World Bank Documentdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/... · of PROMECE Directors in 2009 and 2010, however, caused further delays. A lack of clear understanding about the roles of

Document of The World Bank

Report No: 61819-CR

RESTRUCTURING PAPER

ON A

PROJECT RESTRUCTURING

OF

CR – EQUITY AND EFFICIENCY OF EDUCATION PROJECT

LOAN 7284-CR

APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON MARCH 29, 2005

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA

JUNE 29, 2011

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (exchange effective June 29, 2011) US$1= 500.70 Costa Rican Colones

FISCAL YEAR January 1-December 31

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADIs Indigenous Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo Indigenas) CENADI DAS DEI DGEC

National Pedagogic Center (Centro Nacional de Didáctica) Statistics Analysis Department (Departamento de Análisis Estadístico) Intercultural Education Department (Dirección de Educación Intercultural) Quality Management and EvaluationDepartment ( Dirección de Gestión y Evaluación de la Calidad)

DIEE DPEQ DPE DRT

Department of School Infrastructure and Equipment (Dirección de Infraestructura y Equipamiento Escolar)Equity Programs Department (Dirección de Programas de Equidad) Programming and Evaluation Department (Departamento de Programación y Evaluación) Education IT Resources Department (Dirección de Recursos Tecnológicos en Educación)

FMR Financial Management Report FONABE National Scholarships Fund (Fondo Nacional de Becas) ICT Information and Communication Technology IEC Information, Education and Communication, IPPF IPD

Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework Institutional Planning Department (Dirección de Planificación Institucional)

IRE Education Development Index (Indice de Rezago Educativo)IRR Internal Rate of Return MEP Ministry of Public Education (Ministerio de Educación Pública) NPV Net present value PIAD High Performance Education Information System (Programa de Informatización

para el Alto Desempeño) POA Annual Operational Plan (Plan Operativo Anual)PDO Project Development Objective PROMECE Education Quality Improvement Program (Programa de Mejoramiento de la

Calidad de la Educacion) SETENA National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaria Técnica Nacional

Ambiental) SINAC National Areas Protected System (Sistema Nacional de Areas de Conservación)

Regional Vice President: Pamela Cox Country Director: C. Felipe Jaramillo

Sector Manager/Director: Chingboon Lee/Keith Hansen Task Team Leader: Marcelo Becerra

COSTA RICA CR – EQUITY AND EFFICIENCY OF EDUCATION

CONTENTS

A. SUMMARY................................................................................................................ 1 B. PROJECT STATUS.................................................................................................. 1 C. PROPOSED CHANGES .......................................................................................... 3 D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY...................................................................................... 16

ANNEX 1: MATRIX OF CHANGES TO PROJECT COMPONENTS .................... 1

ANNEX 2: RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND MONITORING .................................... 5

ANNEX 3: ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS.......................................... 16

ANNEX 4: UPDATED INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLANNING FRAMEWORK... 22

ANNEX 5: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE AND GUIDELINES........................................................................................................................................... 32

Restructuring Status: FinalRestructuring Type: Level 2

1. Basic Information Project ID & Name P057857 Equity and Efficiency of Education Project Country Costa Rica Task Team Leader Marcelo Becerra Sector Manager/Director Chingboon Lee/Keith Hansen Country Director Felipe Jaramillo Original Board Approval Date March 29, 2005 Current Closing Date June 30, 2011 Proposed Closing Date [if applicable] December 31, 2012 EA Category Category B Revised EA Category EA Completion Date November 15, 2003 Revised EA Completion Date

2. Revised Financing Plan (US$) Source Original Revised BORROWER 21.00 20.00 INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

30.00 30.00

Total 51.00 51.00

3. Borrower Organization Department Location

Republic of Costa Rica Costa Rica

4. Implementing Agency Organization Department Location

Ministry of Public Education Costa Rica

5. Disbursement Estimates (US$m) Actual amount disbursed as of 06/10//2011 8.9

Fiscal Year Annual Cumulative FY12 17.0 25.9 FY13 4.06 30.0

Total 30.0

6. Policy Exceptions and Safeguard Policies Does the restructured Project require any exceptions to Bank policies? No

Have these been approved by Bank management Is approval for any policy exception sought from the Board?

Does the scale-up of restructured Projects trigger any new safeguard policies? If yes, please select from the checklist below.

No

7. Project Development Objectives/Outcomes Original/Current Project Development Objectives/Outcomes The objectives of the Project are to: (a) reduce education quality gaps in Costa Rica’s primary and secondary education system in rural areas; and (b) improve the equity and efficiency in the allocation, administration and use of the Borrower’s education sector resources.

1

CR – EQUITY AND EFFICIENCY OF EDUCATION PROJECT

RESTRUCTURING PAPER

A. SUMMARY 1. The major changes to the Project and rationale are:

a. revisions to Project components to align Project activities to current Government strategic priorities, including the elimination of some activities which overlapped with other activities and to more logically regroup similar activities.

b. changes to the Results Framework in order to reflect the proposed changes to the

components, and introduce indicators that better reflect Project objectives and outputs, modifications in the components, and are measurable through Ministry of Public Education (MEP) databases and include baselines.

c. changes to the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) -- the Education Quality

Improvement Program (Programa de Mejoramiento de la Calidad de la Educacion) (PROMECE) -- to align it with broader changes in MEP and to improve Project management and coordination.

d. updated environmental assessment template and guidelines, inclusion of the

screening criteria within the Operational Manual to ensure that resettlement impacts per OP/BP 4.12 are screened out for all subprojects, and updating of the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) to document the Project’s approach and work with Indigenous Peoples. The Project in itself comprises the elements of an Indigenous Peoples Plan.

e. changes to the categories of expenditures that are financed out of loan proceeds so that the categories are aligned with the revised Project components, and changes to the percent of expenditures that are financed out of loan proceeds.

f. an 18 month extension of the closing date in order to help ensure sufficient time

for revised targets to be met.

PROJECT STATUS 2. The Project had been saddled with delays from the beginning until recently. It was approved by the Board on March 29, 2005, and signed on June 9, 2005. Due to a delay in its adoption by Congress, the Project was only declared effective on December 21, 2006. The first disbursement was only made in 2008, because the Project was not included in Costa Rica’s 2007 budget law. Implementation was further delayed by insufficient procedural guidance. The preparation of an Operational Manual to guide the infrastructure investments under Component 1 (which entail almost 80 percent of Bank

2

financing), was finalized in July 2009. It included specific procurement procedures for Project activities in the indigenous and remote areas covered by the Project. It clarified the use of local materials, a system for the design, monitoring and inspection of civil works, the parameters of legal agreements with indigenous communities (letters of understanding, transfer of land, etc.), and environmental safeguards. Subsequent changes of PROMECE Directors in 2009 and 2010, however, caused further delays. A lack of clear understanding about the roles of PROMECE, the Implementing Technical Units and the Minister of Public Education’s Office as well as to weak coordination between MEP authorities caused other delays. 3. Implementation progress has improved over the last 6 months. For instance, Component 1 (school infrastructure in rural indigenous areas) is well underway now. Bidding for contracts worth $11.2 million to build 58 new schools (47 primary and 11 secondary) has begun; of this amount contracts worth around $6.8 million are underway. With respect to Component 2, three key consultancies are in progress with the objective of improving the management of equity programs, the management of administrative school councils and the organizational model of the equity programs unit. It is expected that Component 3 will be implemented subsequent to Project restructuring. Disbursements have also accelerated recently with $ 4.2 million disbursed between March and May 2011.

4. The original Project design, however, was quite complex, in particular Component 1, which is difficult to understand for those not involved in Project preparation. There was overlap in some activities among components, causing confusion on responsibility for implementation. For instance, equity programs, curriculum development and institutional development were part of the “subcomponents” of Component 1 but also key activities of Components 2 and 3. In addition, the beneficiaries, indigenous communities in rural areas with many members with insufficient or no capability to read, proved not to have the capacity to take the major role originally envisioned. Over the last two years, MEP has provided clear leadership in identifying infrastructure subprojects and implementing them in consultation and with the participation of indigenous communities. 5. In the meantime, the strategic and policy environment in which the Project is operating has changed. The most significant policy change is the shift from the Telesecundaria approach for secondary rural education to a new Liceos Rurales framework. The objective is to introduce a wider pedagogic approach in rural areas, which is based on three axes: (i) teaching of core subjects, (ii) civic and intercultural education, and (iii) the development of socio-productive projects. This model was approved by the Superior Council of Education in July 2009. In the indigenous areas, the Liceos Rurales model incorporates local culture and relies on the introduction of modern technology to ensure consistent quality. In addition, Liceos Rurales provide a link between primary and secondary education within school networks through a teaching model based on the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). 6. The concept of “macro-regiones” invented during Project preparation has been discontinued. Instead, MEP uses Administrative Circuits, to identify the areas of Project

3

activity. Of 200 Administrative Circuits in Costa Rica used to guide MEP’s activities since 1970, the Project includes construction in Indigenous Territories in 9 rural Administrative Circuits (which span 10 Indigenous Territories, 6 Cantons and 3 Provinces). 7. MEP introduced an institutional reform program in 2009 (through Executive Decree 35513-MEP). This program seeks to improve the organizational structure of the MEP, the administrative management capacities of the Regional Departments, the model of school supervision, as well as the promotion of intercultural education. 8. As a critical input into understanding education quality gaps between urban and rural areas, the MEP has identified the need to develop a standard methodology that teachers in all areas can use to consistently analyze student assessment that can feed into national policy making.

PROPOSED CHANGES

Components 9. The Project originally had three components: (1) quality and equity of rural education; (2) improved equity of education services; and (3) improved institutional efficiency. Component 1 has been renamed to “Efficient and Equitable Access to Rural Education” to eliminate overlap with Component 2. Components 2 and 3 have been renamed “Improving MEP’s Institutional Efficiency” and “Quality of Education”, respectively, to better reflect the nature of their subcomponents. In addition, changes have been made to align Project activities to current priorities, including the elimination of activities which overlapped with other activities and to more logically regroup similar activities. 10. The main changes to the Project components are:

a. Component 1 now only includes activities related to physical investments to improve access to quality education in rural indigenous areas (renovation and construction of classrooms, technological and education equipment, school building facilities, and equipment and furniture for the building of the Regional Indigenous Directorate of Sula). The strategy of Collaborative Networks to improve efficiency in the use of resources and of improving equity by focusing on rural indigenous communities continues; all other activities have been moved to other components or dropped.

b. Movement to Component 2 of all activities related to the strengthening of MEP institutional capacity and efficiency, including MEP’s Equity and Transfer Programs, the implementation of an information system at the school level, transfers of resources to School Councils, technical assistance and training for MEP staff.

4

c. Movement to Component 3 of all activities in support of quality of primary and secondary education, with an emphasis on rural areas and intercultural perspectives. This includes an improved model for rural secondary education that transforms Telesecundarias to Liceos Rurales, and strengthened capacity for student learning assessments.

See Annex 1 for a matrix comparing the original Project components to the restructured Project components. 11. The revised Project description is: Component 1: Efficient and Equitable Access to Rural Education

Identifying efficient investments that improve access to quality education, by carrying out activities in support of:

a. Classrooms: (i) the renovation of existing classrooms; (ii) the construction of new classrooms; and (iii) the provision of furniture and equipment, including computers and software, other than those mentioned in Component 2.a. (ii) and 3.b.i (iii);

b. School building facilities, such as construction and provision of furniture

and equipment for, kitchens, teachers lounges, student dormitories, and restrooms in schools belonging to rural School Networks; and

c. Common School Network facilities: (i) the construction of common

School Network facilities such as technology centers and cultural, arts and physical education facilities; and (ii) the provision of equipment as well as energy and connectivity facilities.

d. Regional Indigenous Education Directorate of Sula: (i) the provision of furniture and equipment.

Component 2: Improving MEP’s Institutional Efficiency

Strengthening the institutional capacity of MEP to improve its equity programs and its efficiency, through (i) the development and implementation of an education sector information system at school level (ii) support for MEP’s Implementing Technical Units that manage the Equity Programs and the Transfers Program to improve planning and monitoring of such Programs; (iii) support of implementation of MEP’s institutional reform, and (iv) the management of the implementation of the Project, by carrying out activities in support of:

a. The development and implementation of an information system at school level; (i) technical assistance to develop the information system; and (ii) computer equipment and software to be installed in schools belonged to the Targeted Administrative Circuits.

5

b. Improving the design and strengthening the management of MEP’s Implementing Technical Units that administer the Equity Programs and Transfers Programs to improve said Implementing Technical Units’ impact and cost effectiveness through the provision of: (i) technical assistance to said Implementing Technical Units to improve the design of said programs; (ii) training for staff in MEP’s Implementing Technical Units that administer the Equity Programs and the Transfers Programs to improve supervision and evaluation of said programs; (iii) transfers of resources to School Councils to finance, inter alia, school operating costs and school infrastructure improvements; and (iv) transfers of funds through the Equity Programs to beneficiaries.

c. Strengthening and implementation of MEP’s institutional reform program at

the central and regional level, including: (i) technical assistance to support and derive lessons learned from MEP’s institutional reform program and related policy development and; (ii) training for staff in MEP’s Implementing Technical Units at the central and regional level; and

d. The management of the implementation of the Project by the PCU.

Component 3: Quality of Education Strengthening the quality of primary and secondary education by carrying out activities in support of:

a. The development and implementation of a training program in intercultural education for MEP staff at the central and regional level.

b. A rural education quality improvement program adapted to the local and

cultural context, including:

i. Improved model for rural secondary education, including (i) the development of a strategy to transform Telesecundarias to Liceos Rurales; and (ii) the development of rural teaching methods that use ICT; (iii) the provision of computer equipment and software for the purpose of putting into use these rural teaching methods in all schools belonging to the School Networks under Component 1.

ii. Professional development programs for teachers assigned to rural areas,

including: (i) an assessment of the needs and profile of rural teachers and their existing teaching models, (ii) design and implementation of training programs for rural teachers, including intercultural education; and

iii. The provision of teacher and student materials with an intercultural

perspective to rural schools.

6

c. Improvements in MEP staff and teacher capacity to analyze student learning assessments, including:

i. The development of a standard methodology to analyze student

learning assessments;

ii. The development of training modules for teacher training programs and programs to train MEP staff on the standard methodology to analyze student learning assessments; and

iii. Training for MEP staff and for teachers on the standard methodology

to analyze student learning assessments. Results/indicators 12. There have been several changes in the outcome and intermediate indicators to better reflect Project objectives and outputs, modifications in the components and ensure measurability through MEP databases. See Annex 2 for the revised Results Matrix. Project Development Objective Indicators 13. The four original Project Development Objective (PDO) indicators have been dropped, and replaced with 3 new PDO indicators that better measure the three main elements of the PDO: i. Reducing Quality Gaps, ii. Improving Equity, and iii. Improving Efficiency.

a. Reducing Quality Gaps

PDO indicator 1: Reduce education quality gaps in targeted areas (percentage of students that pass “bachillerato” exams). This new PDO indicator has been added because it measures the reduction of education quality gaps between the national level and areas targeted by the Project for primary and secondary education in a clear and easily collectable way. b. Improving Equity

PDO indicator 2: Reduce gaps in the secondary graduation rate in targeted areas (graduation rate measured as the ratio between 11th grade enrollment and 7th grade enrollment). This PDO indicator has been added to measure improved equity in access to education. It measures the difference between graduation rates at the national level and in targeted areas. c. Improving Efficiency

PDO indicator 3: Reduce administrative costs per beneficiary of MEP’s Equity Programs (scholarships, transportation, food). This outcome indicator has been

7

added because it directly measures efficiency improvements in the Equity Programs and data is easily available. (This indicator had been an Intermediate Result Indicator in the original Results Matrix).

The following PDO indicators have been dropped:

• Reduced primary education efficiency gaps in four targeted macro-regions. This indicator was dropped because a better indicator of efficiency has been introduced. The concept of macro-regions was never adopted.

• Increased e-access to non-traditional secondary education modalities (telesecundaria). This indicator was dropped because the Telesecundarias approach has been replaced by a the Liceos Rurales model, and a better equity measure has been adopted.

• Increased number of low income students beneficiaries (quintile 1 and 20) in education demand side programs in targeted macro-regions. This indicator was dropped because data is not available, and a better equity measure has been adopted. The concept of macro-regions was never adopted.

• Improved collaboration among schools. This indicator was dropped because a more rigorous measure of efficiency has been adopted.

Intermediate Result Indicators 14. All 11 original intermediate result indicators have been dropped or revised because some of them are no longer relevant, and others are hard to measure. Fifteen new intermediate indicators have been added that reflect the revised Project components.

a. New intermediate indicators

Component 1:

� 1. Number of classrooms built and renovated, and provided with furniture and equipment, in the School Networks.

� 2. Number of school building facilities constructed and provided with equipment, including kitchens, teachers lounges, student dormitories and restrooms in the School Networks.

� 3. Number of Common School Network facilities constructed and equipped (technology centers; cultural, arts and physical education facilities).

Component 2:

� 4. Percentage of schools and Liceos Rurales equipped with an education sector information system in the 15 Administrative Circuits targeted by the Project.

8

� 5. Number of staff, in MEP Technical Units that administer the Equity and Transfers Programs, that have been trained to improve supervision and evaluation of these programs.

� 6. Number of beneficiaries of MEP’s Equity and Transfers Programs

(Scholarships, transportation, food program).

� 7. Value of transfers of funds through the Equity and Transfers Programs to beneficiaries and School Councils respectively).

8. Number of staff that have been trained under MEP’s institutional reform program.

� 9. Number of studies and workshops financed by Component 2. Component 3:

� 10. Percentage of national advisers and regional trainers trained in intercultural education.

� 11. Completion of an assessment of the needs and profile of rural teachers.

� 12. Percentage of rural secondary teachers trained in the Liceos Rurales modality and intercultural education.

� 13. Number of education materials produced with an intercultural perspective.

� 14. Development of a standard methodology to analyze student assessment

and complementary training modules.

� 15. Percentage of MEP staff and teachers trained on the standard methodology to analyze student learning assessments.

b. Dropped or revised intermediate indicators

� Increase primary school completion in the four targeted macro-regions

(this indicator has been dropped because it does not measure outputs of the Project, and the concept of macro-regions was never adopted).

� Increased tests scores in 6th grade in the targeted macro-regions (this indicator has been dropped due to the lack of tests for 6th grade during the Project period, and the concept of macro-regions was never adopted).

� Pertinent teacher skills for education modalities in rural sector (this

indicator has been dropped because a more appropriate indicator that

9

better reflects the teacher training outputs of the Project has been introduced).

� Institutional Development of Local and School Institutions (this indicator

has been dropped due to the elimination from the Project of subprojects for institutional development at the school level).

� Improved regional targeting of equity programs (this indicator has been

replaced with an indicator on the value of transfers of funds through the Equity and Transfers Programs to School Councils and beneficiaries)..

� Reduced administrative costs of equity programs (this indicator is now a

PDO indicator since it measures the impact of Project activities and not Project outputs).

� Timely and accurate information of targeting and impact of education

services (this indicator has been replaced with an indicator that clearly measures the output of the Project with respect to information systems: “Percentage of schools and Liceos Rurales equipped with an education sector information system in the 15 Administrative Circuits targeted by the Project”).

� Institutional Integration of Technical Units of the MEP and of Formal

Rural Education Units (this indicator has been dropped because it is not an output of the Project).

� Diagnostic, programming, and implementation, and evaluation of rural education programs with regional participation (this indicator has been dropped because it is not an output of the Project).

� Communication, Information and Education (IEC) Campaigns (this

indicator has been dropped because it is not an output of the Project).

� Satisfactory Project Implementation Rating (this indicator has been dropped since it is being monitored through Implementation Status Reports).

Institutional Arrangements 15. MEP continues to be the implementing agency through PROMECE, which continues as the PCU. Responsibilities between PROMECE, the Minister of Public Education’s Office and MEP’s Technical Units have been clarified.

• For activities financed by Components 2 and 3, MEP’s Technical Units are responsible for implementation, the Minister of Public Education’s Office is responsible for final decision making, and PROMECE is in charge of central functions: fiduciary issues (financial management and procurement), legal issues,

10

monitoring and evaluation, and coordination with implementing units (e.g. on preparation and supervision of Annual Operational Plans (POAs) and Procurement Plans). Short-term technical consultants are being hired through the Project to bolster capacity in MEP’s Technical Units, and facilitate coordination with PROMECE. PROMECE is also responsible for the implementation of specific activities financed by Components 2 and 3 that will be identified in POAs, and agreed by the Minister and the Technical Units.

• For activities financed by Component 1, PROMECE is responsible for

implementation due to limited capacity in the Department of School Infrastructure and Equipment (Dirección de Infraestructura y Equipamiento Escolar) (DIEE).

16. The Comite Superior Consultivo and Comite de Unidades Ejecutoras, created to facilitate integration among MEP’s Technical Units and agree on common objectives and implementation strategies, have been active since 2010, and have been playing their envisioned role in supervising Project implementation. 17. PROMECE’s structure was revised in August 2010, approved by the Ministry of Planning through DM-433. The main changes are: (i) the inclusion of 3 sub-Units: Administrative and Financial Management; Procurement and Technical; (ii) the creation of 3 new positions under the Director of PROMECE: Internal Auditor, Legal Adviser and Planning, Supervision and Evaluation Advisor (see Figure 1). The Administrative and Financial Management Unit has been restructured and is now comprised of a Financial-Administrative Chief, an Accounting Official, a Disbursement Official and an Accountant Assistant. The Procurement Unit has been reduced from four positions to three: a Procurement Chief, a Procurement Analyst and a Procurement Assistant. In addition, several terms of reference have been revised to clarify duties and accountabilities. The Technical Unit is comprised of: an Infrastructure Chief, three professionals in Architecture and Engineering and a Technical Assistant. A group of environmental supervisors, civil works supervisors and inspectors have been hired to support Component 1 implementation. The environmental supervisors are certified by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaria Técnica Nacional Ambiental) (SETENA).

11

Figure 1: PROMECE Organization Chart

Safeguards 18. The Project triggered OP/BP 4.01 (Environment) and OP/BP 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples), and these Safeguards continue to be triggered. 19. An Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), that included an environmental assessment template and environmental guidelines for contractors, was prepared in December 2003. The environmental assessment template included screening criteria to identify, evaluate, and mitigate potential environmental or social impacts from school construction and rehabilitation. The template was updated in July 2009 to incorporate SETENA environmental guidelines and requirements for applications for Environment Viability Licenses. See Annex 5 for a translation of the updated environmental assessment template and guidelines. Environmental impact files for each Project site have been prepared by PROMECE. The Operations Manual also includes specific requirements that defines when subprojects are required to solicit licenses or permits from the regional National Areas Protected System (Sistema Nacional de Areas de Conservación - SINAC-), to ensure that trees cut down for construction do not impact protected areas and forests. In addition, environmental supervisors are hired for each cluster of school subprojects to ensure that construction complies with the requirements outlined in the Operational Manual. 20. The updated Operational Manual includes screening criteria that ensures that all lands designated for school construction or refurbishment are free of outstanding legal issues and would not imply physical or economic displacement impacts, per OP/BP 4.12.

12

Since the vast majority of schools have been constructed within Indigenous Collective Territories, land usage rights are transferred from the Indigenous Development Association (Asociaciones de Desarrollo Indigenas – ADIs-), or legal representative of the Territory, to the Education or Administrative Council. A usage rights agreement is signed as one of the primary steps for Project eligibility. 21. In May, 2011 the Bank hired a consultant to verify that no involuntary resettlement impacts had occurred to date under the Project. In summary, the finding of this verification revealed that: (i) of the 81 schools to be constructed or refurbished, 74 were located on the same site that an education center had already been operating; (ii) for the 7 new properties, 4 had no current use, 2 sites were yet to be determined and 1 site required the Project to await the expiration of an agreement for agricultural use. For this last case, the World Bank has requested a written agreement that demonstrates that the agricultural producers are in agreement with this expiration. In several cases the land use rights transfer agreements are missing some type of documentation. PROMECE will be working to follow-up on these outstanding documentation issues. 22. As part of Project Preparation in 2003 a Social Assessment and Indigenous and Afro-Costa Rican Peoples Development Framework was prepared based on extensive consultations with Indigenous and rural education stakeholders. The Framework prepared in 2003 made several recommendations for the Project in regards to Indigenous Peoples, all of which have been taken on within the Project’s implementation. However, as part of this Restructuring, PROMECE, with the Bank’s support, has updated this Framework, to better document the Project’s approach in each of its components when working with Indigenous peoples, and to ensure that OP/BP 4.10’s requirements have been carried out in the Project work implemented to date. Annex 4 provides a detailed description of the progress to date from the original Framework, clearly outlines the Project’s safeguards approach in compliance with OP/BP 4.10, and includes an English version of the updated Framework. 23. The updated Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF), which reflects approaches that have been under implementation for the past two years, will be consulted with a select group of Indigenous leaders that represent Costa Rica’s different ethnicities and territories and have worked with the Project. The purpose of this consultation will be to identify, and, if necessary, improve any of the current procedures described in this IPPF and ensure that the activities described to date are fully accurate. Once the updated IPPF has been validated, the processes it outlines will be fully integrated into the Operational Manual (in cases where these processes are not explicitly described in the current version of the Operational Manual), and the updated IPPF will be disseminated nationally and through the Bank’s Infoshop. This validation process will be carried out within the next three months as part of the Bank’s Project supervision. 24. For purposes of the Bank’s Operational Safeguards Policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10), the direct beneficiaries of this Project are overwhelmingly Indigenous- with 80 of the 81 school construction/refurbishment projects located in Indigenous Territories, Component 2 support for strengthening of the Indigenous Education System, and Component 3 support for the development of Intercultural Education. Given this, the

13

Project’s safeguards approach for Indigenous Peoples is described in the updated IPPF. The Project in itself has served as an Indigenous Peoples Plan, fully incorporating during implementation: (a) the principles and processes of free, prior and informed consultation with ADIs which are the legal Indigenous representatives, relevant stakeholders (Indigenous parents and teachers), and traditional leaders; (b) documentation of broad community support in each beneficiary community; and (c) socio-cultural adaptations in the implementation of consultation processes, work within Indigenous communities, and in the design of schools, legal reforms, and processes to develop the subcomponent on intercultural education. A specific description of these processes is described in Annex 4. 25. Given the changes in some Project activities, the Operational Manual will also be updated to clearly document how the restructured Project will continue to fully integrate the principles and processes required by Costa Rican legislation and OP/BP 4.10. This approach will be consulted and improved, as necessary, through ongoing consultations with Indigenous beneficiary communities. 26. Whereas the original Project anticipated activities in the Department of Limon, where most of the Afro-Costa Rican population lives, these activities have been subsequently dropped. Given this, the updated framework will address only issues related to Indigenous Peoples and not to the Afro-Costa Rican population. 27. The Project’s final evaluation will systematize the qualitative and quantitative outcomes from the Project’s interventions in Indigenous Territories for broader dissemination, highlighting lessons learned and good practices. Financing 28. Project Costs. The changes in Project costs are shown in the table below. The revised costing reflects the changes in the components. Restructured Costs

Project US$m

Bank US$m

Project Cost By Component

Revised Component 1: Efficient and Equitable Access to Education

23.60 23.60


22.75 2.75

Component 3: Quality of Education

3.50 3.50

Physical Contingencies 0.00 0.00 Price Contingencies 0.00 0.00 Total Project Costs 49.85 29.85

Front-end fee 0.15 0.15 Total Financing Required 50.00 30.00

14

29. The table below shows the original Project costs prior to this restructuring. Original Costs

Project US$m

Bank US$m

Project Cost By Component

Original Component 1: Quality and Equity of Rural Education

34.24 20.99

Component 2: Improved Equity of Education Services

3.86 4.06

Component 3: Improved Institutional Efficiency

10.20 4.65

Physical Contingencies 0.72 0.00 Price Contingencies 0.68 0.00 Total Project Costs 49.70 29.70

Front-end fee 0.30 0.30 Total Financing Required 50.00 30.00

30. Reallocation. The categories of items financed by the loan have been revised to align the no executed balanced with the revised Project’s components 1, 2 and 3 (called Part A, B and C respectively in the legal amendment). Restructured Allocation of Proceeds

Category Amount of the Loan Allocated

US$

Percent of Expenditures to be Financed

(1) Works, other than for Subprojects 0.00 100%

(2) Goods, other than for Subprojects 369,549.87 100%

(3) Consultant’s services (including audits), other than for Subprojects

1,842,859.95 100%

(4) (a) REQ Subprojects (b) ID Suprojects

3,055,185.240.00

100% 100%

(5)Training, other than for Subprojets 523,251.55 100%

(6) Front-End fee 150,000.00 Amount due under Section 2.04 of the Legal Agreement

15

(7) Premia for Interest Rate and Interest Rate Collars

0.00 Amount due under Section 2.09 of the Legal Agreement

(8) Unallocated 0.00

(9) Works, Goods, Consultant Services, Non Consultant Services, and Training under Part A

20,214,620.39 100%

(10) Goods, consultant services, Non Consultant Services and Training under Part B

1,573,512.00 100%

(11) Goods, consultant services, Non Consultant Services and Training under Part C, and consultant services for audits

2,271,021.00 100%

TOTAL 30,000,000.00

31. The table below shows the allocation of Bank financing, prior to this restructuring, since September 2008. The Project had been previously amended twice: 1) in December 2007 to revise the percent of training expenditures (other than for subprojects) to be financed by the Bank to 100 percent from 90 percent, and 2) in September 2008 to revise the percent of works (other than for subprojects) to be financed from the Bank to 100 percent from 90 percent and the percent of consultant services (other than for subprojects) financed by the Bank to 100 percent from 90 percent. Previous Allocation of Proceeds (since September 2008)

Category Original Amount of Loan Allocated US$

Percent of Expenditures to be Financed

(1) Works, other than for Subprojects 350,000 100%

(2) Goods other than for Subprojects 1,650,000 100% (3) Consultants’ services (including audits),

other than for Subprojects 4,400,000 100%

(4) (a) REQ Subprojects 18,250,000 100% as referred to in Section 3.07 (d) of the Legal Agreement

(b) ID Subprojects 2,750,000 100% as referred to in Section 3.07 (d) of the Legal Agreement

(5) Training, other than for Subprojects 1,950,000 100% (6) Front-end fee 150,000 Amount due under Section 2.04

of the Legal Agreement (7) Premia for Interest Rate Caps and

Interest Rate Collars 0 Amount due under Section 2.09

of the Legal Agreement (8) Unallocated 500,000 TOTAL AMOUNT 30,000,000

16

Closing date 32. The implementation period will be increased by 18 months, extending the closing date to December 31, 2012 from June 30, 2011, to allow completion of the revised Project activities.

APPRAISAL SUMMARY Economic and Financial Analysis 33. A revised Economic and Financial Analysis of the Project, based upon revised Project costs and measurable economic benefits expected from implementation, shows an internal rate of return of 14 percent. The revised analysis examines: (a) the Project’s overall economic evaluation including cost-benefit analysis; (b) sensitivity analysis to determine the impact of Project risks on Project outcomes; and (c) fiscal impact of the Project. Considering the full cost of the Project would yield nearly US$1.2 of benefits for each dollar invested. The sensitivity analysis shows that assuming that benefits associated with the Project are reduced by 30 percent, the present value of total benefits will be reduced from a base estimate of US$54.6 million to approximately US$38.2 million with a corresponding reduction in the IRR from 14 percent to 5 percent. Under this worst possible scenario, indicators of profitability of the Project remain positive. If there were a delay of two years in the period of implementation of the Project the indicators remain positive, but would be negative in the case of a delay of more than 2 years more. Finally, from a fiscal point of view, the total costs of the Project, including investment and recurrent costs represent less than 1 percent of MEP’s expenditures, which indicates that the implementation of the Project is viable but highly dependent on maintaining political support and a priority allocation of incremental budget revenues. See Annex 3 for details of the revised Economic and Financial Analysis, including assumptions behind this result.

Risk 34. Risks identified during implementation that might jeopardize achievement of the Project Development Objective are: Risks Risk Rating Risk Mitigation Measures Lack of clarity and instability in Project implementation arrangements could delay Project implementation.

M Institutional arrangements have been strengthened through the restructuring, with greater clarity on the roles and responsibilities of PROMECE vis a vis the Implementing Units. In addition, the Minister of Public Education’s Office has retained authority over major Project decisions. The Comite Superior Consultivo and Comite de Unidades Ejecutoras have been retained as mechanisms to help ensure accountability.

17

Complaints on construction bidding awards, which are handled by the Contraloria General de la Republica, may delay Project implementation.

LWhile the Contraloria General de la Republica has handled complaints in a reasonable time frame (between 2 and 3 weeks), procurement training to both Project staff and Contraloria is being provided as part of Project supervision.

18

1

ANNEX 1: MATRIX OF CHANGES TO PROJECT COMPONENTS

Original Project Description

Change from OriginalProject Description to

Revised ProjectDescription

Revised Project Description

Component 1: Quality and Equity of Rural Education1. Quality and equity of the Borrower’s education system in ruralareas:

Revised Component 1: Efficient and Equitable Access to Rural EducationIdentifying efficient investments that improve access to quality education,by carrying out activities in support of:

(a) preparation of education quality investments to benefit schoolsworking as a collaboration network, including:

(i) the reorganization of existing facilities;

(ii) the renovation of dilapidated classrooms;

(iii) the construction of new classrooms;

(iv) the provision of appropriate furnish and equipment;

(v) the construction of common network facilities such astechnology center, technology resources, and cultural, arts andphysical education facilities.

Activities in originalComponent 1 (a) areincluded in therestructuredComponent 1, a. b. andc.

a. Classrooms: (i) the renovation of existing classrooms; (ii) theconstruction of new classrooms; and (iii) the provision of furniture andequipment, including computers and software, other than those mentionedin Component 2, a and Component 3.b.i. (iii).;

b. School building facilities, such as construction and provision offurniture and equipment for, kitchens, teachers lounges, studentdormitories, and restrooms in schools belonging to rural School Networks;

c. Common School Network facilities: (i) the construction of commonSchool Network facilities such as technology centers and cultural, arts andphysical education facilities; and (ii) the provision of equipment as well asenergy and connectivity facilities.

d. Regional Indigenous Education Directorate of Sula: (i) the provision offurniture and equipment.

(b) design and implementation of professional developmentprograms for teachers assigned to rural areas, including: (i) thecarrying out of an assessment of the needs and profile of ruralteachers to design an updated training curriculum; and (ii) theprovision of training to schools’ principals, supervisors andacademic advisors;

Original Component 1(b) was moved torestructuredComponent 3, b.

(c) the design and use of improved teaching and learning modelsfor rural schools, including: (i) the revision of existingmethodologies; (ii) the provision of training for teachers; (iii) theprovision of teacher and student materials; and (iv) the applicationof standardized tests for rural areas;

Activities in originalComponent 1 (c) (i) (i)(iii) have been movedto restructuredComponent 3, b.

2

Activities in originalComponent 1(c) (iv)have been moved torestructuredComponent 3, c.

(d) the promotion of education demand from low income familyand students through the equity programs, including: (i) thetransfer of Equity Program resources to school councils to reachlow income students; and (ii) the provision of training to regionaland school actors to increase their capacity to monitor and evaluatethe Equity Programs and to reduce the errors of inclusion andexclusion of beneficiaries.

Activities in originalComponent 1 (d) weremoved to Component2, b.

2. Local institutional development and strengthening Revised(a) strengthening of MEP’s regional capacity, including: (i) theprovision of training for its regional departments and districtsupervisors; (ii) the provision of on the job support, equipment,information systems, systematized procedures and tools tosupport alternative rural education modalities and demand-sideequity programs; and (iii) the design and implementation of asystem to monitor school improvement planning,execution and evaluation of results;

Activities in originalComponent 1 (a) wereincluded in restructuredComponents 2, a. andb. .

(b) strengthening of community and school support for educationquality, including: (i) the provision of training for School Councils,Patronatos and school principals in improvement planning,execution and evaluation of results; (ii) the development ofprograms to strengthen the impact and cost-effectiveness of MEPtransfers to School Councils and Patronatos; and (iii) the provisionof on the job support, equipment, procedures, and tools toimplement a school based monitoring system for keyeducation effectiveness and efficiency indicators;

Activities in originalComponent 1 (b) (i)and (ii) are not includedin the restructuredProject. Activities inoriginal Component (b)(iii) have been movedto Component 2, a.

(c) design and establishment of cooperation networks amongeducation modalities to guarantee coordinated school developmentplans and coordinated investments to guarantee school access,promotion and retention;

Original Component 1(c) included inrestructuredComponent 1, b..

(d) promotion of school development investments through thetransfer of resources to School Councils to finance, inter alia,school operating costs and school infrastructure improvements.

Original Component1(d) is included inrestructured

3

Component 2, b.Component 2: Improved Equity of Education ServicesStrengthening of MEP’s institutional capacity to reduce equitygaps, through the development and implementation of strategies,tools and institutional improvements to target and monitoreducation services, including, inter alia:

Revised Component 2: Improving MEP’s Institutional EfficiencyStrengthening the institutional capacity of MEP to improve its equityprograms and its efficiency, through (i) the development andimplementation of an education sector information system and (ii) supportfor MEP’s Implementing Technical Units that manage the EquityPrograms and the Transfers Program to improve planning and monitoringof such Programs; (iii) support of implementation of MEP’s institutionalreform and (iv) the management of the implementation of the Project, bycarrying out activities in support of:

1. The provision of technical assistance to strengthen the capacityof the Implementing Technical Units and deconcentratedorganizations that manage MEP’s demand based equity programssuch as those for scholarships, vouchers, transportation and schoolsmeals;

Original Component 2,1. is included inrestructuredComponent 2, b.

a. The development and implementation of an information system atschool level; (i) technical assistance to develop the information system;and (ii) computer equipment and software to be installed in schoolsbelonged to the Targeted Administrative Circuits.

2. The development and implementation of an information systemthat can track the education outputs and outcome indicators acrossmunicipalities, communities and schools.

Original Component 2,2 has been eliminated.

b. Improving the design and strengthening the management of MEP’sImplementing Technical Units that administer the Equity Programs andTransfers Programs to improve said Implementing Technical Units’impact and cost effectiveness through the provision of: (i) technicalassistance to said Implementing Technical Units to improve the design ofsaid programs; (ii) training for staff in MEP’s Implementing TechnicalUnits that administer the Equity Programs and the Transfers Programs toimprove supervision and evaluation of said programs, (iii) transfers ofresources to School Councils to finance, inter alia, school operating costsand school infrastructure improvements; and (iv) transfers of fundsthrough the Equity Programs beneficiaries.c. Strengthening and implementation of MEP’s institutional reformprogram at the central and regional level, including: (i) technicalassistance to support and derive lessons learned from MEP’s institutionalreform program and related policy development and; (ii) training for staffin MEP’s Implementing Technical Units at the central and regional level;and

RestructuredComponent 2, d. comesfrom originalComponent 3, 2.

d. The management of the implementation of the Project by the PCU

4

Component 3: Improved Institutional Efficiency Strengtheningof MEP’s institutional capacity to promote alliances among,central, regional and schools organizations:

Revised Component 3: Quality of Education Strengthening the quality ofprimary and secondary education by carrying out activities in support of:

1. The development of inter-departmental integration strategies. Original Component 3,1. has been dropped.

a. The development and implementation of a training program inintercultural education for MEP staff at the central and regional level.

2. The provision of technical assistance and training to supportMEP in the coordination, monitoring and evaluation of theactivities of the Project, including the Subprojects;

Original Component 3,2. is included inComponent 2, d.

RestructuredComponent 3, b. isfrom originalComponent 1 (b) and(c).

b. A rural education quality improvement program adapted to the localand cultural context, including:

i. Improved model for rural secondary education, including (i) thedevelopment of a strategy to transform Telesecundarias to Liceos Rurales;and (ii) the development of rural teaching methods that use ICT; (iii) theprovision of computer equipment and software for the purpose of puttinginto use these rural teaching methods in all schools belonging to theSchools Networks under Component 1.

ii. Professional development programs for teachers assigned to rural areas,including: (i) an assessment of the needs and profile of rural teachers andtheir existing teaching models, (ii) design and implementation of trainingprograms for rural teachers, including intercultural education; and

iii. The provision of teacher and student materials with an interculturalperspective to rural schools.

3. The provision of support for MEP’s institutional development,including: (i) the design and implementation of an integratedsystem for planning, budgeting, monitoring and accountability; (ii)the design and implementation of a monitoring and evaluationsystem for inputs, outputs, processes and outcomes of Subprojects.

Original Component 3,3. is not included in therestructured Project.

RestructuredComponent 3, c. comesfrom originalComponent 1 (c) (iv).

c. Improvements in MEP staff and teacher capacity to analyze studentlearning assessments, including:

i. The development of a standard methodology to analyze student learningassessments;

ii. The development of training modules for teacher training programs andprograms to train MEP staff on the standard methodology to analyzestudent learning assessments; and

iii. Training for MEP staff and for teachers on the standard methodologyto analyze student learning assessments.

5

ANNEX 2: RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND MONITORING

6

Project Development Objective (PDO): The Project will: (i) close existing rural education gaps in access, quality and internal efficiency; (ii) improve the impact of equity programs forlow-income students; and (iii) enhance the capacity of education institutional actors at the central, regional and local levels to carry out project diagnosis, planning, implementation,monitoring and impact evaluation.

Cumulative Target Values Data Collection and ReportingCore Status

(D, C,N, R)*

UoM(%,#,T) **

Baseline2006

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Closing

date

Frequencyand

Reports

DataCollection

Instruments

Responsibilityfor Data

CollectionProject Outcome IndicatorsPDO 1. Reducing Quality Gaps;Reduce education quality gaps intargeted areas (percentage ofstudents that pass “bachillerato”exams).

National level 62.7% 67.2% 64.6% 68.5% 67.9% 70% 70%

Targeted areas

N %

56.5% n/d 63.9% 54.1% 49.82% 70% 70%

Annually Educationstatistics andinstitutionalassessments

Management andQuality ofEvaluationDepartment(MEP)

PDO 2. Improving Equity:Reduce gaps in graduation rates intargeted areas (graduation ratemeasured as the ratio between 11th

grade enrollment and 7th gradeenrollment).

National level GraduationRateSecondary(11th/7th)

36.6 40.1 40.5 41. 41.5

Targeted areas 22.0 21.6 25.1 26.2 27.5

Gap

N %

GraduationRate TargetedAreas /GraduationRate NationalLevel

60.% 56% 63% 65% 67%

Annually Educationstatistics andinstitutionalassessments

InstitutionalPlanningDepartment(MEP)

Statistics AnalysisDepartment(MEP)

PDO 3. Improving Efficiency:Reduce administrative costs perbeneficiary of MEP’s EquityPrograms (scholarships,transportation, food).

R Baseli-ne ***C/10,855

C/12,306

C/6,629

C/6,574

Annually Equity ProgramDepartment

InstitutionalPlanningDepartment(MEP)

EquityProgramsDepartment


*UoM

**Baseline

20062007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Closingdate

Frequencyand

Reports

DataCollection

Instruments


Collection

Project Outcome Indicators

7

*Status---D=Dropped C=Continued N=New R=Revised**UoM-----%=Percentage #=Number T=Text

8


*UoM**

Baseline2006

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Closing

date

Frequencyand

Reports

DataCollection

Instruments

Responsibility forData Collection

Intermediate Result Indicators

Component 1: Efficient and equitable access to rural education

Indicator 1Number of classrooms built andrenovated, and provided withfurniture and equipment, in theSchool Networks.

N # 0 0 0 0 0 120 186 Bi-annually-Annually

Physicalprogress andinstitutionalassessments

PCU

Indicator 2Number of school buildingfacilities constructed andprovided with equipment,including kitchens, teacherslounges, student dormitoriesand restrooms in the SchoolNetworks.



PCU

Indicator 3Number of Common SchoolNetwork facilities constructedand equipped (technologycenters; cultural, arts andphysical education facilities.



PCU

Increase primary schoolcompletion in the four targetedmacro-regions.

D % 69.3% 69.5% 70% 72% 75% 78.6%

Increased tests scores in 6th

grade in the targeted macro-regions.

D T 2003 application N/A N/A Mid-TermEvaluation ofimprovements intestscores

N/A Reachat leastnationalaveragetestscores.

Annually EducationStatistics of

MEP

StatisticsDepartment

(MEP)


Cumulative Target Values Data Collection and Reporting

Core Status*

UoM**

Baseline2006

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Closing

date

Frequencyand

Reports

DataCollection

Instruments


CollectionIntermediate Result Indicators

9

10


*UoM**

Base-line2006

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Closing

date

Frequency and

Reports

DataCollection

Instruments

Responsibility forCollection

Intermediate Result IndicatorsComponent 2: Improving MEP’s Institutional EfficiencyIndicator 4Percentage of schools and LiceosRurales equipped with aneducation sector informationsystem in the 15 AdministrativeCircuits targeted by the Project.

R % 0 0 0 9,58 9,58 85 100-

Annually InstitutionalAssessments

Education IT ResouDepartment

Indicator 5Number of staff, in MEPTechnical Units that administerthe Equity and TransfersPrograms, that have trained toimprove supervision andevaluation of these programs.

N # 0 0 0 0 0 300 600 Annually InstitutionalAssessments

Equity ProgramDepartment

Scholarships

68,453 ***

68,453 71,860 79,052 83,119 91,181 100,299

Transpor-tation

70,075 ***

73,369 77,143 83,372 76,275 92,120 93,423

Indicator 6Number of beneficiaries by theeducational demand programs(Scholarships, transportation,

food program)

N #

FoodProgram

582,708***

608,503 602,581 601,473 620,000 655,000 656,000

Annually InstitutionalAssessments

Equity ProgramDepartment

*Status---D=Dropped C=Continued N=New R=Revised**UoM-----%=Percentage #=Number T=Text*** Targets are not cumulative for this indicator (Component 2—Indicator 4)

11


*UoM**

Base-line2006

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Closing

date

Frequency and

Reports

DataCollection

Instruments




Transferto SchoolsCouncils(include

maintenance, andEquity

Programsof

transportation and

FoodProgram31.611

62.075 66.438 92.254 130.692 90.918 90.918

Indicator 7Value of transfers of fundsthrough the Equity Programs andTransfers Programs tobeneficiaries and SchoolCouncils.

N Millonsof

Colones

Scholarships6.861

12.475 40.722 27.368 31.731 33.878 38.883

Annually BudgetEquity Program

DepartmentAnd School Coun

Department

Indicator 8Number of staff that have beentrained under MEP’s institutionalreform program.


Regional CoordinatiTechnical Secreta

12

Indicator 9Number of studies and workshopsfinanced by Component 2.


Regional CoordinatiTechnical Secreta



*UoM**

Baseline2006

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Closing

date

Frequency and

Reports

DataCollection

Instruments




Improved regional targeting ofequity programs.

D # GiniCoefficient(equityindicator)of 0 forvouchersand of 0.16forscholarships

Applytargetinginstruments

Applytargetinginstruments

Evaluatechangein ginicoefficient

Evaluateimpactofprogram inbeneficiaries

GiniCoefficient of minus(-) 0.15forvouchersand minus(-) 0.10forscholarships

Annually SIDE andLinks toTargetingSystems

MEP (FONABE andFinancial-AdministratiDepartment)

Reduced administrative costs ofequity programs.

D % Perbeneficiaryadministrative Cost:20%

DesignIntegrationStrategy

ImplementIntegrationStrategy

Strengthen cost-effectiveadministrativestrategies

Evaluateimpact

Perbeneficiaryadministrative cost:10%

Bi-Annually

InstitutionalAssessment

General Finance Depa(MEP)

Planning and ProgrammDepartment (MEP).

Statistics Department(MEP)

Regional Departments

13

Timely and Accurate informationof targeting and impact ofeducation services

D T Informationnotintegratedand notupdated

DesignSystem

ImplementIntegratedinformationsystem

Mid-termevaluation oftimeliness andaccurateness ofinformation

SystemInstitutio-nalized

TimelyandAccurateInformation onEducationProgramBeneficiaries andImpact

Bi-Annually

InstitutionalAssessment


14


*UoM**

Base-line2006

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Closing

date

Frequencyand

Reports

DataCollection

Instruments


CollectionIntermediate Result IndicatorsComponent 3: Quality of Education

Indicator 10Percentage ofnational advisers andregional trainerstrained inintercultural.

N % 0 0 0 7 19 79 179 Annually InstitutionalAssessments

InterculturalEducation

DepartmentPCU

Indicator 11Completion of anassessment of theneeds and profile ofrural teachers.

N # - - - - - End ofevaluation

End ofActivity

InstitutionalAssessments

InstitutionalPlanning

Department

Indicator 12Percentage of ruralsecondary teacherstrained in the LiceosRurales modality andinterculturaleducation.

N % 0 0 0 0 0 Preparationof theteachertrainingprogram onthe LiceosRurales.

100% Annually Statistics andInstitutionalAssessments

InstitutionalPlanning

DepartmentDDC+ UladislaoGamez Institute

Indicator 13Number of educationmaterials producedwith an interculturalperspective


InterculturalEducation

DepartmentPCU

Indicator 14Development of astandardmethodology toanalyze studentassessment andcomplementarytraining modules.

N T - - - - - Completeof thestudentlearningassessmentanalysis

- End ofActivity

InstitutionalAssessments

Managementand Quality ofEvaluationDepartment


Cumulative Target Values Data Collection and ReportingIntermediate

Result IndicatorsCore Status

*UoM**

Base-line

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Closing

Frequency and

DataCollection


15


16

ANNEX 3: ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1) The economic analysis analyzes the following aspects: (a) the Project’s overall economic evaluation including cost-benefit analysis; (b) sensitivity analysis to determine impact of Project risks on Project outcomes; and (c) fiscal impact of the Project. 2) Project Interventions and Direct and Indirect Beneficiaries: The proposed Education Equity and Efficiency Project aims to close the growing gap between rural and urban education outcomes by financing the preparation of POA Activities in regions with low education indicators, mostly rural, which include: (i) rural education access, (ii) teacher staff development, (iii) pertinent pedagogical and academic modalities for rural contexts, (iv) targeting and monitoring of impact of demand-based equity Projects, and (v) capacity building of institutional actors involved delivering rural education services. Also, the Project supports targeting of education demand subsidies and finances capacity building strategies for institutions delivering rural education services. These interventions are expected to have quantifiable benefits that guarantee a positive internal return on Project investments.

Project Interventions Yielding Direct Quantifiable Benefits Interventions Quantifiable Benefits

• Reduced Repetition • Reduced Dropouts • Increased Primary Education

Completion Rates • Reduced Errors of Inclusion of

Education Demand Subsidies

• POA ACTIVITIES • Targeting of Education Demand

Subsidies • Improved Capacity and Efficiency

of Technical Units of MEP managing the provision of rural education services • Increased lifetime earnings of 6th

grade and 9th grade graduates

1) Assumptions for Economic Analysis of Equity and Education Project. The following parameters are considered relevant in estimating the economic benefits of the Project: (i) the length of the Project horizon, (ii) the time of impact of the Project in the students population, (iii) the size of the target population, (iv) the existing patterns of repetition and dropout rates in rural population, (v) the average number of years completed in rural areas; (vi) the existing patterns of errors of inclusion in the education demand subsidies; and (vii) the existing cost structure in the Education sector. Given the medium-to-long-term effect of the changes, the estimates presented in terms of reduced repetition and dropout rates and improved targeting of the education demand subsidies—which assume a Project horizon of only 5 years—are conservative. The analysis of the Project uses the following assumptions to measure the direct and indirect benefits:

17

Beneficiaries and Targets Direct Target Population

61,000 low income students from 1,400 rural schools selected by the Project: 45,000 primary and 16,000 secondary

Indirect Target Population

Other students from non-targeted schools that will benefit from the medium and long-term changes originated by the Project; however, these benefits are not quantified to maintain the ERR conservative

Expected Benefits, Baseline and Expected Change in Rural Schools Benefit Baseline Expected Change

Reduced Repetition Rates 5.78% (2009) Minus 1% points in 5 years Reduced Dropout Rates 2.97 % (2009) Minus 1% points in 5 years 6th grade Completion Rates 92.5% (2009) Plus 5% points in 5 years 9th grade Completion Rates 65.3% (2009) Plus 5% points in 5 years Reduced Error of Inclusion in Education Demand Subsidies

15% Minus 5% in 5 years

Unit Costs and Cost of Intervention Cost of the Project US$55,133,000 (US$30 million financed by The World Bank,

US$20 million by local government during the Project life and US$5.1 million as recurrent costs once the Project is finalized).

Unitary Cost of a student in primary for the educational system

US$616 (2009)

Unitary Cost of a student in secondary for the educational system:

US$1003 (2009)

Average incremental earning of primary education graduates over non-graduates:

US$896 (2009)

Unitary Cost of Education Demand Subsidies in Primary School:

Transportation: US$4.5 per student/year (2009) Scholarships: US$17.9 per student/year (2009) School meals: US$89.6 per student/year (2009)

Unitary Cost of Education Demand Subsidies in Secondary School:

Transportation: US$4.5 per student/year (2009) Scholarships: US$28.4 per student/year (2009) School meals: US$59.7 per student/year (2009)

18

Other Parameters: � Discount rate of 10% � Projections of enrolled students are based in annual growth rate

estimations of the enrolment statistics during 2004-2010 period � Time horizon: 10 years. Cost-Benefit Analysis 4) CBA is potentially the most powerful tool available to policymakers that are deciding between alternative Project structures, or the “with and without” scenario of Project analysis. The criteria used to evaluate the economic efficiency of the Project include Net Present Value (NPV) and the Internal Rate of Return (IRR). The ability of CBA to convert outcomes into a common unit of value, typically expressed in dollars, provides a useful summary of overall benefits. In the case of education Projects costs are easily identified but benefits are harder to measure. 5) Summary of Costs and Benefits. The preliminary estimations took in consideration two sources of direct benefits. The first one is associated with the savings to the educative system from the reduction of repetition rates in rural areas. The second source of direct benefits considers the reduction in dropout rates that implies necessarily an amount of monetary resources saved to the system. Unitary costs per student in primary education for rural areas are estimated around US$616 and for the case of a student in secondary education the unitary costs are estimated around US$1,003. 6) Two new sources of direct benefits will include: (i) savings generated by reducing the error of inclusion of education demand subsidies (scholarship, bonuses, transportation and meals); and (ii) increased future earnings of 6th grade graduates as opposed to non-graduates in rural areas. 7) The direct investment costs are distributed over a 5-year period and we made the assumption that the government will cover an additional recurrent cost to keep the continuing of the benefits achieved after the final year of the Project. This recurrent cost was assumed to be similar to the government investment realized during the life of the Project (around US$1 million). From this perspective, the two critical indicators that are evaluated include the net present value (NPV) of all benefit and investment flows and the internal rate of return (IRR). While this approach involves a greater degree of complexity, it allows policymakers to compare the monetary value of the benefits from the Project with the benefits from alternative investments, in either the same sector or in other sectors. 8) The direct costs are US$55.1 million investment costs associated with the Project. These costs would be incurred over the period 2005-2014. Given the expected disbursement profile, the present value of the future investment is US$46.4 million when discounted with a ten percent discount rate.

19

9) In the absence of the Project, there would be a total of 283,736 students that repeat the annual course at the year 2014 (assuming that the rural repetition rates of year 2002 remain constant during the time horizon of the Project). Assuming that the 2002 dropout rate remains constant, a total of 140,159 students would drop out of the system by 2014 without the Project. 10) In terms of education demand subsidies and future earnings, in the absence of the Project, 15% of demand-side subsidies will be absorbed by students in the two highest income quintiles, at a cost of nearly US$24.9 million over the lifetime of the Project. Foregone earnings of rural students still not completing a full primary education cycle will amount to US$896 annually. 11) On the other hand, assuming Project implementation achieves the desired results, the expected benefits (further manifesting themselves in terms of avoided unitary costs for the educational system) would be:

a. The number of repetitions would be reduced to an estimated 224,296 students. This reduction of an estimated 59,441 repetitions constitutes one of the main benefits of the Project.

b. Potential dropouts reduced by the Project would be nearly 42,179 students (from a total of 140,159 students that dropout the system at the year 2014 without the Project, maintaining 2002 rates constant);

c. Total savings of US$24.9 million spent in education demand subsidies for high-income students, which can be redirected to provide coverage to low income students still not benefiting from the Project.

d. An increment of 5% of the student population graduating from primary education with incremental yearly earning of US$896, especially benefited families from the two lowest income quintiles that are targeted by the Project.

12) The ratio benefits/costs, considering the full cost of the Project, would yield nearly US$1.2 of benefits for each dollar invested. The Project would yield a present value of net benefits, after investments, of US$8.1 million over ten years and produce an internal rate of return (IRR) of 14%. 13) The main results include:

Table 1.1: Summary of Cost-Benefit Analysis

Present Value

Year Investments Total Benefits Net Benefits 2005 6,366,667 -828,330 -7,194,996 2006 22,181,818 -160,427 -22,342,245 2007 10,027,548 2,391,974 -7,635,574 2008 3,405,960 4,950,135 1,544,174 2009 1,753,068 7,932,017 6,178,950 2010 637,479 8,027,399 7,389,920 2011 579,527 8,097,571 7,518,044 2012 526,842 8,098,923 7,572,081

20

2013 478,948 8,059,327 7,580,380 2014 435,407 7,973,251 7,537,844 Total 46,393,264 54,541,841 8,148,577 BC 1.2 IRR 14%

Sensitivity Analysis 14) This section evaluates to what extent the Project’s inherent risks could affect the overall Project benefits and the overall desirability of the Project in economic and financial terms. We estimated two possible risks: (i) the reduction in benefits obtained through the Project; and (ii) a delay in the implementation of the Project. For the first one we established three alternatives that considered reductions of 10%, 20% and 30% of benefits. In the case of delay in the period of implementation we assumed 2, 3 and 4 years of delay. 15) The Project would be sustainable under the alternative scenarios of reductions in benefits. The principal risk would be associated with a failure to continue interventions after the Project has finished, thereby lowering the probable success of controlling repetition and dropout rates in rural areas. The following table provides the summary results for the sensitivity analysis.

Table 1.2: Summary of Sensitivity Analysis

Scenarios of reduction of benefits Base 10% 20% 30% PV Total benefits 54,541,841 49,087,657 43,633,473 38,179,289 BC 1.18 1.06 0.94 0.82 IRR 14% 11% 8% 5% Scenarios of delay in the Project Base 2 years 3 years 4 years PV Total benefits 54,541,841 31,825,837 22,847,738 15,239,921 BC 1.18 0.82 0.65 0.47 IRR 14% 4% -4% NA

16) Assuming that benefits associated to the Project are reduced by 30%, the present value of total benefits will be reduced from a base estimation of US$54.6 million to US$38.2 million approximately, with a corresponding reduction in the IRR from 14% to 5%. Under this worst possible scenario, indicators of profitability of the Project remain positive. If we consider a delay of two years in the period of implementation of the Project the indicators remain positive, but it could have difficulties in the case of a delay of more than 2 years.

21

Fiscal Impact of the Project 17) The first step in the analysis for the Project sustainability was to establish the base level expenditures prior to the implementation of the Project. After this evaluation, forecast estimates were made on the additional costs that result from this Project. 18) In 2004, Education Ministry allocations by the Central Government represented around 4% of the Gross Domestic Product. Projections were made through the calculations of compounded annual growth rates of the expenditures of the Ministry of Education during the 1999-2009 period.

Table 1.3: Summary of Fiscal Impact 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Education Ministry Expenditures (EME) 600 706 847 1,042 1,393 1,669 2,001 2,398 2,875 3,446

Investment (US$ million) 4 15 7 3 2 Recurrent Costs (US$ Million) 0 10 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Increase in EME 76 105 142 195 350 277 332 397 476 571 Recurrent Costs as a % of EME 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Recurrent Costs as a % of increase of EME 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% Investment and Recurrent Costs as a % of EME 0.6% 3.5% 1.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Investment and Recurrent Costs as a % of increase of EME 5.0% 23.1% 8.6% 2.3% 0.7% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

19) From a fiscal point of view, the total costs of the Project, including investment and recurrent costs represent approximately less than 1% of the Education Ministry Expenditures, which indicates that the implementation of the Project is viable but highly dependent on maintaining political support and a priority allocation of incremental budget revenues.

22

ANNEX 4: UPDATED INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLANNING FRAMEWORK

I. Safeguards Approach on Indigenous Peoples 1. For the purposes of the Bank’s Operational Safeguards Policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10), the direct beneficiaries of this Project are overwhelmingly Indigenous- with 80 of the 81 school construction/refurbishment projects located in Indigenous Territories, Component 2’s support for strengthening of the Indigenous Education System, and Component 3’s support for the development of Intercultural Education. Given this, the Project’s safeguards approach for Indigenous Peoples is described in this updated Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) and the Project in itself has served as an Indigenous Peoples Plan, fully incorporating during implementation: (a) the principles and processes of free, prior and informed consultation with legal indigenous representatives (ADIs), relevant stakeholders (Indigenous parents and teachers), and traditional leaders; (b) documentation of broad community support in each beneficiary community; and (c) socio-cultural adaptations in the implementation of consultation processes, work within Indigenous communities, and in the design of schools, legal reforms, and processes to develop the subcomponent on intercultural education. A specific description of these processes is described in greater detail below. 2. This updated IPPF, which reflects approaches that have been under implementation for the past two years, will be consulted with a select group of Indigenous leaders that represent Costa Rica’s different ethnicities and territories and have worked with the project. The purpose of this consultation will be to identify, and, if necessary, improve any of the current procedures described in this IPPF. Once the updated IPPF has been validated, the processes it outlines will be fully integrated into the Operations Manual (in cases where these processes are not explicitly described in the current version of the OM), and the updated IPPF will be disseminated nationally and through the Bank’s Infoshop. This validation process will be carried out within the next three months as part of the Bank’s Project Supervision. II. Social Assessment and the Original IPPF 3. A multidisciplinary team carried out a social assessment and developed an Indigenous People Planning Framework (IPPF) for the original project in 2003. This process was carried out in close collaboration with the Indigenous Education Department of MEP and was informed by interviews with education stakeholders in 19 indigenous schools (pre-schools, primary and secondary schools), including school principals, teachers, students, parents, school and administrative boards, parent associations, and regional supervisors. The Social Assessment highlights key milestones, issues, barriers, and institutional gaps for rural communities and Indigenous peoples in primary and secondary education in Costa Rica.

23

Original IPPF Recommendations and Progress to Date 4. The IPPF proposed several activities to be financed by the Project to address access barriers and ensure that the Project delivered socio-culturally appropriate benefits to the Indigenous population. Original IPPF Recommendation Progress to Date Carry-out a study on the education system inside indigenous territories and in their periphery that would propose strategies to address the need for intercultural bilingual education and delivery strategies

Component 2 has financed the reform process of the Decree N. 22072, which established the Subsystem for Indigenous Education in 1993. The Reform’s proposal attempts to align the decree with the requirements of ILO 169 and improve intercultural bilingual education and delivery strategies both within Indigenous Territories and within their periphery areas. Extensive consultation processes, financed by Component 2, are currently being carried out in each IP Territory. For further details, please see section on Component 2 below.

An evaluation of teacher training methodologies and materials to improve instruction in multi-grade schools

The evaluation and development of teacher training materials and intercultural aspects will be financed under Component 3 and will start implementation once the Decree reform process, being financed by Component 2, is complete.

Improvements in the quality of instruction and materials for the culture, native language and environment classes offered in Indigenous territories

Overall improvements in quality and the development of an intercultural education curriculum (that goes beyond the three modules mentioned) will be financed by Component 3.

Inclusion of Indigenous students in nutrition, transportation and voucher programs

The Project is financing this for all students through Component 2. In regards to Indigenous students’ participation in these programs, the Project is indirectly supporting this through the formalization and support for administrative integration of Indigenous Territories within the National Education System (also Component 2).

The monitoring and evaluation of disaggregated indicators for indigenous and Afro-Costa Rican studies

Disaggregated indicators do exist for indigenous students as part of the Ministry’s system, but are not financed by the Project. Disaggregated indicators do not yet exist for Afro-Costa Rican students.

The promotion of rural school networks for indigenous students both inside and within the periphery of the Indigenous territories

The formalization of Indigenous territories and indigenous administrative networks is being supported by Component 2 with the Decree N. 35513. This Decree has formed 15 Indigenous networks that represent the schools throughout the Indigenous Territories.

24

III. Relevant Legal Framework 5. The legal framework guiding this Project’s work with and for Indigenous peoples include:

i. The National Constitution’s Article 76 establishes Indigenous languages as official languages.

ii. Law N° 6172 (Indigenous Law, 1977) lays out the fundamental rights of the

indigenous peoples, defines “indigenous”, established that the reserves would be self-governing, and set limitations on land use within the reserves.

iii. Law N° 7316 (1992) ratified the International Labor Organization’s Convention 169. Articles 27-31 of ILO 169 outline specific requirements for Indigenous peoples’ education, including: (i) their participation in the design and implementation of education programs that benefit them, (ii) the incorporation of their histories, knowledge and technologies, value systems and social, economic and cultural aspirations within education programs, (iii) their right to establish their own educational institutions and facilities, (iv) the promotion of Indigenous languages and understanding of their rights, (v) their right to general knowledge and skills that will help Indigenous children participate fully and on an equal footing in both their own community and within the national community, and (vi) the promotion of national education measures to eliminate prejudices.

iv. Decree N° 22072 (1993) creates the Subsystem of Indigenous Education with the general objective of progressively developing bilingual and bicultural education in the officially recognized Indigenous reserves.

6. A more elaborate analysis of this legal framework is included within the Spanish version of this updated IPPF. III. Project Processes and Activities in Relation to Indigenous Peoples

7. A. Component 1: Efficient and Equitable Access to Rural Education. This component has financed and will continue to finance the construction and refurbishment of schools and education centers and the provision of furniture and equipment. This component is well advanced in its implementation and has adopted the following procedures in regards to Indigenous peoples’ participation and socio-cultural adaptations. The approach has been enhanced over the past two years to improve the Project’s ability to communicate and adapt to the cultural specificities and cosmovision of beneficiary communities.

i) Diagnostic: In 2008 a demand study was carried out by MEP’s Regional Supervisors

to identify the rural communities with the greatest educational infrastructure gaps. The Project’s selection criteria prioritized communities in Indigenous territories

25

where land acquisition would not present any legal or involuntary displacement risks. The identification of these communities and infrastructure needs was done through extensive consultation processes with potential Indigenous beneficiary communities, including meetings with parents, teachers, students, development associations and other stakeholders. Once a community had been identified as a potential beneficiary community, the Regional MEP supervisors together with the Community’s education stakeholders to identify the priority investments and refurbishment processes necessary to build the educational centers, school circuits, and regional directorates. In particular, the Diagnostic evaluated existing infrastructure and the needs for reorganizing, restoring or new construction as well as furniture and technical equipment needs. At the same time, collaboration networks were identified with other schools in the area and a group proposal was developed for infrastructure, furniture and technical equipment.

ii) Site Usage Rights & Environmental License: To be eligible for Project benefits, the

Indigenous Development Association (ADI), as legal representative of the Territory, would sign an agreement with the Community’s Education Council or Administrative Council in which the ADI would transfer usage rights of a property to this Council for the purpose of the school construction or refurbishment. The Project included screening criteria to ensure that all properties be free of any domestic, subsistence or commercial use and other outstanding legal issues. Project supervision recently concluded a review of these properties and has concluded that of the 81 subprojects, 74 are being carried out on properties where a school was already functioning. Seven (7) new properties have been selected, of which four have been confirmed for having no resettlement impacts, two are yet to be chosen, and one is awaiting the expiration of a contract for agricultural activities. The chosen property would then require the processing of an Environmental License and approval that the property was technically adequate for school construction. A template of the property transfer agreement is included within the Project’s Operational Manual.

iii) Documentation of Broad Community Support: Once the above steps were

completed, a Memorandum of Understanding is then signed between the Community’s Education Council or Administrative Council, Student Government, the Indigenous Development Association (ADI) and PROMECE that outlines the principles and commitments of each stakeholder in the design and implementation of the construction project. This MOU serves as the Community’s expression of broad community support, outlining each stakeholder’s commitments to the project, with a particular emphasis on the participatory role of the Community’s Education Committee, Student Body and the ADI as the representative of the broader community.

iv) Examples of this participation, as specifically outlined in the template MOU, which is

included in the Operations Manual, include: (i) active participation in school design (including identification, attainment and transport of materials per culturally appropriate techniques), (ii) active participation in community meetings during the construction phase, (iii) designation of a representative to accompany the inspector

26

during construction supervision visits, (iv) organization of monthly community meetings to inform the neighbors and local organizations of project advances, (v) organization of a training and plan for school maintenance, (vi) support in the transport of furniture and school equipment, (vii) commitments to involve the broader education community in the optimal educational development of the center and care for the buildings, and (viii) support for the educational development of the community youth in general.

v) Bidding Process and Final Design: The Project has adopted three types of

contracting arrangements in order to meet the range of socio-cultural adaptation preferences of communities and reach those that are extremely difficult to access. In each case, a cultural mediator is hired to work as part of the contractor’s team and a local Indigenous facilitator is hired as the Project’s counterpart within the community. The terms of Reference for both of these roles will be included as Annexes in the Spanish Version of this updated IPPF. These two interlocutors were introduced as part of the Project’s design in 2009 to facilitate consultation with the beneficiary communities and to ensure that their vision for the schools were captured and communicated to the contractors. The cultural mediator is a person external to the community but who is very familiar with traditional culture and practices. Contracting companies are required to include the cultural mediator as part of their core team. The local indigenous facilitator is hired as part of the construction budget. Once an Empresa Gestora has won a bidding contract, the General Contractor and Cultural mediator organize meetings with the communities, including the educational stakeholders, the elders and the ADIs to finalize project designs, discuss materials needs and costs, identify a local facilitator, assess needs for temporary school locations during construction, etc. As of May, 2011: 7 schools/education centers were built under the Community Participation modality; 26 had elected the Management Company modality (and were in the bidding process); 25 had opted for the Construction Company modality (are were in the bidding process); and 23 projects were still to be launched.

Project’s Progress to Date and Detailed Description of Bidding Process The Project initiated its work in some of the most remote indigenous communities in the country. These communities, which are not accessible by vehicle, adopted a Community Participation (PC) modality for school construction/refurbishment. Project resources were transferred to the Community’s Education Committee that was in turn responsible for the construction project with the support of an off-site technical expert. Architectural designers spent extensive time in some of the most remote communities of the country to work with the Indigenous education community and elders to define the school’s physical design, its placement, and what materials should be used and the cultural rules guiding how these materials should be attained. A prototype of this traditional school design and guidelines on how to attain materials in accordance with traditional beliefs and IP Territorial laws were developed and included within the Operations Manual. Other communities were then consulted on their preferences, and have subsequently chosen the traditional designs, traditional designs with adaptations, or a more conventional cement school and

27

construction process. The PC modality has resulted not only in highly attractive designs, based on traditional practice and belief systems, but has also provided additional benefits to communities through employment generation and improvements in local labor skills. To date, seven (7) schools have been completed using this modality.

As the project moved out to more accessible, yet still remote communities, it adopted another alternative modality where Management Companies (Empresas Gestoras) were hired at a fixed rate to construct the project, hire labor, purchase materials, manage subcontracts and administer the resources. In these cases, the Management Company is allowed to earn only a certain percentage of profit and cost efficiencies can be rewarded with additional works contracts. This modality was chosen for the communities that had opted for the more traditional design and materials used in the PC modality. Similar to the PC modality, this modality encourages the use of local labor and materials as a way to reduce costs and improve design. This modality has been chosen for 26 schools/education centers, of which four (4) had been contracted by December 2010.

Finally, in cases where communities have chosen a more conventional “Western” design for their schools, and where community’s have expressed less interest in participation in the school design and construction, a convention construction company is hired to design, build and deliver the school. This modality has been chosen for 25 schools/education centers, of which six (6) had been contracted by December 2010.

vi) Supervision: General supervision is carried out by the regional supervisors, external

construction auditors and environmental supervisors. The Community has an active role in supervising works through two mechanisms. First off, in the MOU, the educational community and ADI agree to participate in monthly meetings to discuss construction issues and the progress of the project. Secondly, the Cultural Mediator and Community Facilitator are expected to accompany the PROMECE supervisor on their supervision visits. The Cultural Mediator and Community Facilitator provide a constant flow of information around community concerns.

8. B. Component 2: Improving MEP’s Institutional Efficiency. Component 2 includes three subcomponents, two of which are beneficial for Indigenous peoples, as they are for any other school beneficiary, but for reasons of practicality and the nature of the activities, have not needed to adopt socio-cultural adaptations for Indigenous peoples. These include: subcomponent 2.1 that supports the electronic equipping of schools and the development of an information system at the school level; and subcomponent 2.2 that supports the strengthening of the Country’s equity transfer programs. The third subcomponent, however, is where this Component is extremely critical for Indigenous peoples as it supports key institutional and legal reforms to strengthen the recognition of Indigenous territories and their rights within the Country’s education system. The specificities of these reforms and the processes to ensure free, prior and informed consultation of Indigenous peoples are described in detail below.

28

Subcomponent 2.3: strengthening and implementation of MEP’s institutional reform program at the central and regional level. This subcomponent has supported national institutional and legal reforms necessary to improve and enhance Costa Rica’s Indigenous Education System. This work has been carried out primarily through the passage of the Decree 35513-MEP and support for the reform of Decree 22072-MEP that created the Subsystem for Indigenous Education. The Decree 35513-MEP has been passed and project activities are currently focused on supporting its implementation. A reform proposal for Decree 22072 has been developed and is going through a national consultation where communities in each territory are being consulted on its content. (i) Decree 35513-MEP (September 25th, 2009): As part of its effort to respond to

recommendations made by the National Ombudsman in regards to Indigenous peoples rights and education, the Ministry of Education approved the Decree 35513-MEP. This Decree redefined the administrative organization of the regional education directorates, recognizing the existence of the 24 Indigenous territories as part of the political–administrative structures that make up MEP’s regional education directorates. With this recognition, one regional Directorate was formed (La Dirección Regional Sulá) that represents 7 indigenous territories from Limon and 6 educational districts. In addition, another 9 indigenous districts were created from three other regions in the Country that will be integrated into the Regional Directorates of Turrialba, Grande del Térraba, and Coto. In the case of the Regional Directorate Sulá, which represented purely indigenous districts, the Decree (article 80) grants the pre-authorization to develop its own internal organization to ensure that the pedagogical and curriculum support it provides is culturally appropriate and meets the needs of the Indigenous communities.

The proposal for this decree was distributed to all of the Indigenous Development Associations (ADIs) in May of 2009 at a national workshop with approximately 35-40 Indigenous ADI representatives present. The Decree was explained to the Indigenous representatives who were then given three months to consult the Decree with their respective communities and respond with comments. One of the primary recommendations made by indigenous leaders was to explicitly include reference to Costa Rica’s legal frameworks on Indigenous peoples in the text of the Decree as a way to frame and guarantee its provisions. A synthesis of this Consultation Process and the resulting recommendations will be included an Annex to the Spanish version of this updated IPPF. The recruitment process for the Regional Directorate of Sulá and the other Indigenous Districts is based on a process laid out in Articles 7, 8 and 14 of the reform proposal of Decree 22072-MEP. This Article calls for all the teachers, technical and administrative staff, and other related personnel working in the Indigenous education districts to be Indigenous from the same culture and territory where the position is being recruited for. The Article also requires that these educational professionals speak the indigenous language fluently. In cases where sufficient human resources are not available, the reform allows for other Indigenous peoples or non-indigenous

29

peoples to hold these posts as necessary. Finally, the recruitment process takes place through the ADI in consultation with the Education or Administrative Councils in coordination with the MEP. With the legal formation of these Indigenous Districts and Directorate complete, remaining activities under this component will primarily focus on supporting their physical creation and strengthening.

(ii) Reform of Decree 22072-MEP that created the Subsystem for Indigenous Education: In 1993 the Decree 22072-MEP created the Indigenous Education Subsystem in Costa Rica. This Component has financed the drafting of a reform proposal as well as extensive consultations on this reform throughout the Indigenous territories in Costa Rica. The need for the reform is based on: (i) the recommendations made by the national Ombudsman in regards to Indigenous peoples’ rights and education in Costa Rica, (ii) jurisprudence from the Country’s Constitutional Court, (iii) the need to strengthen some provisions, especially in regards to consultation, to ensure the System incorporates the rights established in ILO 169, and (iv) the revisions to the Education System created by the Decree 35513-MEP. The Reform proposal makes a specific effort to strengthen the institutional role of key educational stakeholders within the Indigenous Territories in defining and managing education within Indigenous territories. It also develops a National Consultative Committee to provide guidance to the Ministry on key issues related to Indigenous education.

The Consultation process of the reform proposal has utilized an assembly based, open participation processes, where any interested person in the indigenous community is allowed to participate. This participation has been documented in acts and reports from the different meetings. In each Territory the process has been adopted by their own identity, with different levels of participation and trust for the ADIs influencing the length and ease of the process. It is envisioned that the consultation process will be concluded by July 2011. A synthesis of the results of this process has been prepared and will be annexed to the Spanish version of this Updated IPPF.

9. C. Component 3: Quality of Education. This component is and will continue to support the development of contextualized and pertinent Intercultural curriculum that recognizes the cultural plurality of each educational center and each educational district. For Indigenous peoples, this will aim to support curricular autonomy where Indigenous peoples are involved in the development of their own curricular content as well as in the contextualization and adaptation of the National Basic Curriculum. The Process of curriculum development will be managed at a regional level with key roles for the educational community within the Indigenous territories, indigenous districts, Regional Directorates, and MEP. As noted in the Project’s Mid-Term Evaluation, the national intercultural curriculum should be inclusive of grassroots approaches where communities are empowered to provide inputs to the national basic curriculum to influence how Costa Ricans see, understand and value the diverse Indigenous cultures and contexts.

30

10. To date the Project has financed: (i) the development of guidelines and recommendations for the development of a Policy on Intercultural Education, (ii) two national Congresses on Intercultural Education and 20 regional forums that reached out to approximately 2000 people and has resulted in a Strategy for Intercultural Education, (iii) produced a book entitled “Lo propio, lo nuestro, lo de todos. Educación e Interculturalidad”, and (iv) has supported a research study on youth projects related to intercultural education. The Strategy for Intercultural Education takes into account the institutional reforms supported under Component 2 and enshrines the principled of ILO 169 for indigenous peoples’ participation in the development of their own education.

IV. Monitoring and Evaluation. 11. The Project’s Supervision Mission Aide Memoires and Mid-Term Evaluation have fully accounted for progress on the different components and subcomponents that benefit Indigenous peoples. Continued supervision will be carried out, with the participation of a Social Development Specialist, as necessary. As part of Project Completion, MEP will develop a systematic evaluation that documents the results, lessons learns, and good practice as it relates to Indigenous peoples for this Project.

31

32

ANNEX 5: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE AND GUIDELINES

ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS FORM

CHECKLIST

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER CHEKLIST: CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ACTIONS FOR THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER (CONSTRUCTION STAGE)

IMPACTACTION

AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT

AL FACTOR

POTENTIALENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS

SYNTHESIS OF THEENVIRONMENTAL

COMMITMENTAND COMPENSATORY

MEASURES

APPLICA-TION

PERIOD

RESPONSIBLEMANAGER

INCOMPLIANCE

NON-COMPLIANCE

MITIGATIOMEASURES A

TERM FOCORRECTI

ACTION

Location ofschool buildingswithin the schoollot

Human

Location of buildings invulnerable sites

Impact on the landscape

Impact on the comfort ofthe designed works

Verify that the works to be built arelocated exactly in the area chosen atthe time of the project design.

In case of change of location ofsome of the buildings, permissionmust be obtained from theInfrastructure Component ofPROMECE.

During theimplementation process

Inspection, ProfessionalResponsible for theWorks, andEnvironmental Manager

Wood utilizationfor constructionpurposes

FloraUse of wood produced inthe area

All the wood used from theindigenous areas must be authorizedby the respective AssociationIndigenous Development.

Carry out estimates of precise woodsectioning and cubic capacity, inorder to avoid waste.

Cut the wood in waning moon.

No logging of endangered species.



Utilization ofconstructionaggregates (sand,stone, ballast,etc.) forconstruction

SoilImproper exploitation ofborrow material

In indigenous territories, thecorresponding DevelopmentAssociation will indicate the sourcesthat have operation permits.

In non-indigenous territories, the



-

33

IMPACTACTION

AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT

AL FACTOR


IMPACTS



MEASURES

APPLICA-TION

PERIOD

RESPONSIBLEMANAGER

INCOMPLIANCE

NON-COMPLIANCE

MITIGATIOMEASURES A

TERM FOCORRECTI

ACTIONpurposes contractor will ensure that suppliers -

of materials have the respectivepermits.

Make rational use of aggregates andgenerate the least waste.

Elimination ofpart of theexistingvegetationcoverage.

Vegetation

Fauna

Elimination of part of theexisting vegetationcoverage forinfrastructureconstruction

Impact on the faunaliving in the project area

Eliminate only the vegetation that isstrictly necessary.

Build in sites with the least arborealcoverage.



Soil movement.(Implementationof constructionterraces)

Soil

Water

Archeology

Soil particle aredisintegrated, which canbe transported by therunoff water

Sediments produced as aresult of soil movementsare deposited in nearbywater courses.

Probable findings ofartifacts of archeologicalinterest.

Soil movements should be carriedout in a direct, timely and rapidmanner and unnecessary soilmovements should not be carriedout.

Respect designs. If changes withregard to implementation levels orlocation of terraces are required,permission should be sought fromthe Infrastructure Component ofPROMECE.

It should be taken into account thatmitigation measures start with goodmanagement of the site, with thecorresponding opening with theworks’ projection. Whenevernecessary, the temporary and orderlyaccumulation of the expectedexcavation should be planned, in asite equipped with anti-erosionbarriers in its boundaries such asdouble lining sacks, anti-erosionmesh.



34

IMPACTACTION

AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT

AL FACTOR


IMPACTS



MEASURES

APPLICA-TION

PERIOD

RESPONSIBLEMANAGER

INCOMPLIANCE

NON-COMPLIANCE

MITIGATIOMEASURES A

TERM FOCORRECTI

ACTION

The material removed should beused rapidly as landfill in the sitedesignated for this purpose withinthe project, otherwise, deposited inanother site.

Consider irrigation if soilmovements are carried out in the dryseason to avoid dust production.

Perform proper handling of slopes toreduce vulnerability to landslides inareas of greater gradient in theproject area.

Establishment of retaining barriersand sediments traps.

In case of archeological findings, theManager will stop the works and willcommunicate with the NationalMuseum (22914473 or 22571433) tocarry out the correspondinginspection.

Evacuation ofrain water

Water

Soil

Poor evacuation of waterflows could generatesediment entrainmentproblems in the projectarea

Control the rain water in the projectto diminish erosion in the terracesand roads.Respect the design of the waterevacuation system, resulting fromthe infrastructure and redirect ittoward the collectors of the project.Avoid at all costs the runoff of rainwater without channeling. Placemitigating measures of sedimententrainment if necessary.With regard to the outflow of rainwater, it should be expected thatsome water will flow by the slopesof the project area; hence it isrecommended that all the rain water



35

IMPACTACTION

AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT

AL FACTOR


IMPACTS



MEASURES

APPLICA-TION

PERIOD

RESPONSIBLEMANAGER

INCOMPLIANCE

NON-COMPLIANCE

MITIGATIOMEASURES A

TERM FOCORRECTI

ACTIONoutlets should have an adequateenergy dissipative system, to preventexcessive erosion in the waterwayarea of the existing creek where theyflow.

Generation ofdust, gases,noise, and spills

Air

Surface Water

Groundwater

Atmospheric pollutiondue to dust productionresulting from soilremoval, especially in thedry season.Sonic or sound pollutiondue to the use of lightmachinery resulting fromthe increase in noiselevels.Air pollution due to theincrease gas emissionsfrom the machinery usedin the project.Groundwater pollutiondue to spills of fuels orlubricants.

If pollution occurs due to dustemissions, use irrigation to diminishits impact.

In indigenous territories whereconstruction is carried out with woodsystems, soil movements will bemade manually, except underextreme conditions, in which casethis will be analyzed jointly with theinspection manager and theIndigenous DevelopmentAssociation.

When the use of machinery isnecessary, attempts will be made forit to generate low noise levels.Ensure that the machinery is in goodcondition and thus performs well.

Machinery maintenance is notallowed within the PA, as well asspills of fuel or oils.



Wastewatertreatment

Groundwater

Soil

Groundwater pollutiondue to filtration ofuntreated wastewater.Soil pollution due tofiltration of untreatedwastewater.

Respect the design of improvedseptic tanks included in the drawingsof the site.



Generation ofsolid and liquidwastes

Soil

Water

Environmental pollutiondue to generation andpoor management ofwastes produced by theproject.

Set up a solid waste collection andtreatment system during theconstruction phase of the project. Setup a site to accumulate wastes fortheir later classification and



36

IMPACTACTION

AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT

AL FACTOR


IMPACTS



MEASURES

APPLICA-TION

PERIOD

RESPONSIBLEMANAGER

INCOMPLIANCE

NON-COMPLIANCE

MITIGATIOMEASURES A

TERM FOCORRECTI

ACTIONFauna

Landscape

treatment.Place duly identified plasticcontainers for the collection ofdifferent wastes by workers andusers.Carry out a permanent campaignof awareness for project workersin the construction phase and forusers in the operation phaseregarding the need to undertakespecific actions with respect towaste recycling.If applicable, establish the requiredactions with the municipality or withthe entity in charge of wastecollection for proper wastetreatment, as far as possible.Minimize the volume of wastegenerated in the project.The disposal of wastes that mayattract animals and may beconsumed by these will not beallowed.Generate little or no waste.

Infrastructuresurvey

Landscape

Fauna

Soil

Change in the landscapethat presents the areawhere the project is beingimplemented.

Waterproofing of part ofthe soil by theconstruction ofinfrastructure.

Increase in the generationof rain water.

Build infrastructure according todrawings and technicalspecifications.

Make the workers aware that theproject will be successful to theextent that the same is carried out inharmony with the environment.

Perform adequate control ofrainwater, and establish circulationareas for fauna that may be presentin the area.



37

IMPACTACTION

AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT

AL FACTOR


IMPACTS



MEASURES

APPLICA-TION

PERIOD

RESPONSIBLEMANAGER

INCOMPLIANCE

NON-COMPLIANCE

MITIGATIOMEASURES A

TERM FOCORRECTI

ACTION

EducationalInfrastructureProject

Human

Demand for labor.

Relations with the

Community.

Control of EnvironmentalCommitments.

Prioritize contracting of localworkers.

Establish direct actions so thatworkers use the instruments given tothem to safeguard their integrity.

Provide workers with adequateworking conditions (helmets,reflecting vests, safety glasses, earplugs, etc.)

Relations with the Community.

Strengthen relations between usersof the project and the community.

With the participation of theManager, Inspector, andEnvironmental Manager, activitieswill be carried out (meetings,delivery of reports, copies of studies)with municipal representatives andneighbors to explain thecharacteristics of the project.

PROMECE guarantees contractingof Environmental Managers tofollow-up on the Commitments withSETENA during implementation ofthe works.


Inspection, ProfessionalResponsible for theWorks, andEnvironmental Manager,PROMECE.

-

38

Documents

World Bank Documentdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/... · of PROMECE Directors in 2009 and 2010, however, caused further delays. A lack of clear understanding about the roles of