that govern environmental assessment showed that
there are some gaps, but except for the budgeting and staffing for environmental management
plans, the gaps are not relevant to the types of activities to be supported by this project. Moreover,
the environmental aspects of the proposed ICBSP will be addressed by JSIF‘s internal
environmental procedures. JSIF‘s environmental guidelines have been expanded and enhanced
into an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) to meet the requirements of Jamaican
laws and the objectives and operational principles stated in OP 4.00.
As stated before, the proposed ICBSP is not expected to have any impacts on known physical
cultural property. However, procedures for dealing with chance finds of culturally significant
artifacts have been incorporated into the EMF.
As far as land acquisition (and any involuntary resettlement) is concerned, there is no applicable
policy in Jamaica (although a draft policy had been prepared some years ago). Therefore, JSIF
assisted by their project preparation consultants has prepared a Resettlement Policy Framework
(LARPF) for the proposed ICBSP incorporating the objectives and operational principles of the
Draft Green Paper and the Bank OP 4.00. The draft LARPF includes:
An entitlement matrix of eligibility criteria/type of loss, definition of entitled persons, and
entitlements;
Consultation arrangements that includes integration into the community planning process
with indications of how and where in this process land acquisition is assessed,
alternatives considered, and possible acquisition methods and compensation
arrangements agreed;
Valuation methods for compensation for lost assets;
Institutional arrangements and coordination with other agencies;
Compensation for assets lost by squatters;
Linkages between the proposed project (or specific sub-projects) and other activities,
Disclosure arrangements for land acquisition and resettlement plans including the
community consultation process;
Grievance redress procedures; and
Monitoring indicators and arrangements.
The gaps identified in the equivalence assessments will be filled by (i) expanding and upgrading
JSIF‘s environmental guidelines into an EMF, and (ii) preparing a LARPF, to deal with voluntary
and involuntary land acquisition under ICBSP. Both frameworks are being incorporated into
51
Asger Christensen (Lead Social Development Specialist, EASSD); Hanneke van Tilburg (Senior
Counsel, LEGEN); Heinz Unger (Environmental Specialist, World Bank consultant) and L. Panneer
Selvam (Senior Environmental Specialist, ESDQC/QACU)
67
JSIF‘s Operations Manual (OM) and have been adopted as a corporate policy by JSIF‘s Board.
JSIF will apply the OM to all its projects, irrespective the source of financing.
Acceptability Assessment
JSIF has, to a great extent, fully integrated environmental analysis and management actions into
its sub-project processing procedures. JSIF‘s responsibility for good environmental management
extends to all types of sub-projects, including those to be implemented by other agencies, such as
the National Water Commission or the National Works Agency. As part of JSIF‘s monitoring
and evaluation program, the environmental performance of 37 randomly selected sub-projects
was reviewed in early 2005 by independent environmental consultants: only minor problems were
found with 6 of these sub-projects52. Also, in the recent past JSIF had taken some positive steps
to improve its environmental performance. More specifically, JSIF has already: (i) conducted
staff training focusing on environmental management of projects; (ii) recruited a full time
environmental specialist and designated an alternate; and (iii) trained additional staff and retained
environmental consultants as needed to improve its performance. JSIF is also in the process of
extending its management information system (MIS) to cover environmental land / resettlement
aspects as well. JSIF has incorporated the Environmental Management Plans (EMP) into the
contract documents, and will under ICBSP, apply the appropriate remedies for non-compliance
by contractors with the requirements of the EMP. JSIF has also started the process for obtaining
ISO 14000 Environmental Management Systems certification. The latter action is expected to
enhance JSIF‘s capacity and ability to take appropriate actions over the medium term, and to
make acceptability sustainable.
JSIF has not previously been dealing with land acquisition in the projects it has managed and it
does not at present have staff dedicated to the planning, implementation, and monitoring of land
acquisition and resettlement. However, JSIF has several field-based, qualified community
organizers who have extensive experience in organizing community consultations and
participation. JSIF is committed to strengthening its capacity in this area, by designating a
minimum of two staff members to manage land acquisition and resettlement and training them,
possibly at the World Bank combined with exposure visits to projects in the region with wellfunctioning ongoing resettlement activities. Their role would be to ensure that land acquisition is
adequately addressed in project preparation and the implementation process, while also serving as
trainers for the JSIF Community Liaison Officers and for field staff from the Social Development
Commission (SDC) involved in the proposed project.
Based on the assessments summarized above, some gap-filling actions by JSIF are still required
to achieve and sustain acceptability. Table 1 provides a summary of actions agreed with JSIF.
52
Examples of identified minor problems are: an uncovered manhole, missing garbage disposal facility at
basic school, eroding gravel road surface, dust nuisance during construction.
68
Table 1: Summary of Agreed Actions and Timetable
Actions To Be Taken
To Achieve Equivalence
JSIF Board to approve the new EMF and LARPF.
Disclose the approved EMF and LARPF locally and in Bank infoshop
Draft amendment to JSIF‘s OM to include:
(i)
the new EMF and LARPF; and
(ii)
EMF provisions in contract bid documents, including
remedial measures to address non-compliance of EMPs.
JSIF Board to approve the draft amendment to OM
To Achieve and Sustain Acceptability
Appoint a permanent environmental specialist and designate alternate
staff members to work on environmental issues.
Appoint a permanent resettlement specialist and designate alternate
staff members to work on resettlement issues.
JSIF to include acknowledgement of the requirements of the EMF
and LARRPF in MOU with its contracting agencies
Incorporate the monitoring requirements for EMF and LARPF in the
MIS
Provide training to JSIF environmental and resettlement specialists
and their alternates.
By Whom
JSIF
JSIF and
Bank
JSIF
Completed
Completed
JSIF
Completed
JSIF
Completed
JSIF
Completed
JSIF
Completed
JSIF
Completed
JSIF
Before
disbursement
under subcomponent 1.1.
Periodically, as
needed to ensure
adequate capacity
as assessed by the
Bank
Once every year
Provide periodic training and refresher courses for JSIF staff
and others in environmental management and resettlement.
JSIF
Conduct annual audit of sample projects to learn lessons from
application of EMF and LARPF and introduce corrective measures
for sustaining the improved processes
JSIF/NEPA
assisted by
independent
consultants
JSIF
Start implementation of plan and program for achieving
ISO 14001certification
Target Date
Completed
by September
2006
D. Consultation and Disclosure
JSIF, NEPA and the Bank jointly organized a public consultation workshop on November 1, 2005
to discuss the draft Equivalence and Acceptability Assessment report prepared by the Bank team.
Apart from sending personal invitations (along with a copy of the draft report) to a large number
of relevant agencies and individuals, JSIF had placed the draft report and an open invitation to the
workshop in its web site. Over 60 people, representing NGOs, consultants, donor agencies, and
other Government departments attended this workshop. While most of the questions and
discussions were on the project design and criteria for selecting communities, the participants
expressed their support for the proposed pilot approach and endorsed the proposed gap-filling
measures. Representatives of the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) clarified
the environmental permitting requirements for activities that are likely to be financed under
ICBSP. The Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) expressed its strong interest in expanding the
scope of the proposed pilot beyond JSIF and sought Bank assistance to support its efforts to
harmonize NEPA‘s laws and regulations with those of key donors active in Jamaica, as well as
69
improving its overall environmental performance standards. The draft equivalence and
acceptability assessment report has been disclosed both in Kingston (JSIF‘s website and in their
office) and in Washington (on the Bank‘s external website on the use of country systems. It is
also being posted in the Bank‘s Infoshop).
E. Supervision and Monitoring
JSIF will assist the Bank in monitoring the implementation status of the gap-filling measures and
their impacts on achievement and sustenance of equivalence and acceptability. More specifically,
JSIF will be required to prepare quarterly monitoring reports on the implementation status of each
of the above-mentioned gap-filling measures and their outcomes as agreed with the Bank. JSIF
will also perform, and report on, annual audits of a sample of project investments to assess the
effectiveness of the application of the EMF and LARPF. In addition, the NEPA will remain
responsible for screening and processing applications by JSIF for environmental permits, and for
annual spot checks/audits of JSIF‘s compliance with Jamaican environmental laws and
regulations.
The Bank will be responsible for monitoring the implementation status of gap-filling measures
and environmental performance of activities financed under the ICBSP. Apart from reviewing the
bi-annual reports and environmental audits prepared by JSIF, the Bank will carry out bi-annual
supervision and agree to any remedial actions by JSIF and/or NEPA that may be needed to
sustain the equivalence and acceptability as described above. In addition, the Bank will
commission an independent evaluation of implementation experiences after two years.
70
Annex 8: Summary of Environment Management Framework
A. Introduction
The Jamaica Social Investment Fund (JSIF) finances and implements a variety of small-scale
community level projects in rural, peri-urban and urban areas. These projects are expected to have
generally positive environmental impacts, although some could result in minor adverse
environmental impacts that would be mostly local and reversible. Occasionally, there may be a
need for involuntary land acquisition under eminent domain to meet the requirements of land for
a project. In the past JSIF has used a set of Environmental Guidelines that were appended to its
Operations Manual (OM).
For the purposes of this project and for all its future operations, JSIF has developed an
Environmental Management Framework (EMF) to manage any potential adverse environmental
impacts in a more structured and systematic manner. Preparation and adoption of an EMF is also
one of the gap-filling actions required to meet the requirements of using JSIF‘s procedures under
the Use of Country Systems pilot. The EMF ensures that JSIF meets Jamaican environmental
laws and regulations and also the relevant policies of its major funding agencies like Caribbean
Development Bank, European Union, Inter-American Development Bank, World Bank and other
development partners.
The EMF has been reviewed and found acceptable by the Bank and approved by the JSIF Board
on January 25, 2006. The EMF was also disclosed by the Bank though the InfoShop on February
6, 2006 and has been made publicly available in-country by the client.53 The final EMF is also
included as part of the JSIF Operations Manual.
One of the guiding operational principles of JSIF is that projects funded by JSIF must conform to
the Government of Jamaica‘s environmental regulations and have minimum impacts on the
natural and cultural environment. Therefore, the EMF is an integral part of JSIF‘s Operations
Manual (OM) and is applicable to all investments financed by JSIF, regardless of its funding
source or implementing agency. The main objectives of the EMF are to:
establish procedures for screening all proposed projects for potential adverse
environmental impacts and land requirements/acquisition;
specify measures for managing, mitigating and monitoring environmental impacts during
project implementation and operation; and
outline the training and capacity-building arrangements needed to successfully implement
the provisions of the EMF.
B. Projects Financed by JSIF
JSIF finances only small-scale projects that are aimed at improving the livelihood of small
communities and their access to basic services, and supporting income generating activities
through micro credit funding etc. These projects can be classified into three broad groups: (a)
Infrastructure; (b) Social Services; and (c) Capacity-building. Some of the infrastructure projects
funded by JSIF are likely to have localized minor adverse impacts, mainly during construction,
and therefore provisions of this EMF will be applicable to them.
53
In-country disclosure has been made through publication on the JSIF website:
(http://www.jsif.org/inner_city_basic_serv.asp).
71
Because of their size/magnitude and significant potential environmental and social impacts, some
types of projects are ineligible for JSIF financing. The EMF provides a ‗negative list‘ of such
projects.
C. Screening Procedures
Jamaican national environmental regulatory requirements are prescribed by the environmental
Permit & License System (P&L) which is administered by the National Environment and
Planning Agency (NEPA). It is a mechanism to ensure that all Jamaican facilities and
development projects meet the relevant standards and procedures to minimize adverse
environmental impacts during construction and operation of a facility. The specific national
regulatory requirements are (i) an environmental permit to construct and/or (ii) a license to
discharge. NEPA has confirmed that some of the JSIF projects would require an environmental
permit. NEPA will either grant an environmental permit, sometimes with terms & conditions, or
may require the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prior to granting
the environmental permit. Projects and facilities that discharge a substance to the atmosphere, to
the ground or into surface waters may require a license to discharge. This license is also issued
by NEPA after review of an application which is submitted together with the application for an
environmental permit to construct. Among the projects eligible for JSIF financing, only small
(package) sewage treatment facilities would fall into the category requiring a license to discharge.
The Safeguards Diagnostic Review report has found that the main difference between Jamaican
national environmental requirements for the types of infrastructure projects financed by JSIF and
those of the World Bank and other international development partners is the preparation and use
of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). An EMP sets out project specific mitigation
measures and corresponding monitoring requirements. The use of generic EMPs for small-scale
infrastructure projects with minor adverse environmental impacts has become internationally
accepted good practice.
The EMF provides a matrix to assist with screening JSIF projects and determine, depending on
category and type of project, whether a permit application to NEPA, or an EMP, including
mitigation actions, is required. The detailed screening process by JSIF is set out in the EMF, and
a checklist is provided to guide the technical and environmental officers54. The screening and
implementation of mitigation measures are fully integrated with the JSIF project cycle.
D. Implementation Arrangements
The EMF describes in detail the steps for implementing the NEPA requirements. In addition to a
permit, terms & conditions, or a full EIA, NEPA may also require special monitoring and
reporting actions, and normally will carry out periodic monitoring of the implementation of the
project to make sure the its requirements are being met.
To assist JSIF officers with implementing EMP requirements, standard generic EMPs have been
prepared for each of the main project categories, based on the expected likely environmental
impacts during the construction phase55; these generic EMPs are appended to the EMF. The EMF
54
Some site-specific issues may present serious environmental risks and / or impacts. Therefore, the EMF prescribes a site screening
mechanism to identify sites that are potentially unsuitable due to site-specific environmental conditions. In addition, the land on
which a project is to be located must comply with the zoning requirements of NEPA and relevant local planning legislation.
55
Some projects may have additional requirements for mitigation and monitoring in response to issues identified during site
screening, which shall also be specified in the contract documents.
72
also prescribes how the applicable EMP(s) are to be incorporated into the bidding and contract
documents to enforce compliance by the contractor. An annex to the EMF contains additional
guidance for detailed steps and actions in good environmental management, specifically for the
design and operational phases.
Another specific potential impact may be chance finds of physical cultural property, especially
because some of the ICBSP communities are in the vicinity of the central area of Spanish Town
in St. Catherine Parish which is a declared Historic District. The EMF provides procedures and
sets out the required actions to comply with the requirements of the Jamaica National Heritage
Trust (JNHT) Act to protect any chance finds of cultural property56.
The implementation of projects, including all environmental aspects, is under the overall
responsibility of JSIF. JSIF may employ a construction contractor or use community-based
contracting, or projects may be implemented by agreement with and through partner agencies,
such as the local parish councils, the National Water Commission (NWC), or the Jamaica Public
Service Company (JPS).
The provisions of the EMF will apply regardless of the implementing agency, and JSIF will retain
ultimate responsibility for the good environmental management of all its projects.
E. Consultation and Disclosure
It is JSIF‘s mission to empower communities to effectively implement community-based
programs aimed at social development. JSIF‘s Operational Manual (OM) prescribes a project
preparation and implementation process that involves participation of the project community at
all key steps. This participatory process facilitates the consideration of environmental aspects as it
integrates into the project cycle disclosure of project information to, and consultation with, the
community.
The EMF prescribes the key environment-related consultation and disclosure actions during
project preparation and implementation and stresses the importance of JSIF, its partner agencies
and especially the communities, following and participating in the process.
F. Monitoring, Reporting and Capacity-Building
The EMF sets out the requirements and responsibilities for monitoring and reporting; which will
be facilitated by JSIF‘s new MIS. Copies of the bi-annual and annual EM monitoring reports will
also be sent to NEPA and to the World Bank for review during the periodic supervision missions.
Lastly, the EMF also has provisions for capacity-building within JSIF, especially for the key
officers, i.e. the Environment and Resettlement Officer (ERO) and the alternate. They in turn, are
to provide training to project officers and community liaison officers.
56
This provision will also satisfy the requirements of the policies on cultural property of international development partners, such as
the World Bank, as set out in the draft OP 4.11 on Physical Cultural Property.
73
Annex 9: Summary of Land Acquisition & Resettlement Policy Framework
A. Introduction
The Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework summarized below will apply to all
JSIF-funded community projects including the Inner City Basic Services for the Poor Project.
For JSIF-funded community projects, the Policy Framework will supplement existing Jamaican
law pertaining to land acquisition and resettlement (the Land Acquisition Act of 1947) by
introducing additional compensation measures to achieve compensation at replacement cost and
income restoration together with implementation and consultation arrangements to minimize land
acquisition impacts and obtain the informed consent of those affected by land acquisition.
JSIF has prepared a Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework (LARPF), which
establishes equivalence with the objectives and operational principles in OP 4.00 and OP/BP
4.12. The LARPF has been reviewed and found acceptable by the Bank and was approved by the
JSIF Board on January 25, 2006. The framework was also disclosed by the Bank though the
InfoShop on February 6, 2006 and has been made publicly available in-country by the client.57
The final EMF is also included as part of the JSIF Operations Manual. A complete Policy
Framework has been incorporated into the JSIF Operations Manual.
JSIF-funded community projects comprise a range of infrastructure investments including
drinking water supply, sewerage, sanitation, storm drainage, small roads, school buildings, and
community and recreation facilities.
Since the land acquisition impacts deriving from these community projects will be minor, the
appropriate instrument to manage such impacts shall be an Abbreviated Resettlement Plan
attached as an annex to the project proposal/plan agreed between the community and JSIF. If
land acquisition under a community project causes displacement, the Abbreviated Resettlement
Plan shall include economic rehabilitation measures.
B. Means of Obtaining Land
The infrastructure investments undertaken in JSIF-financed community based projects are for the
most part located within and identified by the beneficiary communities, which implies that access
to land may be obtained through other means than just land acquisition through eminent domain.
Thus, land for different investment components in a community project could be obtained though
one or a combination of the different means listed below. While all of these means of obtaining
land would require documentation, not all would necessitate payment of compensation and/or
provision of relocation and rehabilitation assistance. However, in all cases, care shall be taken to
ensure that the persons involved are fully informed about the project, about the avenues for
grievance redress, and confirm that the donation or long-term lease is voluntary. This
information is provided during the consultations that take place as part of the participatory
community project preparation process.
57
In-country disclosure has been done through publication on the JSIF website
(http://www.jsif.org/inner_city_basic_serv.asp).
74
Means of obtaining land
Requirements
Voluntary donation or long term lease of
private land
Attached to the community project proposal/plan must
be Proof of Ownership and Documentation of Donation
of Assets or Documentation of Long Term Lease
be Proof of Ownership and Documentation of Donation
of Assets.
be Proof of Ownership and Documentation of Sale of
Assets.
be permission from the Government Agency holding the
land or from the Commissioner of Lands.
be permission from the Government Agency holding the
land or from the Commissioner of Lands together with a
mitigation plan based on this Policy Framework to
provide rehabilitation and relocation assistance for
squatters.
Abbreviated Resettlement Plan attached as an annex to
the community project proposal/plan
Donation of community land
Willing-seller-willing-buyer transaction
Transfer of public land without squatters or
other encumbrances
Transfer of public land with squatters or other
encumbrances
Involuntary land acquisition based on eminent
domain
with
or
without
associated
displacement
C. Community Project Preparation, Consultation, and Land Acquisition Planning
Given that the persons potentially affected by land acquisition and displacement in JSIF-financed
community-based projects are in most cases also project beneficiaries with a voice in decision
making on both the type of investments and technical alternatives, there is a strong incentive to
seek solutions that avoid or reduce adverse impacts from land acquisition. During the
community-based participatory project preparation process, consultation on technical options will
involve a concurrent assessment of potential associated land acquisition impacts as described in
the table below. This will facilitate an early and ongoing identification of feasible technical
design alternatives to avoid or minimize such impacts, and will also enable consultation with
persons affected by land acquisition to obtain their consent regarding mitigation measures.
Community Project
Preparation
1. Promotion
(information dissemination
on JSIF funding of
community projects and rules
of the game)
2. Project Application
3. Review of Application
Actions on Land Acquisition
Responsible
Information dissemination on:
project eligibility (< 10 families to be resettled);
need to avoid or minimize land acquisition in
project planning;
acceptable means of obtaining land; and
compensation options for PAPs.
Indicate:
expected need for land for specific investment
components;
means of obtaining such land; and
need for land acquisition and assessment of
impacts.
Reject application and return for revision if 10
or more families are planned to be resettled as a
result of envisaged land acquisition.
JSIF Environment
& Resettlement
Officer and
Community Liaison
Officers
75
Community/CBO
JSIF Environment
& Resettlement
Officer
4. Project Concept
Development
5. JSIF Technical & Social
Review
6. Project Design
7. Project Approval
Include preparation of Abbreviated
Resettlement Plan in TOR for design consultant
if required.
Preliminary Site Screening and Community
Consultations to:
verify need for land for specific investment
components;
confirm information on voluntary land
donations and availability of unused
government land;
assess options for avoiding or minimizing land
acquisition;
ensure that potentially affected persons and land
donors are involved in the consultation and
informed of options;
if squatters have to be resettled, attempt to find
secure alternative accommodation for these in
the community; and
conduct census of PAPs.
Assist community in obtaining permission to
use available government land from the Agency
holding the land or from the Commissioner of
Lands;
Obtain documentation on land donations from
community and private donors;
Review technical options to avoid or minimize
land acquisition;
Compile inventory of assets lost by PAPs;
Draft Abbreviated Resettlement Plan; and
Review/approve Abbreviated Resettlement
Plan.
Present Abbreviated Resettlement Plan in a
community consultation to obtain endorsement
from PAP‘s and community.
For World Bank assisted projects:
submit Abbreviated Resettlement Plan for
review and approval; and
disclose the Abbreviated Resettlement Plan at a
place accessible to PAPs and NGOs.
JSIF Environment
& Resettlement
Officer and
Technical Appraisal
Officers
JSIF Environment
& Resettlement
Officer and
Technical Appraisal
Officers
Design Consultant
JSIF Resettlement
Officer
JSIF Environment
& Resettlement
Officer and
Community Liaison
Officers
JSIF
D. Institutional Arrangements
The overall responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of the Land Acquisition &
Resettlement Policy Framework rests with JSIF. Within JSIF, there shall be an Environment &
Resettlement Officer and a Legal Officer.
Acquisition of the land required for a particular community project will be undertaken by the
Commissioner of Land based on information and documentation provided by JSIF. Valuation of
the assets to be acquired will be conducted by the Land Valuation Division of the National Land
Agency.
76
Grievance redress will be pursued at different levels (community, JSIF, specialized arbitration
institutions) with recourse to the courts as the last option for the aggrieved party.
E. Monitoring Arrangements
For each community project, information on land requirements and the means of obtaining any
land required by a particular project component will be recorded in the MIS for different stages of
the project cycle:
Community Project Cycle
Project Application
Review of Application
Project Concept Development and
JSIF Technical & Social Review
Abbreviated Resettlement Plan
Implementation
Post-implementation
Data for MIS
Estimated need for land for specific investment
components;
Means of obtaining such land (donation, govt.
land, purchase, land acquisition); and
Scale of resettlement, if any.
Approval; or
Rejection (> 10 families to be resettled)
Community consultations (date, # of participants
including potential PAPs, issues); and
Documentation provided on voluntary land
donations and transfer of unused government land.
Data from census with inventory of assets lost by
PAPs, entitlements, and socio-economic data;
Dates of receipt, review, and approval by JSIF of
ARP;
Dates of submission and approval by Bank of ARP
(for Bank assisted projects); and
Date of disclosure of ARP.
Delivery of compensation and rehabilitation
entitlements as per ARP; and
Data on grievance redress
Evaluation including assessment of economic
rehabilitation/income restoration.
Each Abbreviated Resettlement Plan will establish a baseline through the census of PAPs which
will comprise socio-economic data, the inventory of assets lost, and the compensation and
resettlement benefits awarded to the PAPs. Progress monitoring by JSIF will record the timely
provision of compensation to PAPs (whether provided before or after possession was taken of the
asset), and the timely provision of resettlement assistance. The data will be entered into JSIF‘s
MIS together with information on land provided through voluntary donations, nominal long-term
leases, and vacant government land. An evaluation will be undertaken to establish whether the
objective of the measures to mitigate the land acquisition and resettlement impacts have been
achieved, namely, whether PAPs affected by land acquisition and resettlement have been able to
improve, or at least restore, their livelihoods and standards of living to pre-displacement levels.
Data on grievance redress will also be entered in the MIS and summarized in status reports.
For projects assisted by the World Bank, periodic supervision will assess whether the
implementation is in compliance with the provisions in approved Abbreviated Resettlement
Plans.
77
F. Land requirements under Community Projects
For the 12 community projects under the Inner City Basic Services for the Poor Project,
consultations were conducted during project preparation on the need for land and means to obtain
such land. 58 Land required for specific project components will be obtained as listed in the table
below. The table was updated in a consultation on JSIF‘s Land Acquisition & Resettlement
Policy Framework with representatives of all the 12 target communities on January 13, 2006.
Method of obtaining land
Project
Communities
Whitfield Town
Federal Gardens
Passmore
Town/Browns
Town
(Dunkirk)59
Jones Town
Tawes Pen
March
Pen
(Africa)
Central Village
Dempshire Pen/
Jones
Pen
(Shelter Rock)
Lauriston
Bog Walk
Bucknor
Flankers
Parish
Community Project
Component requiring
land
Vacant
Govt
land
Kingston-St.Andrew
Kingston-St.Andrew
None
Community Center
Yes
Kingston-St.Andrew
Kingston-St.Andrew
St. Catherine
None
None
Community Center60
Yes
St. Catherine
St. Catherine
None
- Community Center
- New drain from Central
Road to river
- Community Center61
- Off-site drain
extensions
Community Center
- Drainage
- Community Center
- Drainage65
- Road (Hog City)66
St. Catherine
St. Catherine
St. Catherine
Clarendon
St.James
Private
donation
Purchase:
WillingSellerWillingBuyer
To be decided
To be decided
Yes
Yes62
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
To be decided
Final Neighborhood Basic Infrastructure & Public Buildings Safety Plans – Community Specific Plans, JSIF, Dec. 2005.
The project will refurbish the existing sewer network, which will be connected to a sewage treatment facility to be funded
from other sources. Since the two activities are linked, the access to land for the treatment facility needs to be clarified.
60
Upgrading of existing structure.
61
62
The land was previously bought by a neighborhood CBO with its own funds.
63
The Community Center will be located on a piece of land presently used in part as a community sports/play-ground, and in
part as residential area by squatters. At the consultation on JSIF‘s Policy Framework on January 13, 2006, community members were
of the opinion that the Community Center could be constructed on the site without disturbing the squatter settlement or the
sports/play-ground.
64
65
During a Bank team field visit to the Flankers‘ neighborhood on January 12, 2006, it was found that the planned
rehabilitation and extension of a storm drain from Providence Heights in Hog City would require at least temporary relocation of 3
squatter houses built on the bank and partly over the gully. An assessment of the need for temporary or permanent relocation needs to
be made as part of the finalization of the community plan for Flankers, and if required, the plan needs to be amended with resettlement
mitigation measures.
66
Road rehabilitation will require minor realignment and shifting of a fence.
58
59
78
Annex 10: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements
Background
This report summarizes the findings of the financial management capacity assessment for the
Jamaica Inner-City Basic Services Project. The objective of the assessment is to determine
whether the project‘s implementing entities have acceptable financial management arrangements
including the accounting system, reporting, auditing, and internal controls. The entity‘s
arrangements are assessed in terms of being capable of recording correctly all transactions and
balances, supporting the preparation of regular and reliable financial statements, safeguarding the
entity‘s assets and addressing inherent fiduciary risks, and are subject to auditing arrangements
acceptable to the Bank. The specific activities and circumstances of the ICBSP were factored in
to ensure that the entities‘ financial management system is not only acceptable in general terms
but it is also commensurate with the needs and the unique nature of the project. In doing so, due
consideration was given to the objective of building on JSIF experience rather than having
parallel systems for the project.
The ICBSP institutional and implementation arrangements will be based on those of the JSIF, an
already exiting entity that has implemented two World Bank-financed projects. As the ICBSP
follows to a large extent the model of these two previous projects, the ICBSP can be considered
as a repeat project with minor changes to the financial management arrangements. This
assessment has taken into consideration the adjustments necessary to deal with aspects that are
specific to ICBSP and which are not adequately covered by the current financial management
system.
Country Issues
The impact of the Jamaican public financial management system on the project is discussed in the
Risk Analysis section. Beside this impact, one of the major issues affecting project
implementation is the country‘s fiscal situation. Both counterpart funds and loan funds must be
included in the budget. Given the high debt level and the Government objective of balancing the
budget, project funds are usually cut to meet fiscal targets. Although JSIF has received all the
funds requested during the current fiscal year, this issue may affect the implementation of the
ICBSP.
Another country issue is related to the use of designated accounts in Jamaica. According to
Government regulations, loan funds have to be disbursed from the Government Consolidated
Fund in order to be recognized as Government debts and subsequently paid by the Accountant
General when due. Because of this requirement, many projects have suffered from cash flow
problems as the designated account funds could not be used to make payments directly. Instead,
the payments have to be made first from the Government Consolidated Fund Account which is
then reimbursed from the designated account. JSIF has not suffered from this issue because of the
flexibility offered by the Project Agreement. The Bank is currently discussing how to address the
issue with the Ministry of Finance and Planning. In the meantime, the provisions of the NCDP
project agreement should be followed for the ICBSP, to avoid cash flow problems.
Financial management and disbursement arrangements
Key features affecting financial management and disbursement arrangements Given the
similarities of the ICBSP activities with the NCDP currently being implemented by JSIF, the
same financial management arrangements will be followed to a large extent. Except for the
activities related to the Access to Financial Services subcomponent, the implementation
arrangements for all the other activities, including financial management aspects are already
79
covered by the JSIF operations manual. The implementation arrangements including financial
management for the microfinance activities are described in the Microfinance manual that was
developed during project preparation.
For financial management purposes, the activities of the project can be grouped under the
following categories:
-
Basic infrastructure activities implemented directly by JSIF or in association with other
agencies: This category of activities will follow the JSIF model of community
subprojects described in its operations manual. Under this model, JSIF handles all
procurement and disbursement as well as accounting and reporting.
-
Basic infrastructure activities implemented directly by the communities. The JSIF model
of community-based contracting will be followed for this category of activities. Under
this model, JSIF disburses funds to community-based organizations on the basis of a
financing agreement. The CBOs manage these funds directly including procurement and
payments to suppliers of goods and services, as well as accounting and reporting.
-
Performance-based mechanism for the extension of microfinance loans: JSIF awards
least-cost subsidies through a competitive tendering process to FIs which agree to
disburse, service and collect a predetermined number of loans or dollars lent. The awards
to FIs will be structured as performance-based contracts and the contracts would disburse
against an agreed fixed payment for each loan. The end use of the subsidies by the FIs is
not relevant here. The major financial management implication is the need to ensure
compliance with the criteria for the selection of the FIs and reliability of the information
provided by the FIs as the basis for disbursement.
Based on the above, the financial management arrangements of the project will mainly use JSIF‘s
current system with some amendments as necessary to address specific aspects such as those
related to the performance-based mechanism.
Implementing Entity The overall responsibility for the project‘s financial management will lie
with the JSIF. JSIF is a temporary, autonomous Government-sponsored institution primarily
designed to channel resources to small-scale community-based projects. JSIF was established in
1995 as part of Jamaica's National Poverty Eradication Program (NPEP). The Jamaican Cabinet
gave its approval in December 1995, to JSIF's incorporation as a limited liability company
conforming to the definition of a Government Company within the Financial Administration and
Audit Act. A loan to fund operations of the JSIF was subsequently negotiated between the
Government of Jamaica and the World Bank, to implement the Jamaica Social Investment Fund
project. Subsequently further loans were negotiated with other International Funding Agencies,
including the World Bank (the National Community Development Project). Under these projects,
JSIF has developed a core competence in financial management procedures, and in dealing with
CDD subprojects, including financial management capacity-building for the community-based
organizations. The project‘s financial management will be handled by JSIF‘s Finance and
Administration Unit (FAU).
As a government registered company, JSIF is subject to the Jamaica Financial Administration and
Audit Act, the Public Bodies Management and Accountability Act and the Company Act. As such
JSIF is required to meet detailed financial management requirements. Accordingly, it has
developed a financial management system that encompasses procedures, accounting system,
staffing and both internal control and external auditing. The financial management arrangements
proposed for the ICBSP are compatible with these acts.
JSIF's Finance and Administration Unit is considered to be fully staffed. It is headed by a Finance
and Administration Manager, and also includes a Financial Analyst, Financial Accountant,
80
Financial Officer and Accounting Clerk. All staff have sufficient background and experience for
their duties. The financial staff is considered capable of absorbing the duties of the proposed
project to the degree that it is implemented in a manner similar to current JSIF operations. The
requirements of the community based contracting system will require some additional preparation
of the staff and this will be done after the community-based contracting system is developed.
Accounting System For the purpose of the ICBSP, JSIF will essentially use its existing financial
management systems and procedures which will be adapted as necessary to reflect the specific
needs of the project. The already existing accounting software (ACCPAC) can cope with several
projects at a time. It will be customized to include a separate ‗entity‘ to separately monitor the
accounts of and reports on the ICBSP. ACCPAC is fully functioning. The software has a multicurrency feature, but this is limited in that it only allows for the translation of balances, which is
sufficient for asset and liability accounts, but for sources or uses of funds, the average or
weighted average exchange rates must be manually calculated. In order to facilitate the
preparation of the financial reports, it will be necessary to change the structure of the chart of
accounts. Currently, the chart of accounts is based on the source of funding and not necessarily on
the project or program being funded. As a result, preparing financial reports by project requires
for GoJ-financed expenditures assigning manually individual expenditures.
Financial Management Procedures. The updated JSIF Operational Manual, approved by the
JSIF Board on February 22, 2006, contains the key financial procedures that cover the needs of
the project, including for the community subprojects. Procedures associated with the
implementation of the microfinance subcomponent have been adequately developed in a
microfinance annex to the Operations Manual. Further improvements, including on budgeting,
reporting and internal control procedures are included in the financial management chapter.
Reporting and Monitoring. JSIF produces a number of internal financial reports, while also
having to create reports for the various donors. The reporting requirements for the ICBSP will be
similar to those of the ongoing NCDP.
Two main financial reports will be submitted to the Bank. The annual financial statements will be
prepared and audited as part of the JSIF regular audit, which is an overall report incorporating the
specific information related to various projects implemented by JSIF. In addition to the audit
report, JSIF will prepare a quarterly Financial Monitoring Report (FMR), which includes
information on financial, physical, and procurement progress. These reports are normally linked
by reporting by project components and activities. The information from ACCPAC, along with
that contained in the JSIF MIS, will be used not only to generate FMRs, but more generally, to
provide better information for JSIF managers and other stakeholders.
Flow of funds. Funds would be managed through a process similar to that used for the ongoing
Bank-financed NCDP. A Designated account will be maintained in US dollars, and payments will
be made to local contractors via a local currency account. All funds would be first budgeted via
the Government's normal budget processes, with counterpart funds made available on a quarterly
basis via the Government's warrant system.
Internal Audit JSIF has a position of internal auditor which reports directly to the JSIF Board of
Directors. In addition to the internal audit, JSIF has a Finance and Audit Committee that
functions and meets monthly.
External Audit Due to its legal status, JSIF must have its financial statements regularly audited.
This is done every year by a private sector auditor appointed by the JSIF Board. In addition to the
statutory audit of JSIF financial statements, the auditor also issues a consolidated audit report on
all the projects being implemented by JSIF with a separate opinion on the financial statements of
each. The quality of the audit report is found to be good. The main qualification in the audit
81
opinion has been related to the cost of the Beneficiaries/Sponsors contributions in sub-project
activities which has only been partially accounted for in these financial statements. This is a
recurrent problem that is being addressed as part of the MIS and the operations manual revision.
The current auditors were appointed for a one-year contract renewal. These auditors are
acceptable to the Bank, as they have produced well-organized, informative audit reports and
management letters in previous years. The terms of reference largely reflect the requirements of
the Bank and are still appropriate, given the characteristics of the ICBSP.
JSIF will be required to submit no later than four months after the end of its fiscal year its
statutory audit report and the consolidated report of all the projects implemented.
Disbursement arrangements
The project will be implemented over a five year period, from May 2006 to April 2011.
Procurement will be completed by January 2011. The proposed allocation of the loan is shown in
Table 1.
Table 1: Allocation of Loan Proceeds
Expenditure Category
Total Project
Amount
(US$ million)
15.60
Goods, Works, Services and Training for
Subcomponent 1.1 less Community Centers and
Community Infrastructure
Works for Construction of Community Centers
Goods and Works for Community Infrastructure
Services for Subcomponent 1.2
Goods and Services for Subcomponent 1.3
Services for Component 2
Goods, Services and Training for Subcomponent
3.167
Operating Costs and Other Services for
Subcomponent 3.268
PPF
Total Project Cost
Front End Fee69
Total
Total Bank
Financing
(US$ million)
15.60
Financing
Percentage
2.60
1.80
1.25
0.60
3.90
4.73
2.60
1.80
1.25
0.60
3.90
2.83
100
100
100
100
100
60
1.60
0.0
0
0.65
32.73
0.07
32.80
0.65
29.23
0.07
29.30
100
89
100
90
100
Use of report-based disbursement
Report-based disbursement will be used for the project. JSIF will submit quarterly Financial
Monitoring Reports (FMRs) consistent with the agreed form and content within 45 days of the
end of each reporting period. To support disbursement, the FMR will be accompanied by the
following additional information: Designated account (SA) Activity Statement, SA Bank
67
The estimated total cost for this disbursement category is US$ 4,726,750 and the estimated Bank
financing requirement is US$ 2,826,750. For the purposes of presentation these figures have been rounded
to US$ 4.73m and US$ 2.83m, respectively.
68
The category for operating costs and other services will be 100 percent financed by the Government and
hence is not a disbursement category for the Project. Nonetheless, it is reflected here to demonstrate how
co-financing for arrangements as they apply to full project costs.
69
The exact front-end-fee is calculated at US$ 73,250 and for the purposes of presentation has been
rounded to US$ 0.07m here.
82
Statements, Summary Statement of SA Expenditures for Contracts subject to Prior Review,
Summary Statement of SA Expenditures not subject to Prior Review.
Designated account:
The initial deposit into the Designated account will be made upon submission of an FMR with a
detailed forecast. Since the PCU has extensive experience with financial management of Bank
projects and the preparation of FMRs, disbursements will be made based on FMRs to be
submitted to the Bank quarterly, along with a withdrawal application.
Risk Analysis
The following matrix details the financial management risk assessment for the project.
Risk Assessment
H
S
Inherent Risk
Country
Entity
Project
Overall Inherent Risk
Control Risk
1. Implementing Entity
2. Funds Flow
3. Staffing
4. Accounting Policies and Procedures
5. Internal Audit
6. External Audit
7. Reporting and Monitoring
8. Information Systems
Overall Control Risk
M
N
Comments
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
H - High S - Substantial M - Moderate N - Negligible or Low
Country risks
A joint CFAA/CPAR was undertaken recently for Jamaica. Although the report is not final yet, it
constitutes a solid basis to assess the overall performance of Jamaica public financial
management (PFM). Overall, the legal and institutional framework in Jamaica and its established
institutions and procedures, including external oversight provide for a solid foundation for PFM.
Government accounts are regularly produced and audited. The report of the Auditor General is
public. Parliament oversight is very active. The Government of Jamaica has also undertaken
several initiatives during the past few years aimed at modernizing its public financial
management systems. In spite of these efforts, the CFAA/CPAR identified some issues that
continue to affect overall PFM performance. The main ones are as follows:
Slow implementation of the underlying accountability and business processes to
accompany the evolution of the legal and institutional framework for PFM, creating a risk
of weakened control over the Executive Agencies.
Major weaknesses in the implementation of the new business processes (information
system, accrual accounting, and audit committees) undermining timeliness and quality of
financial reporting.
83
Weak link between government priorities, planning and budget, and the lack of timely
information reflecting actual budget appropriations. This contributes substantially to
inefficiency in public spending and weaknesses in budget monitoring that would
otherwise facilitate better fiscal control and parliamentary oversight.
Effectiveness of internal audit function is still being affected by the methodologies and
tools used, shortages in budget and staff, and staff resistance to changes in focus and
procedures.
Parliament's overall effectiveness as an oversight body is still limited by the lack of
reliable enforcement mechanisms to follow up Public Accounts Committee findings.
On the basis of the CFAA findings, the country fiduciary risk is rated moderate. But because the
project will not be implemented through the central government system, the risk of the CFAA
findings in terms of impact on the project is considered low.
Project risk
The greatest risks are posed by CBO-executed subprojects and the microfinance activities with
FIs due to the capacity of the community groups in the inner cities, the risk of leadership capture,
the lack of previous experience in Jamaica in general and for JSIF in particular in the
performance-based mechanisms. These inherent risks are mitigated in part by the arrangements
that have been put in place in JSIF in recent years and the implementation of the performancebased mechanisms as defined in the microfinance manual.
Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses of FM Arrangements
Primary strengths and weaknesses of the financial management system, including actions
required to address weaknesses.
Key strengths of the project's FM arrangements are:
The entity's experience with prior Bank-financed projects
Sufficiently staffed financial function
Effective external oversight with a functioning Finance and Audit Committee and an
adequate external audit arrangement and a record of understandable, informative audit
reports and management letters
Functioning accounting system
The key improvement required is to:
Revise the segment coding of ACCPAC so that it is primarily based on projects and
secondly on the source of funding. This will facilitate preparation of project financial
reports without having to reprocess the data, which is time consuming and a source of
error and does not allow ready availability of financial reports.
84
Action Plan
The following financial management system has been agreed upon between the Bank and GoJ:
Action
Responsible Person
Completion Date
Operations Manual
Finance and
Administrative
Revise the financial management chapter of
Manager
the operations manual to document the
budgeting processes (panning and monitoring),
and the controls executed by JSIF
February 15, 2006
ACCPAC
Finance and
Administrative
Revise the chart of accounts based primarily
Manager
on the projects being funded and secondly on
the source of funding.
March 31, 2006
Finance and
Administrative
Finalize the format of the FMR for the ICBSP,
Manager
including the additional statements required
for disbursement purposes
Negotiation
Financial Monitoring Reports
Supervision Plan
Given JSIF‘s past experience and performance and the new features introduced as part of the
ICBSP, the financial management supervision will focus on:
the review of the quarterly FMR which will help to monitor financial performance of the
project and
FM staff participation in supervision missions at least once a year. Besides the standard
monitoring of the overall financial management system to ensure it continues to be
satisfactory, the financial management aspects of the microfinance activities and the
communities‘ contribution should receive particular attention, especially during the first
six months of the project.
85
Annex 11: Procurement Arrangements
A. General
Procurement for the proposed project would be carried out in accordance with the World
Bank‘s ‗Guidelines: Procurement Under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits‘ dated May 2004; and
‗Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers‘ dated
May 2004, and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement. The various items under
different expenditure categories are described in general below. For each contract to be
financed by the Loan the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the
need for pre-qualification, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and timeframe are
agreed between the Borrower and the Bank in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan
will be updated at least annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation
needs and improvements in institutional capacity.
Procurement of Works: Works procured under this project will consist of several civil
works contracts. Packages for integrated network infrastructure are estimated at
approximately US$ 1 million on average, which would include access to potable water,
sanitation, solid waste collection systems and roads. It is expected that a couple of packages
will be under US$2 million, but given volatile area conditions, it is not envisioned that these
will attract foreign contractors. The infrastructure program also consists of building
community centers for the sites identified. Contracts above US$1.5 million will be procured
following International Competitive Bidding (ICB). Contracts below US$1.5 million, and
above US$150,000 will be procured under National Competitive Bidding (NCB) procedures.
Small Works contracts below US$150,000 equivalent will be procured on the basis of
comparing at least three quotations received from qualified contractors in response to a
written invitation, which will include a detailed scope of work, specifications and relevant
drawings as well as a form of agreement acceptable to the Bank. The procurement will be
done using the Bank‘s Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) for all ICB and National SBD
agreed with the Bank.
Procurement of Goods: Goods procured under this project would include compactor trucks
for waste consolidation and disposal, vehicles, office furniture and equipment, computer
hardware and software, fencing and security systems, as well as goods required for the
neighborhood improvement program. Goods contracts will be grouped into bidding packages
of more than US$150,000 equivalent and procured following ICB procedures; contracts
below US$150,000 but above US$50,000 will follow NCB procedures and contracts below
US$50,000 will be procured under shopping procedures. The procurement will be done using
the Bank‘s SBD for all ICB and National SBD agreed with or satisfactory to the Bank.
Community Participation: The implementation of minor or simple infrastructure
neighborhood improvements, small works required for installation of waste bins, as well as
the purchase of goods such as fencing or miscellaneous security equipment, will be
contracted by local communities, in accordance with guidelines set out in the Operational
Manual and taking into account the lessons learned under Community Contracting under the
NCDP project. Direct contracting may be followed for small works, goods or services in
high risk areas and where few contractors or suppliers can be identified, with prior Bank
review.
86
Procurement of Non-Consulting Services: will consist of cadastre land surveys and other
site preparation activities which will be contracted following shopping or NCB procedures.
Force Account: The administration of the electrification program, estimated to cost less than
US$200,000, will be by the direct labor of the Rural Electrification Program, following
section 3.8 of the Guidelines, given the difficulty in identifying contractors for such areas and
the efficiency gained if the works are done directly through its own departmental forces.
Selection of Consultants: Consultants‘ services consists of technical assistance services for
public safety enhancement; assessment of available financial services to the poor as well as
providing those services; squatter management policy; mediation and conflict resolution;
alternative livelihoods and skills development; family support services; youth education;
capacity building; ISO 14000 accreditation as well as engineering and design services as
required as well as the technical assistance needed for ICBSP project management. Shortlists
of consultants for services estimated to cost less than $200,000 equivalent per contract may
be composed entirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph
2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines. Individual consultant services will be required for
community liaison officer positions as well as project management staff required to
administer the different components of the project.
Financial Institutions that will provide access to credit in the project areas will be
competitively selected following the least-cost selection (LCS) method, in accordance with
paragraph 3.6 of the Consultant Guidelines. It is envisioned that several contracts, totaling an
estimated US$1.2 million will be allocated for the execution of these services.
Training: Skills training will be made available to selected communities and parish councils.
Specific programs for each community are listed in the Neighborhood Basic Infrastructure
and Public Safety Plans included in the project files. The loan will finance eligible
expenditures for study tours, workshops and seminars as described in the annual training
programs submitted by JSIF for the Bank‘s review.
Operating Costs consisting of services for CBO training, office space, utilities, and supplies
as well as support staff and operation and maintenance of the community centers once built
will be financed by the Government of Jamaica.
B. Assessment of the agency’s capacity to implement procurement
Procurement activities will be carried out under the responsibility and oversight of JSIF and
CBOs that meet the criteria in selected communities. A first assessment of JSIF‘s capacity
was completed in 2002, for the National Community Development Project. An update of the
capacity of the Jamaica Social Investment Fund was carried out in January 2006, by the
Caribbean Procurement Coordinator and the risk was determined as ‗average.‘
The assessment reviewed the organizational structure of JSIF, and particularly the
procurement staffing and routing and approval of procurement actions. JSIF is composed of
four management divisions: Human Resources, Finance & Administration, Information
Systems and Operations Management. The procurement function falls under the managerial
responsibility of the Finance & Administration Manager, who reports to the Managing
Director of JSIF. The existing procurement staff, comprised of one Procurement/Legal
Officer and two Contracting Officers, work with several international funding agencies,
including the World Bank and the IADB. The project will finance two additional
87
procurement officers specifically for the ICBSP procurement activities strengthening the
experience gained by the NCDP team.
All procurement is done in keeping with the Government of Jamaica (GoJ) Handbook of
Public Sector Procurement Procedures and any additional specific provisions as agreed with
external funding agencies.
Transparency in the process and confidentiality are emphasized. No conflicts with Bank
guidelines are noted. However, it is important to note that GoJ requires that local firms
demonstrate tax compliance in order to participate in any bidding opportunities involving
government procurement.
The key issues and risks concerning procurement for implementation of the project relate
mostly to the capacity of Community-Based Organizations (CBO). There is a limited number
of communities that have existing CBOs with the capacity to carry out procurement activities,
and the time invested to train CBO members has been a factor that has slowed
implementation under NCDP. JSIF Procurement staff experience has been dealing primarily
with civil works under shopping or National Competitive Bidding and the value of the
contracts is not large. For the ICBSP, although contracts have been packaged and identified
in the Procurement Plan, they will generate the need for hiring the required staff
(procurement, financial, engineering and administrative) for proper management of the
project. Coordination between the procurement officers and other departments of JSIF is
essential for the successful implementation of the project.
It is recommended that ICBSP procurement officers receive additional training to handle the
different procurement activities under the project. JSIF now has electronic access to the latest
WB bidding documents available, to update its library. A project launch seminar, with a
session on the changes in the Guidelines and procurement methods used under the project, is
scheduled for May 2006. The Operations Manual includes an updated section reflecting all
procurement procedures under this project.
C. Procurement Plan
The Borrower, at appraisal, developed a procurement plan for project implementation which
provides the basis for the procurement methods. This plan was agreed between the Borrower
and the Project Team on February 28, 2006 and is available at JSIF headquarters. It will also
be available in the project‘s database and on the Bank‘s external website. The Procurement
Plan will be updated in agreement with the Project Team annually or as required to reflect the
actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity.
D. Frequency of Procurement Supervision
In addition to the prior review supervision to be carried out from Bank offices, the capacity
assessment of the Implementing Agency has recommended one supervision mission every 12
months to carry out post review of procurement actions and hands-on training.
88
E. Details of the Procurement Arrangements Involving International Competition
1. Goods, Works, and Non Consulting Services
(a) List of contract packages to be procured following ICB and direct contracting:
Ref.
No.
Contract
Est.
Cost
Proc.
Method
P-Q
Domestic
Preference
(yes/no)
CW
Whitfield
$1.7m
ICB
n/a
no
Review
by Bank
(Prior /
Post)
Prior
Expected
BidOpening
Date
Jan 08
CW
Central
Village
$1.8m
ICB
n/a
no
Prior
June 09
CW
Africa
$1.5m
ICB
n/a
no
Prior
Feb. 07
GDS
Compactor
Trucks
$0.29 m
ICB
n/a
no
Prior
July 06
Comments
National
firms will
participate
National
firms will
participate
National
firms will
participate
National
firms will
participate
2. Consulting Services
(a) List of consulting assignments with shortlist of international firms.
Ref. No.
Description
of
Assignment
Estimated
Cost
Selection
Method
CS3.0.IMPAC.EVAL
Impact
Evaluation
US$300,000
QCBS
Review
by Bank
(Prior /
Post)
Prior
CS3.0.ISO.14000
ISO 14000
US$150,000
QBS
Prior
Expected
Proposals
Submission
Date
March 11
March 07
Comments
National
and
international
firms
eligible
National
and
international
firms
eligible
All prior review packages are identified in the Procurement Plan agreed during appraisal and
negotiations.
89
Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review
Expenditure
Category
1. Works
2. Goods
3. Consulting Services
-3.A Firms
Contract Value
(Threshold)
US $ thousands
Procurement
Method
Contracts Subject to
Prior Review
>1,500
150-1,500
<150
>150
50-150
<50
Regardless of value
ICB
NCB
Shopping
ICB
NCB
Shopping
Direct Contracting
All
First 2 contracts
First contract
Refer to Proc. Plan
First contract
None
All
>100
QCBS,QBS,FBS,LCS,C
QS
‗
Single Source
Refer to Proc. Plan
Comparison of 3 CVs
in accordance with
Chapter V of the
Guidelines
None
<100
Regardless of value
-3.B Individuals
Note:
Regardless of value
None
All
QCBS = Quality- and Cost-Based Selection
QBS = Quality-Based Selection
FBS = Fixed Budget Selection
LCS = Least-Cost Selection
CQS = Selection Based on Consultants' Qualifications
TOR = Terms of Reference
90
Annex 12: Economic and Financial Analysis
1. Introduction
The purpose of the project is to improve access in targeted poor inner-city communities to basic
services, including reliable potable water, sanitation, solid waste collection, road infrastructure
and related community-based services. Additional objectives are to strengthen community
capacity to develop, manage and maintain basic infrastructure and to facilitate a reduction in the
incidence of crime and violence in targeted inner city communities. This is aimed to be through
providing the most socially, economically and technically appropriate basic infrastructure
services. This report will focus on the economic aspects of the program.
A diagnostic study and needs assessment was carried out by external consultants to JSIF that
included discussions with Community Leaders and members of Community Based Organizations
(CBOs) to draw out their opinions on the major problems suffered by their community in the
sectors under study and their needs and aspirations for improvements to be made. Additionally, a
preliminary house to house survey targeted all households within each of the 12 communities to
elicit residents‘ opinions, experiences, aspirations for basic infrastructure improvement, reducing
levels of crime and violence and community capacity building. Qualitative observations gained
by multiple site visits and walkthroughs in each community also provided first hand information
on the situation prevailing within each community with regard to social conditions and physical
infrastructure.
These actions provided the basis for the selection of 12 communities and the designs of
infrastructure works. Information is weak for operating and maintenance costs of any
infrastructure component and there is no information of any kind for electricity. Based on results
of preliminary economic analysis, the project design reduced required community contribution
from 20 percent to a range of 5 to 10 percent.
Cost benefit analysis was carried out individually for all communities receiving potable water and
sanitation investments. To determine the benefits, a contingency valuation approach was taken in
which a survey that asked potential beneficiaries about their willingness to pay for improved
water supply and sanitation was completed. A number of the infrastructure components for this
program do not lend themselves well to cost-benefit analysis because of the cost of carrying out
such analyses for small projects of this nature and for example, the inherent difficulty in
estimating the benefits from community centers. Measures were taken by the consulting firm to
ensure that least-cost alternatives were selected.
2. Economic Analysis by Subsector
Potable Water and Sanitation (Sewerage)
Benefits and Willingness to Pay (WTP)
A survey was conducted to ask potential beneficiaries their WTP for an improved water supply.
The method used in this contingency valuation (CV) approach was the referendum or discrete
choice model that has become the presumptive approach for modeling the outcomes of contingent
valuation surveys. This CV approach should be more reliable than using a demand curve or
consumer surplus approach as it is more comprehensive in taking in factors relating to program
benefits.
91
In order to estimate the WTP, the survey asked interviewees who were not receiving piped water:
IF YOU COULD HAVE A SYSTEM THAT WOULD PROVIDE PIPED WATER TO YOUR
HOME INDIVIDUALLY AND WITH ADEQUATE PRESSURE, WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO PAY? J$_______ PER MONTH.70
If the respondent answered ―no,‖ the interviewer was instructed to go to a second lower
predetermined value. If the interviewee again answered ―no,‖ then the interviewer records that
(s)he would prefer to continue to use the current system. If ―yes‖ is answered to either of the
predetermined values, that value is recorded and the interviewer goes to the next question. There
were four different versions of the questionnaire that had a relatively high value two intermediate
values and a low set. The range was from J$200 to J$2,00071 for both the potable water and
sanitation question.72
From the data thus collected, estimates may be made of the mean WTP for the service. Various
methods exist for determining this value—notably the econometric or probit method and three
non-parametric approaches.73 The method used here is the intermediate non-parametric Kristöm
measure.
The table below shows the raw values obtained and their standard errors. For water, in the cases
of the communities of Dempshire Pen/Jones Pen (Shelter Rock), Passmore Town/Browns Town
(Dunkirk) and Central Village, the values obtained were questionable. In Central Village field
work was suspended for three days due to internal gang feuding, in Shelter Rock field work was
suspended for two days due to a turf feud within the area and the start date for field work in
Dunkirk was interrupted due to excessive violence.74 In the application of the WTP values for
water for these communities, the overall community-weighted average was applied. The actual
values were used for all the communities that receive investments in sanitation. These WTP
values were used as the per family benefit measure for both water and sanitation. The values
should be corrected to take into consideration distortion in the economy, but they were not
because of problems in getting timely data and the fact that it was believed that the impact would
not be significant.
70
A similarly phrased question was asked for the sanitation WTP.
Exchange rate: US$1.00 = J$61.
72
In Jamaica the charges for sanitation and water are identical.
73
As described by Vaughan, et.al, ―Investing in Water Quality‖ , p. 295: ―there are three nonparametric
estimators of the mean: (a) a lower bound measure that understates mean 'WTP (the Turnbull
mean; see Haab and McConnell, 1997a), (b) an intermediate measure (Kristöm‘s mean; see
Kristöm, 1990, and Boman et al., 1999), and (c) an upper bound measure that overstates mean
WTP (the Paasche mean; see Boman et al., 1999). The logic behind all three nonparametric
estimators is the same. The proportion of "no" answers at each bid level b, provides a discrete
stepwise approximation to the cumulative distribution function.
74
Baseline Survey report, p. 10 and Appendix A of same, p. 6.
71
92
Table 2.1
Community
Knollis
Bucknor
Federal Gardens
Jones Town
Tawes Pen
March Pen (Africa)
Central Village
Weighted Average (US$)
Average (J$)
Potable Water
WTP (US$) Standard Error
$8.51
3.55
$7.03
8.93
$15.74
3.75
$2.78
2.20
$15.65
2.80
$13.95
3.77
$14.27
3.00
$13.02
4.68
$8.58
2.81
$12.3475
J$753.01
Sanitation
WTP (US$) Standard Error
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
$12.64
2.47
$16.70
2.20
$12.20
2.62
$12.56
2.42
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
$13.4376
J$819.35
Costs
Investment costs were estimated by the consulting firm, HTSPE in accordance with least-cost
practices and accepted practices in Jamaica.77 (See section 2.2.1). Investment costs are in
international prices and taxes and other transfers are not included. Following the HTSPE norm, a
15% physical contingency was included.
Considerable difficulty was encountered in obtaining maintenance and operating costs. To date
satisfactory information has not been provided. In the case of water, estimates were obtained
based on the tariff rates. In the case of sewerage, the operations and maintenance cost were taken
to be the direct sewerage charges applied by NWC. The values for these per family or per
connection per month are US$10.39 and US$6.62 respectively for water and sewerage.78
Summary of Economic Results
The results below show considerable variability. From the benefit side (WTP), there was a
remarkable consistency except in the communities where it was not possible to reliably conduct
the surveys. There was considerable variation on the cost side, however, which is why we observe
markedly different results. Clearly from an economic standpoint, given the high costs, Tawes Pen
stands out as the least attractive investment, principally due to the high investment cost in
sanitation.
75
Average weighted as function of community population across communities with investment in sector.
Average includes communities that receive investments.
77
HTSPE, Overview and Summary Final, table 5.2, p. 60.
78
Specifically these are the charges for the less than 14m3 category. For water the service charge was
included.
76
93
Table 2.279
Values in US$
Infrastructure
Bog
Walk
Tawes Pen Bucknor
Central
Village
JonesTown
Dunkirk
Shelter
Rock
Federal Africa
Total
Water
$30,524 $95,721
$87,856 $217,676 $95,721
0
$122,519 $92,241 $76,161 $943,373
Invest. Cost
IRR (%)
50.0%
8.7%
7.6%
1.7%
42.5%
NA
-1.5%
70.8% 19.4%
N.A.
NPV
$65,745 -$14,266 -$17,672 -$95,421 $374,132
NA
-$67,508 $320,442 $28,222 $593,675
@ 12% (US$)
Sanitation
$0
$1,253,885
$0
$0
$6,452 $279,700
$0
$146,852
$0
$1,686,890
Invest. Cost
IRR (%)
N.A.
-23.1%
N.A.
N.A.
> 100%
1.3%
N.A.
85.5%
N.A.
N.A.
NPV
N.A. -$1,295,126 N.A.
N.A. $977,014 -$126,286 N.A. $649,030 N.A.
$204,632
@ 12% (US$)
Two factors should be borne in mind when interpreting the results:
1. On the cost side there is considerable uncertainty with regard to the real costs of
operation. This has to do with the costs of delivery of water per cubic meter, including
delivery and treatment and the costs of treatment and disposal of the sewerage; and
2. The surveys were conducted in an environment in which it is not common to pay for
services. This would probably tend to bias the answers to the WTP questions down,
although reasonable consistency was observed across communities.
Water and Sanitation Overview and Risk Analysis
Although it is not meaningful in guiding investment decisions at the community level, it may be
illustrative to look at the overall results for all the communities.80 The costs and benefits were
aggregated across all communities in which investments occurred. For both the water and
sanitation projects, the overall mean NPV @ 12% is positive or close to positive.
In this analysis a risk analysis was carried out using Crystal Ball. The table below summarizes
the results:
Table 2.3
Summary of Economic Analysis Aggregating Communities
Mean IRR
Mean NPV @ 12% Discount Rate
Potable Water
12.7%
$4,382
Sanitation
11%
-$69,272
Looking at the program as a whole it can be observed that both programs have reasonable
economic returns. The probability that the IRR lies below 12% is about 50% for both programs.
Normal distributions were assumed for the investment costs and triangular for the WTP and costs
of operation. For water the costs of operation were skewed lower as the costs appeared high to
this analyst and there was considerable uncertainty with regard to the actual value.
79
See the table in Appendix 2 for more detail and a summary of the costs.
Since the projects are independent, the technically correct approach is that taken in 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 where
they are analyzed independently.
80
94
Table 2.5
Potable Water Triangular distribution
monthly household costs parameters:
Minimum
US$3.00
Likeliest
US$10.39
Maximum
US$11.43
Forecast: W ater IRR
Forecast: W ater NPV
1,000 Trials
with
FrequencyChart
1,000 Trials
993 Displayed
FrequencyChart
984 Displayed
.0 3 0
30
.0 2 6
26
.0 2 3
2 2 .5
.0 2 0
1 9 .5
.0 1 5
15
.0 1 3
13
.0 0 8
7 .5
.0 0 7
6 .5
0
.0 0 0
.0 0 0
($ 4 0 6 ,5 9 2 )
($ 1 8 1 ,4 9 1 )
$ 4 3 ,6 1 1
$ 2 6 8, 7 1 2
0
3 .9 %
$ 4 9 3, 8 1 4
9 .7 %
1 5 .5 %
2 1 .3 %
2 7 .0 %
%
$US
The above charts show the frequency distribution of the outcomes from the Monte Carlo
simulations. For example, of the 1,000 trials, there were about 4 outcomes at 3.9% IRR
and roughly 26 at 10%. In the case of sewerage the operating costs were skewed higher
again because of a lack of reliable information and the possible complications in
treatment and disposal.
Table 2.6
Sanitation Triangular Distribution with Treatment and Disposal
monthly cost of Operation Parameters:
Minimum
US$5.96
Likeliest
US$6.62
Maximum
US$10.00
Forecast: Sanitation NPV @ 12%
1,000 Trials
Forecast: Sanitation IRR
FrequencyChart
991 Displayed
1,000 Trials
FrequencyChart
990 Displayed
.0 2 6
26
.0 2 7
27
.0 2 0
1 9 .5
.0 2 0
2 0 .2 5
.0 1 3
13
.0 1 4
1 3 .5
.0 0 7
6 .5
.0 0 7
6 .7 5
0
.0 0 0
.0 0 0
($ 1 , 04 2 , 8 94 )
($ 5 7 3 ,9 2 9 )
($ 1 0 4 ,9 6 4 )
$ 3 6 4, 0 0 2
$ 8 3 2, 9 6 7
0
-2 %
U S$
4%
11%
17%
23%
%
Of the outcomes for sewerage, 75 percent showed the NPV to above minus US$305,600 and the
IRR to be above 8 percent.
Other Infrastructure Works
Other infrastructure works that will be discussed in the section are Solid Waste, Community
Centers, Street Lighting, Drainage, and Roads. As mentioned, it is not cost-effective or practical
to carry out individual cost benefit analyses for these types of projects. Methods do exist and
95
analyses are often carried out, but for these relatively small works, it is more important to ensure
that least-cost approaches are being applied. When practical, a common approach for the above
types of works is to estimate the WTP of the beneficiaries. This was considered but it would not
have been effective to include a question for each of these items on a questionnaire as the
interviewee would quickly lose interest and render the survey useless.
Least-Cost Alternatives
The engineering and the determining of the least-cost alternatives were carried out by the
consulting firm, HTSPE, and are described in detail in their final report.81 The following is
excerpted from that report:
Selection of Infrastructure Designs
This design section, in conjunction with the design summary, illustrates the technical, social and
practical parameters used for the design of the infrastructure components of the ICBSP; which
are: water supply, sanitation (and sewerage), roads, drainage, street lighting, electricity and some
building construction.
The designs have been based upon the premise of reducing the complexity of operation and
maintenance, increasing the sustainability of assets, ensuring transparency in the design decision
making and using, wherever possible, Jamaican standards updated to best global practice. This
was then standardized across the communities based upon ensuring:
An equitable level of service for all the residents in a given community;
A comparable level of service among all 15 communities;
Different levels of service (minimum, acceptable and ideal) for each type of infrastructure
with its respective technical requirements; and
Linkages between the various types of infrastructure proposed for each community so as to
ensure the proposed infrastructure‘s sustainability.
Site visits were carried out in every street, road and lane of all the communities. Linkages
between the technical requirements for a given proposed infrastructure intervention and the
proposed level of service were established for each community and presented.
These levels of service, defined in terms of minimum, acceptable and ideal, can be quantified by
the technical parameters between Jamaican standards and specifications and accepted best
practice. Other factors, such as environmental impacts during construction and operation, along
with the future operational and maintenance burden and relative financial merits were also taken
into account in the design.
The limitations of proposed infrastructure are based upon the responsible agency‘s ownership and
operation and maintenance requirements. The Consultants received these requirements from each
applicable agency, authority or council between the months of August and November 2005.
During this time alternative arrangements to their current operation and maintenance (O&M)
were also investigated. These are summarized in the table in Appendix 1 of this Annex.
Examining these Works from a Different Perspective
Although an economic analysis was not performed for these infrastructure projects, one can get a
sense of the reasonableness of the works in an economic context, by carrying out a ―reverse‖
81
Overview and Summary of the final document, p.8.
96
economic analysis, estimating what the WTP would have to be to pay back the original
investment at a 12% discount rate.82
The results below demonstrate the relatively high cost of roads, but also of drainage and the
community centers in comparison with water and street lighting.
Annual WTP/Family for Economic Feasibility
(All Communities)
$70
$60
$US
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
Water
Investment
Costs
Sanitation
Investment
Costs
Roads
Investment
Costs
Drainage
Investment
Costs
Street Lighting Comm. Centre
Investment
Investment
Costs
Costs
Solid Waste
Investment
Costs
Sector
While the above is a theoretical exercise that raises questions about the costs of some of the
works, it may be more to the point to calculate the 10 percent cash or in-kind contribution that a
family will have to contribute prior to initiation or execution of the works. There is a risk that
these contributions may not be realizable for Bog Walk and Tawes Pen. (See Chart 2 below and
Appendix 2) Again, one must also take into consideration that the communities are not
accustomed to paying for their infrastructure and services. Including water and sanitation charges
for services, a family will be paying a total of the order of over $600 the first year.83
82
Operation and maintenance costs were not available for these components. The calculation will therefore
underestimate the WTP for economic feasibility of the works involved.
83
While it is true that the consultants discussed the requirement for payments with the communities, it is
not clear that the amount was ever discussed. The Baseline Survey report prepared by HTSPE, p.56, shows
household incomes to average of J$ 26,000, equivalent to US$400 per month. This US$4,800 per annum
may be compared with Jamaica‘s Gross National Income per capita of $2,900 in 2004.
97
First year 10% Total Contribution per Family
(all projects)
$600
$US
$400
$200
tfi
e
ld
a
W
hi
Af
ric
nk
er
s
l
Fl
a
er
a
k
oc
rR
el
te
Fe
d
irk
un
k
Sh
D
is
to
n
Jo
ne
sTo
w
n
ge
illa
lV
La
ur
ck
no
r
en
tra
C
Bu
Pe
n
es
Ta
w
Bo
g
W
al
k
$0
Community
3. Conclusions
Economic concerns raised during earlier economic analysis have been addressed in the project
design. Although the information, especially with regard to operating costs remains weak, this is
not atypical in these types of programs.
Potable Water: While some of the water projects appear marginal—especially Central Village
and Dempshire Pen/Jones Pen (Shelter Rock), to some extent this may be a result of the lack of
reliable information on the costs of delivery and treatment of the water. A 10% reduction of these
costs for Bucknor and Tawes Pen raises the IRR to above 12% and raises the sub-marginal
Central Village (1.7%) to almost 11%. A similar argument might be made for the WTP estimates,
although the results of these estimates appear to be reasonably solid.
Sanitation: Two of the four projects have reasonable returns, but Tawes Pen has an extremely low
return. It is important to note, however, that sanitation investments in Tawes Pen include the
rehabilitation of a waste water treatment facility that will have a broad economic impact in
neighboring project areas. When factored in, the analysis finds that investments in Tawes Pen are
economically viable.
Roads: The investment in roads is by far the greatest cost in the project. It is more than double the
cost of any other component and represents over a third of the program infrastructure costs. It was
not clear from a reading of the engineering reports what the unit costs for these residential roads
are, but the document does say the asphalt concrete material has been selected as opposed to a
double surface treatment that is often used in such situations.
98
Appendices to Annex 12
Appendix 1. Measures Taken to Assure Practical Least-Cost Alternative Design84
Proposed
infrastructure
intervention
Water
Sanitation
Roads
Optional levels of service
Minimum technical requirements
190 lpdpp at 5m head (min)
250 lpdpp at 10m head on 100mm diameter mains on every
street with fire hydrants connected every 100m (ideal)
Communal facilities with septic tank (min)
Private pit latrines (acceptable)
Private toilets linked to sewers (ideal)
Quantity of drinkable water to be supplied to community
Minimum velocity of flow for chlorine effectiveness
Minimum pressure head of 5m at house on highest elevation
For sewerage system: Gravity flow of sewage to a treatment system
with a minimum fall of 0.7% in sewers of minimum diameter 150mm
For pit latrines: Highest level of water table in year to be 1m below
bottom of pit
Finished ground level above the water table but below adjacent plot
formation level
Space available to provide the necessary proposed road width
Every house to be within 100m of fire fighting equipment
(min)
All houses are accessed via an 18 feet wide road to allow
access of fire engine (ideal)
Drainage
No stagnant water near resident‘s homes (min)
Rapid runoff followed by infiltration and then flood storage in
area away from people (ideal)
Solid waste
Every house to have access to a solid waste collection system
(min)
Combination of authority responsible and community
collection (acceptable)
Every house accessed via a 12 foot wide road thus allowing
house–to-house collection (ideal)
84
Drains to pick up surface runoff only
Drains designed with a min 0.1% slope for a five-year return period
Road between the kerbs designed for ‗normal flow down shallow
rectangular channels‘ during peak floods
No backwater of surface runoff at junctions of road and drains
N/A
Ibid, p. 11. Some components of table not included.
99
Appendix 1. Measures Taken to Assure Practical Least-Cost Alternative Design84
Proposed
infrastructure
intervention
Street lighting
Electricity
Optional levels of service
Street lights to be spaced out as per Jamaican spec. on every
street (min)
Hot-spot crime and violence areas to have additional lighting
(ideal)
Some residents to regularize access to electricity (min)
All residents to have regularized electricity service (ideal)
Community
Centers
Community to have access to an assembly hall within close
proximity of residents (min)
Community to have a community center easily accessed by all
(ideal)
Sanitary cores
All residents to have a sink, a sanitary convenience and a place
for cooking in their place of abode (min)
Minimum technical requirements
Access road available at crime hotspots so as to install street lights
Sufficient bulk electricity for the community
Illegal electrical lines to be safe
Sufficient land space available donated by a resident or owned by the
government
Center to have all services and amenities at hand, eg., electricity and
water and its location to be agreed by community
Centers to be hurricane and earthquake resistant
Sufficient space to install this core
Access to water & electricity
Sanitation conditions met
100
Appendix 2: Program Summary Table (Values in US$)
Infrastructure
Bog
Walk
Tawes
Pen
Bucknor
Water Investment Costs
Central
JonesShelter
Lauriston
Dunkirk
Federal Flankers Africa
Village
Town
Rock
Total
30,524
95,721
87,856
217,676
0
220,675
0
0
76,161
0
Annual WTP/family to Pay Investment
24
46
68
33
0
15
0
39
14
0
21
0
12
Annual WTP/capita to Pay Investment
5
9
14
7
0
3
0
8
3
0
4
0
2
Estimated WTP per month
122,519 92,241
Whitfield
17
14
16
9
NA
14
3
9
16
NA
13
NA
IRR (%)
50.0%
8.7%
7.6%
1.7%
NA
42.5%
NA
-1.5%
70.8%
NA
19.4%
NA
NPV @ 12% (US$)
65,745
-14,266
-17,672
-95,421
NA
374,132
NA
NA
28,222
NA
593,675
1st year 10 % contribution/family
14
26
38
19
0
8
0
22
8
0
12
0
7
Sanitation Investment Costs
0
1,253,885
0
0
0
6,452
279,700
0
146,852
0
0
0
1,686,890
0
609
0
0
0
0
104
0
22
0
0
0
22
0
122
0
0
0
0
21
0
4
0
0
0
4
Estimated WTP per month
-67,508 320,442
943,373
12
13
16
12
19
12
13
18
17
15
15
10
IRR (%)
N.A.
-23.1%
N.A.
N.A.
NA
2348.2%
1.3%
N.A.
85.5%
NA
N.A.
NA
NPV @ 12% (US$)
N.A.
-1,295,126
N.A.
N.A.
NA
977,014 -126,286
N.A.
649,030
NA
N.A.
NA
204,632
0
344
0
0
0
0
58
0
12
0
0
0
13
260,754
74,185
306,939
0
0
459,474
0
206
36
136
135
218
0
0
147
0
40
175
53
58
41
7
27
27
44
0
0
29
0
8
35
11
12
77
76
0
83
0
23
99
Roads Investment Costs
176,371 894,265
116
20
325,917
51,192
258
25
95
52
5
19
145
14
Street Lighting Investment Costs
Drainage Investment Costs
322,012 643,779 1,295,214 4,432,993
123
0
180,565
0
69
128
0
10
102
0
23
14
26
0
2
20
0
5
54
39
72
0
6
58
0
123,919 457,743
28,239 320,019
0
30
33
31,101
2,109,243
110
1
28
22
0
6
13
62
1
16
185,484 405,064
6,452
9,677
14,516
45,413
4,839
60,000
9,677
9,677
30,000
14,516
9,677
96,774
311,219
5
5
11
7
3
4
4
3
4
2
3
4
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
3
6
4
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
101
Annex 13: Public Safety Diagnosis and Component Strategy
Crime and Violence in Jamaica: An Overview
Jamaica has among the highest rates of violent crimes and drug offenses in the world. In 2000,
according to a United Nations survey85, Jamaica had the fourth highest murder rate out of 67
countries, and placed fourth out of 48 for major assaults and seventh out of 70 for rapes86. In that
year, for every 100,000 people, the country recorded 33.7 murders, 214.6 major assaults and 49.5
rapes. For drug offenses, Jamaica placed fifth out of 65, with 451.8 per 100,000. The island
compared more favorably for total recorded thefts (49th out of 65) and burglaries (41st out of 54),
with respective rates of 187.5 and 92.1.
Figure 1: Total number of reported murders
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Violent crime has been increasing sharply over the last 15 years, and intentional homicides are
currently at record levels. (See Figure 1). In 2005, there were 1,650 murders – or 60.4 per
100,000. By early November 2005, 77 per cent of the year‘s killings had involved guns, 15 per
cent knives and 3 percent machetes. The great majority of those killed – 88 percent - were men.
And most of these crimes were committed by young men. In 2004, the most recent period for
which data is available, 97 percent of known perpetrators were men, and 72 percent of those were
between 16 and 30 years old87.
Not only is violent crime on the rise in absolute terms, but crime is apparently becoming more
violent. Crime statistics over time indicate that less-violent crimes, such as robbery, have
actually been decreasing (See Table 1).88 Indeed, statistics published by the Statistical Institute of
85
The Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and Operations for Criminal Justice Systems, by the Office on Drugs and
Crime, Division for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs
86
These figures must be treated with some caution as they omit many, especially poorer, countries for which data was not provided or
was not available. In addition, the data represents only reported crimes, and may significantly under-represent the true total, especially
for less serious crimes.
87
Source: Economic and Social Survey of Jamaica, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004. Planning Institute of Jamaica.
88
Harriott 2000, P. 12; Harriott in Barrow and Reddock 2001, Pp. 516-8; Harriott in Harriott et al. 2004, P. 242. This last source has
data for 1998 but not for 1997.
102
Jamaica (STATIN) indicate that total number of crimes reported in Jamaica has been declining,
from a peak of 56,888 in 1996 to 35,837 in 2003.
Table 1: Jamaica’s rates of murder, shooting and robbery per 100,000 people, 1990-2004
Year Election Murder Shooting Robbery
1990
No
22.4
56.7
222.1
1991
No
23.0
45.9
204.7
1992
No
25.6
43.9
200.4
1993
Yes
26.5
45.6
220.1
1994
No
27.7
50.1
218.8
1995
No
31.3
52.6
177.8
1996
No
37.0
61.6
179.8
1997
Yes
40.7
n/a
n/a
1998
No
33.0
48.0
116.0
1999
No
32.8
38.1
92.4
2000
No
34.1
38.9
89.5
2001
No
43.5
45.1
80.5
2002
Yes
39.8
48.4
77.0
2003
No
36.9
43.3
64.7
2004
No
55.3
63.1
79.1
Source: For 1990-98 from Harriott 2000, P. 12, and 2004, P. 242 with data on general election years added; for 19992004 own calculations from major crime statistics furnished by Ministry of National Security (the same source as
Harriott’s for earlier years).
Among the parishes, Kingston and St. Andrew–which include most ICBSP communities–have
the highest levels of serious crimes. (See Table 2 below). In 2004, these two combined accounted
for the highest number of reported rapes and carnal abuse (481 or 38 percent), murder (651 or
44.3 percent), shooting (819 or 48.9 percent) and robbery (736 or 35 percent). In 2004, St.
Catherine had 140 rape/carnal abuse cases (11 percent of the total), 376 murders (25.6 percent of
the total), 366 shooting incidents (21.9 percent) and 394 robberies (18.7 percent). In 2004,
Clarendon had 122 rape/carnal abuse cases (9.6 percent of the total), 93 murders (6.3 percent of
the total), 127 shooting incidents (7.6 percent) and 232 robberies (11 percent). St. James, in 2004
had 146 rape/carnal abuse cases (11.5 percent of the total), 132 murders (9 percent of the total),
155 shooting incidences (9.4 percent) and 235 robberies (11.1 percent).
103
Table 2: Major Crimes in 2004 by Parish
Parish
Rape & carnal Murder Shooting Robbery
Kingston
150
220
312
216
St Andrew
331
431
507
520
St Catherine
140
376
366
394
Clarendon
122
93
127
232
St James
146
132
155
235
Trelawny
22
16
16
57
Westmoreland 54
43
44
86
Hanover
21
14
21
17
St. Mary
41
15
18
58
St. Ann
68
34
29
103
Portland
20
10
5
21
Manchester
70
32
25
85
St. Elizabeth
30
29
19
40
St. Thomas
54
26
31
39
Total
1,269
1,471
1,675
2,103
Source: Economic and Social Survey of Jamaica, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004. Planning Institute
of Jamaica.
From Garrison Politics to Area Dons: the changing face of inner-city crime
Violent crime in Jamaica is concentrated in the inner cities, and recent crime patterns largely
reflect developments in those areas, especially concerning gangs and extra-legal power structures.
Between 1998 and 2000, according to police reports, drug and gang related murders accounted
for 22 percent of the total murders nationwide. However, domestic violence still represented a
greater share, at about 30 percent.
Inner-city violence has apparently become less politically motivated. ‗Garrison politics‘, through
which inner-city neighborhoods became segregated along political lines89, had begun in the 1940s
and was widespread three decades later. To influence the vote in a community, suspected
opposition supporters were often intimidated and driven away, while government housing was
awarded mostly to supporters of the party in power. Powerful local figures or ‗dons‘ played a
central role, usually acting as agents of the political parties, maintaining political control on
behalf of the party and distributing the favors which were part of the pork barrel politics.90
However, structural adjustment from 1977 onwards, the JLP victory in 1980 brought a sharp
reduction in public spending, and in governing party largesse for supporters in garrison
communities. As a source of money and power for the dons, party politics has become much less
important.
The moderating of garrison politics is evident from the relative normality of crime rates in recent
election years. (Table 1) This contrasts with 1974-1980, the period of the greatest violence
between supporters of the two parties, particularly around the elections of 1976, won by the PNP,
and 1980, won by the JLP. In the run-up to the 1980 election there were over 800 deaths.
89 This refers to the two major parties that have alternated in government since elections under universal suffrage were established in
1944: Jamaican Labour Party (JLP) and People‘s National Party (PNP). The first-past-the-post system and political tribalism leave
little room for third parties. See for instance Harriott in Barrow & Reddock 2001 P. 515.
90 Charles 2002, P. 30.
104
On the other hand, the gradual increase in the murder rate in the 1990s was apparently driven by
growth in the distribution and trans-shipment of drugs, which intensified existing gang rivalries.
In the 1980s and 1990s the major dons – those who were in control of whole communities –
turned increasingly to crime, in particular drug trafficking as well as the extortion rackets which
had already existed. Their connections with political parties and corrupt connections with local
authorities including the police enabled them to avoid prosecution and to continue to exercise
control of inner-city areas. Major dons did not live in the communities, but used them as a shelter
for criminal activities and as a source for gang recruitment.
The sharp rise in killings since 1999 is attributable to the loss of control by major criminal gangs
over some areas, giving rise to conflicts among smaller neighborhood gangs, under the command
of ‗area dons‘. Area dons are a relatively new but widespread phenomenon in Jamaica‘s inner
cities. Often referred to as ‗area leaders‘ (because their groups are less connected with hard
drugs), these typically exercise control over just a few blocks around a particular street or housing
project.
The power of the major dons has waned largely due to greater success in drug interdiction against
Jamaican gangs in the drug-consuming countries where they operate (US, UK and Canada), and
in the tightening of controls preventing drug movement through Jamaica. The Jamaican
authorities have had some success with Operation Kingfish, an initiative to combat drugtrafficking and dismantle major criminal networks, launched in November 2004. In December
2005, the police estimated that, of around 13 major gangs in the country, it had dismantled one,
severely disrupted the activities of five more and impacted all the others in some way.91
The violence among area gangs–the main problem for the communities today–is apparently more
about feuding than financial or territorial gains. The extent to which these groups are involved in
crimes for gain (other than from drugs) is not clear, and the reasons for gang membership
therefore apparently have more to do with pursuing status in an environment in which
conventional
routes
to
this
may
be
limited
(
91
http://www.jis.gov.jm/security/html/20051204T0800000500_7515_JIS_OPERATION_KINGFISH_ACHIEVING_MAJOR_OBJECTIVE.asp
105
Box 1). Violence is usually a reprisal for a wrong or a slight committed by the other side. A
code of honor is involved, and the main targets are members of the opposing gang, although too
often reprisals are made against any resident of the opposing area. And gangs sometimes kill
other non-members, particularly those suspected of being informers to the police or to the other
side.
106
Box 1: The psychology of gang membership
If the gangs are no longer really motivated by politics, and at least some of them are apparently not motivated by gain,
from drug sales or extortion, then what is drawing boys into them?
It seems to be a matter of pursuing status through an alternative channel, in an environment in which conventional
routes to success and status may be difficult. The handling and ownership of a gun can give status in the eyes of other
boys and of girls, with shooting the ‗enemy‘ in the ‗war‘ giving prestige, and scars from fights giving notoriety.
Those boys who do well at school, and remain there, are more likely to pursue regular career paths and less likely to
join gangs. However, success at school depends on many factors, including family support, teaching methods,
classroom discipline, and the attention and encouragement pupils receive from teachers. Poor, inner-city children at
schools with few resources are likely to be at a disadvantage. And even if inner city boys do continue in education,
they may still find few opportunities open afterwards. Formal employment is very low within such areas, and the lack
of economic and social advantages and the stigma of an inner city address make it more difficult to find employment
elsewhere.
With the perceived impossibility of getting a decent job by the route approved by wider society, a boy may well
calculate that he has a better chance of making something of himself through gang membership. He knows there is a
very strong risk to his life, but life appears to be worth little, as evident from the gang expression ‗born fi dead‘ 92
(‗Born but to die‘ in Jamaican patois).
This attitude goes hand in hand with the rationalization that since society is unfair in not providing decent opportunities
to everyone (especially to those from the inner cities and poor urban areas) it is justified to reject the norms of that
society. Wider society is perceived not just as withholding opportunities, but as acting to limit the ability of poor innercity dwellers to fend for themselves, such as through trying to enforce stricter laws against street vending and
gambling. This rationalization is reinforced by the perception that those who are successful in the socially approved
wider arena have advanced through corruption.
Furthermore, the gangs operate in a context in which many people believe it is acceptable to act together to overcome
regulations, and not pay rent or utility bills - and in general to get what one can from the state because one is due more.
Thus gangs are perceived as performing a service to the residents if they help them avoid such payments 93. The
prevalence of this attitude varies throughout the ICBSP communities. Different opinions were expressed in focus
group meetings, regarding a community‘s willingness to pay for utility and other services.
While the political element is now a minor factor in violence in inner-city communities, at least
between elections, many community residents do retain a strong ‗tribal‘ allegiance to the party
dominating the local area where they grew up. Any hostility to a gang said to represent the other
political party can easily create tensions.
Crime and Public Safety in the Project Communities
The central organizational feature of most of the ICBSP communities is ‗donmanship‘ – the
system of power and authority exercised within communities by neighborhood dons and their
lieutenants. Their power rests on the clear and present threat of lethal force, but their authority
comes from the considerable support they receive from community residents. Donmanship is
present in all the selected communities in Kingston and Spanish Town (though with qualification
in the case of Tawes Pen). Politics continues to be a dividing factor, although to a lesser degree,
and intimidation and patronage apparently continue in these Kingston and Spanish Town
communities94. The other communities - Flankers in Montego Bay, Lauriston, Bucknor in May
Pen, and Bog Walk – are not characterized by either donmanship or garrisoning.
In addition to targeting major gangs through Operation Kingfish (discussed above) the
Government launched the Community Security Initiative (CSI) in September 2005, with DFID
funding. The CSI aims to establish partnerships between local people and the police in areas
92 Stewart 2002 among other sources.
93 Early warning systems exist against prosecution for using illegal utility connections; they involve all residents, including children,
in some cases with observation posts with cell phones or, in extremis, gangs firing at patrol cars [Harriott, Police…, 108]
94
Altogether, some 10 or 11 constituencies are garrisoned, as demonstrated by highly homogenous voting within wards. Figueroa and
Sives in Harriott, ed., 2003, Pp. 63-9. The Project communities in Kingston are all PNP garrison areas, while those in Spanish Town
tend to be JLP.
107
where gang violence is a problem, to consolidate and preserve community development, while
strengthening the role of legal governance structures. The design of this program is not yet
complete, but a number of communities in Kingston have been identified for possible
implementation. These include Matthews Lane, August Town, Mudd Town in Papine, and
Dunkirk in Eastern Kingston. The St. Catherine communities of March Pen, Tawes Pen, Ellerslie
Pen and Homestead have also been selected. The ICBSP fits into this policy as an element of
better delivery of state services.
In the ICBSP communities, a series of crime and violence diagnostics (see Annex 14: Community
Consultations) were undertaken to discover the common patterns of crimes and contributing
social factors, as well as identifying perceptions and concerns related to public security in specific
communities. An example is attached as an appendix to this annex. The general discussion
below is informed by the findings of these diagnostics.
The crime problem in the ICBSP communities is overwhelmingly one of serious, violent crime:
particularly gun-related violence between feuding gangs. The proliferation of guns has emerged
through discussions as a prime concern in ICBSP communities. Rape is also a serious problem.
On the other hand, petty crime tends to be suppressed within the communities by area gangs,
some of whom may extort payments in return. Indeed, Harriott relates the nation-wide reduction
in robbery and petty crime to an expansion in extortion rackets in Kingston, particularly during
1996-199895. There is a general disregard for laws against acts regarded as victimless, such as
smoking ganja or gambling. The use of hard drugs within communities has been diminishing in
the last decade, according to national experts on gangs and crime.
Geographically, the ‗no man‘s land‘ plots of unoccupied land between communities are
considered to be among the most dangerous areas. In the period of greatest political violence,
between 1974 and 1980, entire swathes of houses in inner-city areas of Kingston were directly
destroyed in the fighting or were razed to the ground for being too dangerous, because they were
on the frontline between opposing strongholds. This applied to major parts of Jones Town and
Federal Gardens, and Trench Town among the ICBSP communities. These areas, now covered
with undergrowth and remnants of buildings, are still regarded as dangerous, which is why
squatters do not build on them. The shift in the nature of inner and inter community violence
away from old political enemy communities to local wars within the same broad community has
not shifted the use of these patches of land. They still serve as a hiding place for gang members
(in particular gunmen) and the frontline for conflict.
Crossing gang boundaries even within a community is generally avoided as men might be thought
to be ‗invading‘ and women might be suspected of being informers. This means that the small
local areas are to a greater extent the arena for a person‘s life than is generally the case in urban
communities. Added to this is unemployment, which means that people do not go outside the
community to work, or for entertainment either since they have little money. Most people have
lived in the same area all their lives if young, or for more than 20 years if older 96. In this sense
communities are very close-knit and people tend to know one another well. This implies that
there is a complex history of interactions between people, rather than a simple contrast between
criminal and law-abiding types.
During hostile periods of inter-community war the main danger for residents is from
indiscriminate firing into their area (typically from the gang boundaries), drive-by shootings
95
96
Harriott in Harriott et al. 2004, Pp. 241, 254.
According to preliminary analysis of the house to house survey.
108
whereby someone will drive into the community deliberately to kill indiscriminately or for a
reprisal, and close-quarter murder for which a member of an opposing gang may risk walking into
the community. Also, there is the danger, already mentioned, of being killed as an informer
because one goes into ‗enemy territory‘ (demarcations are not always visible, with community
members simply knowing where invisible boundaries are).
Aside from community members living with the fear of reprisal or indiscriminate attack, gang
hostilities impact on every aspect of daily living. To guard against surprise drive-by shootings,
physical barriers are frequently erected at entrances to roads, making access to communities
difficult for vehicles from other gangs, as well as utility services, fire brigades, ambulances and
the police. The outbreaks of shooting mean that there are periods when residents have to stay at
home, forgoing the chance to earn money, go to school or visit friends or relations.
109
Appendix to Annex 13: Jones Town Community Safety Audit/Security Diagnostic:
A. Crime Typology and Victim/Offender Characteristics
Community
Nature and Diversity of
Diversity of Crime Types
Murder is rampant in the
community. People are
killed in gang wars and in
reprisal killings organized
in revenge for the loved
ones lost.
When there is a war for
leadership, such as when a
don dies, gunmen are said
to shoot in the community
indiscriminately.
Residents say the police
only come when the
shooting is over. When
people make reports, the
police allegedly take back
the information to the
perpetrators, compounding
the violence.
Location of crimes
Persistence of crime in
particular areas
Hot spots identified as
Penn Street and Penso
Street but shooting is
heard in every section of
the community.
Information on the
victim(s)
Everyone is affected.
Young men say that the
life expectancy for a man
is 33 years old.
The violence has a triple
effect on women: they
grieve as relatives; they
have to assume the role
of surrogate father when
men are killed plus they
fear for themselves as
victims.
7 out of 27 children did
not attend the basic
school on the day of the
workshop. No child is
accepted before 8 a.m., in
case they have to flee the
building.
Children do not even
want to visit the shops.
If you are connected to a
perpetrator or victim you
have to stay clear of the
community.
110
Offender
/perpetrator characteristics
Young males are the main
protagonists in the violence.
Elders say that youth from the
community do not typically
hold up residents but they go
outside of the community and
commit crimes.
It is alleged that in order to
improve their self esteem,
youth will rampage and fire
gun salute volleys from their
high powered weapons.
Those who cannot read and
write are most likely
perpetrators of robbery.
The elders say police are
indiscriminate in the use of
their weapons.
Youth view police
harassment as a major
problem. They say that police
target witnesses of extrajudicial killings.
Community
perceptions on the
severity of the
problem
The threat of reprisals
even compromises
residents‘ capacity to
grieve and induces
deep fear.
Women are so
disturbed by violence
that often they cannot
sleep.
Because of the
persistent violence,
children talk
incessantly about guns.
They keep re-enacting
incidents and now play
a game called ‗shots
are firing, let us run!‘
B. Infrastructure and Physical Planning
Community
Layout and
housing
type
Jones Town
Houses are
over 60
years old;
most are
individual
houses in
poor
condition.
Boundaries
Infrastructure/
condition/image
The ends of the lanes off Benbow
Street to the North, Thompson
Street to the West, the gully west
of Slipe Pen Road to the East,
Asquith Street to the South. South
of Asquith Road is an extensive
area of former housing razed to
the ground and forming a noman‘s land between Jones Town
and Hannah Town/Denham Town.
This area is included on maps of
the community, even with the old
street names shown, but it is
uninhabited. Some new houses are
being built in the southern part of
this area but they are not
considered part of Jones Town,
and are not included in the studies.
Water is the number one
problem. The supply is
unpredictable. Clarence
Street has no water or
street lights.
Recreational facilities/
psychological healing
Commercial
Industrial
Facilities
Youth say that
police get JPS
(electricity
company) to lock
off illegal lights.
Material and
psychological support is
urgently needed for
families affected by the
deaths of loved ones.
Many
businesses are
located nearby
in downtown
Kingston.
The toilet facilities are
inadequate. Some toilets
were built by KRC 2
years ago but sewer main
is now backing up.
Pipes outside
sometimes do not
work. Water from
bathroom used for
everything.
The light transformer
was shot out but
residents were fearful to
talk about it. Most street
lights are not working.
Drainage is good
because elevation
is considered good.
Sanctions against
expressing grief are
strong: a woman who
lost her baby-father
(partner) six months
ago could not cry
openly for fear of
offending the murderer.
Zinc fences are
reportedly inappropriate
because they do not look
good, they are too tall,
and hide intruders. The
few existing concrete
walls are too low, and
people can jump over
them.
111
Vacant
land/improving
living conditions
The older cannot grieve
and cannot talk about it.
They covered their
mouths while talking
about violence, and
spoke in a very low
voice. The church
members go out into the
community and counsel
the elders.
Friends and family
members help victims
to heal.
C. Crime and Violence Social Factors
Community
Youth Activities
Jones Town
According to the elderly, the dons are
the role models for the youth simply
because they collect money from
business people and petty criminals.
There are some sports activities and
facilities in the area, including youth
clubs.
There is no steady interaction between
the police and the youths, apart from a
police youth club. According to the
seniors, the youth do not welcome
them.
Communication and
participation in
community activities
Parents sometimes are
unable to pick up their
children from school due
to prevailing violence.
The elderly cannot come
out at night, and when they
go out during the day, they
are not sure they can come
back.
The elderly often cannot
go to church and children
cannot go to school.
Police youth club puts on a summer
school with free lunch.
CBOs (local institutions;
community organizations
Skills training
The NGO Food for the Poor
donates food and soap on a
weekly basis, in a program for
the elderly run by the Jones
Town Action Council. The Jones
Town Action Council does not
have recurrent funding for other
activities. The amphitheatre was
built by the JUPP project as a
source of income for the Council
(hiring it out), but the violence
has prevented its use.
Violence affects people‘s ability
to earn a living. For example, an
electrician will not go on top of
any buildings out of fear of being
shot at.
The Salvation Army provides
disaster relief, food and
counseling
The Baptist Church has a
program for teenage mothers, a
center where they can continue
their education before the birth
and while breast feeding. They
also visit the sick and infirm.
The Seventh Day Adventist has
a community outreach program.
112
Residents reported sometimes
people forget the stigma and say
things about what happens in
Jones Town and then lose their
jobs.
Even students who are successful
in examinations cannot secure
employment.
Training recommended in:
cosmetology
entertainment
candle making
community tourism
sewing and crocheting
embroidery
Woodwork
carpentry, masonry
welding
tiling
painting
plumbing
Annex 14: Community Consultations
Background and Objectives
An extensive community consultation process and focus groups have informed project identification and
design. The consultation process was led by the Jamaica Social Investment Fund (JSIF) and consultants to
the agency to ensure that the selection of project investments was both demand-driven and the most
appropriate and least-cost among technical alternatives. The consultation process engaged over 1,000
community members through over 120 formal meetings and focus group discussions. Additional outreach
has taken place though frequent informal dialogue between JSIF community liaison officers (CLOs),
technical consultants and community leaders and residents. Feedback from communities was also solicited
through a rapid voluntary questionnaire, to which over 34 percent of households responded.
Four key phases of consultation took place during preparation: (i) public awareness-building, diagnosis and
needs assessment; (ii) infrastructure planning focus groups; (iii) participatory public safety audits and
planning; and (iv) focus group discussions on integrated neighborhood plans.97 The extensive consultation
process proved critical in building trust and confidence between JSIF and communities and also within
project areas, many of which are deeply fragmented according to political and gang affiliations. The
dialogue process was also partially successful aiding community leaders to negotiate fragile yet important
truces between rival gangs, to enable preparation to continue. Nonetheless, JSIF did encounter real limits
to the extent to which communities and residents were willing to communicate openly. This was
particularly the case with respect to the crime and violence situation where residents often did not feel
comfortable sharing information and data on the incidence and root causes of violent crime. This annex
outlines the consultation proves in greater detail and presents in summary findings from the process.
Phase 1 – Public Awareness-Building, Diagnosis and Needs Assessment
A first phase of engagement in project areas involved four key activities: (i) initial orientation meetings;
(ii) technical ‗walk-throughs‘ with community leaders; (ii) detailed focus group meetings on community
needs; and (iv) a rapid voluntary questionnaire. The primary objectives for this phase of consultation was
to identify and establish contacts with local leaders, raise awareness of the ICBSP project and solicit
preliminary feedback on perceived and observed community needs. The project considered a range of
media to communicate information on the project before settling on the use of direct engagement with
community leaders, an informational flyer and the use on a selective basis of a ‗town crier‘ – a traditional
means of local communication in Jamaica combining musical entertainment and the delivery of
informational messages.
Focus Groups and ‗walk-throughs‘: Over 50 orientation and focus meetings and a number of technical
‗walk-throughs‘ were held over a six-week period during this phase. Through these discussions with
residents and community leaders JSIF was able to develop a strong base of information on the quality of
basic infrastructure and social services, the presence and capacity of community organizations and – to a
degree – the magnitude and scope of crime and violence in the each project area. Minutes from all
community meetings have been recorded and are included in the project file. The table below summarizes
findings and needs perceptions for a sample of four project areas in Kingston and St. Andrews parish:
Federal Gardens, Whitfield Town, Dunkirk and Jones Town:
97
A further scientific Household Baseline Survey was conducted under the project and has also provided valuable
information on levels and access to services and preferences and perceptions of residents. The survey is included in
the project files.
113
Community
Current situation
Perceived and
observed needs
FEDERAL GARDENS
Crime and
violence
Community
institutions
Infrastructure
No tensions between internal gangs, but between upper part
(around 5th St.) and Rema across road from project area;
lower part (around 1st and 2nd streets) now quiet.
Reading Room and Culture Yard are within project area,
other institutions in wider Trench Town, but all show low
activity.
Housing structurally unsound
Low water pressure
Localized inappropriate solid waste disposal.
Localized drainage & sewerage blockages on 1st street
Reduction of inter-gang violence is a felt need
(among top four priorities).
Capacity-building in existing CBOs
Water
Youth & activity center
Street lighting
Housing improvements
Water & sanitation facilities
Proper maintenance of drainage
WHITFIELD TOWN
Crime and
violence
Community
institutions
Infrastructure
– Upper
Whitfield
Infrastructure
– Lower
Whitfield
Crime and
Violence
Community
institutions
Infrastructure
Crime and
Violence
Nine gangs in areas of different sizes: two smallest gangs
cover just one street each, largest covers a dozen streets.
Two or three different current disputes between gangs. As
of late August 2005, police are patrolling in two places
between gang areas to prevent further outbreaks of fighting.
CDC unites 24 CBOs out of total of c. 40. CDC is
counterpart of EU sanitation project, and has received
management training. Most active NGO: S-Corner Clinic
Mostly formalized areas in old houses with septic tanks.
Adequate road & drainage system. Good solid waste
collection.
Little space for playing fields.
Very low water pressure - some roads have only water
during night-time.
Many informal settlement areas in narrow lanes without
street lighting and any road surfaces.
Low water pressure and a lot of solid waste disposal in
open lots.
Many vacant lots used as playing fields/meeting place
Reduction of inter-gang violence is a felt
need (among top four priorities).
Inter-gang violence is of paramount
importance, the greatest need is for a
lasting ceasefire and peace.
Additional capacity building for CDC
particularly in resource management.
Youth & activity center
Community center
Adequate delivery of water to community
Provide playing field area
Provide access to community center in
lower Whitfield
Remove zinc fencing, widen lanes
Place street light poles.
Surface roads & lanes.
Provide sewerage disposal.
Solid waste collection process.
PASSMORE TOWN/BROWNS TOWN (DUNKIRK)
Seven active local gangs. Tensions and violence has been
Prevention of gang violence, reduction in
high since February 2005. A recent ceasefire broke down
the proliferation of guns.
three weeks later.
Primary need is a ceasefire and some
stability.
No overall organization. Only McIntyre Villa has a
Capacity building required from very low
Management Committee and a Citizens‘ Association.
base
Few available playing fields areas.
Community and skills training center
Some structural unsound houses.
Better water pressure.
Very irregular solid waste collection.
A sewerage system
Peak time low water pressure.
Demolish houses that are about to collapse
& address vacant lots for use as playing
Localized drainage blocked on Upper Elletson Road and
field areas
Victoria Avenue.
Ensure regular solid waste collection
Local repairs for drainage system
Community sanitation facilities
Three main areas; current lethal dispute started between two
Reduction of violence is main felt need after
local gangs on 1st street but has widened. As of early
jobs
September 2005, many police are deployed to prevent
outbreaks of fighting
importance, the greatest need is a lasting
ceasefire and peace.
114
Community
Current situation
Perceived and
observed needs
JONES TOWN
Crime and
Violence
Three main areas; current lethal dispute started between two
local gangs on 1 street but has widened. As of early
September 2005, many police are deployed to prevent
outbreaks of fighting
Community
institutions
Jones Town Area Council; youth groups; also Project Hope
(NGO).
Infrastructure
Localized drainage blocked Asquith street.
Water leaking on some roads.
Solid waste deposited in gully and in open spaces.
Informal playing field area in No Man‘s Land.
Reduction of violence is main felt need after
jobs
importance, the greatest need is a lasting
ceasefire and peace.
There are two or three highly articulate
social leaders. Further capacity building
required, possibly through these leaders.
Community and skills training center
Increased water pressure
Water mains replacement and new mains in
informal area
More regular waste collection in inner part
of community
Localized pavement repair and road
patching
Regularize informal playing field
Rapid voluntary questionnaire: During preparation a rapid and voluntary questionnaire was distributed in
project communities to solicit feedback from residents on project priorities. Mobilizing the questionnaire
also served the purpose of involving CBOs in project preparation and developing working linkages
between CLOs and CBOs. The questionnaire was mobilized concurrently with the first round of focus
group discussions held in project areas and enabled JSIF to verify findings from the focus group
discussions. JSIF involved church and youth groups, community development committees, the Peace
Management Initiative (PMI) and school teachers in the collection exercise. JISF received over 1,800
responses to the short questionnaire.
In the interest of collecting and rapidly analyzing the information, the exercise was not conducted using a
scientific sampling and survey methodology. It is recognized, therefore, that there will be a bias in the
results, skewed towards those residents willing to voluntarily fill out the questionnaire. Results from the
exercise were not relied on for establishing baseline figures or targets for implementation. The
questionnaire did, however, provide JSIF a ‗ballpark‘ idea of community priorities and perceptions of the
quality of basic services. These findings have been subsequently confirmed and cross-referenced through
focus group discussions and results from the Household Sample Baseline Survey. Some important findings
with respect to community priorities included:
a large percentage of respondents identified employment creation as a need;
communities supported the need for youth recreational activities, skills training and community
activity centers;
all communities expressed a need for crime mitigation measures; and
female respondents placed a greater emphasis than males on youth activities, skills training and
crime mitigation measures and less emphasis on new construction and/or works
Findings from phase 1 of the consultation process were used to inform the design of the public safety
audits and planning methodology and the content for the infrastructure planning focus groups.
115
Phase 2 – Infrastructure Planning Focus Groups
A series of focus groups on infrastructure planning were held subsequent to the initial diagnostic and needs
assessment consultations. The primary objectives for these planning meetings were to confirm the results
of the initial needs assessment and – based on this confirmation – discuss with community members
technical options for the improvement of basic services. A first set of 33 focus groups was held across the
12 participating communities. In some communities multiple meetings were held due to internal divisions
within the settlement. In each focus group, communities were presented with an ordered ranking of the
five most important infrastructure services as identified during the needs assessment phase. The groups
discussed the ranking in detail and finalized the ranking through negotiation and consensus building. JISF
noted that in most cases communities confirmed the results of the needs assessment with only minor
adjustments in the order of the ranking of infrastructure investments.
The next stage was to translate the ranking of preferences into project proposals including the layout of a
suggested matrix of services, including water supply, roads and footpaths, surface water drainage,
sanitation services and community buildings. These were shown, for ease and clarity of understanding, on
aerial photographs of the project areas, enlarged for display purposes. The information shown on these
maps was augmented by details, sketches and perspectives to show, to a non-technical audience what was
intended in the proposed design.
These maps and technical project proposals were shared with communities during a separate round of
Technical Focus Groups. These focus groups discussed the proposed plans and the technical consultants to
JSIF reflected in the final proposals modifications recommended by focus group participants. An
important set of modifications had to do with the precise location and width of rights of way to avoid to the
extent possible disturbance to private land and need for compensation and relocation. Community
members also provided valuable guidance on appropriate and available sites for community centers. The
technical focus groups enabled the JSIF consultants to prepare Draft Plans for the infrastructure subcomponent of the project.
Phase 3 – Participatory Public Safety Audits
The preliminary diagnostic and needs assessment exercise identified certain public safety concerns of
residents in project neighborhoods. Many community members, however, were hesitant to provide
information on crime and violence patterns early in the diagnostic process. A more detailed and intensive
participatory public safety audit was conducted to better understand the nature and causes of crime and
violence in ICBSP communities. Specifically, the public safety audit methodology included analysis of:
a typology of prevalent crimes – major forms of crime and when they occur;
the spatial distribution of crime represented on community maps;
victim and vulnerable group characteristics;
offender characteristics; and
transport safety
The approach to conducting public safety audits was to use the community maps as a basis for dialogue
and discussion. Secondary data obtained from police records and a Ministry of Health GIS-based database
on crime and violence trends and primary data from the earlier diagnostic exercise were mapped onto maps
116
where possible.98 These maps served as the basis for a series of public safety focus group discussions. The
discussions aimed to solicit more detailed information on crime and violence patterns and causes. A team
of four participatory action researchers and JSIF CLOs were mobilized to lead the focus groups in which
over 780 male and female participants were involved in three separate focus group discussions in each
community. Group participants were organized according to age cohorts – youth and young adults (13-30
years), adults (30-60 years) and the elderly (over 60 years) – in order to focus in on specific problems and
concerns. The analytical framework for the focus group discussions is presented in the table below.
Infrastructural
issues
1. Draw a map of
the community
showing types of
housing structures
and community
facilities that are
now in place
2. List and rank
problems with the
physical
infrastructure of the
community
3. Do any of the
acts of crime and
violence discussed
have anything to do
with the physical
environment?
Root Causes of
Crime and Violence
1. How do you
define crime and
violence?
2. What experiences
come to your mind
when you think about
crime and violence?
3. How do men,
women, boys and
girls think and react
to crime and
violence?
4. What, in your
opinion, is the root
cause of the
community‘s
problems?
5. What acts of crime
and violence were
committed against
other persons in your
community in the
past year?
Psychological
Impact of Crime
and Violence
1. How do men,
women, boys and
girls react to crime
and violence?
2. What effects are
crime and violence
having on men,
women, girls and
boys in your
community?
3. What do people do
to make themselves
feel better about their
injuries, pain and
losses?
4. What needs to be
done to ensure that
people get the support
that they need?
5. What are the
challenges to meeting
these needs?
6. Indicate events
associated with crime
and violence in
identified locations
on the map
Community
Participation
Solutions
1. What are the things
that you need for
your social well
being?
1. If you could
take action to
solve the problems
of crime and
violence what
would you do?
2. What do you lack?
3. Have you been
personally affected
by crime and
violence?
4. How?
5. What support
institutions help you?
2. What are the
community‘s
assets?
3. What are the
community‘s
resources?
4. Which
individuals and
institutions are
doing things to
help or hinder the
community to
solve crime and
violence
problems?
5. What exactly
are they doing?
6. What needs to
be done to make
people feel safe?
Despite growing trust between JSIF staff and consultants and community members during preparation, the
willingness of residents to openly report on crime trends and causes through focus groups was constrained
against the backdrop of almost daily shootings and killings within ICBSP communities. Some of the
factors that influenced the unwillingness of communities to share information openly included:
concern that disclosing information which gang leaders did want to be public would put
respondents in danger;
98
It is important to note that serious difficulties were encountered in the collection of accurate secondary information
on actual incidence and location of crime and violence in ICBSP communities due to the lack of reliability of police
records and other secondary sources.
117
unwillingness to speak of extra-judicial killings or ‗community justice‘ in that it may compromise
members of the community who participated in illegal acts;
a lack of trust regarding the use to which the crime and violence information will be put; and
gathering highly sensitive information on crime and violence in fragmented inner-city communities
may require a longer timeframe than what was available during project preparation to build trust
and demonstrate the intention of JSIF to remain engaged.
Nonetheless, the JSIF team was able to assemble relatively good information on crime and violence trends,
community perceptions of the root causes violence and recommendations regarding appropriate mitigation
measures. These inputs informed the preparation of public safety plans for each area. The content of
public safety audits and the development of associated plans are discussed in greater detail in Error!
Reference source not found. and presented in their entirety in the Neighborhood Basic Infrastructure and
Public Safety Plans report available in the project files.
Phase 4 – Focus Group Discussions on Integrated Neighborhood Plans
The integrated Neighborhood Infrastructure and Public Safety Plans were developed based on these
consultations and subsequent technical work. The plans aim to integrate both the infrastructure and public
safety prevention activities under a unified program of interventions for each neighborhood. A final stage
of consultation is currently underway, through which these integrated plans are being presented to and
vetted by community representatives prior to finalization.
118
Annex 15: ISO 14000 Certification - Environmental Management System
The Jamaica Social Investment Fund (JSIF) aims to seek ISO 14000 certification as a means to strengthen
overall environmental management procedures, achieve improved environmental performance and
demonstrate a commitment to continuous management and process improvement. The certification process
involves a series of target setting and system development processes that will need to be verified by
internationally certified and independent evaluators. JSIF plans to achieve certification by December 2008.
This annex describes in detail the ISO 14000 system and methodology and outlines an action plan for JSIF
certification.
Background
ISO 14000 is the world's first series of internationally accepted standards for environmental management.
The standards were originally established for industry and are increasingly being applied to governments
and public agencies. ISO 14000 provides a management framework under which organizations or
companies identify, achieve and control environmental performance standards. ISO 14000 is a voluntary
series of standards that enable organizations to comply with national laws and regulations while
continually supporting new ideas and opportunities for preventing pollution and reducing environmental
compliance costs. In this regard the standard does not dictate specific solutions, but rather outlines a
management approach for continuous problem identification, improvements in environmental practices,
reporting of results and overall performance monitoring.
The driving philosophy behind ISO 14000 is that better management will deliver better results. The ISO
14000 series of standards is comprised of several ‗guideline‘ standards and one ‗compliance‘ standard, i.e.
ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems (EMS).99 The EMS compliance standard helps
organizations: (i) recognize the interactions that its activities, services and products have with the
environment; and (ii) achieve continuous improvements in performance levels.
The Public Sector and ISO 14001
Obtaining ISO 14000 certification can have numerous benefits for public sector agencies.
institutions work towards ISO 14000 certification for a range of objectives including:
Public
developing a model for an Environmental Management System;
achieving compliance with local legislation and donor expectations;
obtaining local customers and international donor recognition;
demonstrating commitment to good environmental management;
increasing efficiency of resource use;
achieving a greater ability to adapt to changing circumstances; and
serving as a valuable motivational factor for management and staff.
Recent experience from local authorities and government agencies in Europe, North America and Japan
highlights a clear relationship between establishing an EMS and improved service delivery. The scope of
implementation of an EMS can cover direct and indirect effects arising from policies, decisions,
99
The better known ISO 9000 series of Quality Management standards, with over 100,000 registrations around the world, is used
by businesses and organizations as a model for a quality management system. It is aimed at meeting clients‘ requirements, as well
as seeking control of the process and continuous improvement. ISO 14000 is aimed at these, and more: 'clients‘ requirements' has
expanded to include regulatory and other mandatory environmental requirements; and 'continuous improvement' is not only driven
by customer expectations but also by priorities and objectives generated internally by the organization.
119
ordinances, services and other actions by public sector agencies. A comprehensive EMS, as adopted
through ISO 14001 certification, should improve an organization‘s overall environmental performance,
especially over the medium and longer term.
When managing daily operations, an EMS is expected to create a structured mechanism for:
Ensuring compliance with national and local environmental laws, statutes and regulations;
Providing the evidence of due diligence when an environmental incident occurs;
Reducing both corporate and employee liabilities, in particular insurance claims;
Improving employee health and safety and therefore reducing lost time and insurable risk;
Increasing employee morale by creating a focused direction for the organization;
Spreading environmental responsibility throughout the organization, in particular to those
personnel directly associated with the identified environmental impacts;
Identifying potential operational improvements and efficiencies and associated financial savings;
Improving the efficiency of service delivery by creating a cycle of continuous improvement; and
Creating the evidence that the clients‘ environmental issues of concern are being identified and
controlled in the delivery of the services.
The EMS also needs to be owned by the organization‘s staff. Therefore the staff who will be responsible
for implementation and maintenance should direct the development of the EMS and, if possible, be
involved in its development. However, external, specialized assistance may be required, especially in the
early stages.
ISO 14001 Certification Methodology, Implementation and Maintenance
ISO 14001 methodology is based on the ‗plan-do-check-act‘ (PDCA) approach which also serves as the
basis for more widely used ISO 9000 standards for Total Quality Management Systems. The table below
outlines the methodology for implementing an ISO 14001 process:
Stage 1: Identify clear
‗champions‘ within
management and
articulate a clear
mission statement
Senior management should lead the effort and strongly articulate the
organizational commitment to the process
Orient staff to the EMS process demonstrating how the EMS process
will help achieve better quality and client satisfaction
Create opportunities for all staff to participate
Stage 2: Review
program and identify
potential environmental
impacts
Stage 3: Set
environmental
objectives and targets
Carry out gap analysis to identify major limitations
Outline a process for addressing gaps and bringing existing
procedures and processes into the ISO 14001 structure
Stage 4: Establish and
clarify responsibilities,
policies, procedures and
records
Develop a corporate EMS manual to guide EMS implementation (to
be reviewed and updated periodically)
Establish implementation groups for different areas of activities
Review and confirm arrangements for service delivery, environmental
impacts and applicable legal requirements
Identify which mechanisms, such as standard operating procedures,
technological changes, inspection and monitoring, staff training and
Communicate to the clients how the organization intends to address
environmental issues and concerns
Measure and report on achievements
Develop annual and capital works programs
Link operations and activities to the goals of the mission statement.
120
capital improvements currently exist or are being implemented for
controlling the environmental impacts and maintaining regulatory
compliance
Restructure existing systems as needed to meet the requirements of
the corporate EMS manual
Develop an environmental management plan to address the objectives
and targets
Stage 5: Create systems
for regular evaluation
and improvement of the
management system
Review procedures and systems developed by implementation teams
Prepare an action plan, as part of the annual budget process, for
achieving the agreed objectives and targets
Conduct training and awareness programs about the EMS
requirements for all personnel
Establish an internal management system audit process
Implement an annual management review of EMS effectiveness
The ISO 14000 program must be led by senior management. Management would need to send a clear
message on the importance of the process by defining and communicating the organizations environmental
policy to staff and clients and designate personnel and resources towards the task. The organization and
agency will require specialized external assistance. However, external consultants should not be seen as
driving the process. The organization‘s environmental policy should affirm organizational commitment to
continuous improvement, prevention of pollution and compliance with existing legislation and regulations.
The review of the environmental impacts of the program must consider all applicable environmental
regulations, existing processes, documentation, work practices and effects of current operations. The focus
of this review – an ongoing updating of this assessment – would be rooted in a thorough evaluation of
potential environmental impacts including noise, emissions, waste reduction and energy use and then
identify those impacts that can be controlled or influenced. The evaluation serves as a basis for setting
goals and objectives and a strategic implementation plan would be developed based on this review
outlining targets, objectives, steps and roles and responsibilities for actors within the organization.
Objectives and standards are set by the organization itself – and are not based on global ISO 14001
standards.
Maintaining an ISO 14000 Environmental Management System: A clear regime for monitoring, evaluation
and continuous improvement once the EMS is in place will be critical. Both environmental and
management procedures should be audited regularly. Issue-specific environmental audits may be
conducted externally by regulators and consultants or internally by environmental engineers or other
qualified personnel. Periodic Environmental Management System audits are needed to determine if the
Environmental Management System conforms to the requirements of ISO 14001, and that the program is
implemented and is continuously improving. Management needs to regularly review monitoring and
evaluation results and reflect these findings in corrective action, revised management and environmental
practices, new policies and other related actions.
JSIF and ISO 14000
JSIF provides an excellent opportunity for initiating the use of structured EMS within Jamaican
government agencies. Several businesses in Jamaica already have ISO 14000 certification, and the
National Airport Authority has initiated the process. JSIF‘s service delivery aspects fit well with an EMS.
The Project intends to use an Operating Manual as the basis for EMS development. The EMS will be
aligned with the use of country systems (see Annex 7) and will provide a secondary review mechanism,
121
with third party verification, which is part of the auditing process of ISO 14000 certification. JSIF has
developed an Action Plan (see below) for the ISO 14000 certification process
The project will assist JSIF to define and document all operational programs: a local consulting company
and a designated JSIF employee will complete this within the first year of the project (estimated
consultancy contract of $75,000). A ‗fast track‘ approach is proposed so that the project can reinforce the
certification process, provide funds for auditing requirements, and the ISO 14000 certification process can
provide independent verification of project requirements and integrate with the use of country systems.
During project preparation the Jamaica Standards Association (managers of Jamaica‘s adherence to ISO
standards, including ISO 14000), local consulting firms (including those with third party auditing
capabilities), and other Jamaica agencies currently seeking or already awarded ISO 14000 certification,
were consulted. JSIF is expected to be the government‘s pilot agency, with more agencies expected to
follow as local capacity is developed. Meetings were also held with Canadian municipalities and
government agencies – Ontario Power Generation, the municipalities of Durham, York, Ajax, Kitchener, as
well as the Canadian International Development Agency and the Canadian Standards Association –
including those that have ISO 9000 or ISO 14000 certification. Several municipalities expressed a
willingness to partner with JSIF through development of their ISO 14000 documentation and EMS
certification. The project would support this partnering through both the local services consultant contract
and direct links between JSIF staff and municipal practitioners. An agreement for the municipality of
Ajax, Ontario to provide assistance to JSIF in the ISO 14000 process was reached in principle during
preparation.
JSIF ISO 14000 Certification Action Plan
1. Identify a key staff member to manage the process and establish
a management committee
2. Hire a local consulting firm to assist with documenting all JSIF
activities within an ISO management system framework, and
consistent with the project operating manual
3. Partner with local governments outside Jamaica that have ISO
14000 experience
4. Have the operating system (EMS) audited by third party
5. Seek ISO 14000 certification
122
Completed
Within 12 months of
Effectiveness
Within 6 months of
Effectiveness
Within 21 months from
Effectiveness
within 24 months from
Effectiveness, annually
thereafter
Annex 16: Related Donor, Government and Non-Governmental Programs
Jamaica: JM Inner City Basic Services for the Poor Project
The Jamaica Social Investment Fund (JSIF) is a GoJ-owned autonomous company which was incorporated
in 1995 and which started operations in 1996. JSIF receives most of its funds from international donors via
the GoJ and aims to eradicate poverty by empowering communities to carry out their own projects.
Communities formulate projects to be submitted to JSIF for funding. JSIF uses pre-determined and
publicly announced selection criteria to select which projects to fund. Base data is usually obtained by
contracting out to the Social Development Commission (SDC) to obtain social data on the communities,
using survey questionnaires etc.
Once funding has been agreed, the targeted beneficiaries are required to co-invest in their own project and
agree to receive training on its operation, maintenance and fee collection (if applicable). JSIF often
contracts SDC to carry out the required training to run in parallel with the project construction.
Community Based Contracting (CBC) procedures have been used for some infrastructure work. JSIF has a
simple illustrated booklet to enable the less educated members of the community to understand the process,
the possible contracting arrangements and the roles and responsibilities of different actors.
JSIF has implemented a total of 619 projects totaling US$ 52 million. During the financial year to 31st
March 2004 a total of 63 sub-projects were approved with a value of approximately US $8 million and 58
projects at an approximate cost of US $3.4 million were completed.
For the year 2003/04 the Fund received approximately US$8.4 million from the following sources:
30 percent through a loan from the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB)
25 percent as a grant from the GoJ
20 percent from the EU grant funded Poverty Reduction Program (PRP)
12 percent through a loan from the Bank for its NCDP project
10 percent in the form of community contribution
JSIF has also received funding from a number of other sources in the past, including OPEC, DFID, IADB
and CIDA.
JSIF projects are implemented in four main sectors:
Social infrastructure, including rehabilitation of schools, health clinics and community based
water supply projects
Economic infrastructure, such as road upgrading
Social services, for example conflict resolution and skills training
Organizational strengthening for the CBOs themselves
The table below provides details of projects that JSIF has implemented in the proposed ICBSP
communities.
Table 1: JSIF-implemented projects in ICBSP communities for 2003-04
123
Name of
community
Trench Town
(note: not
within Federal
Gardens)
Jones Town
Donor funded project
Project title
WB funded NCDP project
GoJ
Boys Town Basic School rehabilitation & expansion
Rehabilitation of the Arnett Gardens and Community
Interactive Center
Expansion of the Boys Town all age school
Organizational Strengthening Projects, also in Craig Town,
Arnett Gardens, Jones Town and Whitfield Town
Bethal New Testament Basic School
Trench Town Reading Room
Expansion of Iris Gelley primary school
Jones Town and Craig Town organizational strengthening
& youth center
Vision Development Foundation/Tony Spaulding Sports
complex
Arnett Gardens, Trench Town and Whitfield Town
Hope for Children
CDC organizational strengthening; Expansion of the Gladys
Sheriff Basic School
Whitfield Town Water and Sanitation Project
Whitfield Town Access Road
Arnett Gardens, Jones Town and Trench Town.
Oakglades Multipurpose Center
Rehabilitation & expansion of the health center
Children‘s Ministry Summer camp
GoJ
CDB, WB, GoJ
EU
WB
CDB funded BNTF
GoJ
CDB, WB, GoJ
Whitfield Town
CDB funded
EU funded PRP
EU funded PRP
IADB funded
CDB, WB, GoJ
Central Village
Tawes Pen
Source: JSIF
GoJ
124
Annex 17: Documents in Project Files
The following key documents can be found in the project files:
1. Assessment of JSIF Safeguards Compliance Capacity, Environment and Resettlement – Final
Report (February 2006)
2. ICBSP Community Infrastructure and Public Safety Diagnostic Report (August 2005)
3. ICBSP Neighborhood Basic Infrastructure and Public Safety Plans (December 2005)
4. JSIF Environmental Management Framework (January 2006)
5. JSIF Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement Framework (January 2006)
6. ICBSP Household Baseline Survey Report (December 2005)
7. JSIF Operations Manual – Draft (January 2006)
8. ICBSP Basic Infrastructure Investments Detailed Engineering Designs and Bidding
Documents – Draft (January 2006)
9. Microfinance Component Operations Manual (January 2006)
10. Microfinance Component Request for Proposal Model (January 2006)
125
Annex 18: Project Preparation and Supervision
PCN review
Initial PID to PIC
Initial ISDS to PIC
Appraisal
Negotiations
Board/RVP approval
Planned date of effectiveness
Planned date of mid-term review
Planned closing date
Planned
9/13/04
9/13/04
9/13/04
2/27/06
2/27/06
3/30/06
5/15/06
3/31/09
12/31/11
Actual
10/6/04
10/13/04
10/13/04
2/27/06
2/27/06
Key institutions responsible for preparation of the project:
The Project was prepared by the Jamaica Social Investment Fund (JSIF) with the assistance of
international and local consultants and the technical guidance provided by the Bank task team.
Bank staff and consultants who worked on the project included:
Name
Abhas K. Jha
Taimur Samad
Daniel Hoornweg
Bernice K. Van Bronkhorst
Judy Baker
Robin M. Rajack
Ahmadou Moustapha Ndaiye
Lisa Lui
Norma Rodriguez
Hilarion Bruneau
Michael Goldberg
Nicolas Peltier-Thiberge
Mary Morrison
Johanna Van Tilburg
Philippa Amiri
Evelyn Villatoro
Asger Christensen
Edward Daoud
Heinrich Unger
Reuben Summerlin
L. Panneer Selvam
Alberto Didoni
Charles Macdonald
Eduardo Bayon
Susan Lieberman
Patricia Acevedo
Title
Unit
Senior Infrastructure Specialist –TTL
Urban Specialist – ETC
Senior Environmental Engineer
Urban Specialist
Senior Economist
Senior Urban Development Specialist
Lead Financial Management Specialist
Senior Counsel
Procurement Analyst
Disbursement Specialist
Senior Private Sector Development Spec.
Infrastructure Economist
Infrastructure Specialist - ETC
Senior Counsel
Operations Analyst
Senior Procurement Specialist
Lead Social Development Specialist
Senior Finance Officer
Consultant – Environment Specialist
Consultant – Microfinance Specialist
Senior Environmental Specialist
Consultant – Microfinance Specialist
Consultant-Economic & Financial
Consultant – Operations & MIS
Consultant – Crime & Violence
Program Assistant
LCSFW
LCSFU
LCSFW
LCSFU
TUDDR
TUDUR
LCOAA
LEGOP
LCOPR
LOAG1
LCSFR
LCSFT
LCSFP
LEGEN
LCSFP
LCOPR
EASSD
LOAG1
LCSFU
LCSFU
ESDQC
LCSFR
LCSFU
LCSFU
LCSFU
LCSFU
126
Annex 19: Statement of Loans and Credits
Difference between
expected and actual
disbursements
Original Amount in US$ Millions
Project ID
FY
Purpose
IBRD
P071589
2003
JM- Reform of Secondary Ed. (ROSE II)
39.80
0.00
0.00
P076837
2003
JM National Community Devt. Project
15.00
0.00
0.00
P067774
2002
JM- Social Safety Net Project
40.00
0.00
P074641
2002
JM 2ndAPL HIV/AIDS PREV.AND
CONTROL DOC
15.00
0.00
109.80
0.00
Total:
IDA
SF
GEF
Orig.
Frm. Rev‘d
Cancel.
Undisb.
0.00
0.00
38.26
25.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.39
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
27.93
-12.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.83
-3.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
88.41
10.36
0.00
JAMAICA
STATEMENT OF IFC‘s
Held and Disbursed Portfolio
In Millions of US Dollars
Committed
Disbursed
IFC
IFC
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
2003
JPS Co.
0.00
0.00
45.00
0.00
1995
Jam Energy Prtnr
7.10
0.00
0.00
14.86
2002
MBJA Limited
20.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
45.00
Total portfolio:
27.10
Partic.
Loan
Equity
Quasi
0.00
0.00
45.00
0.00
7.10
0.00
0.00
14.86
25.00
19.11
0.00
0.00
23.89
39.86
26.21
0.00
45.00
38.75
Approvals Pending Commitment
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total pending commitment:
127
Partic.
Annex 20: Country at a Glance
Jamaica
at a glance
12/19/05
Jamaica
Latin
America
& Carib.
Lowermiddleincome
2.7
3,150
8.4
534
3,260
1,741
2,655
1,480
3,934
0.8
1.4
1.5
2.1
0.9
1.2
19
58
76
17
4
93
12
101
101
100
..
77
71
28
..
86
11
129
131
126
..
50
69
32
11
81
10
112
113
111
1984
1994
2003
2004
2.4
23.1
55.6
17.1
10.4
4.9
26.8
51.3
20.7
24.8
8.2
29.5
40.2
11.8
18.7
8.9
31.3
40.6
14.1
22.4
-10.7
8.2
152.4
31.2
..
..
-0.5
3.6
93.2
19.1
..
..
-11.8
3.6
67.8
21.8
74.6
162.6
-5.8
3.5
71.0
13.7
..
..
1984-94
1994-04
2003
2004
2004-08
3.9
3.2
..
0.6
-0.2
..
2.3
1.4
..
0.9
0.1
..
2.9
1.9
..
1984
1994
2003
2004
POVERTY and SOCIAL
2004
Population, mid-year (millions)
GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$)
GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions)
Development diamond*
Life expectancy
Average annual growth, 1998-04
Population (%)
Labor force (%)
GNI
per
capita
Most recent estimate (latest year available, 1998-04)
Poverty (% of population below national poverty line)
Urban population (% of total population)
Life expectancy at birth (years)
Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)
Child malnutrition (% of children under 5)
Access to an improved water source (% of population)
Illiteracy (% of population age 15+)
Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population)
Male
Female
Gross
primary
enrollment
Access to improved water source
Jamaica
Lower-middle-income group
KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS
Economic ratios*
GDP (US$ billions)
Gross domestic investment/GDP
Exports of goods and services/GDP
Gross domestic savings/GDP
Gross national savings/GDP
Current account balance/GDP
Interest payments/GDP
Total debt/GDP
Total debt service/exports
Present value of debt/GDP
Present value of debt/exports
Trade
Domestic
savings
Investment
Indebtedness
(average annual growth)
GDP
GDP per capita
Exports of goods and services
Jamaica
Lower-middle-income group
STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY
Growth of investment and GDP (%)
(% of GDP)
Agriculture
Industry
Manufacturing
Services
5.8
37.7
18.5
56.5
8.1
33.9
15.7
50.5
5.0
29.0
12.3
57.7
5.0
29.8
12.4
56.8
Private consumption
General government consumption
Imports of goods and services
66.4
16.5
61.6
69.3
10.1
57.5
72.8
15.3
57.8
71.6
14.4
57.8
1984-94
1994-04
2003
2004
4.3
3.9
2.2
3.8
-2.9
-0.1
-1.5
1.5
4.8
1.4
-0.9
2.4
-8.9
3.1
3.0
0.8
2
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
0
(average annual growth)
Agriculture
Industry
Manufacturing
Services
Private consumption
General government consumption
Gross domestic investment
3
2
1
0
-1
99
00
01
02
03
04
-2
GDI
GDP
Growth of exports and imports (%)
1
99
00
01
Exports
02
03
04
Imports
Note: 2004 data are preliminary estimates. Group data are for 2003.
* The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will
be incomplete.
128
Jamaica
PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE
1984
Domestic prices
(% change)
Consumer prices
Implicit GDP deflator
Government finance
(% of GDP, includes current grants)
Current revenue
Current budget balance
Overall surplus/deficit
1994
2003
2004
Inflation (%)
15
27.8
35.9
35.1
32.3
10.3
12.4
13.6
12.6
10
5
0
26.4
-2.5
-8.0
25.2
5.1
1.7
28.2
-6.5
-7.7
30.2
-3.8
-5.5
1984
1994
2003
2004
740
284
160
91
1,183
99
349
287
1,548
537
72
340
2,177
126
328
361
1,368
688
90
108
3,813
282
829
558
1,601
823
79
137
4,093
287
912
603
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
1984
1994
2003
2004
1,321
1,422
-101
2,877
3,060
-183
3,469
4,947
-1,478
3,898
5,271
-1,373
Net income
Net current transfers
-273
121
-318
475
-632
1,135
-583
1,446
Current account balance
-253
-26
-975
-510
Financing items (net)
Changes in net reserves
28
226
47
-21
542
432
1,204
-694
Memo:
Reserves including gold (US$ millions)
Conversion rate (DEC, local/US$)
..
3.9
738
33.1
1,196
58.1
1,882
61.3
1984
1994
2003
2004
3,616
326
0
4,601
595
0
5,583
476
0
6,296
439
0
Total debt service
IBRD
IDA
442
50
0
584
124
0
824
66
0
805
65
0
Composition of net resource flows
Official grants
Official creditors
Private creditors
Foreign direct investment
Portfolio equity
27
282
41
12
0
91
-132
6
130
0
29
-71
-208
721
0
0
-87
697
0
0
World Bank program
Commitments
Disbursements
Principal repayments
Net flows
Interest payments
Net transfers
100
49
18
31
31
0
48
22
76
-54
49
-102
0
15
46
-31
20
-52
0
6
47
-41
18
-59
99
00
01
02
03
GDP deflator
04
CPI
TRADE
(US$ millions)
Total exports (fob)
Alumina
Bauxite
Manufactures
Total imports (cif)
Food
Fuel and energy
Capital goods
Export price index (1995=100)
Import price index (1995=100)
Terms of trade (1995=100)
Export and import levels (US$ mill.)
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
98
99
00
01
02
Exports
03
04
Imports
BALANCE of PAYMENTS
(US$ millions)
Exports of goods and services
Resource balance
Current account balance to GDP (%)
0
-2
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS
(US$ millions)
Total debt outstanding and disbursed
IBRD
IDA
Composition of 2004 debt (US$ mill.)
Development Economics
G: 1,017
A: 439C: 1
D: 981
E: 969
F: 2,889
A - IBRD
B - IDA
C - IMF
D - Other multilateral
E - Bilateral
F - Private
G - Short-term
12/19/05
129
Annex 21: Maps
130
131
wb276878
C:\Documents and Settings\wb276878\My Documents\Jamaica\JM ICBSP PAD Feb 28 - negs - accepted.doc
02/28/2006 5:47:00 PM
132

ICBSP Project Appraisal Document

Transcription

Similar documents

Wolmer`s BANQUET Flyer 4

DVSN Brochure - The Bedford Citizen

A NEW DAY Brochure Women - The Tree of Peace Friendship Centre

Abuse in close relationships - Upplands

Paper Presentation: Scenario of Violence Against Women in

VENTRILOQUIST - entertainment group

Green Island Community Experience

Link Up for Life Intro and Week of Activities

Présentation PowerPoint

Game Card Here - Commercial Drive Business Society